Titan wreckage

[tomandtish]

Well, based on Coast Guard reports they appear to have found a debris field and what appears to be the tail cone of the Titan. Word right now is that everything seems consistent with catestrophic implosion.

[Peelee]

That's been my assumption since i first heard what was happening. I have zero expertise but from everything I've read, it seems like that might have been the best way to go, considering the alternatives.

[Keltest]

When you fire the safety guy for saying "this will break." That seems the likely outcome.

[Rater202]

So this is the first I'm hearing of this and I have no idea what's going on.

Something about a submersible and a missing crew?

[Lord Raziere]

So this is the first I'm hearing of this and I have no idea what's going on.

Something about a submersible and a missing crew?

from my impressions just skimming what I've heard? just a couple of rich people going on a pleasure sub, doing stupid stuff, and winning stupid prizes from doing so.

so.

behold, the billionaires hubris, safety regulations are written in blood, just not a worker's blood this time, and don't cut costs on safety.

[Peelee]

So this is the first I'm hearing of this and I have no idea what's going on.

Something about a submersible and a missing crew?

5 people in a submersible to look at the Titanic. Each seat was around $250,000, and the submersible was not certified by any regulatory agency. It lost communications just under two hours into the dive, close to titanic depth - about 400 atmospheres, 6000 PSI water pressure.

from my impressions just skimming what I've heard? just a couple of rich people going on a pleasure sub, doing stupid stuff, and winning stupid prizes from doing so.

so.

behold, the billionaires hubris, safety regulations are written in blood, just not a worker's blood this time, and don't cut costs on safety.

The CEO was the one who built it and didn't get safety inspections. The super wealthy adults on the craft didn't know anything about safety reqs and what was or was not being met. Blaming them for anything is a bit odd. Also, there was a 19-year-old who did not particularly want to go, but his dad was a bit Titanic fan and it was Father's Day Weekend so he went in with his dad.

[Lord Raziere]

The CEO was the one who built it and didn't get safety inspections. The super wealthy adults on the craft didn't know anything about safety reqs and what was or was not being met. Blaming them for anything is a bit odd. Also, there was a 19-year-old who did not particularly want to go, but his dad was a bit Titanic fan and it was Father's Day Weekend so he went in with his dad.

My respects to the 19 year old.

Stupid games, stupid prizes. The ocean depths are not a pleasure cruise. Nature, nor physics rewards or forgives ignorance or not double-checking whether a thing was built properly, and safety is everyone's concern. If you really want to twist my arm, fine most of the blame is the jerk who built it, but I'm not going to give sympathy just because you demand it.

[Peelee]

My respects to the 19 year old.

Stupid games, stupid prizes. The ocean depths are not a pleasure cruise. Nature, nor physics rewards or forgives ignorance or not double-checking whether a thing was built properly, and safety is everyone's concern. If you really want to twist my arm, fine most of the blame is the jerk who built it, but I'm not going to give sympathy just because you demand it.

You check out the safety certifications on every plane you fly in? Maintenance records of the school bus your kids ride in? At some point you gotta trust that someone else knows what they're doing, within reason. They trusted the CEO, who oversaw the building of it, touted its strengths, and piloted it himself.

I'm not demanding you feel sympathy from them, but there's a pretty damn vast chasm between feeling sympathy and "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". That's needlessly callous. Especially when your yourself openly admit to barely knowing anything about the situation.

[Razade]

The CEO was the one who built it and didn't get safety inspections. The super wealthy adults on the craft didn't know anything about safety reqs and what was or was not being met. Blaming them for anything is a bit odd. Also, there was a 19-year-old who did not particularly want to go, but his dad was a bit Titanic fan and it was Father's Day Weekend so he went in with his dad.

In fairness, they did do safety inspections on the sub. They just happened to ignore them and sue the guy who carried them out for defamation when he told them it wasn't safe. There's also the fact that no regulatory board certified the thing as seaworthy. The people on board didn't bother to do any actual research before boarding or not deeply enough. There's no way they could have missed all of that, it's on the public record and so are the three prior incidents the sub had before this final disaster. The Marine Technology Society, a big name, even wrote an open letter to the CEO telling him his sub was a death trap. Not the words they used but certainly the intended message. A signatory on said letter came forward after it was sent said he got a call from the CEO who told him that safety protocols were stiffing innovation.

