Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

CNN article/interview with the mother:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/christine-dawood-interview-titan-submersible-scli-intl/index.html

I find this choppy and poorly written. I do feel terrible for her and her family.

But I also heard this story on NPR this morning and can't help but think how much of a difference $500k would make to a family like this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184268046/migrant-dad-trying-to-help-his-ill-child-is-one-of-many-presume-dead-in-ship-sin

Yes it all feels so wasteful and tragic. All the money to get in the submersible, all the resources spent on the search effort and now to recover the wreckage, etc. The end result is five lives lost. All of those resources could have literally changed people’s lives who are suffering.

Well, I don't see it as money wasted. Underwater tourism was (and still is) unregulated sector. This incident will bring more regulations so it doesn't happen again.

It seems as though they got around the regulation issue, because it was in international waters, and because the craft was built in one country and launched from another. I wonder how those issues will be addressed.

Those are (and many more) the issues this incident will bubble up. The are many issues CEO bypassed - from poor engineering, regs, lack of testing...etc. Someone should be asking how this thing even hit the water to begin with??

It's not like this was its maiden voyage. It made multiple dives before, and people lived to tell about it.

Lol. 1/20 fatality record is NOT GREAT for a vessel used for tourism …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

I can’t believe she’s able to give interviews at this point. I assume she is still in shock but she seems very composed on CNN. Just a tough time to be in the spotlight after losing her son.

I think it's ghastly for reporters to interview the next of kin so soon after a tragic death but viewers eat it up.

Why would anyone accept the invitation?

I have no idea unless they are defending themselves from culpability.

Maybe his husband’s sister told the truth about her nephew being terrified about the “exploration”. Was he obligated to go with his father?
To me, it sounds like the mother is giving interviews out of a feeling of culpability. It’s too soon for interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

CNN article/interview with the mother:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/christine-dawood-interview-titan-submersible-scli-intl/index.html

I find this choppy and poorly written. I do feel terrible for her and her family.

But I also heard this story on NPR this morning and can't help but think how much of a difference $500k would make to a family like this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184268046/migrant-dad-trying-to-help-his-ill-child-is-one-of-many-presume-dead-in-ship-sin

Yes it all feels so wasteful and tragic. All the money to get in the submersible, all the resources spent on the search effort and now to recover the wreckage, etc. The end result is five lives lost. All of those resources could have literally changed people’s lives who are suffering.

Well, I don't see it as money wasted. Underwater tourism was (and still is) unregulated sector. This incident will bring more regulations so it doesn't happen again.

I see it as money not well spent. Underwater tourism regulation is not how I would prefer tax dollars spent as opposed to things that actually help our citizens.

Uh... underwater tourism regulations would literally help our civilians.

The objective of regulation is to prevent incidents like this happening again. There are people with money, time, and interest who want to see underwater as long as it's safe. This guy was diving 10 times deeper than US military sub built out of titanium with his plastic toy sub. Don't you think that should've been regulated? I don't know what you are rambling about.

In your paragraph of a response to my one sentence, you imply I'm against regulation when I never said anything of the sort, and yet, I'm the one who's rambling? Regulations would have probably saved 5 lives. I'm all for them.

Also, regulations are usually made in response to accidents like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Deep sea tourism is far from a burgeoning industry; government regulation here seems completely unwarranted. Even if it resumes, the bigger danger is probably damage to the Titanic rather than loss of life.

At most, the US and Canadian governments should require vessels using their ports to offer deep sea tourism to buy an insurance plan to cover rescue costs.

As comparisons with the first photos of the wreck has shown, there has already been damage by visiting submersibles. There are holes all over the deck from landings, parts of the ship removed by scavengers, and trash left by submersibles dropping weight in order to surface.

[Anonymous]

Regulations are most definitely made in response to incidents like this - in fact the tragic loss of life upon the sinking of Titanic spurred many regulations governing passenger ships. It is only fitting that this incident spur regulations that will hopefully prevent future tragic unnecessary loss of life, even if it is multimillionaire and billionaire life.

As for Titanic - she will be gone very soon, within the next decade in all likelihood, eaten up by the ocean. We can only hope that when her iconic bow falls at last to the iron eating ocean bacteria, people will stop going down there entirely and the many souls who perished with her will finally be left to RIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regulations are most definitely made in response to incidents like this - in fact the tragic loss of life upon the sinking of Titanic spurred many regulations governing passenger ships. It is only fitting that this incident spur regulations that will hopefully prevent future tragic unnecessary loss of life, even if it is multimillionaire and billionaire life.

