On the Titanic submersible rescue operation and extreme adventure excursions
I’ll start out by saying that I think the five people in the submersible are dead, and that even days ago I thought they probably had been dead from the moment the vehicle stopped communicating with the mother ship about an hour and forty-five minutes into its dive to see the wreck. And now there’s an announcement that a debris field has been found (see also this).
Sad news.
Apparently, there have been a lot of angry people on the left who, as Ace writes, are “in full psychopathic gloat mode, celebrating the deaths of five strangers who never did a single thing to them.”
That is one of those “shocking but not surprising” phenomena we’ve grown to know so well.
Ace quotes Ben Dreyfuss on the subject:
But one of the defining characteristics of normal people is that our empathy machines, fortunately for society, are not so singularly transactional. We care about people even when it isn’t immediately obvious that there is something in it for us.
The normal people on Monday did what the normal people do. But the abnormal people didn’t do that.
They heard the news, read the stories, took in all of the information that made you sad, and their first reaction was: anyone who can afford a $250k tourist trip deserves to die.
Very chilling, but a lot of things are chilling these days.
Which doesn’t mean that I think it’s wise to pay for adventures such as these; you couldn’t pay me enough money to do it, even before this event. But I don’t mountain-climb either, or do any number of risky things. I don’t get my thrills that way. But other people do, and I don’t condemn them.
What about the enormous expense, effort, and risk of the rescue efforts? Well, that’s what moral human being do for each other, and such rescue is not ordinarily predicated on the virtue of the victims however we might define virtue. Of course, there’s always the “what about Hitler?” question. There is obviously a line of evil – true evil, not mere lifestyle or political disagreements – beyond which the argument not to save that person (or even to kill that person) grows stronger. But that is almost never the actual situation, and it certainly doesn’t apply to those who pay tons of money for adventure excursions.
The subject comes up regularly in places such as New England, where there are mountains to climb and where people often get stranded. Those people are often foolish or even stupid in the manner in which they set out, failing to take proper precautions or gear or training. Just about every rescue mission is questioned, because they are both expensive and risky for the rescuers. However, I think it’s a mark of civilization that we are willing to bear that expense and assume that risk in order to rescue our fellow flawed humans.
Our own commenter “physics guy” mounts a milder version of this “fools” argument when he writes:
Anyone who would pay that amount of money and not thoroughly research the charlatan who put this piece of crap together is, and now was, a fool. The depth of the Titanic is a much more dangerous environment than going to space; not something to have a sightseeing trip…
What makes me mad is the millions of dollars spent to rescue fools. The Darwin award committee needs to be notified.
I don’t think physicsguy thinks they should have died. It’s just that he is angry that they put themselves in that position and that the rest of us have to pay for it. But “millions of dollars” are often “spent to rescue fools.” I would not have it otherwise – and my guess is that physicsguy might agree; he just wishes there were fewer fools. On that last subject, I will say that the impulse to do risky things for adventure is somewhat allied to the willingness to do risky things in general, and that such an impulse is part of what drives humankind to explore and to learn, including space exploration. If we eliminate that, we eliminate a great deal of good.
This is a scene from one of my favorite movies, “Starman.” I think it’s relevant:
And here’s a stanza from Adrienne Rich’s poem “Diving Into the Wreck”:
the thing I came for:
the wreck and not the story of the wreck
the thing itself and not the myth
the drowned face always staring
toward the sun
the evidence of damage
worn by salt and sway into this threadbare beauty
the ribs of the disaster
curving their assertion
among the tentative haunters.
And then there’s the last portion of Tennyson’s “Ulysses”:
There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil’d, and wrought, and thought with me—
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
‘T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
I don’t mean to equate these people with Ulysses. But I see their impulse as a fragment of the same impulse. You might say that their motive is more narcissistic, and I will concede you may indeed be correct. But I still think it is somewhat allied with the motive that drives all human accomplishment, and without which we still would be chipping away at stone tools.
From what I’ve read, people may be jumping to conclusions about the supposed recklessness and sloppiness of this undertaking. Titan made 13 successful trips to the Titanic over the past couple of years. It’s not the sort of risk I would take (I wouldn’t go skydiving either), but the criticisms of those who went (and presumably died) seem like 20-20 hindsight.
Hopefully, an implosion was mercifully almost instantaneous.
The money spent was as good as a training exercise.
Jimmy—Given the price tag of this “adventure,” a lot of money was coming in.
Likely just scraping by with previous dives to the Titanic shouldn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to continuously upgrade the ship and its safety features.
The New Republic has ferreted out the information that the CEO who died with his passengers was a Republican donor. res ipsa locuitur.
James Cameron, who made the movie “Titanic,” has been to the bottom of the Marianas Trench in a sub of his own design. 27,000 feet down.
