I think by backup controls, the original commenter meant something hardwired, not a backup controller. You are correct though. Based on what Stockton said, at least, they had backup controllers on board.
Oh yeah, I assumed he meant some other form of controlling the sub, I was just offering some info for all the people who constantly see jokes about how the controller batteries died or something like that.
They always had emergency ballast tanks, so even with complete loss of control they could get back to the surface and would just have to wait for someone to come open the hatch. The controller had nothing to do with the implosion based on current knowledge. People are just looking for something to joke about so they can keep the memes alive.
Unlike the people on the sub
If you look at the inside of the Deepsea Challenger vs the inside of the Titan, the difference is stark. The cockpit of the Challenger looks like a spaceship. Something that could definitely have a chance of surviving the bottom of the sea. The inside of the Titan looks like the inside of a newly installed septic tank. It probably imploded because the CEO thought a sturdy pressure vessel was something for ‘boring white men in their 50s’.
Titan made it to the Titanic ten times before, so clearly controls were not the issue.
Repeated damage from extreme pressure during each dive is what caused micro cracks to form, and that's why it eventually imploded.
>They always had emergency ballast tanks, so even with complete loss of control they could get back to the surface
A rapid uncontrolled ascent is dangerous, it should be the last resort, not the immediate second line of defense if the controller or its receiver fail.
Yeah I really don’t think the controller was the issue in this specific case. You make good points trying to discount those rumors. But you can see in the BBC documentary from last year that they ran into control problems when one of the rotors was installed incorrectly, causing the submersible to spin when the pilot pushed forward. Instead of being able to remap the controls (which most hardwired systems would allow for) the pilot then had to hold the controller sideways and use “left = up, right = back” etc. And even if it was remappable, OceanGate had no way of doing so during the expeditions.
Unless I missed something new that came out about it, I was under the impression that the catastrophe was confirmed to be the result of the carbon fiber hull, no?
Yep the controller had absolutely nothing to do with it. At work I run a 14 million dollar machine with an Amazon basic mouse, nodlbodys died because of it
Yeah, exactly, it looks preposterous if you aren’t used to it, but if you think about it, the only difference between a keyboard and a gaming controlling (or mouse, for that matter) is the amount of maximum unique inputs it can have (plus shape and size if we want to be pedantic)
The controllers use batteries and are not rated high enough for the conditions that they were used for, if a controller catches fire at your work it might not be a big deal, if it catches fire in a confined submarine 4000 meters below sea level it would be a bigger issue. It isn't just the controller, they used DIY LED lights, non certified monitors and I'm guessing pretty much all of their electronics were not certified and proven to be fire resistant.
EDIT: The controller simply shows the negligence behind building the submarine, the material they used doesn't perform well under compression in repeated cycles, multiple problems with electronics causing technical issues on previous dives, failure to apply to industry standards, ultimately it was doomed to fail, the question was only when.
[Here](https://intrinsicallysafestore.com/product/intrinsically-safe-pointing-device-ikey-hp-pm-fsr-is/) is a $1,700 mouse for your $14 million machine. Nobody has died from it yet, but why take the risk? Your atmosphere could be explosive, and for that you need a Class 1 Intrinsically Safe Pointing Device.
Who said there was no backup control?
There was a video of this CEO guy saying there is a couple of backup wireless controllers in case something happened to the controller.
The controller was not the issue, it was quite smart actually, the main issue is that everything aside from the controller was dumb af.
I'm an electrical engineer in aerospace, but literally everything we make tends to have dual redundancy. I'd be surprised if there was only one receiver.
Yeah but we’re talking about a company that was cutting corners left and right because the CEO doesn’t believe in safety precautions. I sincerely doubt they built in redundancy.
It's not simple to make a system that can immediately switch between devices like this. If there is a 30 second gap to pair the controller with the sub it could cost you your life.
What? They aren't flying aircraft. Unless something is going horribly wrong with your control systems, how is 30 seconds going to cost your life in a civilian sub? It'd likely take more than 30 seconds to switch control systems no matter what they did, but that's also likely totally OK. It's not like you need to press a button to keep from imploding. The controller(s) had nothing to do with that.
The LOGITECH WIRELESS $30 controller was an awful idea. No one said he didn’t have backup controllers. A backup control would be a hardwired system that can control the submersible in the event of receiver failure. People can say wireless controllers are used for all sorts of things like drone piloting and ROV. But as soon as you put a human life in there, you have to have something more reliable. Would you go into space if the pilot was using one of these?
I think the idea was that even without electricity you could jettison the ballasts and return to surface. As long as they weren't tangled or underneath something the controller shouldn't have been a critical component.
I think the critical point of failure here was that the submarine wasn't waterproof (enough).
I would recommend watching the BBC documentary from last year on the craft. The ballast mechanism failed and they almost had to spend 16-24 hours on the ocean floor waiting for the ballast releases to dissolve. Stockton barely got the hydraulic pump to work to release the weights during that mission.
There were reports of loud bangs and cracking during regular 8 hour missions. Would you want to spend 16-24 hours waiting at the bottom of the ocean for the last resort? While the pilot can barely get the other safety measures to work? Not exactly what I would call successful.
Using a controller not tested in the environment in which you're bringing it is incredibly dumb. Logitech has not rated those joysticks or buttons to work at pressure or under that kind of temperature. There's all sorts of electrical problems that can occur with buttons and switches with humidity and cold, It's called [bounce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch#Contact_bounce) where the switch rapidly turns on and off...These things have a tolerance but in the conditions presented who knows? The conductivity of the contact could have reduced to the point where too much bounce was present and the micro-controller registered false moves.
Trusting your life to off label use of consumer electronics is incredibly stupid.
AFAIK the sub could be controlled from the computer that the controller was connecting to.
The controller was used as a more user-friendly/convienent way to move the sub laterally.
I'm amazed at the number of people that think a wireless PC controller is the only way that they could control that thing, despite the PC being in there with them.
It's probably because most of those people simply don't bother to spend more than half a second thinking about it, instead just defaulting to group think/hopping on the bandwagon. Reddit is more or less built around exploiting that bit of psychology, so it's kind of understandable.
In an experimental device, it makes zero sense to develop custom peripherals. Consumer level input devices are extremely reliable, tested, and well understood/ documented.
The reason why more rugged devices are used in military/industry is because of the environment where they operate, which was a not a concern here.
It’s pretty clear that the problem here was to joyfully neglect elementary structural design principles that are NOT rocket science but rather textbook material for engineers.
Exactly, and so many industrial robots everywhere in the world use consumer stereo cameras intended for video games (gesture capture, etc.).
It would be insane to develop hardware, firmware, calibration procedure, certification, etc. for this kind of devices.
Thing is, consumer electronics aren't certified for such an environment, even if they are somewhat suitable. For example, they aren't spark proof. If you don't see why that's an issue on a submersible then you likely lack the engineering background to have a relevant opinion anyway.
[From this article](https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-military-video-game-controllers-war/)
>The Navy has adopted the off-the-shelf Xbox 360 controller for use on its Virginia-class submarines in recent years
[to control the periscopes](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16333376/us-navy-military-xbox-360-controller)
I can't imagine it not being wired for this purpose as well. Just so much more reliable and you would likely only need to operate it from places where you can see these periscope screens and information
The periscope is the key thing. Use off the shelf controllers for moving random bits, don’t use cheap wireless controllers for safety critical functions.