The rich yuppies don't get a pass on this thing. Even if none of that came up two of them were more than just tourists. One of them had done 35 prior missions to the Titanic wreck. The fact he didn't put up alarm bells over a seatless sub controlled by a third party PS3 Controller that literally was bolted shut from the outside is troubling to say the least. That guy, if none of the others, was experienced enough that you'd expect him to have seen the trouble long before it started. The only one that gets a pass is the 19 year old who got bullied by his dad to get on.

You check out the safety certifications on every plane you fly in? Maintenance records of the school bus your kids ride in? At some point you gotta trust that someone else knows what they're doing, within reason. They trusted the CEO, who oversaw the building of it, touted its strengths, and piloted it himself.

I'm not demanding you feel sympathy from them, but there's a pretty damn vast chasm between feeling sympathy and "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". That's needlessly callous. Especially when your yourself openly admit to barely knowing anything about the situation.

The airplane I fly on is overseen and regulated by an actual agency. Some bootleg piping with a wireless steering wheel isn't even close to equivalent. At no point am I going to trust that a fully third part, unregulated, unsupervised company is going to know what they're doing especially when there is a public paper trail on them expressly documenting them not knowing what they're doing. If I were, I'd be crushed to death by the cold, unforgiving sea as Poseidon laughs.

[Peelee]

The rich yuppies don't get a pass on this thing. Even if none of that came up two of them were more than just tourists. One of them had done 35 prior missions to the Titanic wreck. The fact he didn't put up alarm bells over a seatless sub controlled by a third party PS3 Controller that literally was bolted shut from the outside is troubling to say the least. That guy, if none of the others, was experienced enough that you'd expect him to have seen the trouble long before it started. The only one that gets a pass is the 19 year old who got bullied by his dad to get on.

Titanic expert who has done 35 missions to the wreck before this thought it was safe enough, and this means he was an idiot and you know much better? If anything, that should give more credence to "it was reasonable for them to trust it would work".
And if using game controllers is a bad idea, maybe you should the US Navy, which has used Xbox controllers on its own subs (they turned out to be more intuitive, have sailors with prior experience using them, and be significantly cheaper than the intended controls). I don't know the over/under on whether that fact was included in the pitch to customers, but i sure wouldn't bet against.

The fact is, you have the benefit of hindsight on this. They didn't. Also, " bullied"? Nothing I've seen indicates the dad "bullied" the kid. But it makes for a nice narrative for mocking dead people.

[Razade]

Titanic expert who has done 35 missions to the wreck before this thought it was safe enough, and this means he was an idiot and you know much better? If anything, that should give more credence to "it was reasonable for them to trust it would work".
And if using game controllers is a bad idea, maybe you should the US Navy, which has used Xbox controllers on its own subs (they turned out to be more intuitive, have sailors with prior experience using them, and be significantly cheaper than the intended controls

I'm not saying I know better. I'm saying that every single expert that took a look at this thing said "No, this thing isn't safe" and they were, in court, told they could not claim the sub was safe at the depths they claimed and had to officially put a number a third of the depth out instead knew and know better. The Titanic expert wasn't an expert on subs or their safety so it doesn't lead any kind of credence whatsoever for it being reasonable or safe. Which it wasn't. We know it wasn't because, ya know, it imploded. Just like the actual experts said would happen. Who'd have thought that they got it right. Not me. I'm just as surprised as you are.

Also - The military has regulatory boards that make sure their usage of controllers and everything else is safe. You know what didn't? This sub. They're not equivalent.

Also also - https://news.usni.org/2023/06/21/3-s...-crafts-design - There were warning signs that they very easily could have found. This thing was major news.

[Peelee]

I'm not saying I know better.

You sure fooled me.

[Razade]

You sure fooled me.

You know what they say. When the facts are against you, go personal. Good look, Peelee.

[Peelee]

You know what they say. When the facts are against you, go personal. Good look, Peelee.

If you don't want your arguments characterized like that, then make different arguments. If these people weren't billionaire's there wouldn't be anywhere near this level of vitriol, if any at all. I dont shed any tears for them falling to justice, but this wasn't that. This was people trying to partake in a unique experience, one od whom had done this dozens of times before and deemed it safe and another who wanted to do something with his son. But solely because they're rich, the former was an idiot and the latter bullied his kid. You're the one pounding the table here.

