Titanic tourist sub goes missing in Atlantic Ocean, June 2023 #3

[Cedars]

You might imagine that the prospect of an adventure with a higher-than-normal chance of killing you would be a turn-off. But for many well-heeled travelers, the risk is precisely the point.

“Part of the appeal of Everest — and I think it’s the same for the Titanic, going into space, or whatever — is risk,” said Lukas Furtenbach, founder of mountaineering firm Furtenbach Adventures.

“And I think as long as people die in these places, it’s part of the reason people want to go there,” said Furtenbach, whose company offers a $220,000 premium option to climb Mount Everest with unlimited oxygen and one-on-one guidance.

Has anyone examined the waivers involved in climbing Mt Everest? Do they exist?

I've edited your post just to focus on Everest.

Here's one link, waiver at bottom. Terms Of Services And Waiver Agreement | 8K Expeditions

Someone wanting to climb Everest should, - at least used to have to - be extemely fit and experienced at mountaineering, from years of increasingly rigorous climbs etc. Because you don't just get on a ski lift, it is from intense personal effort, skill and endurance (as well as luck with weather). I hope they don't just accept anyone with money to pay, but who knows anymore.

JMO

 

[fred&edna]

Thank you for the link. Ironically, retrieving personal artifacts of people who lost their lives in a tragedy in modern times would label one a looter. But wait 75 years and the same person would be labeled an explorer. Wait a century and the site qualifies for protection.

From the link (2012):

UNESCO’s Director-General, Irina Bokova, voiced her satisfaction that the Titanic could now be properly safeguarded. At the same time, she expressed concern over the damage and looting of the countless ancient shipwrecks that new technology has made accessible.
…
She called on divers not to dump equipment or commemorative plaques on the Titanic site, which is located at a depth of 4,000 metres off the coast of Newfoundland.
…
From now on, States parties to the UNESCO convention can outlaw the destruction, pillage, sale and dispersion of objects found at the site. They can take all possible measures within their power to protect the wreck and ensure that the human remains there are treated with dignity.

Titanic wreckage to be protected under UNESCO convention

The wreckage of the passenger liner Titanic will now be protected by a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convention that seeks to safeguard wrecks, sites, decorated caves and other cultural relics underwater.

news.un.org

I can't find the video now but I just saw an older video with Robert Ballard stating that every Titanic artifact that is brought onboard a vessel, that vessel has to drop "something" to balance out the weight... thus, there's odd "junk" being deposited on the ocean floor.

I have mixed emotions... I loved seeing the pocket watch and the notebook that was salvaged, as well as the deck chair, jewelry and shoes... but I don't like the idea of junk being left in it's place... it doesn't seem right.

 

[fred&edna]

I've edited your post just to focus on Everest.

Here's one link, waiver at bottom. Terms Of Services And Waiver Agreement | 8K Expeditions

Someone wanting to climb Everest should, - at least used to have to - be extemely fit and experienced at mountaineering, from years of increasingly rigorous climbs etc. Because you don't just get on a ski lift, it is from intense personal effort, skill and endurance (as well as luck with weather). I hope they don't just accept anyone with money to pay, but who knows anymore.

JMO

Thank you! I didn't look hard enough to find that.

Did you see the luxpeditions offered by Brown and Hudson? 'Some look extremely harsh but some look absolutely glorious.

 

[10ofRods]

Any submarine/submersible is likely to implode if it goes too far beyond its rated depth. ARA San Juan was tested to 300m (985ft) but found at 907m (2975ft), so it was almost inevitable that it would implode regardless of what initially caused it to lose control.

To my knowledge, Titan is still the only submersible/submarine to implode at the depth it was designed to operate at.

It had a window that was only rated to 1500m. So, no, it wasn't "designed" to operate at that depth. It had at least one known component NOT designed to be at that depth.

The designer in this case was literally out of his own depth (and flying on a wing and maybe a prayer - although more like a wing and hubris, IMO). He apparently said that the carbon fiber offloaded by Boeing because it was past its shelf life was "fine." It's not fine right now. He took the same view regarding the rated strength of that bigger window. For all we know, that's what imploded first.