In this case it looks like the controller was irrelevant, but it is an indication of their approach to safety.
Meanwhile, nothing about a controller breaking them hurts them in any way. If the controller stops working, they have the computer right there to use.
It's not just irrelevant, but it's also not an indication of anything. Their problem wasn't using reliable off-the-shelf parts for things that didn't need more than that. It was using an engineering design that some people said was going to fail from the start.
It does hurt them, catastrophically, if they can’t stop a descent while strain sensors are going off lmao.
We don’t know if that’s what happen but we know they had strain sensors and the cf construction was likely deteriorating. Dropping and ignoring the sensors is all it would take.
Edit: you’re repeating Stockton rush’s claim word for word, as if the cf tube was the only reason this happened. I believe it has to have been a confluence of at least 2 fuck ups, and we have records of a lot
That's where the next line comes in.
> If the controller stops working, they have the computer right there to use.
If they continued to drop and ignored the sensors, then they did that, not the controller.
Also, everything that's been said about the design leans towards any detectable sign of failure would be followed almost immediately by catastrophic failure.
Its such a good idea that the military actively uses it. Controllers are made to be simple, comfortable, and reliable. Three very important things when it comes to maneuvering.
People assume its bad because it doesn't have 15 joysticks, 37 levels, a gauge to measure steam, and a row of blinking lights.
In that case I would agree with you. Its not that controllers are bad, is that specific controller with no backups was a bad idea. But when people say "They used a controller" its hard to tell.
They had 2 backups on board and the computer they hooked up to that they could use if all 3 failed. The problem was the pressure chamber, not the controllers
Lowest bidder but then we audit them to high hell and fine them for everything they do wrong. There actually isn't a ton of companies that can stay up to date with the governments requirements for DoD or DoEnergy thats why everything the government does cost a ludicrous amount.
That's also why you see some companies bid for something and then end up charging 10X that they bid because they worded it so everything is a contract change and get away with it.
The controller is good idea. If I recall correctly, NASA uses an Xbox 360 controller to control the arms used to line up docking on the International Space Station.
Running a wire through a pressure vessel designed to withstand thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch is by no means simple. Wireless is by far the simpler way to go.
>People are still putting too much emphasis on the controller. It's not like someone accidentally pushed the "Implode" button.
Well, it's a gigantic red flag. Anybody getting onto this craft after seeing it controlled that way is delusional. I mostly feel bad for the kid who apparently didn't feel comfortable but wanted to please his father. And after all, we really don't know exactly went wrong.
>Yea, I actually thought the controller was a good idea. keeping it nice and simple
This was the jackass owner's explanation for every corner that was cut. The reality is that Logitech makes and tests that device to work for a certain number of cycles under certain conditions in a certain environment. It's not tested to work at depth, in extremely cold environments, and there is obviously no backup immediately available considering how bluetooth paring works. Although the hull likely breached under pressure, maybe it breached because a joystick failed to work in the extreme cold and the damn thing crashed into something or descended too fast. A more complex failure is certainly a possibility given how many places of weakness there was in this ridiculous plan.
In any case, no, there is no good situation where trusting a consumer product with your life is a good idea. Logitech certainly isn't assuming responsibility. Anything used to do that job should be tested in much harsher environments than it's likely to see, and the controller certainly wasn't.
Completely agree. The media focus on the "gaming controller" as some kind of major issue is bullshit, but it's low hanging fruit for pictures and soundbites. Such a red herring.
Agree, Xbox controllers are used for surgery which is much finer manipulation required.
Now using a wireless controller might be more questionable but it's doubtful it had any contribution to the issue.
It may turn out it imploded because they steered into something that damaged the integrity but then it was still an integrity issue.
>Hell it's probably the only thing in one piece at this point.
There's rumors about a GoPro containing the footage of the incident also resting at the bottom of the ocean,waiting to be retrieved.
The controller was not the problem though. A proper control console does not increase the crush depth of a submersible, and it's not like a video game where there's an indicator telling you you're about to get imploded. There was nothing any sort of control system could have done.
The army uses controllers for things too, though usually slightly less cheap ones. They're actually generally fairly well designed for a lot of things, as people have put a lot of time and effort into making them as ergonomic as possible. The use of a controller was not abnormal at all or even a red flag, but it was weird that it was a cheap Logitech controller.
Funnily enough the Titan did have a system that indicates incoming structural failure. Acoustic monitoring sensors on the carbon fiber and whatnot. So probably they got a warning from that system and tried to surface but the implosion took place suddenly.
I doubt it. The kind of pressures we're dealing with don't allow for any graceful, gradual failures of *any* material, much less carbon fiber which isn't known for gradual failures in the first place. The first stress crack or delamination that weakened the sub beyond its critical point most likely resulted in an instantaneous implosion.
David Lochridge, the whistleblower who was fired for bringing up his safety concerns, even noted as such. He was concerned that the acoustic monitoring system would have only given milliseconds of warning before a catastrophic failure - which wouldn't even give a human brain enough time to register it, much less act on it.
And it's probably better that way too. I'd rather them have died without a clue that anything was wrong rather than endured a few moments of panic and fear before the implosion.
I remember hearing that evidence suggests the pilot of the submersible (i.e. the CEO) dropped the ballast and even the landing sled in an attempt to perform an emergency surface. If that's true, at least one person on board realized there was a problem with enough time to react before being obliterated.
Do you have a good source on this? I'd be curious to read it if there actually is an indication that they had early warning.
I did see something to that effect about the ballast, but it was only a rumor on Twitter (I didn't have a solid source) and that rumor said that some of the last communications they received were that Titan was dropping ballast because it was descending too fast, not because they realized it was about to fail.
The only thing I've seen about the landing sled is that it was located separately, which makes sense if the sub imploded and the landing sled didn't.
I'm afraid I don't, sorry. I think I heard it in [an interview with James Cameron](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-22/titanic-james-cameron-titan-submersible-deaths-oceangate-submarine).
You're probably right about the landing sled, though.
carbon fiber is not an approved crush resistant material though. The issue was not abiding by any kind of regulation, safety guidelines or validation studies. For tanks and apcs, they spend billions testing all the exact ways of armor failure to ensure they understand all the conditions under which this systems ironically desinged to save lives will fail. It's why western armor systems have such high survival rates, even when the vehicle itself is destroyed or inoperable.
Safety regulations are almost always written in blood.
i was very late to the party on all of this stuff. didnt read any articles or anything. then i finally gave in and watched a James Cameron news interview on it.
I spit my flavored sparkling water on my laptop when he said carbon fibre. i didnt need to hear anymore.
Except the system it had wouldn't have worked the way it is made out to sound like it would. Carbon fiber isn't good for deep see submersibles because it tends to have failures that occur instantly, not over a long period of time. So, by the time that system would have gone off, the submersible would have already be imploding and there would have been no time to attempt resurfacing.
Oh, they got a warning alright, just 0.1s before the implosion because titanium&carbon has brittle failure mode. Just like the white engineers in their 50s they fired told them
As far as I know they're used in a few other military rolls throughout the US military.