I’ll reserve my judgement about whether or not this was reckless or sloppy until more information is revealed. I’ve heard claims by a whisleblower that there could be defects in the carbon fiber hull that gradually worsed over multiple dives. I’m sure we’ll know more soon enough though.
“I don’t think physicsguy thinks they should have died. It’s just that he is angry that they put themselves in that position and that the rest of us have to pay for it. But ‘millions of dollars’ are often ‘spent to rescue fools.’I would not have it otherwise….”
Thus, the search and rescue in New Englan’ds formidable mountain wilderness.
Coast Guard, navy, and search and rescue people train for these missions, more or less regularly. These people are happy not just to practice their skills where and when it might make a difference—which is most extremely on display after innocents are caught trapped under earthquake debris. We don’t spite the poor inhabitants for not having build to earthquake proof standards. Likewise, foood victims “who asked for it.”
But abnormal people do.
Yep, it seems like every couple of years a major rescue has to take place on Mt. Rainier at great expense to the public and the same things are said.
And then there was this from Mt Hood in Oregon 21 years ago where this rescue helicopter crashed live on TV trying to save stranded hikers. Fortunately no one on the helicopter died but three of the hikers did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjDpVU8qWWc
Snow, nonapod: I’m reserving judgment too, but it’s not as though the CEO didn’t have serious skin in the game. Not only financial, but literally.
Not sure if it was already mentioned here, but the CEO Rush’s wife was a descendant of the Strausses who died on the Titanic.
The design of this submersible seems almost deliberately designed to give those inside absolutely no chance to effect their fate, as I read that, first off, they were sealed inside this craft by bolting the only hatch on—from the outside—using 17 no doubt heavy duty bolts.
Then, of course, there is the fact that no possible human rescuers would be able to operate at most of the depths they were going to be traversing and were scheduled to arrive at.
Moreover, I gather that they had no mothership which could maintain a line, a tether sufficient to anchor them, and to pay out to the great depth they were supposed to reach.
Once sealed in, they were totally dependent on outside forces for any rescue, many of which would need days to get to their remote position in the ocean and no automatic transponder or two or three backups aboard?
Again, this whole operation and it’s equipment seemed to be designed to have a very high chance of potentially catastrophic failure .
Is there any way in our ‘safety uber alles’ world where the airplane or motorcycle or automobile or submarine would ever gain widespread use or even regulatory approval?
Humans have been doing risky ass stuff for as long as they have existed and some were done for noble reasons, some for glory, some for potential riches and some just because they could but nowadays anybody doing anything slightly dangerous that goes wrong is attacked by the class of people (mostly) that would never leave their homes if possible (see last three years).
Well thank Goddess he didn’t hire any “uninspiring 50 year old white guys.” The guy was a woke putz of the most hardcore elitist WASP extraction but that does not mean he and the other passengers deserved to die and it’s something to be happy about. It’s tragic. RIP.
He was a 61 year old white guy. The drive to self-abnegation of these kinds of people is something I will never understand.
Griffin—From my perspective this wasn’t just “slightly dangerous,” this was reckless, and dangerous as hell.
I’d imagine if you compared all of the safety precautions that are taken in the case of “space tourism” with those very few such precautions— if any—which were employed on the Titan , the comparison would be very enlightening.
Again, I wonder if the teenaged child of one of the adult passengers who was along for the “adventure” really wanted to be one of the “adventurers”, or was he persuaded to become one?
Sky News confirms key items from the Titan have been found in this debris field
“Update (1335ET):
A rescue expert told Sky News the “debris field” near the wreckage site of the Titanic includes “a landing frame and a rear cover from the submersible.”
The landing frame is what it sounds like, parts for the sub to rest on; the rear cover is the pointed end of the Titan. Thus, it is physically confirmed to be the sub wreckage.
And OceanGate officials now declare the five all dead.
hubris seems to play a role, in the design of the craft, as well as fate,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-submarine-titanic-debris-field-oceangate-us-coast-guard/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=221201453
I agree that the urge to explore is part of the human condition and should be celebrated. Not sure where the line is, if there is a line, between exploring versus extreme tourism. Lewis & Clark – among many others – were the extreme tourists of their day. Everyone should probably back off the urge to JUDGE, which is also an all-too-human urge. Good luck with that, though, we won’t. But we’ll move on to the next oddity shortly so the families will have their privacy. And then, The Lawsuit. Personally, you couldn’t pay me to go on that thing. I have no urge to become part of a debris field if I can help it.
there will likely be an inquest like with the shuttle disasters, or some litigation from some party,
I’ve been following the private sub that went on the Titanic dive, and I never follow these type of events. I’m not a follower of this macabre stuff. I’m not a gawker at wrecks and tragedies, but this one just chills me. I think it because it touches on two of my deepest phobias – deep water and being buried alive. I read about and saw photos of what the inside of that sub was like, and it reminded of nothing more than a coffin.
