For those who are unaware: A couple billionaires, a pilot, and one of the billionaires’ son are currently stuck inside an extremely tiny sub a couple thousand meters under the sea (inside of the sub with the guys above).
They were supposed to dive down to the titanic, but lost connection about halfway down. They’ve been missing for the past 48 hours, and have 2 days until the oxygen in the sub runs out. Do you think they’ll make it?
Sadly I don’t think so. This incident was absolutely preventable. Someone warned them about this and they got fired. A makeshift vessel that wasn’t inspected/certified, immersed to almost 3 times the rated depth, controlled by a wireless Logitech gamepad from 2010 with no redundancy and only 96 hours of oxygen. I really really hope for a last minute miracle though…
Really? No redundancy on the controls? If anything along the chain fails, not even some emergency ascent lever?
Edit: plenty of redundancy - “If the remote fails, the propellers can be controlled through an internal hard-wire system, Newman said.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/inside-missing-titan-submersible-titanic-tour/index.htmlAnd https://www.npr.org/2023/06/20/1183273102/titan-missing-sub-titanic-rescue-oceangate claims 7 ways to surface.
I’m a bit confused that this is receiving so much attention. What’s so special about this case compared to all the other cases of people being lost at sea every year, besides them being rich?
It’s unusual. That’s what it boils down to, whether we like it or not. The ongoing nature of the story makes it additionally intriguing, since we don’t know what happened and what will happen.
You or me getting into a car Crash? Not unusual, not (major) news, and “done” - no further news are expected: not interesting. A gang member shooting another gang member in Gary, Indiana? Not unusual, not (Major) news, not interesting.
Size of the tragedy doesn’t necessarily matter either, but cultural connection does to some extent: Another warlord committing another genocide somewhere in Africa? Not unusual, not news, not interesting. A large disaster in a country culturally close to you will be more relatable, and more likely to be covered, than a similar disaster in a poorer coutnry, but “unusual” still overrides this.
33 adults killed in a mining accident? Not news. Maybe a footnote on a slow day. 33 adults buried, possibly alive, after a mine collapse? Even if it’s in a far away country, now it’s news: relatively unusual, developing story - worldwide coverage and a movie. 13 kids trapped in a flooding cave? Now THAT’S some juicy news! All cameras on it! Didn’t matter that these were poor kids from Asia, unusual + ongoing beats everything else.
This submarine went into an extremely hostile environment, making it unique. It’s an ongoing story, making it more interesting. Of course it’s going to be covered, just like Apollo 13 was.
Do you know what the most recent mission to the ISS was, who is there, how they got there? I don’t, despite being somewhat interested in space - it’s not news. If they had a minor fire or leak - that’d make the news, but it has happened before and will happen again, so it wouldn’t be big. Rock hits the ISS, leaving them stranded in separate capsules not knowing the status of all crew members, with long debates whether rescue is possible? Evening news every day until they’re all rescued or all dead. Even though they’re neither rich nor famous.
I think they are gone. Safety regulations are a thing for a reason.
There is only so much others can regulate when you are building an inverted rocketship
They are paying their price right now. Other dives have gone much deeper, safer. This guy is a fly by night con guy in my opinion.
Read the Bloomberg piece in him.
By the way used to work a lot in defense procurement. There are a ton of regs they do follow, though they sure as hell don’t care about RoHs for the most part.
It’s an interesting philosophical question: how much should we regulate to protect people from themselves?
In a theoretical perfect world with perfectly informed infinitely smart people, a good argument could be made that all regulation should be abolished and everyone should be able to make a free choice. In practice, we know where this would lead - many would choose the cheaper, less safe airline and we’d have a lot of dead people, and at some point we’d find out the hard way that the allegedly safe airline stopped caring about safety years ago and pocketed the profit.
On the other side of the spectrum, should we ban people from making poor decisions that only affect them? Seat belts are a prime example where we do that. There are many others, and honestly, I think life is a lot more fun when you’re allowed to take some risks (if we were strict about safety, motorcycles would be banned).
This falls somewhere in between. The builder killed other people, but this was not a mass market event. There’s a good chance they understood and accepted at least some of the risks. But they likely did so because the “go visit the titanic” market is very limited, so it was this or nothing. More regulation could have prevented any trips from happening, but it could have also opened the path for a more responsible operator to try.
The idea to not include any kind of underwater beacon baffles me - they exist (for flight data recorders) and can handle those depths.
Rescued? Maybe. Rescued alive? Doubtful.
You cannot rescue a dead body. Those are retrieved.
