this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
14245 readers
31 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think anyone has any real data on the failure point, which is the needed info to know how long it would take to die. There has been lots of speculation that the carbon fiber used (rejected by Boeing as being out-of-spec) or the use of dissimilar materials each with different thermal expansion and contraction coefficients, to the "bubble window" being way under spec because the CEO didn't want to pay for a proper spec one.
Without those we don't know exactly how fast. We don't know if they passengers had any indication of a problem (sounds?) or if it started leaking before it imploded or if it was an instant catastrophic failure.
I really don't get this. The CEO knows that the window is so seriously under-speced, yet he still doesn't hesitate to jump into the sub himself.
Specs aren't a universal constant. They're defined by humans. Expert humans, but humans. He must have thought he knew better than the experts. He was wrong, but I don't think the lesson had time to sink in.