Titanic tourist submersible goes missing

[sillygoosegirl]

Jun 21, 2023 10:29:56 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:20:07 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

I spent way too much time going on the rabbit hole on this story last night, but that detail comes from an article that interviewed someone who’s actually done this journey with OceanGate before. He said there are sandwiches and water onboard but people are encouraged not to eat because there’s just a rudimentary toilet that’s separated only by a privacy curtain. And my takeaway? As crazy as this story is, these are not the first idiots to do this.

I know the answer to karinothing ’s question too — France is sending an underwater exploration robot but it’s not expected to reach the area until Wednesday evening. Which just drives home the point that this little homemade contraption had no business doing this journey. This isn’t technology that countries just, like, have at the ready.

Thank you. I guess in my head I assumed that the companies out there had an unmanned sub waiting to go too. Not for rescue purpose but she research, I guess? I don't know. I thought i read that these big 250K fees often subsidize a lot of actual research that is being done there. Like real scientist work in conjunction with these private tour companies. But I don't really get how this all works. Thanks for the insight too sillygoosegirl. I obviously agree with you! 

The thing that blows my mind the most is the lack of a locator beacon. Even if nothing ever goes wrong why wouldn't the folks at home based on the ship want to track everything. 

If you can't Tweet from down there, what is even the point??

[deadwing]

Jun 21, 2023 10:20:07 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jun 21, 2023 4:35:06 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

I have no source because a friend told me, but she said that they were instructed not to eat prior to leaving so nobody would have to poop.

So if they are bobbing around somewhere awaiting death they will be hungry while they wait!

I spent way too much time going on the rabbit hole on this story last night, but that detail comes from an article that interviewed someone who’s actually done this journey with OceanGate before. He said there are sandwiches and water onboard but people are encouraged not to eat because there’s just a rudimentary toilet that’s separated only by a privacy curtain. And my takeaway? As crazy as this story is, these are not the first idiots to do this.

I know the answer to karinothing ’s question too — France is sending an underwater exploration robot but it’s not expected to reach the area until Wednesday evening. Which just drives home the point that this little homemade contraption had no business doing this journey at those depths. This isn’t technology that countries just, like, have at the ready.

Every detail I read about this story seems crazier than the last.  I was thinking about what a PP said earlier that the passengers were encouraged not to eat before the voyage to reduce the likelihood that someone would need to poop on board... and that got me wondering if there was any water available to the passengers if they are still alive.  

[pumpkin]

Jun 21, 2023 10:03:48 GMT -5 HRH Queen Dick I said:

Jun 21, 2023 7:40:18 GMT -5 kath16 said:

this is very far from the point, but in addition to all the reasons already mentioned about NOT doing this... there is only one small window? like, in the absolute best case scenario, you go through all that for $250K to what, take turns looking out the window to see the wreckage?

people have too much money.

Actually not even that. From a NYT piece: *the viewport that lets passengers see outside the craft was only certified to work in depths of up to 1,300 meters.
That is far less than would be necessary for trips to the Titanic, which is nearly 4,000 meters below the ocean’s surface.*

Yeah yeah yeah those poor souls but this is genuinely the most insane thing I've ever heard of someone doing, !voluntarily! and paying for the privilege to boot.

This event should be the example of "more money than sense" in the big book of idioms.

This has me even more confused. So if they can’t see out the window when they get down there, how do they view anything and what’s the point of going if you can’t see anything?

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2023 10:41:47 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:03:48 GMT -5 HRH Queen Dick I said:

Actually not even that. From a NYT piece: *the viewport that lets passengers see outside the craft was only certified to work in depths of up to 1,300 meters.
That is far less than would be necessary for trips to the Titanic, which is nearly 4,000 meters below the ocean’s surface.*

Yeah yeah yeah those poor souls but this is genuinely the most insane thing I've ever heard of someone doing, !voluntarily! and paying for the privilege to boot.

This event should be the example of "more money than sense" in the big book of idioms.

This has me even more confused. So if they can’t see out the window when they get down there, how do they view anything and what’s the point of going if you can’t see anything?

I think there are maybe cameras and monitors? But if you’d be viewing everything through a camera/monitor anyway, why not just stay on the surface and send an unmanned sub?

