Titanic tourist sub missing

[theprestige]

And the fact that Rush required the signing of these documents meant he knew there were potential problems with the submersible. It was a way to hide his responsibility to provide a safe environment.

And the fact that the passengers signed these documents meant that they knew there were potential problems with the submersible. It was a way for them to accept responsibility for putting themselves on a fancy death voyage.

 

[smartcooky]

That is a terrifying thought.

Especially if you're a Boeing fan!

 

[Ziggurat]

And the fact that the passengers signed these documents meant that they knew there were potential problems with the submersible.

Potential problems, yes. But that's not enough for informed consent. They had no idea that their own engineers were saying this was unsafe, that there were fundamental problems with the design. They didn't know about the coverups, the warning signs that were ignored. They didn't know that Oceangate was grossly negligent.

It was a way for them to accept responsibility for putting themselves on a fancy death voyage.

Waivers can insulate companies from liability for some risks, but there's a reason courts don't let them insulate companies from gross negligence.

 

[theprestige]

Potential problems, yes. But that's not enough for informed consent. They had no idea that their own engineers were saying this was unsafe, that there were fundamental problems with the design. They didn't know about the coverups, the warning signs that were ignored. They didn't know that Oceangate was grossly negligent.



Waivers can insulate companies from liability for some risks, but there's a reason courts don't let them insulate companies from gross negligence.

All of which can be addressed with civil suits in the accused's home jurisdiction. There doesn't need to be some sort of global authority to certify submersibles for use in international waters. There's consumer advocacy, and then there's the pernicious fantasy that government always should or even can be the right solution to individuals making stupid choices.

 

[smartcooky]

All of which can be addressed with civil suits in the accused's home jurisdiction. There doesn't need to be some sort of global authority to certify submersibles for use in international waters. There's consumer advocacy, and then there's the pernicious fantasy that government always should or even can be the right solution to individuals making stupid choices.

There is a global authority that sets standards and regulations for aviation safety, security. Its an agency of the UN called the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Do you object to their existence too?

 

[theprestige]

There is a global authority that sets standards and regulations for aviation safety, security. Its an agency of the UN called the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Do you object to their existence too?

The two are not analogous. The ICAO seeks to establish a common basis of standards and regulation for international air commerce. The Organization is concerned with what happens when an aircraft leaves one jurisdiction and enters another. They're agnostic about what planes get up to in international air space. They're also opt-in and non-enforcing. No country is required to get their passport standard certified by ICAO. Or their airplane. Or their flight plan. SpaceX isn't required to get their rocket designs approved by the ICAO, nor does the ICAO have any means of compelling such a thing. The ICAO is not a global authority. It is a UN consultancy.

The closest thing we have to an actual global authority of any kind is the UN Security Council. And that authority derives entirely from "might makes right".

So no, I wouldn't mind if the UN saw fit to put together an advisory body for standardization of deep-sea submersible safety features and designs. But I still don't see why the operation of such things in international waters is a priori a thing that requires government oversight or regulation as such.

 

[jimbob]

Because Oceangate ended up drowning other people who were not fully informed of the risks involved, the shortcuts taken, the warnings ignored. So they didn't just drown themselves, they drowned other people as well. That's why we should care.

Exactly

 

[Ziggurat]

All of which can be addressed with civil suits in the accused's home jurisdiction.

Not really. Rush is dead, he's beyond punishment, and Oceangate doesn't have the funds to cover what it will owe.

There doesn't need to be some sort of global authority to certify submersibles for use in international waters. There's consumer advocacy, and then there's the pernicious fantasy that government always should or even can be the right solution to individuals making stupid choices.

You asked why we should care. You didn't ask what the appropriate solution is. I never said we needed any global authority over submersibles.

As for government solutions, well, it turns out there already was a government solution in place which might have prevented this tragedy, in the form of whistleblower protections. Only the process failed. It did not operate the way it was designed to operate. We don't necessarily need new solutions, but I'm very much in favor of getting the ones we have working properly.

 

[grmcdorman]

The other problem is that the "consumer advocacy" solution is usually suing after something goes wrong - which doesn't help when someone is dead, as here. This disaster is the sort of thing is precisely what regulation is suited to address.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Ya know... Going through the NTSB stuff, I must say it's a bigger "WTH went through their head?!" moment than back when an ex-GF thought I was an actual magic-wielding warlock.

Starting with that instead of using a vacuum autoclave to cure it, they'd just machine off the wrinkles every 5th of the way. Thus masking the air bubbles instead of removing them, and still letting them be points where repeated stresses would cause delamination AND cutting through a few layers of fibres in places, thus having places where it's really the fibre ends pushing against the epoxy. And then using a different glue than the epoxy, with presumably different Young's modulus, since it was ground to dust in places in between the layers. To thinking it's good enough to apply it on a mirror-finish polished ring, instead of even trying to have some grooves or something, even though they obviously foresaw the need for an uneven surface for the glue elsewhere. To the design of the window.

I'm like... wow. It's like Rush listened to Weird Al's "Dare To Be Stupid" and mistook it for business and engineering advice.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

The other problem is that the "consumer advocacy" solution is usually suing after something goes wrong - which doesn't help when someone is dead, as here. This disaster is the sort of thing is precisely what regulation is suited to address.