It was *never* designed to go to that depth; that was all hype. Further, even if it had had NDTesting or any kind of materials expert looking at it, it still needed to be thoroughly reexamined (as an experimental vessel with no license to be operating as a passenger submersible at that depth). Each time it went down and when it was in sun and water all day, there should have been examinations by non-CEO's and others whose only job was to ensure safety.

IMO. Someone saying they designed something doesn't make it so, especially when the specifications are technical and across so many varying materials. Rush did not receive any certification of his design nor was it ever inspected by an outside party (the licensing agency turned it down just on the issue with the hatch; it did not meet industry or licensing standards).

It truly needed to be in unregulated waters. And so it was.

IMO.

 

[Cedars]

..If you are a billionaire and you are charging so much for a ride, you couldn't spend a little more on better materials???

Just wanted to clarify, his clients were billionaires, his net worth is variously estimated, but 12 million comes up.

It's hard to know how much of that -- or maybe all of that -- was ownership or investment in his company.

JMO

 

[JDG]

So it looks to me like Stockton Rush was the George Santos of the submersible community. Or the P.T Barnum.

On CNN they had a long list of all the respected engineering and other entities that Rush claimed were associated with his venture. NASA, Boeing, Lloyd’s and so on. All of whom have claimed they did nothing of the sort in the manner which Rush had described.


Still, I think lawsuits may not be productive. IMO those waivers were practically shouting “YOU MAY DIE! WE AREN'T REGULATED! DANGER DANGER DANGER! YOU MAY BE INJURED OR DIE IN ALL KINDS OF WAYS!”

With the possible exception of the 19-year old, who was legally an adult, old enough to marry or serve in the military but perhaps not fully cognizant of what he was getting into, all the other men were middle aged and older. The French Navy guy was tremendously experienced. They made their choice.

IMO the only way through that is how Rush misrepresented his company as having the imprimatur of all these professional agencies. This fact may therefore render those waivers moot.

Still, I have such pity for how these people died. Instantaneous implosion which would immediately collapse and crush them into microscopic particles. Then, I imagine, vacuumed up by the ever moving sea.

JMO

Agree this was an accident waiting to happen but I do disagree with your statement about ‘how they died’.

Having seen a lot of people die, I think it would be great to be here one second and gone the next.

No illness, suffering or disability, just poof.

IMO, they didn’t know what hit them.

Hope I’m so lucky, but in my home.

***********

Im wondering if the wife/widow of Rush & others can be held accountable?

She was part of the board/company.

 

[justtrish]

I've edited your post just to focus on Everest.

Here's one link, waiver at bottom. Terms Of Services And Waiver Agreement | 8K Expeditions

Someone wanting to climb Everest should, - at least used to have to - be extemely fit and experienced at mountaineering, from years of increasingly rigorous climbs etc. Because you don't just get on a ski lift, it is from intense personal effort, skill and endurance (as well as luck with weather). I hope they don't just accept anyone with money to pay, but who knows anymore.

JMO

I believe with Everest they go up in smaller increments and stay at that elevation to acclimate before continuing on and at some point they also verify the weather window is a go for those that have made it to the final stop point, can continue on up to the summit. At any of those stopping points, someone can be told they won't be going up. I don't know the specifics, but I've watched documentaries on Everest. If they don't keep up (they need to maintain a certain time in order to be able to summit and return back to the previous point) it puts them all at risk of not being able to summit or worse getting killed. People can also be stopped if they experience too bad elevation sickness. So they definately need to be in shape and prepared to even get there, but along the way there are ways to weed out those thataren't going to make it beforethey get to the point of putting htemselves and others in danger. Nothing is full proof and people choosing to climb that mountain 100% know the dangers and risks.

I question if people going in that submersible really understood that the vessel was unsafe and not regulated. This is different in my mind than risking a climb up Everest. I'd say if you don't know your climbing equipment is safe and someone supplying it is taking shortcuts that make the equipment more unsafe that would be like this situation. The ocean has it's known risks, but what this situation also had is a company that took shortcuts on safety so I wonder if those paying to go even had any idea the real risk they faced.

