Titanic tourist sub goes missing in Atlantic Ocean, June 2023 #2

[fred&edna]

\

I sure would like to see whether those facts are in the waiver. "You are going on an entirely untested and unregulated vessel."

"You will be bolted into a tube with no means of escape and no built-in emergency beacon or back-up power supply."

I'd also like to know if anyone explained depth and water pressure (they should have been required to watch videos about it and then sign off on the fact that rescue would be impossible if anything went wrong).

I totally agree with you - although, if the people had seriously been educated and warned about risks (as opposed to being made to pretend to be "researchers"), I'd have different feelings right now.

I do think there would have been some people who still paid passage to get on this thing, though.

When a concession takes money from people, regardless of waivers signed, they are still responsible for the reasonable operation of the concession.

IMO. This was not a research dive.

I don't think Dawood and his son considered themselves "researchers" on this journey but...


Bill Diamond is the CEO of SETI Institute in Mountain View, a nonprofit dedicated to the "search and understanding of life beyond Earth," according to its website

Diamond says Shahzada Dawood, one of the missing passengers, is a shareholder with the organization and learning of the submersible's disappearance was devastating news to his team.

"I mean, it's kind of ironic in a way that the search is very much like a SETI endeavor in SETI. We're looking for phenomena that nature doesn't produce. And that's the same thing that they're doing here," he said. "They're looking for, you know, sonar blips, or audio noises and signals or other signs of technology that would indicate 'this is not nature here.'"

Missing Titanic submersible: Passenger presumed dead on sub has ties to Bay Area

Shahzada Dawood, one of the missing passengers, is a shareholder of SETI Institute in Mountain View. The CEO of the nonprofit says his team was devastated to hear the news.

abc7news.com

 

[mickey2942]

The thing is, this operation is excellent training for those involved. Not to mention the rich people are the ones who paid for the vast majority of the expensive rescue equipment via taxes.

Seriously? These rescue operations could endanger the lives of people doing the work. And ethically, the charges should be paid by the assets people who are being recovered. I doubt it is a rescue at this point.

 

[JDG]

Why are there no means of getting out of the sub from the inside, like a saw, torch or something? There are windows so clearly they would know that they were not submersed in water and could try to extract themselves.

They’ve been bolted into the sub.

18 bolts but only 17 are screwed shut.

One port hole window but not for escape.

 

[gitana1]

IMO more pragmatic than ghoulish. The rescue operation must be somewhere in the 7 figure range by now and I feel like they all know it’s futile but momentum keeps pushing them forward.

Imagine if the Navy for example announced “It’s too late so we’re going to turn around and be on our way.” Public outcry would be enormous IMO. And I think there’s an expectation that at least some of the ships and planes will make their best effort to recover the passengers if it ends that way.

Maybe the families will help defray some of the costs but realistically if the search was for average (not wealthy) people their families wouldn’t be expected to pay. It’s hard to put a price on human lives. But how much is enough and how long is enough? I don’t know.

I agree. These are human beings. I know they accepted a very high risk. But, they're humans and that's what we do - we save each other. I'm proud to be human when people come together and nations and companies expend resources to save people.

 

[bestill]

Am I wrong to think that these submersibles should have an interior exit option or is there no way to have that? Clearly I am uneducated about this.

 

[Gardenista]

Seriously? These rescue operations could endanger the lives of people doing the work. And ethically, the charges should be paid by the assets people who are being recovered. I doubt it is a rescue at this point.

I understand it is not a popular opinion, but it is the way I feel.

 

[annpats]

You might think you can be free to do what you want but it affects the rest of society in the end.

To note, not one person on this planet is truly 100% free to do whatever they want.
We are all bound by laws, customs, rules, and regulations. Even world leaders. Even in wars, there are rules, and many have been tried for war crimes.

 

[annpats]

Am I wrong to think that these submersibles should have an interior exit option or is there no way to have that? Clearly I am uneducated about this.

Not an option. If below the surface, depending on the depth, the release of pressure will crush them all to death and if notz then the sudden influx of water will drown them all.

On the surface, it could be viable, but having an interior exit option will be a huge potential failure point at depth. It would be a weakness in the build.

The size of it would have to be big enough for a human to escape from, and given that these submersibles are so small, it would mean approximately a quarter of the submersible would have to be an exit door. Not viable as the craft then wouldn't be strong enough to go to much depth at all, never mind 3.5km down!

 

[KooshBall]

Would the public have known about the banging sound if the info wasn't found by Rolling Stone? I feel like that is something that searchers would have wanted to keep to themselves until they could investigate the source more.

 

[Puzzles8]

The thing is, this operation is excellent training for those involved. Not to mention the rich people are the ones who paid for the vast majority of the expensive rescue equipment via taxes.

I beg to differ. All US and Canadian citizens are paying taxes for the resources of their respective Coast Guards.
Taxes are the civic duty of all citizens, not just the rich.

JMO

 

[bestill]

Not an option. If below the surface, depending on the depth, the release of pressure will crush them all to death and if notz then the sudden influx of water will drown them all.

On the surface, it could be viable, but having an interior exit option will be a huge potential failure point at depth. It would be a weakness in the build.

