Titanic tourist sub missing

To be 100% fair I legit DO feel sympathy for the teenage boy who went down. I mean if I was 17 and someone told me I had a chance to go see the Titanic I wouldn't have said no.

Agreed. Either the people involved are very reckless, or they didn't fully understand the risks they were taking. Even if this is the kind of thing you're personally interested in, I can't imagine allowing a minor to accompany you.

The whole thing smacks of overconfidence, treating such an extreme venture as a tourist attraction.
 
Agreed. Either the people involved are very reckless, or they didn't fully understand the risks they were taking. Even if this is the kind of thing you're personally interested in, I can't imagine allowing a minor to accompany you.


He's technically not a minor, at nineteen. But under the circumstances, he might very well not have been in position to make a free informed choice about whether to go along or not. "No thanks Abba, I'll wait here and inherit forty gazillion rupees if you don't come back" might not have gone over very well.
 
That'll make Bob Ballard happy.

You're not kidding, huh.

Ballard, who discovered the location of the Titanic wreckage, was so disgusted with the crass treatment of the wreck that followed that he kept the exact location of the Bismarck wreck secret.

The wreck of Bismarck was discovered on 8 June 1989 by Robert Ballard, the oceanographer responsible for finding RMS Titanic.[169] Bismarck was found to be resting on her keel at a depth of approximately 4,791 m (15,719 ft),[170] about 650 km (400 mi) west of Brest. The ship struck an extinct underwater volcano, which rose some 1,000 m (3,300 ft) above the surrounding abyssal plain, triggering a 2 km (1.2 mi) landslide. Bismarck slid down the mountain, coming to a stop about two-thirds of the way down. Ballard kept the wreck's exact location a secret to prevent other divers from taking artefacts from the ship, a practice he considered a form of grave robbing.[171]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBallard1990216,_221-178
 
Last edited:
I bet Channel 5 are scrambling to redo their script for the scheduled programme tonight at 7.
 
RLNI volunteers shared experiences of “vile abuse” on the beach as they returned with people, including young children, in desperate need of medical attention, such as having beer cans thrown at them and people shouting "F--- off back to France”.

Sickening.

The bravest, most selfless humans who ever lived, and people abuse them?

Death of the species is a more attractive prospect every day.
 
So, around 6 hours after the estimated oxygen would have run out, the rescue efforts manage to get the first potentially useful thing to the site of the Titanic.

The Titan company waited around 8 hours before reporting the missing submersible.

Apparently nothing could have been done, but someone still messed up.
 
Sky News(gasp) has some pretty good coverage right now, as well as Agenda Free TV (double gasp) on Youtube.
It sounds like the functional landing gear in addition to the mostly cosmetic faring from the back of the submersible.
 
Given how bare bones that thing was I'm going to make a radical guess that there's not a lot that could "break off" that wouldn't be bad. This doesn't strike me as something that had a lot of "non-load bearing" parts.
 
It makes sense to try to search at the Titanic wreckage. It's about the only place where it was possible for the submersible to get caught on something solid. (A drifting net was another possibility though). If somehow the vehicle was unable to surface but still able to move (though I can't imagine any plausible scenarios where that would happen), it would make sense for the crew to move it near the wreck, as the only landmark and thus the most likely subsurface location to be searched. And finally, the submersible was positioned at launch, and for the first 90+ minutes also guided, to descend as close to the wreck as the staff could manage. So if it lost power and sank, or imploded late in the descent, it would end up close to there.

It doesn't seem likely that a debris field would have been mentioned, if it were only Titanic debris with nothing to suggest otherwise. Unless something was badly garbled in communication. ("We've reached the debris field." "What?! You found a debris field??") So, it's looking likely we're all done here, except for whatever forensic examination of the failure can be managed.
 
It makes sense to try to search at the Titanic wreckage. It's about the only place where it was possible for the submersible to get caught on something solid. (A drifting net was another possibility though). If somehow the vehicle was unable to surface but still able to move (though I can't imagine any plausible scenarios where that would happen), it would make sense for the crew to move it near the wreck, as the only landmark and thus the most likely subsurface location to be searched. And finally, the submersible was positioned at launch, and for the first 90+ minutes also guided, to descend as close to the wreck as the staff could manage. So if it lost power and sank, or imploded late in the descent, it would end up close to there.

It doesn't seem likely that a debris field would have been mentioned, if it were only Titanic debris with nothing to suggest otherwise. Unless something was badly garbled in communication. ("We've reached the debris field." "What?! You found a debris field??") So, it's looking likely we're all done here, except for whatever forensic examination of the failure can be managed.

This presumes there's any pressing need to find the wreck. This isn't a rescue mission anymore. Kinda seems to me its fine for this thing to sit on the bottom of the ocean forever if that's where it is.
 
This presumes there's any pressing need to find the wreck. This isn't a rescue mission anymore. Kinda seems to me its fine for this thing to sit on the bottom of the ocean forever if that's where it is.

They already have at least one ROV in place. May as well examine, or recover, what they can now. Its going to be important at least in any impending civil lawsuits.
 
Is that the norm for when a boat or plane goes down in the ocean? I would think the families would want the bodies back for burial, but I don’t know if that would matter to anyone but them.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom