Trying to over engineer a specific entirely new device when incredibly developed options already exist is kind of an engineering mindset failure that would only lead to more problems.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well you're clearly better informed about the status of the sub than i, but I'm just saying it's unusual for a life support device to be something not designed for such a purpose.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The controller is not a life support device. It’s an input device. It is designed with the express purpose as being an input device.

Again, any one million dollar “special submarine input device” they could have manufactured would be less tested and more prone to failure than a simple controller already subject to decades of research and both hands on and automated testing.

I’m not trying to be mean to you and I hope you don’t take it as such, it’s just really standard practice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

In this context it absolutely is a life support device - if it fails, the occupants are dead.

Do you have any other examples of a time where such a device is used in such circumstances?

The best anology I can think of is planes, and none of them are using entertainment input devices AFAIK?

As a scuba diver I have a buoyancy control device, which I am totally reliant on for life and thus I take 2. Did they even take spares with them? If they did then i can see this being a legit way of being safe.

Not taking it as being mean - its an interesting conversation, hopefully you feel the same.