You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Should someone actively encourage them to do risky stuff, charge them £200k to do it, then cut corners on the safety, be creative on the truth of how safe it is, so they can make a profit?
And no one be allowed to step in and say, you should probably have a harder think about this?
Having watched the various spins on these events put about in the press this week, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that, but yeah there was certainly an element of engineering risk taking going on.
At the same time there are actually limits to what you can realistically regulate, especially when you're talking about heading 2 miles beneath international waters. I'm not saying you couldn't regulate Deep sea submersibles and their operation, but
I think the problem stems from the growing tech-bro-ification of almost every technology based field.
To my mind it's time to worry when society elevates those who live the mantra of "Move fast and break things". It's all well and good when those potential breakages are just people's private data or some imaginary Billions of USD. But when physical safety is comprised in the name of some ill defined "progress" if you're asking your customers to sign a waiver with regards to their lives, a stronger examination of methods and motives is warranted (IMO).
The rest of the industry builds their subs based around a sphere
Reminds me of a Blackadder quote. A crew? Nautical opinion is divided on the matter, all the other captains say you need one, I say you don't.
I thought you were against regulation but here you are talking about how the fact that the sub didn’t conform to standards was a red flag. You’re against regulation but you want people to use regulations regulations as part of their decision making? I don’t think you’ve really thought this through.
There is a world of difference between standards and regulation of what is and isn't allowed in terms of something that isn't a mass consumer thing/service or is part of employment etc.
That this service didn't is a red flag that it's not a mass commercial train/flight/ferry service.
Back to investments ... it's the same thing is it regulated by the FSA/LSE etc. ?
If it is then you rely on their certification (plus or minus).. vs some CEO coming with an offer for a 49% share for a gold mine in some far flung unregulated part of the planet.
There's a whole thread showing how shonky people on here think this was (most of 20 pages) ... ^^^ how difficult is it for a billionaire to have found that out?
Can your normal commuter seriously pay for a risk assessment for the train they catch? Absolutely not...
It's a different ball park, its not even a ball park in the same city.
I've done SCUBA diving in Libya for example... and whilst never risk free I had some confidence in the people I was doing it with.
I also used to either fly in a janky plane from Djerba to Malta or take the ferry from Libya neither of which were anything like safe nor did I con myself into believing they were. The plane I used to take went down with everyone a few weeks after the last time I'd flown on it, can't say I was surprised but it was convenient.
There’s a whole thread showing how shonky people on here think this was (most of 20 pages) … ^^^ how difficult is it for a billionaire to have found that out?
Nobody on this thread has also had the monster sales pitch from the CEO to influence them. It must be ok if he’s going in it too yeah?
There is a world of difference between standards and regulation of what is and isn’t allowed in terms of something that isn’t a mass consumer thing/service or is part of employment etc.
That this service didn’t is a red flag that it’s not a mass commercial train/flight/ferry service.
This doesn’t make much sense. Are you saying large scale services etc should be regulated but small scale ones shouldn't?
So do you think it’s appropriate or think it should be legal for a company to be able to withhold information they have received from experts that states their product is a potential death trap and fundamentally flawed?
Which imo is quite a step beyond ‘it’s not been certified as it’s an experimental craft’
or in your world should the onus be on the tourist to trawl through the internal e-mail system of the company before setting off?
Nobody on this thread has also had the monster sales pitch from the CEO to influence them. It must be ok if he’s going in it too yeah?
I have worked on a number of projects involving ROV's and know how tempremenatal they can be. Although to be fair, nowadays there is one manufacturer who builds some very reliable systems.
The stuff I was involved in was relatively shallow but there are always some issues.
Another team in my company did a job at around 4000m and they had loads of problems.
To me, the consumer standard internal electronics, not just the games controller but some of the other stuff, would of been an issue.
Also, there doesn't appear to be any atmosphere monitoring, which would be a worry.
However, the red flag would of been the lack of Classification Society involvement. It's a pain in the arse at times but without you are uninsurable. Why would you want to go there?