I forget where I seen it but I've seen one being used as the controller to a HUMVE CROWS. Its just a remote controlled 50. cal on top of a HUMVE they were controlling with a classical 360 controller.
And it's designed explicitly for 3D control in a 3D world (and in the case of the XBox controller and the remote gun, it's also designed for a first person view while shooting).
And I'm sure it fits some American made criteria that a PlayStation controller doesn't meet. And how much better a marketing can it be for a console to have their controllers in actual war.
If you want an actual reason, I'd wager driver compatibility had a lot to do with it. Out of the box solutions are always more appealing to an organization than ones that require customization and active upkeep.
Using a PS3 (or wii) controller on a PC back in the 360 era was an exercise in frustration. Sure, drivers could have been made especially since the control interfaces would be custom anyway but why make a driver when the cheaper controller from an American company already just works and all you have to do is plug it in.
Additonally, 360 controllers had no batteries to worry about. Sony and Nintendo both leaned very heavy into the wireless only ecosystem and Microsoft has embraced wired and wireless both since wireless was feasible.
Circumstances may be different now but giant orgs tend to move slow with stuff like this. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The controller as such wasn’t a problem, but it speaks to the larger problem which was that the CEO/designer tried to build a passenger vessel intended for some of the most extreme conditions on the planet using the cheapest off-the-shelf components he could find, including a mixture of two materials (carbon fibre & titanium) that pretty much every marine engineer said was certain to fail at some point.
> A proper control console does not increase the crush depth of a submersible
In fact, it probably decreases it if it means you have to run wires through the hull of the pressure vessel.
I still have no idea why people are freaking out over the controller. The US airforce and navy have been using Xbox controllers for a long while because they're cheap, comfortable, durable, most people are already familiar with them, and they get the job done just about as good as any a more custom control interface would. A small sub isn't the most complicated thing to control, so a simple controller should do just fine.
I also don't see how the control method was in any way responsible for the sub imploding.
Two reasons. One is "haha, they brought a bad, cheapo controller and that's why they failed". It's an easy thing to point at, even for people who have no idea how submarines work.
But the other thing is that the controller (of which that particular model is notorious for having connection issues) is a symbol that summarizes the reasons why this failed: they used hacked-together solutions for everything in an environment where any flaw or error would be mercilessly punished.
They didn't fail because of the controller, they failed because they cheaped out on a lot of things (especially testing and certification). In the controller's case, they shouldn't have used wireless (but apparently the receiver was inside the hull an they couldn't make a hole for a port or wire).
The submarine was riddled with amateurish problems. Like using zip-ties to secure exposed wires. Or going 4000m deep when the viewport was certified only to 1300m. There are reports that many dives had all sorts of serious problems. It's a wonder that there hasn't been a serious incident before this.
So you say the problem is they cheaped out on building things and you suggest that the solution was they should have built their own controller, which would then be made just as cheaply as everything else? That wireless controller would have been tested and developed far more than anything they built.
\>and you suggest that the solution was they should have built their own controller,
I said no such thing.
What they should have done is used a WIRED controller (hence why I mentioned that they couldn't make a hole, the hole would have been for the wire). No battery that might die, no connection issues, no issue with interference or anything.
But they went and brought the cheapest controller they could. And one notorious for having connection issues. So yes, even saying that store-brought controllers aren't bad (the military actually use 360 gamepads), they brought the worst one.
The F710 disconnects randomly. This is a well-known phenomenon. It's not an issue with using a wireless controller; it's an issue with using that *specific* wireless controller.
On the plus side, it seems my local microcenter is sold out of the things...
No, that was general headassery. The primary cause of implosion was likely delamination of the carbon fiber hull, but the fact that they were using a cheap wireless controller probably didn't do them any favors. It's yet another mode of failure in a situation where you want as few as possible.
Not OP but no, that’s not what he is saying.
The controller is a meme. If they were not willing to spend the few thousands on a quality controller, then where else did they skimp? As it turned out, pretty much everywhere, and badly.
Had they had a team of competent engineers, and not been so skimpy. most likely a cheap logitech controller would not have been their controller of choice.
They should obviously have done it properly or bought a system with the proper safety and ratings.
Building a system of their own half assed would probably have been even worse.
Most people now know that the submersible is poorly constructed but don’t completely understand how or why, because that requires more research and some familiarity with mechanical/maritime engineering or a strong will/ability to research the subject. I think they are latching one thing they are familiar with (like video game controllers or the color of the submersible ) and are trying to show their knowledge by criticizing that. By openly criticizing something about it, they feel smarter than the people that died, the ceo, and the engineers that built it, but accidentally exposes themselves as even more ignorant than them by showing they cannot identify a good decision from the poor ones
No, that's fake news. No photos of the recovery efforts from below the surface have been released yet (as of the AP story released 6 hours ago that I read).
It’s fake news if you don’t understand what kind of implosion takes place 2000m-4000m under water. The people inside didn’t even know it happened. That controller could be made from pure lead and it would be tiny lead balls all over the ocean floor for hundreds of meters. It’s definitely long gone. Such a weird position to take.
Very true, but reality has often failed to prevent fake news on things that people know far better than this. A blurry photo of a controller is going to convince some people, even if it's absurd.
Nah. The controller wasn't the problem at all. The entire engineering of the submarine was problematic, mostly the composite metal and carbon fiber construction. Want to say the controller is representative of "Cheaping out"? Sure.
But no chance of that warning, that would be excessively stupid.
Those people didn't die from using a game controller. They died from a weak hull design. Mounting the buttons on a dashboard would not make them more reliable than mounting them on a hand controller. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that game controller buttons are probably more reliable than most panel mounted buttons because of the way they are used. People mash on game controller buttons repeatedly, in rapid succession, for hours at a time, and they still last months or even years without failing. Most panel mounted switches aren't designed for that kind of punishment.
Yeah, the idea of using a game controller to steer a submarine is kind of funny, and I did chuckle when I heard about it, but it also kind of made sense to have all of the most commonly used controls in your hand at the same time.
There is a chance it might, but I doubt it. There definitely should not be any new warning on Logitech controllers since this had nothing to do with the catastrophe.
I can only see it happening if for some reason Logitech successfully get sued by the submarine company as the cause of the accident. Then they would add a warning to cover themselves should this happen again and another lawsuit take place.
But I can't imagine that any court would rule that the cause of this accident was that a Logitech controller was at fault, while ignoring the fact that the submersible intentionally went 3 times the depth that any official regulatory body would rate it for.
Right, I agree with your sentiment… if a court case was successful against Logitech, sure. BUT that sub company isn’t going to have any pants left after they are sued into oblivion from all angles on this one. I hope there is no one associated with the company that tries to take some defensive position and files suit against other parties trying to pass blame.
It had nothing to do with the controller, it was a victim in this.
I'd argue that a modern games controller is uniquely positioned to be an ideal controller in this, console companies have spent a fortune perfecting them and they're usually reliable and rugged enough to be thrown hard enough to get embedded in the wall and keep on going once recovered.
I read these warnings on products all the time and think “If they were going to stop a chainsaw with their hands, should they really have all the responsibility that functioning hands come with?”
Why do you draw the line at the Logitech controller? What would a proper control system be for a submersible - a DualShock 5?
I'd be far more concerned that it was controlled by a PC than what is interfacing the controls.
