Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the implosion?

If there was a crack somewhere or a material fatigue issue that let in a small bit of water does that mean that it'll compromise the rest of the structure so fast that it won't withstand the water pressure down there even with a tiny crack so it'll just collapse on itself? Or does it mean something entirely different?

And then can we assume that their bodies wouldn't withstand it either? Like there wouldn't be intact bodies to find? Someone asked that at the briefing and the CG really deferred re harsh conditions - was he trying to say there aren't bodies to retrieve?

An implosion isn't a water leak - it's a pressure thing. You're think of a crack that's letting water seep in or something. When the pressure differential inside and outside a structure is so vastly different (as is the case 12,500 feet below sea level), the structure, in this case, the sub, basically folds in on itself. Think of a Capri Sun that has no more juice in it. Blow it full of air and then suck all the air out by the straw. It just imploded. Now magnify that a million times and that's what happened here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For anyone who wants a recap, the Daily podcast today is a good summary of the structural issues with this submersible. They used cheaper materials to make the craft and many others had refused to ride in it.

Why would anyone choose to ride in this if better options were available? Were the better options $1mil/ticket?

The best built are being used by governments or for research. It’s just like wanting to ride in a fighter jet- you aren’t getting state of the art, you’re getting east bloc surplus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to be rude but if there were even small parts of bodies to collect - which could be identified by DNA as belonging to a certain person and their families could then bury - wouldn't there be marine life out there?

There is marine life crawling on the Titanic. If you watch some of the videos you'll see some crabs (I assume they're crabs, they look like crabs but perhaps they're an entirely different species) on parts of the ship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry they all died and feel so bad for their families, especially the remaining parent of that 19 yo.

I am stunned that anyone would pay $250,000 to travel in a vessel lit up inside by a glow stick.

Eh, when you're filthy rich you tend to be a bit gullible and don't practice their due diligence as thoroughly as they should.
Look at all the rich people who fell for Elizabeth Holmes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I am genuinely sad for the 19yr old.

sad because he’s younger than the rest? It is sad, sad that all the men died. He wasn’t a baby. God, some people have kids at 19, they have jobs, responsibilities. Why are we acting like he was 9? If his father was abusive and forced him into the crap device, then that’s concerning, but that’s not the case here. Do we feel this bad if a 19 year old has a motorcycle accident while riding with his dad? Or if a 19 year old dies while sky diving with Dad? I feel equal sorrow for everyone. The dad was only 48, he was very young also.

Yeah I mean it struck me that the dad's own dad is in his late 70s/early 80s. That man lost a son and a grandson.

I feel for the families. But yeah, a 48 year old has potentially another 50 years of life, even the oldest man was 77 years young. Sadly, you can die at any age. These men were robbed of life, they made one bad decision, like many people do, and that’s it, show’s over.

They weren't robbed; they made a choice (minus the kid). Robbed is being murdered, killed by a drunk driver, plane crash etc. Signing a waiver that notes "death" in it four times is a choice.

I get it. This didn't happen TO THEM. They did it - they chose to go down there in a carbon fiber mini van after signing waivers noting death. So yeah terrible decision. But just because someone makes terrible decisions doesn't mean they deserve to die.

I wasn't challenging if they deserved to die. I was challenging the word "robbed." They gambled with their lives and lost the bet. That's not how I define robbed. Rob is when something is taken from you without consent. They literally signed their lives away.

But you can say that about motor cycle riders, bike riders even, rock climbers, etc. Robbed, gambled with their lives, it’s semantics, either way many have succeeded at what they were trying to accomplish. It’s a shame, I feel they were robbed. They trusted that they would survive like the others before them.

It's not semantics. If you go to the casino and gamble away $1,000 and use the argument that you were "robbed" because your sister/cousin/brother all won when they gambled, no one will have sympathy for you. It's called "you gambled and lost," but you were not robbed.

Look up the definition.