The issue with this vessel wasn't that people didn't know if it was safe due to not being rated but that some people clearly knew it was unsafe.
It wasn't experimental, that implies the outcome is unknown but it wasn't unknown to everyone. It wasn't if it would fail in their minds it was when. They were right. They weren't right because they made a lucky guess but because their knowledge told them so
Risk normalisation? We’ve done x dives, so the next dive will be safe.
Which is fine in a metal hull well within its design limits. Alvin has done over 5000 dives now.
I watched a clip of the end caps being installed earlier. Think press fit BB with some epoxy bonding… if I was looking for a leak path, that’s where I’d be looking.
Alvin has done over 5000 dives and been re-hulled twice?
Alvin has done over 5000 dives and been re-hulled twice?
In order to increase the max depth and latterly a slightly larger sphere to increase drew from 2 to 3. Take a look at the tech on Alvin and similar and compare to a carbon fibre tube. Ask why they need to be constructed to that standard and Titan didn't have to be.
Spin
This doesn’t make much sense. Are you saying large scale services etc should be regulated but small scale ones shouldn’t?
You could put it like that.. it depends to an extent what you mean by "large scale services" and "regulation".
To me this is very obviously not a Thomas Cook family holiday to the Costa del Sol... or a scheduled ferry service.
Everest is up to 17 this year... despite regulation and by some metrics an Everest expedition is "large scale" but like a trip on Titan its not the 17:21 departing platform 4 either - both are a different world of "extreme adventure tourism".
The blackadder quote sums this up perfectly to me...
Nobody on this thread has also had the monster sales pitch from the CEO to influence them. It must be ok if he’s going in it too yeah?
So the billionaire guy had a MBA in marketing... how much better equipped could he be?
So do you think it’s appropriate or think it should be legal for a company to be able to withhold information they have received from experts that states their product is a potential death trap and fundamentally flawed?
Nope BUT I'd expect it. It's down to individuals to do their own on something like this.
Which imo is quite a step beyond ‘it’s not been certified as it’s an experimental craft’
or in your world should the onus be on the tourist to trawl through the internal e-mail system of the company before setting off?
In the case of "it's an experimental craft and we are descending to 4000m" then commission your own study or pass on the opportunity or just decide to take the risk.
We aren't talking about arranging an airport transfer here...
When I used to fly in a single engine'd Piper Lance across 400km of sea I and everyone on board accepted the risk was high.
Meeting the pilot "in the bar" before the flight was hardly a confidence booster but we did it anyway and its not for others to decide. Wasn't a mass tourist/transport flight .. we all knew it was shonky but sometimes you just say **** it if I die I die.
I watched a clip of the end caps being installed earlier. Think press fit BB with some epoxy bonding… if I was looking for a leak path, that’s where I’d be looking.
Wasn’t it the ti interface caps they were bonding then the end caps got attached to those.
I think the bloke I was listening to wasn’t that impressed bonding an un-controlled environment for temp/dust and untestable.
When I used to fly in a single engine’d Piper Lance across 400km of sea I and everyone on board accepted the risk was high.
but the plane will have gone through all manner of certifications in order to fly, no?
Beat me too it 🙂
Was it shonky thou ?
known design, service life,radio,transponder.
You could trip over walking to it and die but tbh a lot of people/rules were involved in making that plane do it’s job as safe as it could.
You could put it like that.. it depends to an extent what you mean by “large scale services” and “regulation”.
Its not me who's suggesting this it's you, so you need to say where you'd draw the line between what gets regulated and what doesn't.
I think there's a really sensible place to draw that line. It's the point where you start charging people for a service. As soon as money changes hands the relationship changes and there is corporate responsibility and some sort of regulation/industry standard makes sense.
To me this is very obviously not a Thomas Cook family holiday to the Costa del Sol… or a scheduled ferry service.
So again, where do you draw the line?
Its not me who’s suggesting this it’s you, so you need to say where you’d draw the line between what gets regulated and what doesn’t.