The size of it would have to be big enough for a human to escape from, and given that these submersibles are so small, it would mean approximately a quarter of the submersible would have to be an exit door. Not viable as the craft then wouldn't be strong enough to go to much depth at all, never mind 3.5km down!

Okay, thank you for that great explanation and now I understand, but what about a way to cut or torch through the sub from the inside if it surfaced?

 

[SouthAussie]

The ethics of private pay space tourism is another venture, that is not adequately regulated.

Not unlike the mad rush for everyone who could afford to climb Everest is good to go. We have seen how well that worked out.

That being said, if people want to go down in a submersible vessel, and see the bottom of the ocean, let them. I have always been a Libertarian, let consenting adults do what they want. As long as society doesn't get stuck with an expensive rescue or recovery mission. It seems ridiculous to me, the amount of public resources being expended on this recovery mission.

It is international law, in peacetime and in war times, to rescue people at sea.

This is usually done by the country closest to the distressed vessel.
We spent days (and thousands of dollars) searching for sole UK sailor Tony Bullimore who decided to sail the wild Southern Ocean and capsized. Lucky for him, he was found. link


"The duty to rescue persons in distress at sea is a fundamental rule of international law. It has been incorporated in international treaties and forms the content of a norm of customary international law."

The duty to rescue at sea, in peacetime and in war: A general overview

The duty to rescue persons in distress at sea is a fundamental rule of international law. It has been incorporated in international treaties and forms the content of a norm of customary international law. It applies both during peacetime and during wartime, albeit with the necessary adjustments...

international-review.icrc.org

 

[Snoopster]

They should have known the risks. It is on them to own those risks. Some of them expressed ownership of the risks before they embarked.
Having said that, I feel for them and their families. This is a horrific outcome so far.

 

[JDG]

Sonar expert says 'banging' is 'debris falling from decaying wreck'

Professor Jeff Karson at Syracuse University, told DailyMail.com that the sounds could be coming from Titanic wreck debris and proof of life hopes could be 'wishful thinking'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[annpats]

Okay, thank you for that great explanation and now I understand, but what about a way to cut or torch through the sub from the inside if it surfaced?

If the submersible has lost power, how would the saw work?

A battery powered saw wouldn't be strong enough to cut through, plus sparks may ignite any clothing or electricals in there.

Carrying an gas-powered cutting torch inside would turn the submersible into a bomb. It'd be bad enough sitting inside a tiny metal coffin without having a cylinder of unstable acetylene in there as well!

And don't forget the submersible would still be pressurised at the surface too. Any puncture or cut into the hull, would probably make it implode.

 

[JDG]

Doctor describes hell Titan submarine passengers are going through

According to Doctor Sohom Das, a British forensic psychiatrist, those on-board the OceanGate Expeditions vessel are likely clinging to hope that they could still be found.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JDG]

OceanGate pilot Stockon Rush's wife descends from Titanic victims

Wendy Rush is the wife of Stockton Rush, the CEO of OceanGate. He is among the five people on board the missing Titanic tourist sub. Her great-great-grandparents died in the 1912 disaster.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is creepy. The Titanic was calling them…..home to the sea.

 

[bestill]

If the submersible has lost power, how would the saw work?
A battery powered one wouldnt be strong enough.
And carrying an gas-powered cutting torch inside would turn the submersible into a bomb. It'd be bad enough sitting inside a metal coffin without having a cylinder of unstable acetylene in there as well.

And don't forget the submersible would still be pressurised at the surface. Any puncture or cut into the hull, would probably make it implode.

I guess I didn't understand it was still under pressure at the surface.

 

[annpats]

I guess I didn't understand it was still under pressure at the surface.

I don't think it's something they'd reverse until the submersible was back on the ship.
I don't even know if the pilot of the submersible could reverse pressurisation himself....

 

[Puzzles8]

It is international law, in peacetime and in war times, to rescue people at sea.

This is usually done by the country closest to the distressed vessel.
We spent days (and thousands of dollars) searching for sole sailor Tony Bullimore who decided to sail the wild Southern Ocean and capsized. Lucky for him, he was found. link


"The duty to rescue persons in distress at sea is a fundamental rule of international law. It has been incorporated in international treaties and forms the content of a norm of customary international law."

The duty to rescue at sea, in peacetime and in war: A general overview

The duty to rescue persons in distress at sea is a fundamental rule of international law. It has been incorporated in international treaties and forms the content of a norm of customary international law. It applies both during peacetime and during wartime, albeit with the necessary adjustments...

international-review.icrc.org

This brings up a very interesting point.
What happens when a private 'space craft' is in trouble?

I feel people going on experimental vehicles (undersea, on top of mountains or in space) should need to sign waivers acknowledging they are choosing to ride/climb very risky/experimental mountains and vehicles.

And unless they buy a very specific insurance policy (I'm thinking Llyods of London) there will not be funds available for their rescue.

Make the adventurer's pay the insurance policy upfront for taking the unbelievable risk of their carefree adventures.
Adventurers take on the risk of their adventure as well as they should pay for potential costs that might be incurred to rescue them.

JMO