This argument is missing the point, and it getting annoying. Drone pilots have been using Xbox controllers for many years, they are capable of doing the tasks required of controlling these small vehicles. That is the least of the problems of a submersible that imploded.
Source: https://www.wired.com/2008/07/wargames/
It's ridiculous that people are so focussed that the submersible was operated using a game controller. The military, including US Navy subs, uses similar devices because, by their very nature, game controllers are the ultimate evolution of ergonomics when it comes to precision control in heavy workload environments.
When i had my first child I got a baby bag for nappies etc. Inside the bag was a large note thst said "DO NOT PUT BABY IN BAG!" and that was the moment I realised that absolutly any idiot can have a baby (even of they shouldn't)
Don't they use Xbox controllers for subs in the Navy? Like it's not like the buttons were the problem, and theres no quality difference in putting a bunch of those buttons spread out on a metal console or putting them together in a gamepad. Not to mention a controller is generally made to be easy to operate, and most people would have some level of familiarity with holding it.
It's just a weird line to draw, like how would you prefer the ship be controlled?
Me? Something wired, not connected via Bluetooth and not dependent on batteries.
Maybe backed up by something fixed to a panel, that won't fly across the sub in case an unexpected current shakes the thing.
What do you think happens under the sea that causes batteries to suddenly stop working or to spiral out of control? You can also buy a pack of batteries that could power the controllers for years and they would all fit in a large pocket.
So couple things here. One, batteries don’t stop working just because you are underwater, so not sure what the problem is? Two, you do understand how a wireless controller works, yeah? By transmitting signals and inputs to the ships computer? Meaning that if the controller were to suddenly stop working, then you could still control it directly? Three… fly across the sub? What kind of impacts are you expecting a current to impart on this thing?
This is a stupid bias, sure some Logitech devices suck but how can you fault the controller for the sub imploding? Material they used, the carbon fiber alloy suffered from fatigue but due to its experimental use they had no idea how long of a lifetime it was safe to use and that is why they died not the control device.
I find this comment offensive! My Logitech controllers work just fine, thank you very much!!! I can provide signed affidavits from Super Mario, Princess Peach, and Spider-Man if you want proof! 🙂
The controller had nothing to do with the submarine imploding. I've used the same controller for playing GTA on my PC without any issues, no implosions.
The only thing I have against the controller was that it was wireless. Other than that, "off the shelf" components that operate non-safety critical systems in benign environments (or environments the component would see in its intended use) are frequently used in industries like aerospace; if it breaks, you can just go buy another one.
The US Navy uses Xbox controllers on their Virginia-class attack submarines to work [what is essentially the persicope](https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/18/17136808/us-navy-uss-colorado-xbox-controller)
The upvotes here are just senseless. Game controllers are stress-tested to a degree no industrial-designed bullshit from an outfit like SpaceX can ever achieve. Trillions of presses and adjustments. Capable of multi-axis controls reliably. Mass-produced with a tiny percentage of manufacturing errors, and easily swappable in a heartbeat if one fails.
Keep your billion-dollar experimental crap and give me a game controller for a slow-ass submarine any day of the century. We can talk when they try to use one to control atmospheric reentry.
Enh. Good-quality gamepads are a big industry, which means they have a lot of R&D put into them. I have pads that I've used for more than a decade and still work fine. I'd trust a Logitech more than I'd trust a custom controller someone built by hand, even if it does look cool and professional.
And they had spares on board.
Year is 2040, my grandson asks me why his VR 7.0 logitech controller comes with a "not suitable for submarines" warning. "Well it all started in 1912, there was this ship called the Titanic....."
I mean, this is just you not understanding shit about shit with electronics. It's a device that receives input and transmits it to its destination. Why would it matter if it was a deep sea sub or a FTC robotics competition?
The controller was the tip of the proverbial iceberg. You see this a lot in engineering though - the problem is, if they cut corners out on the components you can see, they probably cut corners on components you don't see.
You see, the controller was not the problem, actually, it was a pretty good Co trokket, made to be thrown around etc...
The thing is that it is WIRELESS and it is HUMID inside the sub so...
the controller has more chance to just, Die.
People are still putting too much emphasis on the controller. It's not like someone accidentally pushed the "Implode" button.
Yea, I actually thought the controller was a good idea. keeping it nice and simple
a controller is a smart idea. a wireless battery operated controller without any form of backup control is an incredible stupid idea.
While it doesn't necessarily fix all the problems, I did see that they said they kept backup controllers on board in case anything happened.
I think by backup controls, the original commenter meant something hardwired, not a backup controller. You are correct though. Based on what Stockton said, at least, they had backup controllers on board.
Oh yeah, I assumed he meant some other form of controlling the sub, I was just offering some info for all the people who constantly see jokes about how the controller batteries died or something like that.
They always had emergency ballast tanks, so even with complete loss of control they could get back to the surface and would just have to wait for someone to come open the hatch. The controller had nothing to do with the implosion based on current knowledge. People are just looking for something to joke about so they can keep the memes alive. Unlike the people on the sub
If you look at the inside of the Deepsea Challenger vs the inside of the Titan, the difference is stark. The cockpit of the Challenger looks like a spaceship. Something that could definitely have a chance of surviving the bottom of the sea. The inside of the Titan looks like the inside of a newly installed septic tank. It probably imploded because the CEO thought a sturdy pressure vessel was something for ‘boring white men in their 50s’.
These guys unsolved what was essentially a solved problem.
Man, there’s a joke about doing worse than reinventing the wheel in here, but it might be too soon for me ngl
Titan made it to the Titanic ten times before, so clearly controls were not the issue. Repeated damage from extreme pressure during each dive is what caused micro cracks to form, and that's why it eventually imploded.
>They always had emergency ballast tanks, so even with complete loss of control they could get back to the surface A rapid uncontrolled ascent is dangerous, it should be the last resort, not the immediate second line of defense if the controller or its receiver fail.
Yeah I really don’t think the controller was the issue in this specific case. You make good points trying to discount those rumors. But you can see in the BBC documentary from last year that they ran into control problems when one of the rotors was installed incorrectly, causing the submersible to spin when the pilot pushed forward. Instead of being able to remap the controls (which most hardwired systems would allow for) the pilot then had to hold the controller sideways and use “left = up, right = back” etc. And even if it was remappable, OceanGate had no way of doing so during the expeditions.
Unless I missed something new that came out about it, I was under the impression that the catastrophe was confirmed to be the result of the carbon fiber hull, no?
Yep the controller had absolutely nothing to do with it. At work I run a 14 million dollar machine with an Amazon basic mouse, nodlbodys died because of it
Yeah, exactly, it looks preposterous if you aren’t used to it, but if you think about it, the only difference between a keyboard and a gaming controlling (or mouse, for that matter) is the amount of maximum unique inputs it can have (plus shape and size if we want to be pedantic)
The controllers use batteries and are not rated high enough for the conditions that they were used for, if a controller catches fire at your work it might not be a big deal, if it catches fire in a confined submarine 4000 meters below sea level it would be a bigger issue. It isn't just the controller, they used DIY LED lights, non certified monitors and I'm guessing pretty much all of their electronics were not certified and proven to be fire resistant. EDIT: The controller simply shows the negligence behind building the submarine, the material they used doesn't perform well under compression in repeated cycles, multiple problems with electronics causing technical issues on previous dives, failure to apply to industry standards, ultimately it was doomed to fail, the question was only when.