Fair point
I think there’s a really sensible place to draw that line. It’s the point where you start charging people for a service. As soon as money changes hands the relationship changes and there is corporate responsibility and some sort of regulation/industry standard makes sense.
So again, where do you draw the line?
I think it would be tragic if this sort of regulation ends people being able to have fun just because they are risking their lives.
I totally see why "charging people for a service" sounds logical but that's not the only vector.
At one end we have someone booking a trip to Morzine for a group of mates...
then we have a company renting chalets to MTBers or sure you can use my spare wheel/bike for a couple of beers
It all sounds innocuous until someone dies... and these Titan trips seem far far closer to the above or a group of mates clubbing together to climb K2 than Thomas Cook (did they even make a profit??)
When I used to fly in a single engine’d Piper Lance across 400km of sea I and everyone on board accepted the risk was high.
You understood the risks fully and accepted them. Which is fine. If it was a plane home-made by the pilot, which had not undergone any certification or testing, would you be quite as comfortable? The pilot is telling you he's made some trips beforehand and everything's been fine, so you should trust him...
It comes down to the level of informed consent you have as a paying tourist client. That instantly creates a higher duty of care. If, for example, I was offering mountain guiding to punters in the Alps, there is the expectation that my skills will be certified in some way, and that any equipment I'm relying on to keep you alive also is also a well-established design, certified for the job it's intended for, and well maintained.
It all sounds innocuous until someone dies… and these Titan trips seem far far closer to the above or a group of mates clubbing together to climb K2 than Thomas Cook (did they even make a profit??)
It was a completely commercial venture. The idea was to do it cheaper with more capacity in order to turn a profit.
Hence, a cylinder not a sphere, carbon fibre and not steel or titanium, a Logitech games controller and not a proper control panel and no class sign off.
I doubt they made a profit and it seems there costs were rising, the fares went from $250k to $500k. Although I wonder where break even point was, regards number of dives and passengers?
It all sounds innocuous until someone dies… and these Titan trips seem far far closer to the above or a group of mates clubbing together to climb K2 than Thomas Cook
Have you gone on their website and looked at the promo videos? It comes across very much as a business with a bit of window dressing to make it seem something other than just a jolly.
I think it would be tragic if this sort of regulation ends people being able to have fun just because they are risking their lives.
No one is saying you can’t go to the bottom of the ocean to look at a ship. You want to build your own sub, take all the risks, go for (the rest of) your life. It will be very expensive or very risky.
The second you turn it into a service, and selling it to people who aren’t directly involved with the project, that’s when you need to prove you aren’t being reckless with other peoples lives.
Won't it ultimately end up down to insurance companies? If any claims are made on life policies, then the insurers of the deceased will be looking to reclaim their loss from anyone deemed liable.
Whether they made a profit or not, the company was selling this trip for reward. It's not like the chap was doing it for fun & a few mates asked to tag along offering £kk to cover fuel costs.
Won’t it ultimately end up down to insurance companies? If any claims are made on life policies, then the insurers of the deceased will be looking to reclaim their loss from anyone deemed liable.
I doubt any insurer will be paying out on this.
4000m down in untested and uncertified equipment.
This morning I learned that Ocean Gate never turned off their social media accounts - they really should’ve 🤦♂️
Won’t it ultimately end up down to insurance companies?
Be interesting to see if
a)Oceangate was insured for this sort of event. Seems somewhat unlikely.
b)Whether the individuals life insurance covers this sort of activity.
No Insurer would have touched an unregulated and unregistered, untested vessel fullstop let alone at 4000m
To my mind it’s time to worry when society elevates those who live the mantra of “Move fast and break things”. It’s all well and good when those potential breakages are just people’s private data or some imaginary Billions of USD. But when physical safety is comprised in the name of some ill defined “progress” if you’re asking your customers to sign a waiver with regards to their lives, a stronger examination of methods and motives is warranted (IMO).
Agree with this. I work in IT where we adopt Agile working practises but worst case, a shop might not get a delivery it was expecting or a supplier might not get paid on time etc. For the same to be applied to something thats carrying fair paying passengers 4km to the bottom of the Atlantic is a bit different but then that said, they all signed disclaimers accepting that and the "fail fast" type message was there for all to see seemingly on their website... not something I'd want to read for a submarine company!
