Titanic tourist sub missing

[P.J. Denyer]

And a fundamental similarity is that no amount of training would have made any difference, unless it was enough training to say, "Hell, no! I'm not getting in that thing.".

There's the option of having someone with the training, and crucially, authority to say "Hell, no! YOU'RE not getting in that"

 

[Puppycow]

Did they have any? If they did, a copy of their signatures on "a release that (...) explicitly mentioned the possibility of death no less than three times on the first page" would be great evidence in court for the insurance companies.

I don't know, but I imagine that it is likely that at least one of the five did. I don't know if most life insurance policies have a clause that says something like "If you die because you did something very risky, your beneficiary won't be paid."

 

[The Atheist]

Will their life insurance policies pay out?

Almost certainly not.

Life policies typically carry a section negating the policy if the accused indulges in non-commercial flights or other high risk pursuits and this was clearly very high risk.

 

[Andy_Ross]

TBH, if it gets wet you're almost certainly already dead. As I mentioned before it's battery powered & my concern would have been that their level of preparation would make me worry they didn't have spare AAs let alone a spare controller.

It would be in an uninsulated tube at a temperature just above freezing with a bunch of people breathing water vapour all over the place. Everything would get wet fairly quickly without good air conditioning.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Good point. Although they might have planned for that and had some dessicant to absorb water vapour. I read the comment I was reply to as more 'if there's a minor leak', probably my own misinterpretation, but the point was there's no such thing as a 'minor' leak in that situation.

 

[Puppycow]

Almost certainly not.

Life policies typically carry a section negating the policy if the accused indulges in non-commercial flights or other high risk pursuits and this was clearly very high risk.

Did you mean "the deceased"?

 

[Shepherd]

It seems the company that made the submersible had also made one of a similar design for the adventurer Steve Fossett. It had apparently been a secret project of his. He died in a small plane crash in 2007, however, before it was finished. He had planned on using it to make the first solo dive to Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench - something that was later accomplished in 2012 by James Cameron.

The Wikipedia page on that submersible, which was called the DeepFlight Challenger, says that after pressure testing it was determined that it would only be good for a single dive - so Virgin Oceanic, the new owners, scrapped their five planned dives to the deepest point in each of the world's 5 oceans. So, we still have Richard Branson with is since he was going to be one of the solo pilots.

After those pressures tests, I guess they decided it would be a bit too adventurous. The wikipedia article also states that they were going to wait for better technology, but it hasn't been updated in a while, so I don't know where they went from there.

Anyway, here is a website with some of this information including some details on the construction of the OceanGate sub. It tells what software was used in designing the thing and even what brands/types of carbon fiber and epoxy.

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters

Here's the link to the Wikipedia page on the DeepFlight Challenger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepFlight_Challenger


ETA:"The second dive planned – to the bottom of the Puerto Rico Trench – will be piloted by Sir Richard Branson."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Oceanic#Deep_diving_program

I guess Branson didn't want sloppy seconds on that thing!

 

[dann]

Almost certainly not.

Life policies typically carry a section negating the policy if the accused indulges in non-commercial flights or other high risk pursuits and this was clearly very high risk.

I think they always do:

Covered - Not Covered
(...)
Accidents - Engaging in risky activities
Which Types of Death Are Not Covered by Life Insurance? (Investopedia)

 

[dann]

The article is nonsense.

Of course it is.

Most recent comments - now 3k. One of them thinks that critics of Rush are just whining libruls. 'A man's gotta do ...' and all that crap:

All the comments here are critical if the author. Guess he didn’t realize that most Post subscribers are liberal, and as such are more likely to be weenies than risk takers. Depending on the government for everything tends to make you that way.
- - -
All4 passengers dead. A 19-year old robbed of his future life, 4 paid a huge sum to die. Because someone had “ a good idea.” But refused to test the most crucial basic components.
- - -
It's the paying passengers.

It is illegal to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, even if you are confident in your barrel's technology and willing to trust your life to it. What would we say about someone going over the Falls in a barrel with paying passengers?

If it had just been Stockton Rush. If it had just been Stockton Rush and Paul-Henri Nargeolet. Explorers.

But Rush made money by encouraging others to accept those risks with him. And (according to statements by his aunt) nineteen-year-old Suleman Dawood was terrified and did not want to go, and went only to avoid disappointing his father. There is reason to doubt the sincerity of OceanGate's process for obtaining informed consent, signed paper or not.

The sacrifice of these lives did not advance human program. The "innovations" in the Titan were dangerous and declared so by others in the field before the tragedy. They will never be adopted by others.
- - -
That feeling when you realize the Salesperson is also the Pilot.

 

[The Man]

I have seen claims that he got the carbon fibre at a discounted it had gone out of date for aerospace use

You've got to be kidding, dollar store carbon fiber and the arrogant ‘Don’t tell us we’re going to put someone’s eye out’ ‘safety shmafety’ attitude!

 

[The Man]

It's like they had a whole list of really bad ideas that were all required to be implemented in order to call it complete.

Drill some screws into the carbon fiber hull? Sure! What harm could that cause?

Generally it would be threaded inserts woven into the structure as part of the assembly and curing process. So far less structurally invasive than drilling screws. However, given the blatant and asserted ‘We’re innovators, don’t preach to us about ******* safety’ attitude. I wouldn’t put anything past that kind of simple arrogant ignorance.

It'd be smarter to just epoxy some pre machined CF pads wherever things need to be mounted than risk any compromise of the hull whatsoever.

PL (construction adhesive) is your friend.

Gotta give billionaires credit for coming up with some of the most elaborate and expensive suicide machines possible while still managing to cut criticals corners.