[Here](https://intrinsicallysafestore.com/product/intrinsically-safe-pointing-device-ikey-hp-pm-fsr-is/) is a $1,700 mouse for your $14 million machine. Nobody has died from it yet, but why take the risk? Your atmosphere could be explosive, and for that you need a Class 1 Intrinsically Safe Pointing Device.
It was the carbon fiber hull. But to say the controller wasn’t a source of concern is negligent. It was an awful system to begin with.
> to say the controller wasn’t a source of concern is negligent Was it though? What are you basing that assertion on?
We have a plan B Plan B: repeat plan A
Who said there was no backup control? There was a video of this CEO guy saying there is a couple of backup wireless controllers in case something happened to the controller. The controller was not the issue, it was quite smart actually, the main issue is that everything aside from the controller was dumb af.
seems pretty useless unless you have multiple receivers as well, anything can fail
I'm an electrical engineer in aerospace, but literally everything we make tends to have dual redundancy. I'd be surprised if there was only one receiver.
Yeah but we’re talking about a company that was cutting corners left and right because the CEO doesn’t believe in safety precautions. I sincerely doubt they built in redundancy.
But those controllers come with receivers. If they have backup controllers, then they paid for backup receivers as well.
It's not simple to make a system that can immediately switch between devices like this. If there is a 30 second gap to pair the controller with the sub it could cost you your life.
What? They aren't flying aircraft. Unless something is going horribly wrong with your control systems, how is 30 seconds going to cost your life in a civilian sub? It'd likely take more than 30 seconds to switch control systems no matter what they did, but that's also likely totally OK. It's not like you need to press a button to keep from imploding. The controller(s) had nothing to do with that.
What?
I think that’s a good rule but we’re dealing with a man who is now infamously known for proudly breaking rules
The LOGITECH WIRELESS $30 controller was an awful idea. No one said he didn’t have backup controllers. A backup control would be a hardwired system that can control the submersible in the event of receiver failure. People can say wireless controllers are used for all sorts of things like drone piloting and ROV. But as soon as you put a human life in there, you have to have something more reliable. Would you go into space if the pilot was using one of these?
I think the idea was that even without electricity you could jettison the ballasts and return to surface. As long as they weren't tangled or underneath something the controller shouldn't have been a critical component. I think the critical point of failure here was that the submarine wasn't waterproof (enough).
I would recommend watching the BBC documentary from last year on the craft. The ballast mechanism failed and they almost had to spend 16-24 hours on the ocean floor waiting for the ballast releases to dissolve. Stockton barely got the hydraulic pump to work to release the weights during that mission.
So he successfully deployed one of his multiple ballast mechanisms, which wasn't even the last resort mechanism?
There were reports of loud bangs and cracking during regular 8 hour missions. Would you want to spend 16-24 hours waiting at the bottom of the ocean for the last resort? While the pilot can barely get the other safety measures to work? Not exactly what I would call successful.
>While the pilot can barely get the other safety measures to work So he got it to work?
Using a controller not tested in the environment in which you're bringing it is incredibly dumb. Logitech has not rated those joysticks or buttons to work at pressure or under that kind of temperature. There's all sorts of electrical problems that can occur with buttons and switches with humidity and cold, It's called [bounce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch#Contact_bounce) where the switch rapidly turns on and off...These things have a tolerance but in the conditions presented who knows? The conductivity of the contact could have reduced to the point where too much bounce was present and the micro-controller registered false moves. Trusting your life to off label use of consumer electronics is incredibly stupid.
The ambient environment was standard air pressure (until it wasn't).
Owner claimed they had multiple backups and extra batteries on board
AFAIK the sub could be controlled from the computer that the controller was connecting to. The controller was used as a more user-friendly/convienent way to move the sub laterally.
I'm amazed at the number of people that think a wireless PC controller is the only way that they could control that thing, despite the PC being in there with them.
It's probably because most of those people simply don't bother to spend more than half a second thinking about it, instead just defaulting to group think/hopping on the bandwagon. Reddit is more or less built around exploiting that bit of psychology, so it's kind of understandable.
I assume he could plug it into the onboard USB.
This! The Logitech F310 would have been the superior option. Its wired, and is actually cheaper LOL!
In an experimental device, it makes zero sense to develop custom peripherals. Consumer level input devices are extremely reliable, tested, and well understood/ documented. The reason why more rugged devices are used in military/industry is because of the environment where they operate, which was a not a concern here. It’s pretty clear that the problem here was to joyfully neglect elementary structural design principles that are NOT rocket science but rather textbook material for engineers.
They use Xbox controllers to fly drones.
The Navy uses Xbox controllers on some of their submarines.
Exactly, and so many industrial robots everywhere in the world use consumer stereo cameras intended for video games (gesture capture, etc.). It would be insane to develop hardware, firmware, calibration procedure, certification, etc. for this kind of devices.
Thing is, consumer electronics aren't certified for such an environment, even if they are somewhat suitable. For example, they aren't spark proof. If you don't see why that's an issue on a submersible then you likely lack the engineering background to have a relevant opinion anyway.
[From this article](https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-military-video-game-controllers-war/) >The Navy has adopted the off-the-shelf Xbox 360 controller for use on its Virginia-class submarines in recent years
[to control the periscopes](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16333376/us-navy-military-xbox-360-controller) I can't imagine it not being wired for this purpose as well. Just so much more reliable and you would likely only need to operate it from places where you can see these periscope screens and information
The periscope is the key thing. Use off the shelf controllers for moving random bits, don’t use cheap wireless controllers for safety critical functions. In this case it looks like the controller was irrelevant, but it is an indication of their approach to safety.
Meanwhile, nothing about a controller breaking them hurts them in any way. If the controller stops working, they have the computer right there to use. It's not just irrelevant, but it's also not an indication of anything. Their problem wasn't using reliable off-the-shelf parts for things that didn't need more than that. It was using an engineering design that some people said was going to fail from the start.
It does hurt them, catastrophically, if they can’t stop a descent while strain sensors are going off lmao. We don’t know if that’s what happen but we know they had strain sensors and the cf construction was likely deteriorating. Dropping and ignoring the sensors is all it would take. Edit: you’re repeating Stockton rush’s claim word for word, as if the cf tube was the only reason this happened. I believe it has to have been a confluence of at least 2 fuck ups, and we have records of a lot
That's where the next line comes in. > If the controller stops working, they have the computer right there to use. If they continued to drop and ignored the sensors, then they did that, not the controller. Also, everything that's been said about the design leans towards any detectable sign of failure would be followed almost immediately by catastrophic failure.
Its such a good idea that the military actively uses it. Controllers are made to be simple, comfortable, and reliable. Three very important things when it comes to maneuvering. People assume its bad because it doesn't have 15 joysticks, 37 levels, a gauge to measure steam, and a row of blinking lights.
Actually most people think it’s bad because it does not cost $50,000 a piece. Somehow they think paying more means it’s better.
And every 18-30yo dude knows how to use it well without training.
People assume it's bad because it's Bluetooth. No military in the world would use a wireless controller with batteries for anything mission critical.