[Keltest]

If you don't want your arguments characterized like that, then make different arguments. If these people weren't billionaire's there wouldn't be anywhere near this level of vitriol, if any at all. I dont shed any tears for them falling to justice, but this wasn't that. This was people trying to partake in a unique experience, one od whom had done this dozens of times before and deemed it safe and another who wanted to do something with his son. But solely because they're rich, the former was an idiot and the latter bullied his kid. You're the one pounding the table here.

Ok, but how many red flags do there need to be for what is, essentially, a sub built in some guy's basement? Youre right, the tiny violins are being brought out because theyre billionaires, but that doesn't mean that they weren't acting entirely against good sense.

[Razade]

If you don't want your arguments characterized like that, then make different arguments. If these people weren't billionaire's there wouldn't be anywhere near this level of vitriol, if any at all. I dont shed any tears for them falling to justice, but this wasn't that. This was people trying to partake in a unique experience, one od whom had done this dozens of times before and deemed it safe and another who wanted to do something with his son. But solely because they're rich, the former was an idiot and the latter bullied his kid. You're the one pounding the table here.

Criticize away. You didn't criticize the argument, you immediately tried to claim I was acting like an expert, tried to cite someone who wasn't an expert, and when I pointed out no. I'm not doing what you're claiming I am doing you (instead of making an argument) just doubled down with a passive aggressive barb. Not interested in that, at all.

[Peelee]

Ok, but how many red flags do there need to be for what is, essentially, a sub built in some guy's basement? Youre right, the tiny violins are being brought out because theyre billionaires, but that doesn't mean that they weren't acting entirely against good sense.

Notwithstanding that not many submersibles that can read the Titanic and are made of carbon fiber and titanium with NASA consulting on the materials is a bit more than " built in some guy's basement" (not that I'm defending its quality, mind you, just taking issue with the flippancy), sure. But, again, a Titanic expert who had been on over 30 trips down thought it was good enough. You know why they don't allow lawyers on juries? It's highly likely every other jury member would side with the lawyer due to appeal to authority. Should they have been more thorough? Obviously, in hindsight. Those who went down on the first several didn't have any issues, and from what I've read (mind that I'm hardly an expert on the subject), the most likely point of failure was repeated stress on the carbon fiber without continual inspections, which is hardly something they could have reasonably foreseen. Logitech controller? Cheap as hell but didn't cause issues. The problem almost certainly occured on the most expensive, well-engineered part of the craft because routine maintenance wasn't being carried out. I doubt "we skip checking the carbon fiber" was listed in the waiver.

If any repurcussions came to the passengers due to their own hubris or machinations, then i wouldn't give two whits. Serves 'em right, I'd agree wholeheartedly. This isn't that. These people were taken in by a huckster. Victim blaming doesn't become acceptable based on income.

Now, i do have some other thoughts on the overall messaging and tone of the public over this, which i would be happy to share off-site.

[Peelee]

So he's an expert who thought it was safe, but also he's an innocent victim who was tricked? I don't think you can have it both ways Peelee.

You can, actually. If the CEO presents a sub that, while questionable, is still structurally sound, but does not disclose that routine maintenance after every dive is being performed to verify its seaworthiness, then an expert could deem it safe because he's being deceived.

In fact, having it both ways is pretty much the only way it can work. Unless you think he just happily jumped into a coffin. Nothing I've read indicated he was suicidal.

[Razade]

If any repurcussions came to the passengers due to their own hubris or machinations, then i wouldn't give two whits. Serves 'em right, I'd agree wholeheartedly. This isn't that. These people were taken in by a huckster. Victim blaming doesn't become acceptable based on income.

Except that's just you claiming that. Demonstrably, people have been sounding the alarm publically and loudly over the unsafe nature of this venture. Three prior disasters with the sub are well known. You casting these people as innocent victims is just you projecting that on them with absolutely no proof whatsoever in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Also: a person was an expert and deemed it safe but also was an innocent person that just got fooled by a snake oil salesman? Which one is it? Learned expert that deemed it safe and we need to trust his expertise instead of literally all the other experts who said otherwise or someone who didn't know any better and got tricked? Eating your cake and eating it too.