When you give something away while clothed in your right mind, you did it with consent. Being robbed is without consent. They voluntarily locked themselves in a tube with no way out and paid a company 250k with no guarantees of their safe return.

I know the meaning of robbed, thank you. I feel that they were jipped, is that better? A bad decision doesn’t mean they weren’t worthy of a good healthy long life. They made a bad decision and it robbed them of life.

No, an offensive term is not a better example.

Cheated. Is that politically correct enough? Or no because cheaters deserve respect too.

[Anonymous]

Do you think the wreck of this submersible will become a tourist destination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the wreck of this submersible will become a tourist destination?

It’s gone, imploded, disintegrated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The debris was found about 500 meters off the bow of the titanic.

so they didn’t even get to see it.

Isn't 500 meters pretty close? that's like less than a half a mile. but I guess in the darkness you wouldn't have seen it from that distance.

If you watch the videos from previous dives you can only see about 20 feet in front of you with intense lights. It's why there's no image of the entire Titanic, because they can only see bits of it as you move around. 500 meters might as well have been 500 miles.

There is now, with the recent 3-D scans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“WASHINGTON—A top secret U.S. Navy acoustic detection system designed to spot enemy submarines first heard the Titan sub implosion hours after the submersible began its mission, officials involved in the search said.
The Navy began listening for the Titan almost as soon as the sub lost communications, according to a U.S. defense official. Shortly after its disappearance, the U.S. system detected what it suspected was the sound of an implosion near the debris site discovered Thursday and reported its findings to the commander on site, U.S. defense officials said.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-days-ago-6844cb12

I'm really surprised this was revealed. Our (deep sea) military capabilities should be a lot more covert and to make this press release of this info wasn't worth it.

Should have kept your mouth shut Navy.

Watch the documentary “Sea Power” it’s streaming on Netflix and discusses in detail naval intelligence tools and history. The same tools used to in the search for the Titan. It’s not exactly a secret, maybe not general knowledge, but not secret.

Anyway Id say discussing it in the news is great free recruiting advertising for the US military.

For DCUMlandia it’s easy to forget that the military has a lot of neat career paths and training available for bright young men and women, the technology is cutting edge, and the training is free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The debris was found about 500 meters off the bow of the titanic.

so they didn’t even get to see it.

Isn't 500 meters pretty close? that's like less than a half a mile. but I guess in the darkness you wouldn't have seen it from that distance.

If you watch the videos from previous dives you can only see about 20 feet in front of you with intense lights. It's why there's no image of the entire Titanic, because they can only see bits of it as you move around. 500 meters might as well have been 500 miles.

There is now, with the recent 3-D scans.

I believe that is a compilation of multiple images, not a single image of the Titanic all at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So per the kid's older sister, he didn't want to go on the sub and only did it bc it was Fathers Day/his father was Titanic obsessed (others had dropped out so seats opened up). Per his aunt - he was terrified of going and had expressed to other family members that he was terrified.

Wow. Learn to say no - even to mommy and daddy - folks. Or as I said before why on earth could mom not step in here and tell DH he was free to do what he wanted but her DS wasn't going esp since he was terrified!?

What makes you think the mother had any say in this matter? Different culture.

The mother is white/British. She's not a subservient Pakistani woman - and btw if you think Pakistani women are subservient with respect to their baby boys lol you don't know our culture. Mama always wins re her kids and esp her son at this age.

The culture issue may not be Pakistani vs European culture as much as billionaire culture. We don't know how this guy was - he actually wasn't a billionaire, "only" worth hundreds of millions. We don't know if this was a family where daddy was like you live this life because of MY money, MY empire, we'll do things MY way - and everyone went with it because of course they liked their rich lifestyle.

The guy was 19 yrs old, not 9. I mean really. I know kids are taking longer to grow up these days but man, he was 19. He could’ve said no, my kids refuse to go everywhere with me. Not blaming him but let’s not act like he was a child.

Do you have a 19 year old? Because they aren't substantively that different than a 17 or 18 year old. The thing about adulthood is that it's a process. You don't magically transform the day you turn 18. He did not have enough life experience or brain development to properly assess the risk here. He trusted his dad to guide him.