I just read that the debris field has been found, and pieces of the sub have been identified. I truly hope it was so sudden that no one suffered. God, it just chills me to my core thinking about what it would have been like to have been sitting on the bottom of the ocean waiting to die. In the name of mercy, I do hope it was a sudden explosion.
I suspect that some of the ” cost ” of these rescue operations are just accounting gimmicks. Many of the rescue crews are salaried and were going to get paid, anyway. Maybe they get a bonus for some types of operations. There is the extra fuel, and wear and tear on equipment, but as CharlesEagles pointed out above, the operation is as good as training .
Most people have no idea of the testing and redundancy in their automobile let alone Aircraft. “One Off” works for a trial or an “experiment”. This was a commercial venture with paying passengers. Commercial aircraft have multiple sources of electrical power plus a back-up battery. The hydraulics that work the control surfaces have redundant systems and power sources. The Titan was an experiment with no provision for “graceful” failure or provision for a failure warning, or backup components. The nose entry involved a titanium ring “glued” to a carbon fiber hull. Heavy steel submarine hulls change dimensions during a much shallower dive. Adhesives and carbon fiber fail suddenly. The machine was operated with a COTS game controller. “Cute” but there was no backup. The one “escape hatch” could not be opened by the crew or passengers from the interior even if they survived an “incident”.
Since the submarine had survived the stresses of several prior missions, the current descent was a suicide mission. The submarine’s owner only hired young “suckers” because an older, experienced person would have known better. Testing and redundancy save lives. If something can fail, it will fail at the most inconvenient time. The sub was experiencing 6,000 pounds per square inch, looking for the fatal flaw. Looks like the pressure found the flaw.
The design of this submersible seems almost deliberately designed to give those inside absolutely no chance to effect their fate, as I read that, first off, they were sealed inside this craft by bolting the only hatch on—from the outside—using 17 no doubt heavy duty bolts.
==
The ship imploded. They died instantly. The Coast Guard officer making public remarks suggested (without being graphic about it) that the violence of the implosion precluded finding any remains. You’ll recall the ValuJet crash in the Florida everglades in 1996. Don’t think they ever found any remains of the pilot and all they found of the co-pilot was a piece of skin.
==
Is there any way in our ‘safety uber alles’ world where the airplane or motorcycle or automobile or submarine would ever gain widespread use or even regulatory approval?
==
The complaint which has been uttered is that the submersible was constructed with material that has not been sufficiently vetted for operations at those depths, so there were known issues. One of the people I run into online is a veteran of the nuclear navy. In his estimation, the use of the carbon-based material for the hull was a cardinal error. (“It shatters like porcelain”).
Titanic director James Cameron, who has made many dozens of even deeper dives and dozens to the Titanic site, is on ABC News, and is saying that unlike the Titan, all other similar submersibles are regulated and, moreover, that many knowledgeable people in this field had written to the people running theTitan operation, warning them of the dangers of using this submersible.
Cameron, who has designed his own submersibles, apparently thought that the Titan was just not up to the job.
“praying for a cracked pressure hull instead of endless, gasping agony on the bottom”.
Supposedly in the hearts of sub crews whose boats are sinking.
As to training, there will be some judgments of how things are arranged. Hypothetically, a commander sees it took half an hour to get a heavy piece of equipment to the aircraft loading station. Thinks about storing it closer. What will be displaced? Consequences…? Will the second item be as necessary on an emergency basis if something happens?
When you’re not under stress, things get convenient.
One aspect of the Titan expedition that hasn’t received much attention until today is the morbid fascination some people have with the Titanic and the potential for disrespectful treatment of the wreckage. “Relatives of people aboard the ill-fated Titanic cruise liner, which sank in 1912, say tourist trips to the shipwreck site — like those offered by the missing OceanGate Titan sub — are ‘disgusting’ and disrespectful to those who perished in the disaster. The wreckage should be treated like an underwater ‘graveyard’ of the 1,496 who died, not a ‘Disneyland’ for adventure-seeking tourists, the family members [said] . . . ”
https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/titanic-shipwreck-should-not-be-used-for-tours-family-says/
Similar concerns have been voiced about the several hundred bodies (as of 2023) that remain on the slopes of Mount Everest. Unlike the bodies of those who die at sea, however, climbers’ bodies remain where they are unless the family pays to have them removed and sent home. The problem on Everest is that several hundred people every year are stepping over the frozen corpses of those who died on the mountain; worse yet, some “become a well-photographed fixture of the mountain,” like the climber known as “Green Boots.” The BBC published a lengthy article in 2015 on the “graveyard in the clouds,” which analyzes the reasons why people attempt to climb Everest (Neo might be interested in this material) as well as the different ways in which human remains on the mountain are currently handled: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151008-the-graveyard-in-the-clouds-everests-200-dead-bodies
To return to shipwrecks: Because Titanic was a civilian vessel lost at sea in peacetime, it is not protected as a war grave in the way that such WWII wrecks as those of Bismarck and Hood are. Expeditions to those warships require express legal permission from the German and British governments respectively. The German authorities state that “Following international customs, we view the wreck of the Bismarck as a seamen’s burial site that must be accorded proper respect.” The 2001 Mearns expedition placed carefully crafted bronze memorial plaques on both ships.