[Keltest]

You can, actually. If the CEO presents a sub that, while questionable, is still structurally sound, but does not disclose that routine maintenance after every dive is being performed to verify its seaworthiness, then an expert could deem it safe because he's being deceived.

I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation. I respect that you believe this is victim blaming. I strongly disagree about the level of personal responsibility the adults in the room are being credited. I don't think theres any good that can come from arguing about it.

In fact, having it both ways is pretty much the only way it can work. Unless you think he just happily jumped into a coffin. Nothing I've read indicated he was suicidal.

Having said all that, I will leave you with the suggestion that they could just be stupid. The number of stupid people in fields requiring high levels of intelligence and technical skills is staggering on a good day.

[Razade]

Oh and hey: If anyone else thinks that these people were just innocent bystandards with absolutely no way of knowing the dangers they were putting themselves in. Here's one of the people who was supposed to be going aboard the sub who pulled out last minute explaining why he didn't board.

Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j6tO0kWTBk

[lio45]

The Titanic expert wasn't an expert on subs or their safety so it doesn't lead any kind of credence whatsoever for it being reasonable or safe.

Actually, yes, he was an expert on deep underwater operations and had a long and successful career doing those things.

Funny how our personal experiences color our views: I'm used to dealing with idiot bureaucrats who are paid to declare as many things as possible "unsafe", so in my opinion, what the Safety Board has to say (they could well decide on a 10x safety factor) weighs a lot less than the combined facts that 1) this sub went down there already several times without problems + 2) the CEO is personally on board + 3) a deep underwater operations expert, ex-Navy officer specialized in that, who then has been to the Titanic wreck regularly since 1987, is on board.

I'm used to being told that I'm about to die if I'm standing less than 6' from a 6'1'' ledge without wearing a harness that has been formally inspected within the last 12 months AND being tied to a structure that has just been engineer-certified to be able to withstand at least 5,000#, so forgive me if I am skeptical.

[Keltest]

Actually, yes, he was an expert on deep underwater operations and had a long and successful career doing those things.

Funny how our personal experiences color our views: I'm used to dealing with idiot bureaucrats who are paid to declare as many things as possible "unsafe", so in my opinion, what the Safety Board has to say (they could well decide on a 10x safety factor) weighs a lot less than the combined facts that 1) this sub went down there already several times without problems + 2) the CEO is personally on board + 3) a deep underwater operations expert, ex-Navy officer specialized in that, who then has been to the Titanic wreck regularly since 1987, is on board.

I'm used to being told that I'm about to die if I'm standing on a 6'1'' ledge without wearing a harness that has been formally inspected within the last 12 months AND being tied to a structure that has just been engineer-certified to be able to withstand at least 5,000#, so forgive me if I am skeptical.

From my understanding, point 1 is patiently false. They had several problems using this sub in the past, including the exact loss of communication that ended up prompting the search in the first place. Enough so that other experts looked at this thing and said "this is a death trap, I won't go on it."

[lio45]

From my understanding, point 1 is patiently false. They had several problems using this sub in the past, including the exact loss of communication that ended up prompting the search in the first place. Enough so that other experts looked at this thing and said "this is a death trap, I won't go on it."

Let me be more clear then: my point 1 was always intended to read "this sub went down there several times and came back to the surface with everyone on board alive each time", not "this sub never ever had any issues".

Basically, with my point 1, I'm disagreeing with any armchair quarterback who says stuff along the lines of "one look at this death trap of a sub and you can immediately tell it's going to automatically implode at 5,000 psi!" which is indeed patently and demonstrably false since that sub went down there successfully already.

[Keltest]

Let me be more clear then: my point 1 was always intended to read "this sub went down there several times and came back to the surface with everyone on board alive each time", not "this sub never ever had any issues".

Basically, with my point 1, I'm disagreeing with any armchair quarterback who says stuff along the lines of "one look at this death trap of a sub and you can immediately tell it's going to automatically implode at 5,000 psi!" which is indeed patently and demonstrably false since that sub went down there successfully already.

The actual, professional people who were specifically responsible for assessing the safety of the sub said it was unsafe. Other people with experience in that field said it was unsafe and they were unwilling to go on the journey. The argument that this was some sort of random unpredictable accident is, I think, ridiculous at this point.