"You realize for every redundant backup system it effectively doubles the cost of that feature, don't you? Now order these motors I found on ebay."

You've got to wonder if passengers, in spite of the waivers, knew of the warnings of people in the field, the shear arrogance of the owner/operator/designer(s) as well as the prospect of bargain basement components.

 

[Myriad]

All this talk of comparing Rush to the Wright Brothers is just hogwash.

Firstly, the Wrights were trying to do something no-one had done before (arguments re: Alberto Santos-Dumont, Gustave Whitehead, Richard Pearse and Shivkar Talpade aside). However, DSV's are known technology, going right back to 1964 and "Alvin", which is still in operation and currently run by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. There are literally dozens of other DSVs including - Sea Cliff, Turtle, Trieste, Aluminaut, Nautile, Archimaede, Striver mand many others. Building DSVs out of steel and/or titanium is a tried and trusted technology - building on out of wound composites was pushing a boundary that didn't need pushing, and one that yields no tangible benefits.

Secondly, the only lives the Wrights risked were their own. They didn't carry a passenger until over four years after their first flight.

I've been thinking about this. The second point remains valid. But we do often celebrate achievements of things that had been done before, when done using less equipment and/or at far less cost.

We celebrated the relatively recent achievement of human-powered flight, even though powered flight had long been routine.

We recognize climbing Mount Everest without bottled oxygen as an impressive achievement, even though we know how to use bottled oxygen.

Harbo and Samuelson, the guys who rowed across the Atlantic Ocean in the late 19th century, certainly knew how sails and steam engines work.

I've watched free solo climbers with some degree of admiration, despite knowing there's no shortage of rope or protection gear, not to mention a perfectly good road up the other side of the same cliff.

One reason we feel differently about OceanGate is they didn't emphasize "we adventurously make do with less" like the cases I just listed. Instead their pitch was "we use newer smarter tech than those clunky cramped old spheres" while also claiming it was just as safe.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@dann
And according to a video that appeared in my YT recommendations, the disaster was caused by wokeness. I didn't click on it, so don't ask me exactly how.

Quoth Bill Maher, I'm no fan of wokeness myself, but even my dog has more than one bark

 

[8enotto]

After the 2nd dive the pressure hull required some unspecified repairs because they knew it was going to fail if used again. Something leaked in a scary way.
Of course nobody outside was told why or what.

After repairs, which by every safety standard anywhere should have been total pressure hull replacement, there was zero testing of any type, by any recognized agency to ensure it was up to the job.
That job being descent to 4,000 feet and resisting the water pressure.

The 3rd dive went without total tragedy. The 4th and last dive it imploded.
It had never been tested as it wasn't required. Use in international waters somehow doesn't need any certification or testing of any sort before you go and risk life and limb using it. Only if you use it with a government or agency would someone ask about how safe it is and who said it is safe.
Then you could choose to trust in it or not.

All information gleaned from a UtubeU crash course.

 

[Mike!]

I'm seeing conflicting reports. Did it make three dives without going bloop, or was it thirteen? Not that it makes much difference in the end, of course. I've also see reports of several adventure type TV shows having an early interest in taking a trip, that was later canceled because their insurance said, "No."

 

[8enotto]

Of all I seen it was a total of four tours. The last being fatal.
Solid information from the former owner and CEO isn't going to be easy to get anymore. He was equally open about problems with it before this too.
Didn't want to hurt sales probably.

Expect a bit of conflicted information as they have a little incident to cover for now.

 

[newyorkguy]

I was surprised to learn, the Titan had successfully visited the Titanic wreck site thirteen times in 2021-2022.

Rush has 13 Titanic dives under his belt: six in 2021, and seven in 2022. The plan calls for making return visits every year to document the ship’s deterioration — and document the deep-sea ecosystem surrounding the wreck. GeekWire dot com link

There's also some evidence emerging that there was some advance notice of major problems on the last dive. James Cameron has been widely quoted as saying:

"It's our belief, we understand from inside the community, that they had dropped their ascent weights, and they were coming up, trying to manage an emergency," Cameron added. NPR news link

 

[zooterkin]

Use in international waters somehow doesn't need any certification or testing of any sort before you go and risk life and limb using it. Only if you use it with a government or agency would someone ask about how safe it is and who said it is safe.

Or a corporation that actually looks into the safety of what their employees will be doing, as i think has already been mentioned in this thread.

The British documentary maker Ross Kemp turned down the opportunity to film on the Titan submersible, on which five people died this week, after the vessel was deemed unsafe following third-party checks.
...

“I am relieved that Ross did not participate but I am obviously reassured by the professionalism of those companies we were working with that they didn’t suggest that he go on the submarine [sic],” Jonathan Shalit, Kemp’s agent and the chair of InterTalent, told PA Media.

 

[dann]

The ones who were offered tickets, at 150k, but declined: I assume that libertarians would say that they are weenies rather than risk takers ...

 

[bruto]

Generally it would be threaded inserts woven into the structure as part of the assembly and curing process. So far less structurally invasive than drilling screws. However, given the blatant and asserted ‘We’re innovators, don’t preach to us about ******* safety’ attitude. I wouldn’t put anything past that kind of simple arrogant ignorance.



PL (construction adhesive) is your friend.




You've got to wonder if passengers, in spite of the waivers, knew of the warnings of people in the field, the shear arrogance of the owner/operator/designer(s) as well as the prospect of bargain basement components.

I suspect one of the things that will be investigated is whether the information given was honest. One has a certain duty to evaluate data and such, but if the data are lies, it changes things a bit.