I was surprised to find, however, that a previous 2001 dive (by Deep Ocean Expeditions) to the Bismarck that used submersibles included a few paying guests: “In addition to media people, there were three individual paying participants. Of course dives like this are very expensive, and only a handful of people in the world can afford such an adventure. The DOE expedition was cleared with the German government, and the site treated with reverence and respect.”
https://www.kbismarck.com/wreck.html
Information about the Mearns expedition to Hood here:
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/hoodtoday/2001expedition/index.htm
Obviously the 2001 DOE expedition to Bismarck provided a precedent for the Titan‘s visits to the Titanic in regard to paying guests in submersibles– it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian or U.S. governments decide to regulate-in-order-to-monetize future trips to the 1912 wreck.
isn’t the titanic technically in international waters, the others might not have been,
P.S.— James Cameron has reportedly even dived down twenty eight thousand feet—far deeper than the wreck of the Titanic-into the Marianas Trench, but says that he has used Russian built vessels of proven design and construction.
harding has well, with a different model of sub,https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/19/hamish-harding-the-british-explorer-missing-at-sea-near-the-titanic
catching up
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/22/missing-titanic-sub-live-oceangate-rescue-search-latest/
Griffin
Your argument is irrelevant and late. There are already vast bodies of knowledge of operating under water. No exploring was being done. The CEO deliberately decided to disregard this knowledge and took four more people along to pay the price. From firing the engineer that would only certify to 1300 feet to carbon fiber construction to the wokeness of it all (50 year old white men with submarine experience weren’t inspirational). ad nauseum. This was a ignored foreseen outcome.
Both Shuttle disasters were of the same category, we’ve done it before so we’ll be fine this time.
The first was the rocket gaskets losing their flexibility due to cold temperature on launch morning causing the engines to blow up shortly after takeoff. The engineers said don’t go but the bosses, who were under pressure to have another flight, over rode them, after all they worked the last time it was almost as cold.
The second was the shuttle’s tiles peeling off the wing as it was re-entering the atmosphere. Every engineer who I knew, starting with my dad, said it was a design that was just a disaster waiting to happen since it required every tile to adhere perfectly to the wing surface. Perfect doesn’t exist in engineering, there’s always got to be over design for safety.
I don’t know what kind of inspection routine there was for the Titan, but it was clearly not good enough to detect problems with the hull.
“ Thus, the search and rescue in New England’s formidable mountain wilderness.” The White mountains are very dangerous if you’re not prepared. There are warnings that you can get caught in sudden storms with freezing weather and snow in July. There’s always a fool wearing only shorts and a T shirt who gets into trouble and has to be rescued. It has been policy for years that the idiot is charged the full cost, no free ride.
Humans are explorers. We wouldn’t be where we are if we weren’t willing to “go where no human has been before.”
I know the urge. When I was a young man, I liked to find rock climbing routes that had never been done and try to be the first one to climb that route. I succeeded a few times. I liked the feeling of accomplishment and pioneering. I knew it was dangerous, but I used the best equipment I could afford and practiced the skills on low boulders and walls where a fall wasn’t serious. So, I considered it a calculated risk worth taking, and I relished the challenges.
Later on, I became a Navy carrier pilot. Again, a dangerous operation, where the dangers were mitigated by practice, drill, good judgement, and good maintenance. In spite of all that, things sometimes went wrong, and people died. Those who went into it were mostly people who relished the challenges and had a certain fatalistic view of life.
Space exploration was a new frontier to explore, and still is. But every new frontier becomes more expensive and more dangerous.
Now people are looking at the frontier of exploring our ocean depths. I understand it. It’s to extend our knowledge, to do difficult things, and to go where no/few humans have gone before.
This accident, because of its visibility, will be examined closely. No doubt misteaks wur maid. The knowledge gained will be used by others who feel the call of exploring the deep oceans. Operations will become safer. But this will probably not be the last deep-water accident. It’s the nature of exploring new frontiers.
I make no judgement about the people involved. They were free to do what they wanted. The waiver the passengers signed certainly spelled out the dangers.
The rescue ops were what humans do. (Except in Democrat run cities – there you get charged if you try to save someone.) Except for fuel to get in position, most of the people would be paid for what they did anyway.