You understood the risks fully and accepted them. Which is fine.
My company security and flight maintenance crews and pilots from Veba some of whom I dived with all said it was a deathtrap and neither company would book the flight for you for liability you had to pay yourself and claim when you returned. Regardless of the state of the plane itself neither would fly personnel over 400km of water in a single engine plane. Veba operated Twin Otters inland...
Non of the investigation after was really a surprise either. FFS this is Malta and Tunisia where bribes can get anything or you remove restrictions on the commercial licenses using tippex and a photocopier.
Back when I went through Djerba often you could have a flight held and skip security for $100 US (though I did once get charged an extra pair of sunglasses)
If it was a plane home-made by the pilot, which had not undergone any certification or testing, would you be quite as comfortable? The pilot is telling you he’s made some trips beforehand and everything’s been fine, so you should trust him…
By that pilot (Carmel Bartolo) or by a competent expert?
Incidentally the registration was 9habu (I'm sure google will help)... loads of casting blame about but noone on that flight had any expectation it was in any way "safe" probably including the pilot.
Be interesting to see if
a)Oceangate was insured for this sort of event. Seems somewhat unlikely.
b)Whether the individuals life insurance covers this sort of activity.
Pretty much no and no I expect .... more red flags they chose to ignore.
My van insurer won't let me have a wood burning stove in the van ... (not that I actually want one) not a bad guide to how safe this would be.
Agree with this. I work in IT where we adopt Agile working practises but worst case, a shop might not get a delivery it was expecting or a supplier might not get paid on time etc. For the same to be applied to something thats carrying fair paying passengers 4km to the bottom of the Atlantic is a bit different but then that said, they all signed disclaimers accepting that and the “fail fast” type message was there for all to see seemingly on their website… not something I’d want to read for a submarine company!
that's the crux though isn't it... multiple "I acknowledge I might die" (not actually read it but it was reported one page had death mentioned 5?-6? times...
I guess the other side I hadn't considered yet is how we are inured to "you may die" messages.
DUB bottom bracket
SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS
You must read and understand the Safety Instructions document included with your product before proceeding with the installation. Improperly installed components are extremely dangerous and could result in severe and/or fatal injuries.
or by a competent expert?
Depends - do they have any form of certification to help me form an opinion on their competence? 🙂 (Not an MBA in Marketing).
"move fast and break things" worked well for spaceX, they just graduated beyond that phase well before putting humans in the payload
“move fast and break things” worked well for spaceX, they just graduated beyond that phase well before putting humans in the payload
Plus they still fell under regulation for some things, especially launches.
Can't help but feel that Rush looked at what Musk (and others) were doing successfully and saw himself in the same light. The difference being that SpaceX had the funds to develop in this way, learned valuable information from every launch/RUD and made changes for the next iteration while Rush just did his own thing and seemingly ignored what he was being told by those with more knowledge.
Depends – do they have any form of certification to help me form an opinion on their competence? 🙂
Hence YOU are free to choose do you risk your life on that sub/plane etc. based on YOUR choice of certificates and whatever other criteria YOU determine.
The disclaimer, read out by CBS correspondent David Pogue, read: “This experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma, or death.”
Assuming at that point you want to go ahead then you would in the case of a sub going to 4000m probably want to either look a bit deeper or just say "WFT"..
Assuming it had certification of some sort you'd still want to look a bit deeper than that.
A good proportion of certifications are really just marketing bollox... who would you trust most to service your suspension ... Jordi Cortes (who seems to have zero certification) or someone with a cytech qualification?
With the exception of the huge costs of the search and rescue efforts, which from the military side I suspect was used as a training exercise or an exercise in showing off who had the biggest or best kit, what is the problem with this?
