Anonymous wrote:Can't we all just agree the Titanic and everything associated with it is cursed - and just stay the hell away?

James Cameron would certainly disagree with this

And for the PP above who said now the lawyers would be involved. I would bet money that the one area the company spent money on in terms of creating something air/water tight is the waiver they all signed.

Anonymous wrote:Now the lawyers will get busy.

The signed airtight waivers before getting in that sub.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, how will we ever know what caused the Titanic to sink if we don’t study the site of the wreckage?

Are you kidding? What caused it to sink is not obscure. It hit an iceberg and filled with water. This is not, um, rocket science.

So, you think there is nothing to be learned from a tragedy like that? No design flaws? Or engineering mistakes? To prevent it from happening again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look. Exactly what everyone said happened, is what happened.

Well, not everyone. There were definitely a few who thought the banging sounds meant those of us with common sense were looking “foolish” for stating the obvious.

well we had a moment of hope - but not really because is it hopeful to wish someone slowly suffocates to death in four days? I always hoped for implosion

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, how will we ever know what caused the Titanic to sink if we don’t study the site of the wreckage?

Are you kidding? What caused it to sink is not obscure. It hit an iceberg and filled with water. This is not, um, rocket science.

Can't we all just agree the Titanic and everything associated with it is cursed - and just stay the hell away?

Anonymous wrote:Oh look. Exactly what everyone said happened, is what happened.

Well, not everyone. There were definitely a few who thought the banging sounds meant those of us with common sense were looking “foolish” for stating the obvious.

Anonymous wrote:

Because of the obscenely wealthy on board.


actually I think its more due to the allure of the titanic. and the idea of a deep sea rescue.

I think it is partially the allure of the Titanic, and possibly the fact that it would have been an awful way for them to die to be trapped in that little thing for days.

The irony of dying under the sea in attempt to view the titanic death site under the sea.

The fact they did it in a junkyard tin can that knew wasn’t certified at the level they were traveling to.

Most of us know getting in the tin can is suicide and how do they not realize this too!

Who is paying for all this recovery effort? Sea floor vehicles? Robots?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's too bad they couldn't get the ROVs there sooner to find them alive and bring them up through bringing them up sounded risky as well since it would involve depressurization and if the thing wasn't already working properly, maybe they would not have survived the ascent.

Too bad the Ocean Gate company didn’t have their own to handle this situation. Tells me they need to fire their risk management analyst or they don’t have one.

There was never any "finding them alive." Come on. They've been dead for 4 days.

Yes, but PP was complaining that the French ROVs took too long. My point is that if this was a company that had a good risk management function, they would have had their own ROV. If it were my company, I would have had ROVs following the sub.

I mean, ok, but with an implosion all you get is retrieval of the pieces faster. It would not have prevented what happened here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's too bad they couldn't get the ROVs there sooner to find them alive and bring them up through bringing them up sounded risky as well since it would involve depressurization and if the thing wasn't already working properly, maybe they would not have survived the ascent.

Too bad the Ocean Gate company didn’t have their own to handle this situation. Tells me they need to fire their risk management analyst or they don’t have one.

They famously did fire the guy who told them it was too dangerous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's too bad they couldn't get the ROVs there sooner to find them alive and bring them up through bringing them up sounded risky as well since it would involve depressurization and if the thing wasn't already working properly, maybe they would not have survived the ascent.

Too bad the Ocean Gate company didn’t have their own to handle this situation. Tells me they need to fire their risk management analyst or they don’t have one.

There was never any "finding them alive." Come on. They've been dead for 4 days.

Yes, but PP was complaining that the French ROVs took too long. My point is that if this was a company that had a good risk management function, they would have had their own ROV. If it were my company, I would have had ROVs following the sub.

An ROV on site would have saved the whole “rescue” phase but only because, with a hull breach, there wouldn’t have been anyone to rescue. It would simply have made locating and salvaging the debris easier.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12223805/Debris-field-discovered-search-area-near-Titanic.html

'This is an unconventional submarine, that rear cover is the pointy end of it and the landing frame is the little frame that it seems to sit on. It means the hull hasn't yet been found but two very important parts of the whole system have been discovered and that would not be found unless its fragmented.

'That really indicates what is the worst case scenario which is a catastrophic failure, an implosion.

'The only saving grace is that it would have been immediate, literally in milliseconds and the men would have no idea what was happening,' David Mearns, a friend of two of the men on board, said during an appearance on Sky News in the UK this evening.

The expert on Sky News who says the rear cover of the submersible has been found says the cover includes the part that says "OceanGate"

Now the lawyers will get busy.