Except it's not mission critical. The controller going down doesn't hurt them. The ship's body breaking up does though.
In that case I would agree with you. Its not that controllers are bad, is that specific controller with no backups was a bad idea. But when people say "They used a controller" its hard to tell.
They had 2 backups on board and the computer they hooked up to that they could use if all 3 failed. The problem was the pressure chamber, not the controllers
then again, it is frequently mentioned here, every time anyone mentions "military grade technology", that simply means lowest bidder :p
Lowest bidder *that meets the required specifications*. They do test these things.
Within a margin of error, anyway.
Lowest bidder but then we audit them to high hell and fine them for everything they do wrong. There actually isn't a ton of companies that can stay up to date with the governments requirements for DoD or DoEnergy thats why everything the government does cost a ludicrous amount. That's also why you see some companies bid for something and then end up charging 10X that they bid because they worded it so everything is a contract change and get away with it.
US Navy uses Xbox controllers for the periscopes in their subs
The controller is good idea. If I recall correctly, NASA uses an Xbox 360 controller to control the arms used to line up docking on the International Space Station.
More simple where a controller with wire, i think the wireless part is stupid.
Wireless was the only stupid part.
Running a wire through a pressure vessel designed to withstand thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch is by no means simple. Wireless is by far the simpler way to go.
Wasn’t the computer it was connected to inside the pressure vessel?
>People are still putting too much emphasis on the controller. It's not like someone accidentally pushed the "Implode" button. Well, it's a gigantic red flag. Anybody getting onto this craft after seeing it controlled that way is delusional. I mostly feel bad for the kid who apparently didn't feel comfortable but wanted to please his father. And after all, we really don't know exactly went wrong. >Yea, I actually thought the controller was a good idea. keeping it nice and simple This was the jackass owner's explanation for every corner that was cut. The reality is that Logitech makes and tests that device to work for a certain number of cycles under certain conditions in a certain environment. It's not tested to work at depth, in extremely cold environments, and there is obviously no backup immediately available considering how bluetooth paring works. Although the hull likely breached under pressure, maybe it breached because a joystick failed to work in the extreme cold and the damn thing crashed into something or descended too fast. A more complex failure is certainly a possibility given how many places of weakness there was in this ridiculous plan. In any case, no, there is no good situation where trusting a consumer product with your life is a good idea. Logitech certainly isn't assuming responsibility. Anything used to do that job should be tested in much harsher environments than it's likely to see, and the controller certainly wasn't.
Completely agree. The media focus on the "gaming controller" as some kind of major issue is bullshit, but it's low hanging fruit for pictures and soundbites. Such a red herring.
Agree, Xbox controllers are used for surgery which is much finer manipulation required. Now using a wireless controller might be more questionable but it's doubtful it had any contribution to the issue. It may turn out it imploded because they steered into something that damaged the integrity but then it was still an integrity issue.
People have focused so much on the controller when in fact it was likely a catastrophic failure of the sub itself that caused it to implode.
Yeah, but what was in the sub? That God damn controller, that's what.
Hell it's probably the only thing in one piece at this point. I bet you could even get it working again
>Hell it's probably the only thing in one piece at this point. There's rumors about a GoPro containing the footage of the incident also resting at the bottom of the ocean,waiting to be retrieved.
Lol I hope you’re joking. That’s a ridiculous rumor
Lol yeah, as far as I know, every GoPro waterproof casing is made to resist at most 100 feer(30 metres) deep
The camera doesn't have to stay dry. Most of the camera can be damaged. But if the memory device survives, they can extract footage from that.
>it's not like someone accidentally pushed the "Implode" button. ah ha! so you confirm the controller had an Implode button! case closed your honor!!
Most of reddit is stupid. Often times they have no idea what it takes to build things, or the capabilities or limitations of certain systems.
Xbox controls are good enough for the US Navy...
What about the Origami button?
Navy Submarines and weapon systems and military drones use xbox controllers ffs.
The controller was probably the last thing to stop working.
Yeah but someone probably got enraged and threw it aganst the hull and you can see where im going with that
Another shower thought: The controller was probably the most reliable piece of equipment on the Titan and the one thing that didn't fail.
He pressed triangle instead of square
I think the issue is that the drift on the joystick caused it to start moving uncontrollably. /S
I think people are more focused on how it was basically a 12 year old mad catz controller known for connectivity issues
The controller was not the problem though. A proper control console does not increase the crush depth of a submersible, and it's not like a video game where there's an indicator telling you you're about to get imploded. There was nothing any sort of control system could have done. The army uses controllers for things too, though usually slightly less cheap ones. They're actually generally fairly well designed for a lot of things, as people have put a lot of time and effort into making them as ergonomic as possible. The use of a controller was not abnormal at all or even a red flag, but it was weird that it was a cheap Logitech controller.
Funnily enough the Titan did have a system that indicates incoming structural failure. Acoustic monitoring sensors on the carbon fiber and whatnot. So probably they got a warning from that system and tried to surface but the implosion took place suddenly.
I doubt it. The kind of pressures we're dealing with don't allow for any graceful, gradual failures of *any* material, much less carbon fiber which isn't known for gradual failures in the first place. The first stress crack or delamination that weakened the sub beyond its critical point most likely resulted in an instantaneous implosion. David Lochridge, the whistleblower who was fired for bringing up his safety concerns, even noted as such. He was concerned that the acoustic monitoring system would have only given milliseconds of warning before a catastrophic failure - which wouldn't even give a human brain enough time to register it, much less act on it. And it's probably better that way too. I'd rather them have died without a clue that anything was wrong rather than endured a few moments of panic and fear before the implosion.
I remember hearing that evidence suggests the pilot of the submersible (i.e. the CEO) dropped the ballast and even the landing sled in an attempt to perform an emergency surface. If that's true, at least one person on board realized there was a problem with enough time to react before being obliterated.
Do you have a good source on this? I'd be curious to read it if there actually is an indication that they had early warning. I did see something to that effect about the ballast, but it was only a rumor on Twitter (I didn't have a solid source) and that rumor said that some of the last communications they received were that Titan was dropping ballast because it was descending too fast, not because they realized it was about to fail. The only thing I've seen about the landing sled is that it was located separately, which makes sense if the sub imploded and the landing sled didn't.
I'm afraid I don't, sorry. I think I heard it in [an interview with James Cameron](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-22/titanic-james-cameron-titan-submersible-deaths-oceangate-submarine). You're probably right about the landing sled, though.
carbon fiber is not an approved crush resistant material though. The issue was not abiding by any kind of regulation, safety guidelines or validation studies. For tanks and apcs, they spend billions testing all the exact ways of armor failure to ensure they understand all the conditions under which this systems ironically desinged to save lives will fail. It's why western armor systems have such high survival rates, even when the vehicle itself is destroyed or inoperable. Safety regulations are almost always written in blood.
i was very late to the party on all of this stuff. didnt read any articles or anything. then i finally gave in and watched a James Cameron news interview on it. I spit my flavored sparkling water on my laptop when he said carbon fibre. i didnt need to hear anymore.
Except the system it had wouldn't have worked the way it is made out to sound like it would. Carbon fiber isn't good for deep see submersibles because it tends to have failures that occur instantly, not over a long period of time. So, by the time that system would have gone off, the submersible would have already be imploding and there would have been no time to attempt resurfacing.