If the mega rich want to play in experimental vehicles as long as it is their own lives they are risking what is the problem? There has been lots of hand wringing and comments about regulations and certification but who in their right minds is going to sign off a vehicle designed to resist pressures of 400bar as being a passenger transport vehicle, or if they are I suspect that their PI insurance would be moving so fast into the distance themselves from such certification to make it worthless.
I agree with most of the comments made about unwise engineering decisions that have already been made (or at least respect other people’s greater experience) but the people making the most noise on this subject are the sort of people who want mountain bikers to carry mountain rescue insurance, medical insurance, and third party insurance before we leave the front door.
I am jealous of someone having enough money to think about blowing so much on a joy ride but it doesn’t mean I want to stop them doing it unless they are putting people at risk who don’t have a choice in the matter.
the huge costs of the search and rescue efforts,
This was enough for me to think the whole concept was ill conceived. They didn't seem to take or heed the basic precautions on safety.
Behind the bastards podcast have just done part one on the guy.
It's an interesting listen, if you can bear the woke cackling mess BTB podcast is these days.
I'd guess all their life insurance policies were invalidated !
If the mega rich want to play in experimental vehicles as long as it is their own lives they are risking what is the problem? There has been lots of hand wringing and comments about regulations and certification but who in their right minds is going to sign off a vehicle designed to resist pressures of 400bar as being a passenger transport vehicle, or if they are I suspect that their PI insurance would be moving so fast into the distance themselves from such certification to make it worthless.
I agree with most of the comments made about unwise engineering decisions that have already been made (or at least respect other people’s greater experience) but the people making the most noise on this subject are the sort of people who want mountain bikers to carry mountain rescue insurance, medical insurance, and third party insurance before we leave the front door.
The Engineering/science behind pressure vessel design has barely changed for 100 years. i've visited a number of vessel manufacturers in both the UK and abroad who would have the skills and experience to build a suitable pressure chamber, however it would have plan approval from someone like Lloyds before they cut any metal, and the materials would all have the right certification/traceability (typically 3.2 for metals)
As for 'who would insure it' its a good question, but all the other manned deep see vehicles (of which there are around 10 currently operational in the world) would have been designed to recognised standards and will also be insured.
I've made a few comments on this, but only because the gung-ho attitude to their approach has annoyed me a bit when the 'right way' of doing it is well established - just expensive and a regulatory minefield.
Some good information here about how it all happened
This is really interesting.
Gets very close up to the sub and shows some of the earlier issues.
Interesting that they were using a proper support ship during the 1st and 2nd years, not that heap of 60 year old junk in 2023.
A good proportion of certifications are really just marketing bollox…
Across all industries possibly, but in safety critical environments they’re worth having. You been on an airliner recently?
Would people prefer shiiite half arsed certification with gaps a bus can be driven through and where there's been a UK Gov pushed race to the bottom ... bonfire of the red tape etc etc..remember ? You know - the sort that leads eventually to Grenfell.
Safety in shipping is already appallingly lax - the race to the bottom (no pun intended) has already been won by countries like Belize and Panama. Flags.of convenience. Seems like the same regulation dodging in this case as it was in 'international waters'
Seems like the same regulation dodging in this case as it was in ‘international waters’
That and because it was small scale no one seems to have paid it attention.
The USA for example enforces standards on a lot of the cruise liners by virtue of the fact they want to dock in the USA.
If they and Canada decided to pass some laws regarding submersible safety for trips leaving from their ports it would seriously hamper anyone wanting to dive on the Titanic who didnt want to follow them.
If they and Canada decided to pass some laws regarding submersible safety for trips leaving from their ports it would seriously hamper anyone wanting to dive on the Titanic who didnt want to follow them.
The Canadians are bound to do this.
They already insisted that the ship had to be Canadian flagged to operate out of St Johns. That's why Oceangate ended up chartering the cheapest Canadian flagged ship they could find.
They could try and use another Country but the transit times would make it financially unviable.
Cuba ?
Supposition that others will blindly follow the brave and unfortunate souls whose journey to the bottom of the sea ended in tragedy.
Dont think that there will be a long queue for the next trip. However, some canny regulation regarding deep submersible craft lauch boats may well curb the enthusiasm of the next set of intrepid adventurers.