I was scared of plenty of things at that age. My dad was my cheerleader, occasionally pushing me to do things I otherwise would not have. I don't blame the kid for trusting his dad. It's a sad story and my thoughts are with his mom and sister.

I was 19 once, I am nearing 50 now. At 19 I was not much different than I am today, maturity wise. I traveled throughout Europe with one other person, had a job, and was attending college. This was a different generation though. I didn’t listen to my parents but I was mature enough to make decent choices, I am a woman though. Maybe some people are much slower to mature.

I can imagine that the boy led a sheltered life. And kids are slower to mature now, especially boys. It’s easy to see how he wouldn’t have the critical thinking to evaluate the real risks, and even if he did, he trusted the older adults that said it was safe.

[Anonymous]

Ballard was on ABC making a claim there were indications it was rising to the surface when it imploded as it it had dropped ballast. So if his stew t is true they had to have known there was a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry they all died and feel so bad for their families, especially the remaining parent of that 19 yo.

I am stunned that anyone would pay $250,000 to travel in a vessel lit up inside by a glow stick.

I was thinking the same thing. Not the best ad for technology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ballard was on ABC making a claim there were indications it was rising to the surface when it imploded as it it had dropped ballast. So if his stew t is true they had to have known there was a problem.

It was descending too quickly. That’s why they dropped the ballast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So per the kid's older sister, he didn't want to go on the sub and only did it bc it was Fathers Day/his father was Titanic obsessed (others had dropped out so seats opened up). Per his aunt - he was terrified of going and had expressed to other family members that he was terrified.

Wow. Learn to say no - even to mommy and daddy - folks. Or as I said before why on earth could mom not step in here and tell DH he was free to do what he wanted but her DS wasn't going esp since he was terrified!?

What makes you think the mother had any say in this matter? Different culture.

The mother is white/British. She's not a subservient Pakistani woman - and btw if you think Pakistani women are subservient with respect to their baby boys lol you don't know our culture. Mama always wins re her kids and esp her son at this age.

The culture issue may not be Pakistani vs European culture as much as billionaire culture. We don't know how this guy was - he actually wasn't a billionaire, "only" worth hundreds of millions. We don't know if this was a family where daddy was like you live this life because of MY money, MY empire, we'll do things MY way - and everyone went with it because of course they liked their rich lifestyle.

The guy was 19 yrs old, not 9. I mean really. I know kids are taking longer to grow up these days but man, he was 19. He could’ve said no, my kids refuse to go everywhere with me. Not blaming him but let’s not act like he was a child.

Do you have a 19 year old? Because they aren't substantively that different than a 17 or 18 year old. The thing about adulthood is that it's a process. You don't magically transform the day you turn 18. He did not have enough life experience or brain development to properly assess the risk here. He trusted his dad to guide him.

I was scared of plenty of things at that age. My dad was my cheerleader, occasionally pushing me to do things I otherwise would not have. I don't blame the kid for trusting his dad. It's a sad story and my thoughts are with his mom and sister.

I was 19 once, I am nearing 50 now. At 19 I was not much different than I am today, maturity wise. I traveled throughout Europe with one other person, had a job, and was attending college. This was a different generation though. I didn’t listen to my parents but I was mature enough to make decent choices, I am a woman though. Maybe some people are much slower to mature.

I can imagine that the boy led a sheltered life. And kids are slower to mature now, especially boys. It’s easy to see how he wouldn’t have the critical thinking to evaluate the real risks, and even if he did, he trusted the older adults that said it was safe.

Off topic but why are kids so slow to mature now, especially boys? It’s very concerning. When I was 19 back in the 90’s I was working, in school, hanging out with people in their late 20s, I was essentially an adult. My parents offered advice occasionally but really they just wanted me out of the house and it was sink or swim. Even my guy friends back then were somewhat mature, but a few were killed or overdosed before turning 21.