[lpcats]

Jun 21, 2023 10:41:47 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:03:48 GMT -5 HRH Queen Dick I said:

Actually not even that. From a NYT piece: *the viewport that lets passengers see outside the craft was only certified to work in depths of up to 1,300 meters.
That is far less than would be necessary for trips to the Titanic, which is nearly 4,000 meters below the ocean’s surface.*

Yeah yeah yeah those poor souls but this is genuinely the most insane thing I've ever heard of someone doing, !voluntarily! and paying for the privilege to boot.

This event should be the example of "more money than sense" in the big book of idioms.

This has me even more confused. So if they can’t see out the window when they get down there, how do they view anything and what’s the point of going if you can’t see anything?

I think what this means is that it's certified for water pressure at 1300 meters, any deeper and it could blow out.  If it was still intact when they reached the Titanic, they should still be able to see out of it.

[AAM2012]

Jun 20, 2023 10:53:37 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Jun 20, 2023 9:08:04 GMT -5 sent said:

The ocean is a terrifying place. How are there no regulations for what kinds of vehicles can go underwater especially going 2 miles underwater!

Regulations usually develop in reaction to stuff. Most people don't have access to the kind of engineering needed to go 2 miles underwater, so there is no need to regulate it. It's kind of... self-regulating via the Darwin award nomination potential.

Plus, who would regulate it, especially in international waters.

[litebright]

Jun 21, 2023 10:41:47 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:03:48 GMT -5 HRH Queen Dick I said:

Actually not even that. From a NYT piece: *the viewport that lets passengers see outside the craft was only certified to work in depths of up to 1,300 meters.
That is far less than would be necessary for trips to the Titanic, which is nearly 4,000 meters below the ocean’s surface.*

Yeah yeah yeah those poor souls but this is genuinely the most insane thing I've ever heard of someone doing, !voluntarily! and paying for the privilege to boot.

This event should be the example of "more money than sense" in the big book of idioms.

This has me even more confused. So if they can’t see out the window when they get down there, how do they view anything and what’s the point of going if you can’t see anything?

I think the point is that the viewport was not rated to be SAFE at that depth. I don't think it's like you suddenly can't see out of it. One guy who had done this says that the passengers take turns looking out of the clear window/passive viewing porthole.

 But it's essentially a hole in the side of the ship that is not officially certified/rated (by its manufacturer, or whoever was doing the rating) to withstand the pressure at that depth. It's a potential weak point when you are surrounded by unimaginable pressure and any weak point could be the difference between life and death. 

Obviously the submersible has made the trip up and down to Titanic a few times and the viewport has held. But it's a risk that OceanGate was okay with -- increased risk being preferred over increased cost of actually paying for something built/rated to the depth. 

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 21, 2023 10:47:32 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:41:47 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

This has me even more confused. So if they can’t see out the window when they get down there, how do they view anything and what’s the point of going if you can’t see anything?

I think there are maybe cameras and monitors? But if you’d be viewing everything through a camera/monitor anyway, why not just stay on the surface and send an unmanned sub?

I read something earlier that said essentially this, but also that they'd almost undoubtedly get better footage from what's already out there, like on YouTube and such.

[waverly]

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2023 11:42:40 GMT -5 waverly said:

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

I imagine that there must be regulations regarding taking paying passengers. Like commerce regulations or NTSB regulations?

[wanderingback]

Jun 21, 2023 11:42:40 GMT -5 waverly said:

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

They’ve already said who is on the vessel. I don’t think it’s all US citizens but don’t quote me. If you Google I’m sure an article will come up.

[goldengirlz]

Jun 21, 2023 11:42:40 GMT -5 waverly said:

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

This comes up a lot with cruise ships actually, and the short answer is that it’s not clear cut. I read a horrifying story recently about the rise in sexual assaults on cruises and how hard they are the prosecute because of jurisdictional issues.

www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/cruise-ship-crimes-laws.html

OceanGate is a U.S. company, headquartered in Washington state, but the ship departed from Canada. I believe only the CEO is a U.S. citizen. Our local news is reporting he’s from a “prominent family” in San Francisco (I know, shocking. Hubris seems to be in the water here.)