Oh, they got a warning alright, just 0.1s before the implosion because titanium&carbon has brittle failure mode. Just like the white engineers in their 50s they fired told them
Actually the USS Colorado, a 3 billion dollar sub, uses a $10 Xbox controller.
wired, I assume, based on the price.
As far as I know they're used in a few other military rolls throughout the US military. I forget where I seen it but I've seen one being used as the controller to a HUMVE CROWS. Its just a remote controlled 50. cal on top of a HUMVE they were controlling with a classical 360 controller.
Makes sense. You have an entire generation already trained on it.
And it's designed explicitly for 3D control in a 3D world (and in the case of the XBox controller and the remote gun, it's also designed for a first person view while shooting).
And I'm sure it fits some American made criteria that a PlayStation controller doesn't meet. And how much better a marketing can it be for a console to have their controllers in actual war.
If you want an actual reason, I'd wager driver compatibility had a lot to do with it. Out of the box solutions are always more appealing to an organization than ones that require customization and active upkeep. Using a PS3 (or wii) controller on a PC back in the 360 era was an exercise in frustration. Sure, drivers could have been made especially since the control interfaces would be custom anyway but why make a driver when the cheaper controller from an American company already just works and all you have to do is plug it in. Additonally, 360 controllers had no batteries to worry about. Sony and Nintendo both leaned very heavy into the wireless only ecosystem and Microsoft has embraced wired and wireless both since wireless was feasible. Circumstances may be different now but giant orgs tend to move slow with stuff like this. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The controller as such wasn’t a problem, but it speaks to the larger problem which was that the CEO/designer tried to build a passenger vessel intended for some of the most extreme conditions on the planet using the cheapest off-the-shelf components he could find, including a mixture of two materials (carbon fibre & titanium) that pretty much every marine engineer said was certain to fail at some point.
> A proper control console does not increase the crush depth of a submersible In fact, it probably decreases it if it means you have to run wires through the hull of the pressure vessel.
I still have no idea why people are freaking out over the controller. The US airforce and navy have been using Xbox controllers for a long while because they're cheap, comfortable, durable, most people are already familiar with them, and they get the job done just about as good as any a more custom control interface would. A small sub isn't the most complicated thing to control, so a simple controller should do just fine. I also don't see how the control method was in any way responsible for the sub imploding.
Two reasons. One is "haha, they brought a bad, cheapo controller and that's why they failed". It's an easy thing to point at, even for people who have no idea how submarines work. But the other thing is that the controller (of which that particular model is notorious for having connection issues) is a symbol that summarizes the reasons why this failed: they used hacked-together solutions for everything in an environment where any flaw or error would be mercilessly punished. They didn't fail because of the controller, they failed because they cheaped out on a lot of things (especially testing and certification). In the controller's case, they shouldn't have used wireless (but apparently the receiver was inside the hull an they couldn't make a hole for a port or wire). The submarine was riddled with amateurish problems. Like using zip-ties to secure exposed wires. Or going 4000m deep when the viewport was certified only to 1300m. There are reports that many dives had all sorts of serious problems. It's a wonder that there hasn't been a serious incident before this.
So you say the problem is they cheaped out on building things and you suggest that the solution was they should have built their own controller, which would then be made just as cheaply as everything else? That wireless controller would have been tested and developed far more than anything they built.
\>and you suggest that the solution was they should have built their own controller, I said no such thing. What they should have done is used a WIRED controller (hence why I mentioned that they couldn't make a hole, the hole would have been for the wire). No battery that might die, no connection issues, no issue with interference or anything. But they went and brought the cheapest controller they could. And one notorious for having connection issues. So yes, even saying that store-brought controllers aren't bad (the military actually use 360 gamepads), they brought the worst one.
The F710 disconnects randomly. This is a well-known phenomenon. It's not an issue with using a wireless controller; it's an issue with using that *specific* wireless controller. On the plus side, it seems my local microcenter is sold out of the things...
Sporadic connections aren't why they went down to dangerous pressures.
ok but what happens if they had experienced connection issues at 4000 meters and are unable to fix it?
No, that was general headassery. The primary cause of implosion was likely delamination of the carbon fiber hull, but the fact that they were using a cheap wireless controller probably didn't do them any favors. It's yet another mode of failure in a situation where you want as few as possible.
> and you suggest that the solution was they should have built their own controller They never say or imply this at all.
Not OP but no, that’s not what he is saying. The controller is a meme. If they were not willing to spend the few thousands on a quality controller, then where else did they skimp? As it turned out, pretty much everywhere, and badly. Had they had a team of competent engineers, and not been so skimpy. most likely a cheap logitech controller would not have been their controller of choice.
Not op but maybe they could have used a better controller like the Xbox 360 controller rather than a controller that has issues.
They should obviously have done it properly or bought a system with the proper safety and ratings. Building a system of their own half assed would probably have been even worse.
Most people now know that the submersible is poorly constructed but don’t completely understand how or why, because that requires more research and some familiarity with mechanical/maritime engineering or a strong will/ability to research the subject. I think they are latching one thing they are familiar with (like video game controllers or the color of the submersible ) and are trying to show their knowledge by criticizing that. By openly criticizing something about it, they feel smarter than the people that died, the ceo, and the engineers that built it, but accidentally exposes themselves as even more ignorant than them by showing they cannot identify a good decision from the poor ones
The controller was probably the most reliable thing
It survived didn't it?
The whole thing imploded, the controller is long gone.
No, that's fake news. No photos of the recovery efforts from below the surface have been released yet (as of the AP story released 6 hours ago that I read).
It’s fake news if you don’t understand what kind of implosion takes place 2000m-4000m under water. The people inside didn’t even know it happened. That controller could be made from pure lead and it would be tiny lead balls all over the ocean floor for hundreds of meters. It’s definitely long gone. Such a weird position to take.
Very true, but reality has often failed to prevent fake news on things that people know far better than this. A blurry photo of a controller is going to convince some people, even if it's absurd.
The controller did it's job....the engineering was poor.
The controller worked fine. The carbon fiber? Not so much.
Literally nothing to do with the issue.
Nah. The controller wasn't the problem at all. The entire engineering of the submarine was problematic, mostly the composite metal and carbon fiber construction. Want to say the controller is representative of "Cheaping out"? Sure. But no chance of that warning, that would be excessively stupid.
Going out on a limb as a non-sub-expert. Fairly sure the Logitech controller didn’t cause a rapid catastrophic implosion.
Those people didn't die from using a game controller. They died from a weak hull design. Mounting the buttons on a dashboard would not make them more reliable than mounting them on a hand controller. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that game controller buttons are probably more reliable than most panel mounted buttons because of the way they are used. People mash on game controller buttons repeatedly, in rapid succession, for hours at a time, and they still last months or even years without failing. Most panel mounted switches aren't designed for that kind of punishment. Yeah, the idea of using a game controller to steer a submarine is kind of funny, and I did chuckle when I heard about it, but it also kind of made sense to have all of the most commonly used controls in your hand at the same time.
There is a chance it might, but I doubt it. There definitely should not be any new warning on Logitech controllers since this had nothing to do with the catastrophe.