As for Titanic - she will be gone very soon, within the next decade in all likelihood, eaten up by the ocean. We can only hope that when her iconic bow falls at last to the iron eating ocean bacteria, people will stop going down there entirely and the many souls who perished with her will finally be left to RIP.

Yes, there was a real impact on maritime law. From a quick google:

How did the Titanic affect maritime law?
Titanic tragedy. In the immediate aftermath of its sinking on April 14-15, 1912, the Titanic sparked a lawmaking frenzy resonating throughout the international community. From this fervor emerged the adoption of the first International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) in 1914.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

I can’t believe she’s able to give interviews at this point. I assume she is still in shock but she seems very composed on CNN. Just a tough time to be in the spotlight after losing her son.

I think it's ghastly for reporters to interview the next of kin so soon after a tragic death but viewers eat it up.

Why would anyone accept the invitation?

I have no idea unless they are defending themselves from culpability.

Maybe his husband’s sister told the truth about her nephew being terrified about the “exploration”. Was he obligated to go with his father?
To me, it sounds like the mother is giving interviews out of a feeling of culpability. It’s too soon for interviews.

I thought I read that the husband’s sister was estranged from the family - if so, then she could be less knowledgeable about her nephew or has an agenda against her brother. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

CNN article/interview with the mother:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/christine-dawood-interview-titan-submersible-scli-intl/index.html

I find this choppy and poorly written. I do feel terrible for her and her family.

But I also heard this story on NPR this morning and can't help but think how much of a difference $500k would make to a family like this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184268046/migrant-dad-trying-to-help-his-ill-child-is-one-of-many-presume-dead-in-ship-sin

Yes it all feels so wasteful and tragic. All the money to get in the submersible, all the resources spent on the search effort and now to recover the wreckage, etc. The end result is five lives lost. All of those resources could have literally changed people’s lives who are suffering.

Well, I don't see it as money wasted. Underwater tourism was (and still is) unregulated sector. This incident will bring more regulations so it doesn't happen again.

It seems as though they got around the regulation issue, because it was in international waters, and because the craft was built in one country and launched from another. I wonder how those issues will be addressed.

Those are (and many more) the issues this incident will bubble up. The are many issues CEO bypassed - from poor engineering, regs, lack of testing...etc. Someone should be asking how this thing even hit the water to begin with??

It's not like this was its maiden voyage. It made multiple dives before, and people lived to tell about it.

The damage was cumulative…as he was warned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

CNN article/interview with the mother:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/christine-dawood-interview-titan-submersible-scli-intl/index.html

I find this choppy and poorly written. I do feel terrible for her and her family.

But I also heard this story on NPR this morning and can't help but think how much of a difference $500k would make to a family like this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184268046/migrant-dad-trying-to-help-his-ill-child-is-one-of-many-presume-dead-in-ship-sin

Yes it all feels so wasteful and tragic. All the money to get in the submersible, all the resources spent on the search effort and now to recover the wreckage, etc. The end result is five lives lost. All of those resources could have literally changed people’s lives who are suffering.

Well, I don't see it as money wasted. Underwater tourism was (and still is) unregulated sector. This incident will bring more regulations so it doesn't happen again.

It seems as though they got around the regulation issue, because it was in international waters, and because the craft was built in one country and launched from another. I wonder how those issues will be addressed.

Those are (and many more) the issues this incident will bubble up. The are many issues CEO bypassed - from poor engineering, regs, lack of testing...etc. Someone should be asking how this thing even hit the water to begin with??

It's not like this was its maiden voyage. It made multiple dives before, and people lived to tell about it.

The damage was cumulative…as he was warned.

Yes, cumulative, over time. But the question was how it "even hit the water to begin with". No damage had accumulated at the beginning.

Also, they didn't launch from Newfoundland to evade regulations, they launched from there because it is the eastern most tip of North America, and closest to the Titanic wreckage. Seems logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

I can’t believe she’s able to give interviews at this point. I assume she is still in shock but she seems very composed on CNN. Just a tough time to be in the spotlight after losing her son.

I think it's ghastly for reporters to interview the next of kin so soon after a tragic death but viewers eat it up.

Why would anyone accept the invitation?

I have no idea unless they are defending themselves from culpability.