The next trip will be many years from now anyway, unless going on a proven craft (or there's something else in the pipeline that we've not seen). So the approach, from both provider and regulator, might be quite different
Across all industries possibly, but in safety critical environments they’re worth having. You been on an airliner recently?
I agree, the problems are perhaps :
the bandwagon and
when they are compulsory vs voluntary and
who they affect and their ability to determine of something is reasonably safe (that all one criteria)
I make a distinction between a Scheduled flight or Thomas Cook Charter and Titan or an expedition adventure.
Ultimately it would have saved 17 lives by banning assent of Everest just this year... but don't people have the right to undertake risky adventures?
Ultimately it would have saved 17 lives by banning assent of Everest just this year… but don’t people have the right to undertake risky adventures?
That's a thriving industry, makes a lot of money for the local economy, that's why it continues.
The Canadians would of spent a lot of money on the SAR and they are now spending it on the recovery. They will probably spend money on the enquiry. Why would they want the ball ache?
All they have to do is stop any vessel operating subs without Classification approval from using their ports.
Besides, I don't see a lot of people queueing up to go down the "innovation" route.
There are only a handful of manned subs in existence that can descend 4000m and all of these have been classed.
Gobuchal
All they have to do is stop any vessel operating subs without Classification approval from using their ports.
Which moves the problem elsewhere... unless you think the Titanic was the real driver in which case more expensive?
Besides, I don’t see a lot of people queueing up to go down the “innovation” route.
Well, exactly... from what I've seen far more people said no thanks to Titan than went on it.
Which moves the problem elsewhere… unless you think the Titanic was the real driver in which case more expensive?
Not sure what you mean?
There are not many deep water dive sites that stimulate enough interest to make someone pay a lot of money to visit, for whatever reason. The Titanic is iconic. It is incredibly expensive to visit, even by the cheapest means possible, which is now no longer available. If you had to use a port which is not in the US or Canada, then the cost would increase significantly.
I can't think of many locations that generate this level of interest?
Besides, in the recent past, a lot of documentaries were made by Cameron and Ballard, which utilised the Russian Mir subs. At the time, they were relatively cheap to hire, the Russians had them and needed the hard currency. They are now both retired. So the remaining options are incredibly expensive.
Not sure what you mean?
Either they dive somewhere else or its more expensive.
There are not many deep water dive sites that stimulate enough interest to make someone pay a lot of money to visit, for whatever reason. The Titanic is iconic.
Sure but its just another shipwreck you'll barely see much of above watching footage from a SUV really...
It seems to have the element of being famous and dangerous so ideal Instabanger stuff for selfies.
I can't help thinking the Caymans would be happy registering vessels and hosting dives to the Cayman trench.
Requote:
There are only a handful of manned subs in existence that can descend 4000m and all of these have been classed.
As someone else said... this has a pretty low non financial barrier compared to climbing in the death zone (sic).
Kinda reminds me of people who take photo's at the top of specific bike/ski trails...
https://www.banfflakelouise.com/blog/5-most-extreme-ski-runs-banff-national-park
I don't understand how you can both not get it...
Sure but its just another shipwreck you’ll barely see much of above watching footage from a SUV really…
... and then get it...
It seems to have the element of being famous and dangerous so ideal Instabanger stuff for selfies.
... in consecutive paragraphs. 🙂
Thing for me is, how would you tell if you were really looking at the Titanic at a depth of 4000 metres, or just locked in a barrel watching footage of Titanic on a monitor and shelling your money out to a fraudster? The experience would be exactly the same so why not just watch a video of Titanic and save your money for something else?
A good proportion of certifications are really just marketing bollox…
Whilst that is true it should ring alarm bells if someone can't even get those.
Ultimately it would have saved 17 lives by banning assent of Everest just this year… but don’t people have the right to undertake risky adventures?