I worked for Rocky Mountain National Park for three simmers while I was in college (1950-54). I participated in a couple of rescues. Not much extra money was spent as we were all Park employees and used Park equipment. It was part of the job, just like it’s part of the Coast Guard’s job.
I agree with Paul, charge whoever with the price of the
‘rescue’ operations.
I was a danger junkie when younger and came to close calls several times. My group worked with live steel weapons. Once a 6′ battle axe shaft broke on a downward vertical swing to my hard block. I avoided damage by slamming my chin into my collar bones. Had I been hit, I would have been charged for the services I would have required. And if it had split my skull, I would no doubt have received the same harsh comments from some and no mention of my “bravery” at performing the routine which I had done many, many times before.
It’s a cold, hard view, but rational.
Yes, I feel some sympathy that they died but I’m not going to entertain any angst except perhaps for the kid.
To all those junkies out there, remember Arthur C. Clarke’s (I think) admonition:- Nature is cruel. Cruel and uncaring. Make one mistake, step one foot off the line and she will kill you. Carelessly she will kill you.
A couple of notes. The implosion of the sub would have been merciful compared to the alternative, and it would have been instantly picked up by the USN’s sonar arrays and its signature recognized for precisely what it was; this adventure was just off the coast of the US, and just south of the Grand Banks, and it is highly surveilled.
The public face of the concern and rescue is a news cycle artifact, and criticism of the rescue efforts (i.e. not being energetic enough) perhaps should more properly be judged by considering it as a drill against long odds and an opportunity to practice logistics. Just my two cents, the people high up knew very quickly.
In the oil patch, the current technology for subsea work is at the limits of its comfort zone at the Titanic’s depth of 12,500 ft. The current technology can manage the water pressures for automated equipment, like the ROV that was sent down to map the debris field. On an active well, the rig will have at least one, and probably two complete ROV spreads, the they are in the water every day, inspecting everything. They have manipulator arms, cameras, sonars, tool kits. They can do an amazing array of complex tasks on the seabed – but with the operator sitting in a comfortable, joy-stick equipped chair on surface. The same type of equipment is used for undwater production systems, pipelines, cable lay vessels. The vessel I saw at the rescue site looked like a cable-lay vessel. It probably provided the ROV.
All of this equipment is subject to rigorous certification cycles, with more-or-less continuous inspection routines between dives. Our surface vessels, including the drilling rig, are taken completely out of the water every 5 years or less for comprehensive refits and inspection, in order to certify. And this is for stuff that doesn’t submerge with people being under water. The reason for this is partly regulatory safety, but also just plain operating sense. It’s paramount to operate safely, but it’s also too expensive operating offshore at about $1million per day, to be having things break down.
If OceanGate were cutting corners, they were cutting throats. I’ve seen pictures of their operations and wasn’t impressed, not when considering that souls are involved and on the line, 10,000 ft down. The sea is always trying to kill you. There is no forgiveness to be found there, only occasional good luck. OceanGate’s corporate name might well take on a new meaning when the investigations start. We shall see.
I think the drive for adventure is part of our DNA and fundamental to our species’success, but the urge to view the Titanic is a bit…. ghoulish perhaps, and certainly vain. They took some risks but I doubt that all of them were completely aware of what the stakes really were.
I know the urge. When I was a young man, I liked to find rock climbing routes that had never been done and try to be the first one to climb that route. I succeeded a few times. I liked the feeling of accomplishment and pioneering. I knew it was dangerous, but I used the best equipment I could afford and practiced the skills on low boulders and walls where a fall wasn’t serious. So, I considered it a calculated risk worth taking, and I relished the challenges.
Later on, I became a Navy carrier pilot…
JJ:
You’re a god!
By coincidence, I have been reading up on the British airship R-101 that crashed in 1930, and its stablemate R-100 that successfully flew across the North Atlantic to Canada and back!
I can recommend the books that have been written on these crafts (search Amazon) as sources on the engineering and leadership practices that worked, and didn’t, even back nearly 100 years ago.
I particularly enjoyed the book “Slide Rule”, written by an assistant designer of the R-100, one N.S. Norway, later the famous author of “On the Beach”, writing as Nevil Shute. It is a fascinating look at how teams did “computing” back then!
I have no reason to assume that politics played a strong role in the ghastly Titan incident, but in the R-100/101 saga it was a central theme, and had an even more terrible butcher’s bill!
Not to be morbid, but I’m surprised they are entertaining questions about body recovery – maybe it’s out of consideration for the families. The hydro-static pressure at 12,000 ft is about 5600 psi. I’ve forgotten the finer points of the Ideal Gas law, but the ambient air inside a compromised pressure hull at about 15 psi (atmospheric) being compressed instantaneously to 5600 psi would become very hot indeed, over 2,000°F. I would imagine they were more or less atomized.
I particularly enjoyed the book “Slide Rule”, written by an assistant designer of the R-100, one N.S. Norway, later the famous author of “On the Beach”, writing as Nevil Shute.