Maybe his husband’s sister told the truth about her nephew being terrified about the “exploration”. Was he obligated to go with his father?
To me, it sounds like the mother is giving interviews out of a feeling of culpability. It’s too soon for interviews.

I thought I read that the husband’s sister was estranged from the family - if so, then she could be less knowledgeable about her nephew or has an agenda against her brother. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

Maybe her terrified nephew contacted her at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

CNN article/interview with the mother:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/christine-dawood-interview-titan-submersible-scli-intl/index.html

I find this choppy and poorly written. I do feel terrible for her and her family.

But I also heard this story on NPR this morning and can't help but think how much of a difference $500k would make to a family like this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184268046/migrant-dad-trying-to-help-his-ill-child-is-one-of-many-presume-dead-in-ship-sin

Yes it all feels so wasteful and tragic. All the money to get in the submersible, all the resources spent on the search effort and now to recover the wreckage, etc. The end result is five lives lost. All of those resources could have literally changed people’s lives who are suffering.

Well, I don't see it as money wasted. Underwater tourism was (and still is) unregulated sector. This incident will bring more regulations so it doesn't happen again.

It seems as though they got around the regulation issue, because it was in international waters, and because the craft was built in one country and launched from another. I wonder how those issues will be addressed.

Those are (and many more) the issues this incident will bubble up. The are many issues CEO bypassed - from poor engineering, regs, lack of testing...etc. Someone should be asking how this thing even hit the water to begin with??

It's not like this was its maiden voyage. It made multiple dives before, and people lived to tell about it.

The damage was cumulative…as he was warned.

Obviously these submersibles can’t be treated like tour buses. I wonder if it is even possible to maintain them over time or if they just have to be regularly broken down and then rebuilt from scratch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

CNN article/interview with the mother:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/christine-dawood-interview-titan-submersible-scli-intl/index.html

I find this choppy and poorly written. I do feel terrible for her and her family.

But I also heard this story on NPR this morning and can't help but think how much of a difference $500k would make to a family like this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184268046/migrant-dad-trying-to-help-his-ill-child-is-one-of-many-presume-dead-in-ship-sin

Yes it all feels so wasteful and tragic. All the money to get in the submersible, all the resources spent on the search effort and now to recover the wreckage, etc. The end result is five lives lost. All of those resources could have literally changed people’s lives who are suffering.

Well, I don't see it as money wasted. Underwater tourism was (and still is) unregulated sector. This incident will bring more regulations so it doesn't happen again.

It seems as though they got around the regulation issue, because it was in international waters, and because the craft was built in one country and launched from another. I wonder how those issues will be addressed.

Those are (and many more) the issues this incident will bubble up. The are many issues CEO bypassed - from poor engineering, regs, lack of testing...etc. Someone should be asking how this thing even hit the water to begin with??

It's not like this was its maiden voyage. It made multiple dives before, and people lived to tell about it.

The damage was cumulative…as he was warned.

Obviously these submersibles can’t be treated like tour buses. I wonder if it is even possible to maintain them over time or if they just have to be regularly broken down and then rebuilt from scratch?

Navy dry docks ships/submarines to perform maintenance. If this vessel was tested, a proper maintenance plan could’ve been developed. Obviously the CEO guy didn’t believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea why people feel compelled to explore life at the extremes like deep sea and space when we have an absolute miracle in front of us right here in the middle of the curve where humans are uniquely adapted to live.

That’s certainly one way to think of it, but I’m sure you enjoy air travel, driving a car, led lights, relatively inexpensive gasoline etc - all things that were made possible by crazed people pushing the limits and not taking no for an answer. I’m pretty risk averse, but I think that, along with intelligence, curiosity, opposable thumbs, and reliance on social communities, a certain amount of risk taking enabled humans to live in that “middle of the curve” that most of us enjoy.

And honestly, we are not actually “uniquely adapted” to live there. Take away our technology, our clothes, our electricity, our plumbing, our transportation and most of us would probably starve or die of exposure. We took risks, invented power grids, furnaces, air conditioning, Apple Watches, and here we are.

I think you mean here (?) and yes we are. We are uniquely adapted to live on Earth. Sure, not in extreme temperature regions and such, but we've been able to innovate and survive for ages because we're uniquely adapted (and belong) here.