In case anyone cares to read about him: www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/missing-titanic-submersible-ceo-sf-family-18162447.php

[UMaineTeach]

So, 3 of the 5 were thrill seeking adventurers who had the knowledge and credentials to know better than to do this without any basic safety measures in a shoddy machine.

But they did it anyway and brought along 2 others.

[smock]

Why is it always rich men doing idiotic things that require search and rescue? Couldn't they pick up a nice hobby like pilates or wine tasting?

[campermom]

www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8JfKH8e/

This was the craziest visual of the depth of where it was traveling

[waverly]

Jun 21, 2023 12:22:14 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jun 21, 2023 11:42:40 GMT -5 waverly said:

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

This comes up a lot with cruise ships actually, and the short answer is that it’s not clear cut. I read a horrifying story recently about the rise in sexual assaults on cruises and how hard they are the prosecute because of jurisdictional issues.

www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/cruise-ship-crimes-laws.html

OceanGate is a U.S. company, headquartered in Washington state, but the ship departed from Canada. I believe only the CEO is a U.S. citizen. Our local news is reporting he’s from a “prominent family” in San Francisco (I know, shocking. Hubris seems to be in the water here.)

In case anyone cares to read about him: www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/missing-titanic-submersible-ceo-sf-family-18162447.php

Crimes definitely are more of a gray area.  It sounds like for the cruise ship itself there are some regulations and inspections.  www.transportation.gov/mission/safety/passenger-cruise-ship-information

[InBetweenDays]

Jun 21, 2023 11:42:40 GMT -5 waverly said:

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

The company is based out of Everett, WA.


www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/oceangate-stockton-rush-explored-wa-waters-before-titanic-expeditions/

[DotAndBuzz]

I am having a hard time getting past the fact that they basically drive this thing with a gaming controller, but
1) can't fucking OPEN IT from the inside, and
2) didn't think that *maybe* it might be good to know where the FUCK IT IS IN THE OCEAN, and have no way, whatsoever, of tracking the location. I mean, people take better care of their checked luggage just by tossing an air tag in there when they board a plane, and this thing was set adrift in the fucking OCEAN. With 5 souls on board.

[lahoagie]

How do beacons and tracking devices work down in the ocean? There is no GPS or satellite down there, right? How do we track submarines? I get if the submersible popped up in the middle of the ocean a beacon would be a must, just trying to figure out how it would work down on the ocean floor.

[mala]

Jun 21, 2023 13:10:49 GMT -5 lahoagie said:

How do beacons and tracking devices work down in the ocean? There is no GPS or satellite down there, right? How do we track submarines? I get if the submersible popped up in the middle of the ocean a beacon would be a must, just trying to figure out how it would work down on the ocean floor.

Very, very poorly. A tracking device down below the ocean is very difficult to get to work well at the depths the submersible was going, which makes it expensive, which is probably why it didn't have one. The fact that it doesn't have a tracker for when it's at the surface is just criminally stupid IMO.

[aurora]

Jun 21, 2023 13:10:49 GMT -5 lahoagie said:

How do beacons and tracking devices work down in the ocean? There is no GPS or satellite down there, right? How do we track submarines? I get if the submersible popped up in the middle of the ocean a beacon would be a must, just trying to figure out how it would work down on the ocean floor.

I've been wondering about this. Commercial emergency tracking devices like EPIRBs are ubiquitous on boats (required on many) and cost nothing compared to the vessel. There must be a scientific reason they don't have one of they really don't, like for example the transmissions can't be received through so much water or the device would fail at those pressures. I don't know the actual reason, but these seem plausible.

ETA or I could have waited a minute for mala's post.

[goldengirlz]

Jun 21, 2023 12:41:24 GMT -5 waverly said:

Jun 21, 2023 12:22:14 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

This comes up a lot with cruise ships actually, and the short answer is that it’s not clear cut. I read a horrifying story recently about the rise in sexual assaults on cruises and how hard they are the prosecute because of jurisdictional issues.

www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/cruise-ship-crimes-laws.html

OceanGate is a U.S. company, headquartered in Washington state, but the ship departed from Canada. I believe only the CEO is a U.S. citizen. Our local news is reporting he’s from a “prominent family” in San Francisco (I know, shocking. Hubris seems to be in the water here.)