I can only see it happening if for some reason Logitech successfully get sued by the submarine company as the cause of the accident. Then they would add a warning to cover themselves should this happen again and another lawsuit take place. But I can't imagine that any court would rule that the cause of this accident was that a Logitech controller was at fault, while ignoring the fact that the submersible intentionally went 3 times the depth that any official regulatory body would rate it for.
Right, I agree with your sentiment… if a court case was successful against Logitech, sure. BUT that sub company isn’t going to have any pants left after they are sued into oblivion from all angles on this one. I hope there is no one associated with the company that tries to take some defensive position and files suit against other parties trying to pass blame.
It had nothing to do with the controller, it was a victim in this. I'd argue that a modern games controller is uniquely positioned to be an ideal controller in this, console companies have spent a fortune perfecting them and they're usually reliable and rugged enough to be thrown hard enough to get embedded in the wall and keep on going once recovered.
I read these warnings on products all the time and think “If they were going to stop a chainsaw with their hands, should they really have all the responsibility that functioning hands come with?”
Why do you draw the line at the Logitech controller? What would a proper control system be for a submersible - a DualShock 5? I'd be far more concerned that it was controlled by a PC than what is interfacing the controls.
This argument is missing the point, and it getting annoying. Drone pilots have been using Xbox controllers for many years, they are capable of doing the tasks required of controlling these small vehicles. That is the least of the problems of a submersible that imploded. Source: https://www.wired.com/2008/07/wargames/
The irony is that the one thing that likely has nothing to do with the failure of the sub gets the most flack. Just because optics
It's ridiculous that people are so focussed that the submersible was operated using a game controller. The military, including US Navy subs, uses similar devices because, by their very nature, game controllers are the ultimate evolution of ergonomics when it comes to precision control in heavy workload environments.
When i had my first child I got a baby bag for nappies etc. Inside the bag was a large note thst said "DO NOT PUT BABY IN BAG!" and that was the moment I realised that absolutly any idiot can have a baby (even of they shouldn't)
Pretty sure the controller didn’t implode them
In all fairness, there was no evidence the controller was the problem
People just see a controller and make assumptions. Actually shows how little 99% of people know about the sub they're criticizing
Doubt it, controllers didn't affect the implosion
Don't they use Xbox controllers for subs in the Navy? Like it's not like the buttons were the problem, and theres no quality difference in putting a bunch of those buttons spread out on a metal console or putting them together in a gamepad. Not to mention a controller is generally made to be easy to operate, and most people would have some level of familiarity with holding it. It's just a weird line to draw, like how would you prefer the ship be controlled?
Me? Something wired, not connected via Bluetooth and not dependent on batteries. Maybe backed up by something fixed to a panel, that won't fly across the sub in case an unexpected current shakes the thing.
What do you think happens under the sea that causes batteries to suddenly stop working or to spiral out of control? You can also buy a pack of batteries that could power the controllers for years and they would all fit in a large pocket.
So couple things here. One, batteries don’t stop working just because you are underwater, so not sure what the problem is? Two, you do understand how a wireless controller works, yeah? By transmitting signals and inputs to the ships computer? Meaning that if the controller were to suddenly stop working, then you could still control it directly? Three… fly across the sub? What kind of impacts are you expecting a current to impart on this thing?
only if they crashed and got stuck in the wreck because of stick drift
The controller is peobably the piece of equipment were they coould go cheap.
This is a stupid bias, sure some Logitech devices suck but how can you fault the controller for the sub imploding? Material they used, the carbon fiber alloy suffered from fatigue but due to its experimental use they had no idea how long of a lifetime it was safe to use and that is why they died not the control device.
[удалено]
They think the controller had anything to do with the sub implosion. Completely irrelevant
I guarantee they won’t. Why would Logitech or any controller company see any legal action for a uncertified popcan painted as a submarine?
If only the sub had a steering wheel, the sub wouldn't have imploded...... SMDH
I mean, if you can program something to be controllable by any USB device with enough inputs...
I find this comment offensive! My Logitech controllers work just fine, thank you very much!!! I can provide signed affidavits from Super Mario, Princess Peach, and Spider-Man if you want proof! 🙂
Have you tried putting them all together at once?
Like a foursome? 🙃
Oh behave baby!!!
Shagadelic!!!
Um, the controller was not the problem, and actually worked just fine. The hull was the problem.
Pretty sure this was mostly human error.
And Oceangate subs with the disclaimer: *keep away from water
That controller had as much to do with the implosion as the Honda Civic parked at Dollar General in central Missouri
The controller had nothing to do with the submarine imploding. I've used the same controller for playing GTA on my PC without any issues, no implosions.
Tbh I don’t think the controller was at fault
I doubt it. Actually, on second thought, I guarantee they won’t.
The only thing I have against the controller was that it was wireless. Other than that, "off the shelf" components that operate non-safety critical systems in benign environments (or environments the component would see in its intended use) are frequently used in industries like aerospace; if it breaks, you can just go buy another one. The US Navy uses Xbox controllers on their Virginia-class attack submarines to work [what is essentially the persicope](https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/18/17136808/us-navy-uss-colorado-xbox-controller)
Madcats will rise again!
The upvotes here are just senseless. Game controllers are stress-tested to a degree no industrial-designed bullshit from an outfit like SpaceX can ever achieve. Trillions of presses and adjustments. Capable of multi-axis controls reliably. Mass-produced with a tiny percentage of manufacturing errors, and easily swappable in a heartbeat if one fails. Keep your billion-dollar experimental crap and give me a game controller for a slow-ass submarine any day of the century. We can talk when they try to use one to control atmospheric reentry.
*reads edit and comments* “OP probably doesn’t know that the controller wasn’t the issue”
Enh. Good-quality gamepads are a big industry, which means they have a lot of R&D put into them. I have pads that I've used for more than a decade and still work fine. I'd trust a Logitech more than I'd trust a custom controller someone built by hand, even if it does look cool and professional. And they had spares on board.
You don't do that. You specifically list the allowed and planned use cases.
Year is 2040, my grandson asks me why his VR 7.0 logitech controller comes with a "not suitable for submarines" warning. "Well it all started in 1912, there was this ship called the Titanic....."
This is the stupidest meme because the controller was the least of the thing's issues
I mean, this is just you not understanding shit about shit with electronics. It's a device that receives input and transmits it to its destination. Why would it matter if it was a deep sea sub or a FTC robotics competition?
Doubt it, controllers didn't affect the implosion
Did you know that US nuclear submarines use XBOX 360 controllers? https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16333376/us-navy-military-xbox-360-controller
Did you know that the controller is used to basically move a videocamera on the periscope, and not to pilot the submarine?
Every warning sign has a story behind it
The controller was the tip of the proverbial iceberg. You see this a lot in engineering though - the problem is, if they cut corners out on the components you can see, they probably cut corners on components you don't see.
Lot of grumpy comments here lol but I think it’s funny
No it will not happen, and your thought is a dumb thought
That's great, a random nobody with no credentials thinks the controller was the issue. What do all of the professionals think?
Or how grills have a warning telling you not to use it inside
You see, the controller was not the problem, actually, it was a pretty good Co trokket, made to be thrown around etc... The thing is that it is WIRELESS and it is HUMID inside the sub so... the controller has more chance to just, Die.