I'd say yes they do - provided they actually understand the risks, have cooling off periods after understanding all the facts etc. Personally I'm not sure "tourist" trips to Everest should be encouraged - if you want to go to Everest (or Ttitanic) then do the groundwork to plan the logistics, risks mitigations, select and buy kit, find the best sherpas etc yourself as a genuine participant in the adventure rather than a passenger. Here's another example with potentially high risk: I can go buy a yacht - say £25K would get you something squalid but seaworthy. I can choose to sail that boat across the Atlantic - not qualifications or certifications required. I can even chose to enter it in a trans ocean race (when the race organiser will expect me to meet their safety standards, but for that budget its probably just about possible if I shop carefully). I can take someone with me on that trip who is a friend and fellow sailor and its a joint adventure. I can get together with someone else (or a group of people) to buy the boat and its a joint adventure. Or I could rent a berth on my boat to someone with zero experience, to come as a passenger on the adventure of a lifetime for £5k and then we get into dodgy territory. In fact I could realise that there's enough people looking for adventures of a lifetime and constantly sell tickets on my cross ocean adventures, and dismiss any safety criticism as people who weren't understanding the adventure we were seeking and the boundaries we are trying to break. Marketed to look professional I could easily be milking mummies and daddies looking to add something to their offspring's CV and midlife crisis folk right up until the moment either something goes wrong or a regulator comes to ask what certification the boat and its crew have etc.
You can't take fare paying passengers on a yacht without insurance and certification for the craft and certification for the skipper.
@winston - thats the point I was trying to make - there's clearly still plenty of opportunity for people to genuinely go on sailing adventures but the uninitiated are protected from commercial shysters making up their own version of safe.
@thols - there was a recent Tom Scott video on youtube which with the right model in the pond would give you a very similar experience! Having zero desire to go to the titanic I pretty much agree with you. BUT I can see why people will pay more for the real thing - its about the scarcity of the supply that makes the price people will pay so high.
there’s clearly still plenty of opportunity for people to genuinely go on sailing adventures but the uninitiated are protected from commercial shysters making up their own version of safe.
With one of the races where you pay to be crew the authorities stepped in a couple of years back and required them to have two professionals on board rather than just the captain. Since several incidents had occurred due to the captain simply being overworked and overtired.
Overworked, overtired and overboard...?
A good proportion of certifications are really just marketing bollox…
Whilst that is true it should ring alarm bells if someone can’t even get those.
I would disagree in the case of the DNV GL stuff and their like, for high pressure systems, which this basically was.
I don’t understand how you can both not get it…
… and then get it…
People are allowed to take selfies... its not YOUR concern or mine if they die doing it, its that simple.
Anyone who wants to stop someone doing something because it's too dangerous in their opinion needs to be prepared to die to stop them.
wionston
You can’t take fare paying passengers on a yacht without insurance and certification for the craft and certification for the skipper.
Of course you can .. have you ever been to developing nations?
Yet the unregulated commercial tourist subs still get / expect all that rescue resource when things go wrong, despite not having done the work to show the vessel is safe.
Which ones are those? I know of tourist subs that cruise coral reefs, but I know of no other extreme deep-water exploration vehicles, other than those used by Cameron and those who’ve gone down to Challenger Deep. And nobody will get closer to the bottom of Challenger Deep than Titan did to Titanic with that level of shonkyness, that’s a fact.
Here’s the details of Deepsea Challenger, for example, which weighs 11.8 tonnes is 24ft long, and its test depth was 36,000 ft. The pilot sphere, emphasis on ‘sphere’, can only carry one person, that person being Cameron. Nobody else was put at risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger
Just showing on the BBC News the Titan wreckage being brought ashore.
@stevextc Obviously but we are not talking about water taxis in Bangladesh are we. Ocean gate is a US based company and was operating out of Canada. Clearly the point we are all making is that Stockton Rush would have needed more certification had he been sailing those paying guests in a 40ft yacht across the Atlantic rather than diving to the bottom of it which is crazy.
The pics of the wreckage seem quite telling. The titanium end cap that had the viewing portal in was being winched using a sling through where the portal should have been. It’s possible it was removed afterward or ejected as artefact of the implosion, but both seem somewhat unlikely.