In case anyone cares to read about him: www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/missing-titanic-submersible-ceo-sf-family-18162447.php

Crimes definitely are more of a gray area.  It sounds like for the cruise ship itself there are some regulations and inspections.  www.transportation.gov/mission/safety/passenger-cruise-ship-information

True, although 1) this vessel almost certainly doesn’t qualify as a cruise ship so there’s probably some gray area over what regulations it needed to comply with and 2) it didn’t set sail from a U.S. port which according to what you linked is how the Coast Guard determines jurisdiction.

[felicity]

Jun 21, 2023 11:42:40 GMT -5 waverly said:

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

I believe that I saw something that said the area of the ocean that the sub went down fell under the US jurisdiction. I don't think it has anything to do with who is on board.

[waverly]

goldengirlz , All I was saying was regulation was possible. Not getting into super specific details here. Canada, I am sure also regulates their ports.

[zelda25]

Jun 21, 2023 12:55:44 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

I am having a hard time getting past the fact that they basically drive this thing with a gaming controller, but
1) can't fucking OPEN IT from the inside, and
2) didn't think that *maybe* it might be good to know where the FUCK IT IS IN THE OCEAN, and have no way, whatsoever, of tracking the location. I mean, people take better care of their checked luggage just by tossing an air tag in there when they board a plane, and this thing was set adrift in the fucking OCEAN. With 5 souls on board.

On top of all that ^^, even if they can get it to "surface," it won't surface entirely, and since it's painted white and blue, rescuers won't be able to see it. Since the ocean is, ya know...blue and white.

[redheadbaker]

Jun 21, 2023 12:37:00 GMT -5 campermom said:

www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8JfKH8e/

This was the craziest visual of the depth of where it was traveling

This is the same thing as the video linked on the first page of this thread.

[aurora]

Ok, I Googled, and if this article is true then the lack of emergency beacon was simple hubris.

www.thedailybeast.com/missing-titanic-sub-plagued-by-a-long-history-of-deadly-safety-issues

This is such a basic and essential item for nearly any sea voyage that it calls into question the decision-making ability of Rush and the company at large. Rush would later dismissively tell CBS that there was a limit to the amount of safety measures these vessels should have.

“You know, there’s a limit,” he told the broadcaster. “At some point, safety is just pure waste. I mean if you don’t just want to be safe, don’t get out of bed. Don’t get in your car. Don’t do anything. At some point, you’re going to take some risk and it really is a risk-reward question. I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules.”

Unbelievable.

[sent]

Jun 21, 2023 11:42:40 GMT -5 waverly said:

The Coast Guard is leading the rescue which leads me to believe this is a U.S. company with U.S. citizens on board. This is an assumption, I didn't research it yet. Due to the money being spent on the rescue and the fact that the company is based in a country, I bet they could regulate from the home base country even if they then go into international waters.

Cruise ships are all based out of the Bahamas or somewhere, but US resources are used when US citizens are in trouble (I presume).

[penguingrrl]

Jun 21, 2023 13:56:20 GMT -5 aurora said:

Ok, I Googled, and if this article is true then the lack of emergency beacon was simple hubris.

www.thedailybeast.com/missing-titanic-sub-plagued-by-a-long-history-of-deadly-safety-issues

This is such a basic and essential item for nearly any sea voyage that it calls into question the decision-making ability of Rush and the company at large. Rush would later dismissively tell CBS that there was a limit to the amount of safety measures these vessels should have.

“You know, there’s a limit,” he told the broadcaster. “At some point, safety is just pure waste. I mean if you don’t just want to be safe, don’t get out of bed. Don’t get in your car. Don’t do anything. At some point, you’re going to take some risk and it really is a risk-reward question. I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules.”

Unbelievable.

Whoa! He’s quite the asshole. And now the militaries of multiple countries are trying to save him because of the lack of basic safety. I hope the company is forced to pay for these rescue efforts.

[klingklang77]

youtu.be/tc7M0bgoHz4

This channel is pretty good about Titanic stuff and his updates are pretty good.