Thats why we have those "idiot" safety boards you hold so little regard for.

[LaZodiac]

Let me be more clear then: my point 1 was always intended to read "this sub went down there several times and came back to the surface with everyone on board alive each time", not "this sub never ever had any issues".

Basically, with my point 1, I'm disagreeing with any armchair quarterback who says stuff along the lines of "one look at this death trap of a sub and you can immediately tell it's going to automatically implode at 5,000 psi!" which is indeed patently and demonstrably false since that sub went down there successfully already.

With respect, "it's okay to speed, I've never gotten hurt yet" is reasoning that leads to Eventually Crashing. Doing something patently dangerous because "well I've never hit the danger before" is not actually a good excuse to continue courting it.

Also, bluntly: this is what the Titan interior looked like. I aint trustin' anyone's opinion if they look at this and go "this feels safe". I've seen submarines, I know submarines- that's not a submarine, that's a tube of metal with a tv screen.

[Trafalgar]

I suggest this thread gets moved to the grumpy technology forum. It seems to be a more appropriate location.

Please take this with a grain of salt but I work in the maritime industry as a surveyor. I don't do submersibles but this fact jumped out at me.

According to the BBC, this is the only commercial submersible in the world not inspected by a classification society like the American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas, or Lloyd's Register. In my experience, if someone refuses to have a vessel inspected, it's because something about doesn't meet an established safety standard and the owner can't afford to fix the problem. A class society would go over everything from plans to actual pressure testing of the hull. I know the owner claimed it was because it was experimental but something is really wrong here.

One question I have is insurance. How did Oceangate get insurance without survey by a class society? Any submersible is a high risk vessel and would need lots of insurance. And if they didn't have insurance, god help them when the lawsuits start rolling in.

I can state with confidence, though, that this submersible would have been illegal to operate in the United States or off a US Flag Vessel unless it had been inspected.

[lio45]

The actual, professional people who were specifically responsible for assessing the safety of the sub said it was unsafe. Other people with experience in that field said it was unsafe and they were unwilling to go on the journey. The argument that this was some sort of random unpredictable accident is, I think, ridiculous at this point.

Of course it was a risky journey. Everyone knew that. What I object to is that some of you act like there's zero daylight between willingly doing something that isn't risk-free (yet has some appeal / is thrilling), and "happily stepping into a coffin" / committing suicide.

Accepting to step into that sub to go to the ocean floor was in the same ballpark as deciding to try to get to the top of Mount Everest, or going 300 mph on the Bonneville Salt Flats or at 3 am on a German autobahn; these things are obviously not as safe as sitting in your living room sipping tea with a good book, and people in the past have died attempting those things, but they're also not anywhere near actual suicide.

And if they didn't have insurance, god help them when the lawsuits start rolling in.

Why do you think that? Everyone on board signed lengthy disclaimers. Someone who was interviewed by the CBC and who went on an earlier dive said it was basically "a very long grocery list of all the various ways you might die" and you had to accept it.

They never tried to hide the fact that the sub was "experimental" and not certified by any class society; the passengers accepted that and were conscious of the risks. I can't see any of the relatives of the deceased winning a lawsuit against the company -- which will likely go bankrupt anyway; what would have been the point of having insurance?

[Anonymouswizard]

I mean, I'd still refuse to get into an uncertified aeroplane even if I was handed a list of ways it might kill me. I know there's still risks getting on a commercial aeroplane from a big airline, but I'm much more likely to trust the maintenance has been done and everything meets safety standards. If my mate Jeff is telling me his new plane is 'experimental' and never passed normal safety expectations I'll walk to Ibiza instead of getting on it.

Although admittedly so e part of that is me being fairly risk-adverse anyway.

Most people realise that sensible to doofus is a scale, they're just arguing that this situation is closer to the doofus end of the scale. Which I'm inclined to agree with, safety regulations seem ridiculous up until the moment they're actually needed , then the people setting them suddenly don't seem so daft.

[H_H_F_F]

I feel like a lot of existing tension against billionaires (whom I won't voice an opinion on, given forum rules) is being injected into this conversation.

In the end, the story is "new-tech seemed exciting to some people, turned out tragically to be unsafe."