Not sure I’d be so fast there. With the window in place the smooth, round, heavy object would be a pain in the arse to lift. Removing the window would make it really easy/safe
Not sure I’d be so fast there. With the window in place the smooth, round, heavy object would be a pain in the arse to lift. Removing the window would make it really easy/safe
Thought there was an investigation going to happen. Unlikely they would destroy evidence intentionally just to facilitate lifting.
Nothing to say the window was destroyed. Not that it would be easy to destroy. Might be able to undo the clamp and remove it fairly easily when it’s not under pressure.
I’m just saying it’s a lot to jump to that conclusions when the wreckage is barely even dry
Who mentioned anything about the window being destroyed.
<span style="text-align: right;">Evidence being destroyed doesn't mean the window need be destroyed. Just the act of removal could remove key clues. </span>
It’s possible it was removed afterward or ejected as artefact of the implosion, but both seem somewhat unlikely.
Why? There was an implosion - have none of you ever put a cap onto a Pringle container and stomped on it? Have you never seen what happened?
It seems perfectly obvious that at the moment of collapse the observation dome would pop out of its housing, as it’s the least solidly fixed item, although the entire event was over within a fraction of a second. The titanium domes would separate from the main carbon cylinder at almost the same time because that section would start to crumple causing the domes, which are a lot more rigid once the cylinder crumples, to break away. It’s also possible that the Perspex dome was the initial point of failure, in which case it likely shattered into a number of pieces.
Either way, even though I’m no engineer, I can see just how many ways the design fails add up. I’m old enough to remember Trieste, the first bathyscape to go down into the Marianas Trench, and the passengers were in a sphere slung underneath the main buoyancy body, and it was pointed out then that a sphere was the only safe shape for crew.
have none of you ever put a cap onto a Pringle container and stomped on it? Have you never seen what happened?
Surely when you stomp on a Pringles container, the pressure inside vastly exceeds the pressure outside. That is not what happened here.
Once you pop...
Once you pop…
🤷
Who mentioned anything about the window being destroyed.
I’m sorry you caught me off guard by using the word destroyed in relation to the window assembly.
If they have removed it I’m sure it’ll have been done in a way that won’t affect the outcome of the investigation. I would guess that if the window has gone in it won’t make much difference anyway as everyone knows it wasn’t rated to the depth. The lack of photos of a big carbon tube still makes me think it’s been the problem
I don't blame the geezer from profiteering from these people with more money than sense.
Obviously he's a dick, but there will always be people happy to take money from rich folks.
No one made these millionaires sign up. If they were smart enough they would have done their own risk assessment.
What pisses me off of the money spent on a pointless rescue mission whilst there are thousands of folk song each week/month in the Med trying to better themselves.
Back in April we were parked up at a beach in Spain. Quite remote in the edge of a national park. Several times we saw groups making at ashore. Had a group walk past is with this kid, maybe 8-10 yo asking in "Monsieur, de l'eau, s'il vous plaît. eau." his family behind him calling him back. He was wet up to the waist, freezing cold and had probably spent the last ten hours on a small boat to make it to Europe from Africa.
He was one of the lucky ones. **** these folk with thousands to spunk on some vanity cruise.
He was one of the lucky ones. **** these folk with thousands to spunk on some vanity cruise.
Off-topic but when it comes to a small kid in a boat what is the difference between people paying to take a sub to gaze at the Titanic and you spunking thousands to buy a van to travel around Spain?
Lots of reasons to object to the cost of search and recovery but the “they have more money than me so they must be evil” attitude that is the essence of the STW forum is getting tiring, not least because everyone is very quiet about e-bikes costing £12k+, or the ongoing craze of coughing up £60k on a VW tin tent.
What pisses me off of the money spent on a pointless rescue mission whilst there are thousands of folk song each week/month in the Med trying to better themselves.
seems no less pointless than picking some random dude off a rock in the atlantic cos he thought it would be fun to hang out there for a bit. At least the sub people weren't wasting resources in this country