 

[LinasK]

I believe with Everest they go up in smaller increments and stay at that elevation to acclimate before continuing on and at some point they also verify the weather window is a go for those that have made it to the final stop point, can continue on up to the summit. At any of those stopping points, someone can be told they won't be going up. I don't know the specifics, but I've watched documentaries on Everest. If they don't keep up (they need to maintain a certain time in order to be able to summit and return back to the previous point) it puts them all at risk of not being able to summit or worse getting killed. People can also be stopped if they experience too bad elevation sickness. So they definately need to be in shape and prepared to even get there, but along the way there are ways to weed out those thataren't going to make it beforethey get to the point of putting htemselves and others in danger. Nothing is full proof and people choosing to climb that mountain 100% know the dangers and risks.

I question if people going in that submersible really understood that the vessel was unsafe and not regulated. This is different in my mind than risking a climb up Everest. I'd say if you don't know your climbing equipment is safe and someone supplying it is taking shortcuts that make the equipment more unsafe that would be like this situation. The ocean has it's known risks, but what this situation also had is a company that took shortcuts on safety so I wonder if those paying to go even had any idea the real risk they faced.

I'm guessing not. I don't believe that any of the passengers were repeat customers of previous Titan dives. Josh Gates of Expedition Unknown refused to go back.

 

[fred&edna]

I believe with Everest they go up in smaller increments and stay at that elevation to acclimate before continuing on and at some point they also verify the weather window is a go for those that have made it to the final stop point, can continue on up to the summit. At any of those stopping points, someone can be told they won't be going up. I don't know the specifics, but I've watched documentaries on Everest. If they don't keep up (they need to maintain a certain time in order to be able to summit and return back to the previous point) it puts them all at risk of not being able to summit or worse getting killed. People can also be stopped if they experience too bad elevation sickness. So they definately need to be in shape and prepared to even get there, but along the way there are ways to weed out those thataren't going to make it beforethey get to the point of putting htemselves and others in danger. Nothing is full proof and people choosing to climb that mountain 100% know the dangers and risks.

I question if people going in that submersible really understood that the vessel was unsafe and not regulated. This is different in my mind than risking a climb up Everest. I'd say if you don't know your climbing equipment is safe and someone supplying it is taking shortcuts that make the equipment more unsafe that would be like this situation. The ocean has it's known risks, but what this situation also had is a company that took shortcuts on safety so I wonder if those paying to go even had any idea the real risk they faced.

RSBM

If I understood what you were saying... I agree... nothing is fool proof.

IMO... the waiver explained the Titan was experimental, discussed materials, not regulated, and mentioned death repeatedly. Any additional info would have to be sought out by the "passengers" prior to the dive.

If this excursion had not been fatal, Mike Reiss would have traveled on it a second time.

 

[LinasK]

RSBM

If I understood what you were saying... I agree... nothing is fool proof.

IMO... the waiver explained the Titan was experimental, discussed materials, not regulated, and mentioned death repeatedly. Any additional info would have to be sought out by the "passengers" prior to the dive.

If this excursion had not been fatal, Mike Reiss would have traveled on it a second time.

It could have been more "fool-proof". Rush chose a window that wasn't depth-rated. That's probably the weakest point in the submersible right there. The minute they got below the depth rating, the water could have rushed in through that window. And that's not even getting started on the Carbon Fiber material used in the hull, which, according to many engineers isn't designed to withstand pressures of compression. It's strong for tension, not compression. And the Carbon Fiber was already "Used" and past it's shelf-life. Rush apparently didn't or couldn't test the hull for fatigue of this material from repeated exposure to water pressure.
IMO, that waiver won't stand up in court.

 

[MsMarple]

I can't find the video now but I just saw an older video with Robert Ballard stating that every Titanic artifact that is brought onboard a vessel, that vessel has to drop "something" to balance out the weight... thus, there's odd "junk" being deposited on the ocean floor.