Ray Van Dune:
No fooling!
“On the Beach” was a big book to me when I was trying to read adult books and worrying about nuclear war.
It was so vivid back then. Not that we are in less danger today.
Things could go seriously sidewise. It wouldn’t be the end of the world (and it wasn’t then). We wouldn’t be sitting nervously as radioactive clouds covered the entire earth and everyone died.
But it would be pretty damn bad, yet we barely think about it at all anymore.
I’m sure the lawyers are already salivating.
huxley: “You’re a god!”
Thanks, but actually I’m just a very lucky guy.
Aggie, thanks for all the detail about offshore drilling. Fascinating, informative, and important to the future.
I have great sympathy for the families of those who died in this accident. At least they know their loved ones didn’t suffer. The descriptions of the captain and passengers being in total darkness in freezing temps with little hope of rescue for up to 96 hours sounded like a lot of mental torture before dying. There’s some solace there.
Aggie, when I was learning about ASW, I learned that the “crunch” of the hull collapse of a U Boat, was also the sound of the crew being incinerated. That was only at several hundred feet. I think you are dead on about them being vaporized.
Aircraft have pressurization cycle lifetime limits. 35,000 cycles for Boeing 747-400. How many times did this specific pressure vessel cycle?
The USN uses a modified 707 (E-6 Mercury) to communicate with submarines. If a customer attempts to fly away a new plane from the Boeing Delivery Center before the check clears, the Boeing Fire Department will block the runway with crash trucks. The last time I know of this happening was 30 years ago or so when Security and Fire Protection (AKA Guns & Hoses) blocked an E-6 from leaving.
The Boeing Fire Department has sent their trucks at least 20 miles from the airport to fight gasoline tanker fires like the one the took out I-95 the other day.
Hoo boy: The CEO who went down with his ship boasted to a travel blogger about breaking the rules of marine engineering: OceanGate Expeditions CEO and founder Stockton Rush once boasted about “breaking some rules” in order to build the Titan submersible that imploded in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean Sunday, killing him and four other passengers. Rush made the fateful comments in a 2021 interview with Mexican travel blogger Alan Estrada. “I think it was General MacArthur who said ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break’,” he said in the video interview. “You know I’ve broken some rules to make this [the Titan]. I think I’ve broken them with logic and good engineering behind me.” One such rule he claimed to have broken was using carbon fiber and titanium for the materials used to construct the tourist Titanic-bound deep-sea sub. “Carbon fiber and titanium — there’s a rule you don’t do that. Well I did,” Rush said. “It’s picking the rules you break that are the ones that will add value to others and add value to society.”
https://nypost.com/2023/06/23/oceangate-ceo-stockton-rush-boasted-about-breaking-some-rules-to-build-doomed-titanic-sub/
I’m thinking the Biden crime family could make the same claim about picking the rules they break in order to add value to others (grifters) and add value to (selected subgroups of) society.
}}} It was so vivid back then. Not that we are in less danger today.
I think we are in much less danger now. I believe that the chances of a single use are higher than they were then — the tech enabling a rogue state to provide a weapon to either their own fanatical military, or an independent terrorist actor, is much more accessible than it once was. I still strongly suspect it would require a State Actor to produce one, but there are more states able to do so, which does increase that possibility. I also suspect there are some corporations nominally able to do the same. Hence, the chance of individual, isolated events is much higher than it has ever been.
HOWEVER, that said, such a disaster would be small-scale by any measure in comparison to a multiple-exchange event between two major states, namely, US-Russia, US-China, Russia-China, China-India, or even (much less likely) India-Pakistan. NoKo also has this potential, but China seems to be riding herd on them for plenty of reasons, not the least of which is, they don’t want any excuse for another non-client state to be right on their own borders.
I do not believe that world tensions are even vaguely as high as they have been in the past. Certainly not US-Russia (despite Chicken Littles squawking otherwise). Possibly US-China, but even there, still much less than one might expect.
MAD still applies, and I’ve mentioned this before on occasion but I would call attention to comments made by the late, noted SF author Harlan Ellison, in which he made two key points, on ABC’s Nightline on Aug 6 1990, the 45th Anniversary of Hiroshima, and the dawn of the Nuclear Age.
First, that (at that time, 1990) it had been a literally unprecedented 45 years (now almost 80 years) between the creation and usage of the weapon and the current time, and the weapon had not been used again. This has never happened in human history that man created a weapon, used it in “one” instance (i.e., to end the war) and then never ever used it again.. Never in history. That’s pretty significant.