Do you live in North America? Depending on the current theories, the reason people are here is because their ancestors took an enormous risk by either walking across a land bridge into the great unknown to escape the encroaching ice, or getting in a rickety boat across a vast ocean with no guarantee of ever seeing land again. For much of human history, taking enormous risks is part of living. Millions of women walk miles to get clean water, even today. The drive that made Polynesians traverse the ocean in canoes is the same drive that made the first cosmonauts climb into a rocket and made Jonas Salk try out his polio vaccine on his own son. We have vaccines and water filtration and satellites from risk taking that help us live comfortably, but can you imagine life without those? Wouldn’t be so comfortable.

I do live in North America and no--I can't really imagine life with all the amenities we have today but if the amenities were to suddenly vanish most of us would be fine. We'd just have to find other ways to keep surviving.

That said, there's no doubt that risks have afforded us the ability to live more comfortable lives. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "uniquely adapted" but what it means to me is that humans are able to live on this planet. We can breathe and exist here. Of course we need to find the right climate and adapt accordingly. And of course we need to find food and water. But we have the ability to live and thrive here. It's because of this unique adaptation that the great risk takers were able to focus on so many different things.
We are not uniquely adapted to living in space or living in water. We aren't "space creatures" or fish.

How is climbing into a submarine any different than getting into a steel tube, pumping it up full of air, then ascending to an altitude where the oxygen concentration is 5%? Flying at 35k feet is no different from space travel in that we can’t survive in either place. Whether the oxygen concentration is 5% or 0%, the result is the same. Depressurization would kill us.

Before commercial flying became safe, people experimented with pressurized suits and dared to dream of going up to an uninhabitable altitude.

I just think your perspective is narrow. People have always pushed the boundaries of what is possible and it doesn’t have to be your cup of tea, but the things we take for granted, like scuba diving and flying across the Atlantic, were once considered just as outlandish as getting in a deep sea submarine seems to you today. By the way, people have been diving as deep or deeper than the doomed sub since 1960.

But most of the people who push the boundaries don't try to rope in unsuspecting "clients". If you're going to have paying customers it is outrageous to mock bas basic engineering principals and safety standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Rush an engineer? As an engineer myself I cannot understand what he was thinking or why the laws of physics and principles of engineering don’t apply to him

As a fellow engineer, I think he thought of himself as an innovator and scoffed at the conservatism of engineers. He wielded his engineering degree more to impress and reassure people than to calculate the stress on a cylinder being compressed at 6000 psi.

I’m sure he did that math and understands the mechanics of it. His area of weakness was in materials. Clearly, he wasn’t a materials engineer.

I'm sure he knew there were sizable risks using the carbon fiber hull. It made more sense for him financially. Having a steel hull would mean different more expensive boats and cranes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the kid was on the mothership waiting all that time for the submersible to return. Apparently she was meant to go with her husband and gave the seat to her kid instead - a sacrifice she shouldn’t have made and which she undoubtedly will forever regret. Better two middle aged fools die than for their teenager to be snuffed out before he’s even lived.

CNN article/interview with the mother:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/christine-dawood-interview-titan-submersible-scli-intl/index.html

I find this choppy and poorly written. I do feel terrible for her and her family.

But I also heard this story on NPR this morning and can't help but think how much of a difference $500k would make to a family like this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184268046/migrant-dad-trying-to-help-his-ill-child-is-one-of-many-presume-dead-in-ship-sin

Yes it all feels so wasteful and tragic. All the money to get in the submersible, all the resources spent on the search effort and now to recover the wreckage, etc. The end result is five lives lost. All of those resources could have literally changed people’s lives who are suffering.

Well, I don't see it as money wasted. Underwater tourism was (and still is) unregulated sector. This incident will bring more regulations so it doesn't happen again.

It seems as though they got around the regulation issue, because it was in international waters, and because the craft was built in one country and launched from another. I wonder how those issues will be addressed.

Those are (and many more) the issues this incident will bubble up. The are many issues CEO bypassed - from poor engineering, regs, lack of testing...etc. Someone should be asking how this thing even hit the water to begin with??

It's not like this was its maiden voyage. It made multiple dives before, and people lived to tell about it.

The damage was cumulative…as he was warned.

Obviously these submersibles can’t be treated like tour buses. I wonder if it is even possible to maintain them over time or if they just have to be regularly broken down and then rebuilt from scratch?

Navy dry docks ships/submarines to perform maintenance. If this vessel was tested, a proper maintenance plan could’ve been developed. Obviously the CEO guy didn’t believe that.

These guys didn't even have a reasonable plan for checking the hull, epoxied points. It was insane.