I have mixed emotions... I loved seeing the pocket watch and the notebook that was salvaged, as well as the deck chair, jewelry and shoes... but I don't like the idea of junk being left in it's place... it doesn't seem right.

MOO only but Titanic is in a rather unique class in that whatever relics are left will eventually erode away in the salt water. A few items may survive but most will be gone. So do we try and preserve what we can for future generations or let it go?

IMO we should save what we can. As to the extreme tourism I see no benefit to humankind or the ocean. But if the courts permit such tours then so be it; at least the ocean floor isn’t likely to be littered with tons of junk like Everest.

 

[ch_13]

CNN interview with Jay Bloom and his son, who were originally were supposed to be on the trip before backing out.

At 5:14, Jay Bloom says that Rush flew in a home-made experimental aircraft out to Las Vegas in order to convince Bloom to change his mind and go on the trip. According to Bloom that was his realization that Rush had a 'different risk appetite' compared to him.

 

[justtrish]

RSBM

If I understood what you were saying... I agree... nothing is fool proof.

IMO... the waiver explained the Titan was experimental, discussed materials, not regulated, and mentioned death repeatedly. Any additional info would have to be sought out by the "passengers" prior to the dive.

If this excursion had not been fatal, Mike Reiss would have traveled on it a second time.

I am meaning that usually people assume that in a situation of life or death, the proper safety measures are there. We go zip lining and we assume (even though we sign a waiver) that the equipment is safe and the company is committed to repacing things that are unsafe or not using materials that are more risky than others in order to keep their business going and customers safe. Of course something unfortunate could happen because equipment fails and errors can be made. I do think we all assume though that the risk is a fluke and not going to be caused by a company knowingly putting people at risk because their equipment is less than the best it could be (example: cost cutting measure that make a sub unsafe). When climbing Everest if we get a Sherpa we assume they are bringing the safest climbing ropes and not using something mediocre. We sign the waiver because the worst case thing could happen, but if the worst case thing ends up being cost cutting measures that end up killing us?? That isn't something most agree to or would agree to so I wonder exactly what those passengers did understand or not about the safety of that vessel?

 

[fred&edna]

It could have been more "fool-proof". Rush chose a window that wasn't depth-rated. That's probably the weakest point in the submersible right there. The minute they got below the depth rating, the water could have rushed in through that window. And that's not even getting started on the Carbon Fiber material used in the hull, which, according to many engineers isn't designed to withstand pressures of compression. It's strong for tension, not compression. And the Carbon Fiber was already "Used" and past it's shelf-life. Rush apparently didn't or couldn't test the hull for fatigue of this material from repeated exposure to water pressure.
IMO, that waiver won't stand up in court.

I understand the dangers of the OceanGate window, materials, vessel, operations etc... I just don't understand why no one did any research before boarding? There's evidence of lawsuits against SR/OG. There's one heck of a scary waiver passengers were required to sign. Did the desire to see the Titanic override personal due diligence?? Everyone accuses OG for using shoddy material, SR for schmoozing passengers, the list grows longer every minute... It just amazes me when one's life is at stake on such an adventure and no one cares to do research as to who (or what company) has their lives (or the lives of their loved ones) in their hands. I suppose I just see things differently.

There are adventures to the front lines of war zones... I guess everyone will just blame the operators for taking people there, too.

 

[fred&edna]

I am meaning that usually people assume that in a situation of life or death, the proper safety measures are there. We go zip lining and we assume (even though we sign a waiver) that the equipment is safe and the company is committed to repacing things that are unsafe or not using materials that are more risky than others in order to keep their business going and customers safe. Of course something unfortunate could happen because equipment fails and errors can be made. I do think we all assume though that the risk is a fluke and not going to be caused by a company knowingly putting people at risk because their equipment is less than the best it could be (example: cost cutting measure that make a sub unsafe). When climbing Everest if we get a Sherpa we assume they are bringing the safest climbing ropes and not using something mediocre. We sign the waiver because the worst case thing could happen, but if the worst case thing ends up being cost cutting measures that end up killing us?? That isn't something most agree to or would agree to so I wonder exactly what those passengers did understand or not about the safety of that vessel?