Second, he asserted that The Bomb, far from being an immoral weapon for its “indiscriminate” nature, was one of the most moral weapons expressly due to that. For the first time in the hundreds of years since kings stopped riding into battle at the head of their armies, those whose decision it was to GO to war risked suffering as much as the common man, if not even more. The common man might lose their lives, but the Rich Bastards who decided to go to war, they could lose all their power and influence in a quick flash of light and heat. No, the weapon was indiscriminate and would destroy citizens as well as the military, but it would also destroy Rich Bastards just as readily as it would the poor.
And for both these reasons, he believed that Nuclear War was less likely than presumed.
I suppose one might argue with Ellison, but I think his case was pretty solid.
And, in general, it does still apply. Iran is probably the greatest danger but, AFAWK, they still don’t have any weapons, and it seems improbable that they would hold off on using them against Israel long enough to get anything long-range such that they would threaten even Europe, much less the USA.
So let me get this straight. What you’re saying is that I’m a bad person…even a psychopath…for believing people are responsible for the consequences of their own choices?
I don’t lack empathy and I’m all for trying to rescue victims of accidents, disasters, etc, but when people make conscious decisions to sign waivers saying “Yes, I understand that this may kill me”, I don’t think the world needs to come to a stop, that entire nations need to drop everything and go all in to try to rescue them from their own folly.
Will this prevent people from taking risks? Well, hopefully it will prevent stupid people from doing stupid things and putting the lives of their would-be rescuers at risk, but I seriously doubt that it would change human nature.
Did the absolute knowledge that no one was coming after them if disaster struck stop Lewis and Clarke? The Apollo Astronauts? Christopher Columbus?
Humans take risks. It’s part of what has driven technological advancement, but serious people understand that there may be, and in some cases probably will be, serious consequences up to and including death as a result of taking those risks.
We are all responsible for our own personal choices and the consequences that result. Period. If that makes me a bad person, than I guess that’s just something I’m going to have to live with.
Here’s who I would have empathy for: If I ever make a stupid decision that gets me into a dangerous situation and ANYONE who tried to rescue me from my own stupidity got as much as a pulled muscle as a result – Yea…I’d have empathy for them because I caused their pain and they didn’t deserve to suffer for my decision.
I had a question about whether the son of an adult passenger went on this dangerous trip because he really wanted to, or because of some sort of familial pressure.
Well, here ya go.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12224919/Student-19-killed-Titanic-submarine-implosion-terrified-trip.html?ico=related-replace
Last night in an interview James Cameron said that carbon fiber starts to “de-laminate”– loses it’s strength in the course of repeated use, from contraction under pressure, then expansion when the pressure eases–so that while this company got away with a reported 10 or more prior trips down to the Titanic in this vessel, this time the carbon fiber finally lost it’s integrity.
that entire nations need to drop everything and go all in to try to rescue them from their own folly.
==
‘Entire nations’ did not do that. Some Navy and Coast Guard personnel did that.
The engineering of the Titan was reckless.
The cylindrical part of this submersible was made of carbon fiber. Carbon fiber is strong in tension but weak in compression.
Carbon fiber works well in an air craft hull, where it is under tension (being stretched) from cabin pressure. It does not work well when it is under compression (being crunched) from water pressure at ocean depths.
Cyclic loads can cause carbon fiber to fail suddenly and catastrophically. It’s a basic engineering task to calculate how many cycles can occur before failure and to identify possible failure points.
Carbon fiber’s characteristics are well known and make it a dangerous and reckless choice for the hull of a submersible.
Someone on TV just said that there are only 10 vehicles in the world capable of reaching the depth of the Titanic, and that all of these have been “certified.”
On the other hand, the Titan was not certified, in fact, it is being reported that the Titan’s owner refused to get any kind of certification.
From all indications the Titan was a death trap, a catastrophe just waiting to happen, and several potential customers backed away when they saw the actual setup.
we’re waging a proxy war on the door step of the Russian steppes, but no we’re not in more dangerous circumstances,
It seems to me that there are things which are dangerous, but have all sorts of steps taken to lessen their danger and, then, there are things that are dangerous but there are no effective steps taken to mitigate those dangers—and you’re just skating on the edge of disaster, and perhaps that’s part of the thrill of it.
The Titan fell into that second category.
Sailorcurt:
You write: “So let me get this straight. What you’re saying is that I’m a bad person…even a psychopath…for believing people are responsible for the consequences of their own choices?”
No, you haven’t got that straight. I think everyone here believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their choices. That has nothing to do with whether you have empathy for their fate, or not.
Plus, in this case, although people have responsibility, responsibility is shared and not shared equally. The lion’s share here goes with those who didn’t put the proper safeguards into the vehicle and ignored all the red flags.
SoP @9:49 am wrote:
“On the other hand, the Titan was not certified, in fact, it is being reported that the Titan’s owner refused to get any kind of certification.”
Isn’t THIS precisely the question, though?
How did this guy get away with doing this?
Are there no official standards and regulations for this sort of thing?