To add to your point, this is even small fish compared to other disasters that went on because of lack of regulation. Try for example this case that killed more than a hundred people, and left others with permanent damage: https://www.fda.gov/files/about fda/published/The-Sulfanilamide-Disaster.pdf

And it would have been an even bigger disaster if there wasn't an FDA to spring into action early and stop it. There were 2000 salesmen going around the country selling the poison as medicine.

 

[Darat]

Much as I think Musk is a ******* lunatic who's deeply drunk on his own electric cool-aid, the number of deaths attributable to SpaceX is zero.

It's likely that this is not due to Elon but due to the really smart people working for him, but SpaceX's record for deaths during human spaceflight is perfect. I'm not sure there's any other programme that can claim that (Gemini?).

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/

Reuters documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk’s rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death. SpaceX employees say they’re paying the price for the billionaire’s push to colonize space at breakneck speed.

 

[3point14]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/

Reuters documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk’s rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death. SpaceX employees say they’re paying the price for the billionaire’s push to colonize space at breakneck speed.

A pedantic nitpick is that his actual spaceflights have an perfect safety record. Probably more because of the negative publicity that would occur rather than due to his moral concerns (i.e. none).

But I see your point and it is very well made.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/

Reuters documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk’s rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death. SpaceX employees say they’re paying the price for the billionaire’s push to colonize space at breakneck speed.

What does this have to do with Musk complaining about regulations?
Does he complain about safety regulations?
Are SpaceX employees indentured or otherwise forced to work there?
Were the injured employees not compensated or cared for?

 

[Checkmite]

Potential problems, yes. But that's not enough for informed consent. They had no idea that their own engineers were saying this was unsafe, that there were fundamental problems with the design. They didn't know about the coverups, the warning signs that were ignored. They didn't know that Oceangate was grossly negligent.

"They" meaning the passengers, just to be clear - I agree. The only thing any of them likely new about the submersible is what Rush personally told them. And I doubt he related any of the safety concerns that he himself had dismissed.

 

[Checkmite]

What does this have to do with Musk complaining about regulations?
Does he complain about safety regulations?

I don't think Darat's quote had anything to do with any expressed complaints, but more about Musk/the company's safety posture. Around 200 serious injuries over 10 years works out to one every three weeks or so.

From the article:

The 2022 injury rate at the company’s manufacturing-and-launch facility near Brownsville, Texas, was 4.8 injuries or illnesses per 100 workers – six times higher than the space-industry average of 0.8. Its rocket-testing facility in McGregor, Texas, where LeBlanc died, had a rate of 2.7, more than three times the average. The rate at its Hawthorne, California, manufacturing facility was more than double the average at 1.8 injuries per 100 workers. The company’s facility in Redmond, Washington, had a rate of 0.8, the same as the industry average.

That not great. SpaceX has been around for over 20 years and is part of an industry that's been around for many times longer, it's not some startup that is having to learn how to navigate new and unprecedented workplace safety challenges.

Are SpaceX employees indentured or otherwise forced to work there?

Well there's one more for the late-stage-capitalism bingo card. These aren't slaves, they're free men freely willing to put their health and even lives on the line to move a truck load of insulating foam from one building to another for Space Daddy, so workplace safety regulators should mind their own business.

 

[Darat]

What does this have to do with Musk complaining about regulations?
Does he complain about safety regulations?
Are SpaceX employees indentured or otherwise forced to work there?
Were the injured employees not compensated or cared for?

No idea, however if they are the most risk adverse in their industry the rest must be pretty much killing employees week-in and week-out!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

FWIW I doubt that few of the jobs at SpaceX fall into the ten most hazardous work categories.

 

[Darat]

FWIW I doubt that few of the jobs at SpaceX fall into the ten most hazardous work categories.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Roboramma]

A pedantic nitpick is that his actual spaceflights have an perfect safety record. Probably more because of the negative publicity that would occur rather than due to his moral concerns (i.e. none).

I don't think it's a pedantic nitpick at all. The issue of worker safety is certainly an important one. I also think that hiding worker safety issues is even worse than just the fact of having them in the first place. If you're upfront about the risks of a job, at least workers can go in with their eyes open, but if you're hiding what's happening that changes things significantly*.

However, the issue of worker safety is separate from product safety. The original issue was one of whether or not their rockets had a good safety record. That's a separate issue from whether the process by which their build those rockets is safe.

If I'm buying a new car, I want to know if the car is safe. Yes, I may have moral issues about buying from a manufacturer with a poor worker safety record, but that will be a very different sort of concern, and is a different question from, whether or not they produce safe cars.

If Darat wants to argue that SpaceX's rockets have a bad safety record, pointing to worker safety is just a non-sequitur.

But I see your point and it is very well made.

It's a good point about a separate topic. I guess it still fits in the "SpaceX is bad" bin, but I think we should be able to discuss individual issues individually. It's possible to believe that both "spaceX has a good safety record" and "spaceX has a poor worker safety record". And it's also important to distinguish them. The former is what NASA wants to know, the latter is what a potential new employee at spaceX should want to know.

(I didn't look closely enough at Darat's claim to have a solid opinion about that last, by the way. The reason I'd feel the need to research the claim is that I don't have the context for what sort of injury rate is reasonable given the sort of work that spaceX workers are doing.)

*In fact, companies being forced to be transparent about safety issues strongly incentives them to prevent them.