Just going on blind assumption and believing the "seller" when you're on an experimental vessel on an experimental excursion (that's so rare), and your life is obviously at stake and plainly stated in a waiver doesn't make sense to me. Non-science/marine trained people traveling to the Titanic wreckage isn't like zip=lining, climbing Mt Everest... it's extremely rare... so rare it seems to demand further investigation. imo

 

[JDG]

I understand the dangers of the OceanGate window, materials, vessel, operations etc... I just don't understand why no one did any research before boarding? There's evidence of lawsuits against SR/OG. There's one heck of a scary waiver passengers were required to sign. Did the desire to see the Titanic override personal due diligence?? Everyone accuses OG for using shoddy material, SR for schmoozing passengers, the list grows longer every minute... It just amazes me when one's life is at stake on such an adventure and no one cares to do research as to who (or what company) has their lives (or the lives of their loved ones) in their hands. I suppose I just see things differently.

There are adventures to the front lines of war zones... I guess everyone will just blame the operators for taking people there, too.

OT

I got on a helicopter (twice) without knowing that the bolt holding the rotor on was known as the Jesus nut!

Wont do that again.

IMO, you assume because they are in business, they are legit/safe.

Bet those *tourists* did not think twice about it because of his charisma and even the fact of having waivers made it seem legit. SMH

ETA: when the owner is also going, what could go wrong?

We are now viewing this with 20/20 hindsight.

Hindsight makes a huge difference.

 

[fred&edna]

MOO only but Titanic is in a rather unique class in that whatever relics are left will eventually erode away in the salt water. A few items may survive but most will be gone. So do we try and preserve what we can for future generations or let it go?

IMO we should save what we can. As to the extreme tourism I see no benefit to humankind or the ocean. But if the courts permit such tours then so be it; at least the ocean floor isn’t likely to be littered with tons of junk like Everest.

My heart (and my love of antiques and mementos) agrees with you

 

[justtrish]

Just going on blind assumption and believing the "seller" when you're on an experimental vessel on an experimental excursion (that's so rare), and your life is obviously at stake and plainly stated in a waiver doesn't make sense to me.

Doesn't make any sense to me either. I wouldn't do it, I wouldn't climb Everest and probably wouldn't zip line. I like adventure, but the kind where my feet stay on the ground and my oxygen is 100% guaranteed. I do wonder if the fact the guy "selling" them this trip was also going on it? Maybe they assumed he wouldn't put himself at risk? It's unfortunate because I do wonder if they knew, really knew the dangers if they would have went. It seems this vessel was wearing down and extra risk was taken with each repeated trip and the guy just kept selling the trip.

 

[fred&edna]

Doesn't make any sense to me either. I wouldn't do it, I wouldn't climb Everest and probably wouldn't zip line. I like adventure, but the kind where my feet stay on the ground and my oxygen is 100% guaranteed. I do wonder if the fact the guy "selling" them this trip was also going on it? Maybe they assumed he wouldn't put himself at risk? It's unfortunate because I do wonder if they knew, really knew the dangers if they would have went. It seems this vessel was wearing down and extra risk was taken with each repeated trip and the guy just kept selling the trip.

If you had the money and the deepest desire to do this... Would you have asked other experts or people you knew about the vessel and how many trips it would safely make? Would you do research if you could afford to do so? I would... but maybe no is like me. It's my life and I rather like it.

 

[justtrish]

I got on a helicopter (twice) without knowing that the bolt holding the rotor on was known as the Jesus nut!

Wont do that again.

IMO, you assume because they are in business, they are legit.

Bet those *tourists* did not think twice about it because of his charisma and even the fact of having waivers made it seem legit. SMH

Exactly. I think a waiver can't be a catch all to excuse a business of liability when they knowingly put others in further danger by cutting corners. It seems this is what was going on with each subsequent trip. The vessel was less safe each time it went down and back up.