Are there no official bodies that supervise them?
Did the waiver that had to be signed by the clients/tourists actually say, “OUR SUB IS NOT CERTIFIED”? And then—perhaps—go on to explain, in detail, the why it wasn’t certified and the risks involved?
(Am I being naive?)
And who would agree to embark on such a trip knowing these things?
One of the more interesting courses I took in college in 1973 was materials science. Back then silicon was the hot topic and presaged the acceleration of the computer revolution.
Only a few things have stuck and the microscopic changes in stressed materials, ie., metal fatigue, is one of them. The early De Havilland Comet hull disasters taught the aviation world about this. Now it is understood that materials, through stress cycles, are constantly, microscopically, reacting to stress.
And my God going from 15psi to 5000psi – any weakness of the most minute kind is going to fail. From what I’ve read, the submersible failed before reaching maximum depth. It seems it didn’t even need 5000psi to fail.
because the ceo was the scion of a founding founder, the passengers included a pakistani master of the universe, and a friend in good standing of both the dweeb king and the swiss bond villain,
a smaller craft see my guardian link had made it to the mariannas trench two years ago,
It appears that the head of the company was able to avoid the Titan having to be “certified “ because his submersible was “experimental.”
Hell, I’d think that because this submersible was an “experimental” one, it would be subject to all sorts of requirements— even more than the normal ones—before anyone, much less paying passengers—was allowed to do any kind of diving in it.
But, apparently that was not the case.
“Isn’t THIS precisely the question, though?
How did this guy get away with doing this?
Are there no official standards and regulations for this sort of thing?”
Why is it other people’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Why *should* there be “official standards and regulations for this sort of thing?” What business is it of the government, or society in general, what risks people choose to take in their lives?
Freedom means not just the freedom to make good choices and live a risk free life. Freedom means that we are also free to make stupid choices and take ridiculous risks if we so choose.
Freedom also comes with the responsibility to accept the consequences for those choices and actions.
“Did the waiver that had to be signed by the clients/tourists actually say, “OUR SUB IS NOT CERTIFIED”? And then—perhaps—go on to explain, in detail, the why it wasn’t certified and the risks involved?”
Have you watched the video uncovered where Mr. Rush said, very clearly and explicitly, exactly that? He was leafing through the waiver form reading parts of it and, yes…it explicitly said that his vessel was not certified by any agency or body, that it was experimental and that its use could result in death.
I don’t believe that any of them “deserved” to die for their folly. But with the possible exception of the 19 year old, I don’t feel “sorrow” over their deaths. They weren’t innocent, they chose to undertake those risks freely and willingly. The risks in an undertaking such as this are obvious and clear, there’s no amount of “but Rush insisted it was safe” that’s going to convince me they didn’t understand the dangers they were undertaking.
I have enormous empathy for their families and loved ones…especially the mother of the 19 year old. They are the innocent victims of this tragedy, not the people who willingly put their lives at risk for a thrill.
If the reports that the 19 year old only agreed to go on the voyage to please his father are true, then I do have some sympathy for him. He felt pressured and wasn’t mature enough to resist that pressure. While he was a legal adult and technically responsible for his decisions, he wasn’t willingly accepting the risks, he was pressured to do so and that is worthy of empathy.
This sits outside in Keyport if you want to see a real DSV up close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste_II_(Bathyscaphe)
Some “thrill” comes from “I’m going to die!!!” reflex combined with the knowledge that you’re not. There is, probably, no thrill in jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.
Roller coaster rides are supposed to be “scary”.
Sitting in a cramped compartment for hours, where you have to take turns stretching your legs, does not compare.
So, instead of thrill seekers, maybe they were Titanic freaks. Or just wanted another merit badge for the most inventive way to spend money. “TOP THIS, HUH?”
Three of the five in the imploded mini-sub were billionaires. They did no research on the vessel? They just got in and had the exit hatch bolted FROM THE OUTSIDE? Absent the implosion, which occurred at 9000 ft depth, if the Titan (aka BS “sub”), they had NO WAY to exit the vessel under any circumstances, could have run out of O2 while bobbing on the surface in fog.
I think these deaths were criminal and the passengers were extraordinary fools, foolishness which often accompanies wealth .
Amazing how much people “know” about the deceased, their character now that they are dead in, to them, an unexpected instant. What’s next, Rush was a suicidal psychopath?
I wonder if there are other unsafe vehicles in the world, and whether this will deter risk-takers from using them?
My guess is “Yes” and “For a while.”
@ OBH & huxley on the probability of nuclear armageddon, Harlan Ellison “believed that Nuclear War was less likely than presumed.”
Ellison, whose writing I admire tremendously, was very unlikely to have included this in his calculations.
https://notthebee.com/article/atomic-scientists-say-the-best-way-to-keep-nuclear-arsenals-secure-is-to-queer-them