Do you think the guys on the titanic submarine will be rescued?

I think it's because the story about a missing submersible is unusual, and moreover, it's about a rescue attempt. This makes it more interesting than many other, albeit more dreadful, news stories.

The Greece tragedy is lacking the irony and hubris of this.

I mean, it's a tourist submersible that was aiming to bring billionaires to view the Titanic wreckage and it likely got wrecked itself. And they named the submersible Titan.

The sub's company OceanGate was dinged by a former employee for all sorts of safety issues and they fired and sued him. There are also lots of choice quotes from the CEO (who happens to be on the vessel) about moving fast and breaking things, and regulations stifling innovation. So there's some possible karma involved.

People tend to care more about the stuff that happens closer to them, or is somehow related to them. You probably don't care all that much about the armed conflict in Mali between the government, ISIS and Wagner Group.

That's a bit harsh. If there's anything that works in modern society pretty reliably regardless of status, it's search and rescue. Sunk subs can also be an environmental hazard.

At least this method of winning the darwin award is going full circle.

'Bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12215003/OceanGate-REFUSED-independent-inspection-missing-sub-fired-worker-raised-safety-concerns.html

He hired a guy specifically to work on the safety of the sub and fired him when he raised too many concerns like the viewport not being rated for that depth.

'Lochridge learned that the viewport manufacturer would only certify to a depth of 1,300 meters due to the experimental design of the viewport supplied by OceanGate, which was out of the Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy ('PVHO') standards.

'OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the required depth of 4,000 meters.

It's kinda poetic for them to go down next to the titanic, itself a story of complacency and excess/opulance.

Not only that, one look at the thing they chose to go down into the water in was enough for me to wonder what kind of hallucinogens they must've been on to accept that risk.

Jesus Christ you people are insane.

I'm not going to diss on Logitech, they make some good reliable controllers. I would place them bottom on the list of things that probably broke.

That being said. I can understand why someone from the outside sees a plastic controller and wonder why they didn't go with the more expensive plastic controller. But in the end, they both have the same parts. I would also find it VERY strange that there wouldn't be a backup controller.

Though it is hard to take pity on the situation when one has to consider. That 250k a ticket is more then 20 single mothers working 2 jobs, so they can feed their kids, so this dude can go see the titanic..... in person.... Because video documentaries of every angle of the titanic in 4k resolution don't exist in 2023 apparently.

To be fair, there's nothing wrong with using a controller to control things, off-brand or otherwise.

Both industry and the military use off-the-shelf game controllers for things, because they're easy to obtain, ergonomic and relatively intuitive.

Although using a wireless one that was infamous for having dropout issues, without some backup mechanism that could also be used to control the submersible was probably something of a mistake. At minimum, you'd expect that they would use one that was wired, just in case someone forgot to charge the batteries before hand, and/or didn't bring a spare.

It's more than a little ironic they [presumably] died in an accident caused by cutting corners on regulations and safety by saying things like "certifications cost too much time and money, we shouldn't have to train someone just to convince them that this is safe", as well as doing things like firing safety personnel when they object to the submersible's worthiness.

I saw someone call it the 'minimim viable submersible' and I've never heard a better description as someone who spends all day working on minimum-viable-product style projects

I'm not really in the business of defending billionaires but I think at least one of them, the guy who brought his son, was involved with charities:

"He works with his family's Dawood Foundation, as well as the SETI Institute - a California-based research organisation which searches for extra-terrestrial life.

"Shahzada is also a supporter of two charities founded by King Charles - the British Asian Trust and the Prince's Trust International."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65955554

He sounds (sounded) like a good person.. I do find it interesting that the other billionaires don't have any mentions of charitable works in articles I've read in them.

Not an expert, but I don't think the air pressure inside the sub changes, so decompression sickness should be impossible. Don't quote me on that, though

i honestly don't know if i can imagine a worse way to die than spending days trapped in a tiny tube in the middle of the fucking ocean with people i barely know, slowly suffocating suspended in a gigantic void. i hope they find those guys alive.

I've heard a lot about oxygen reserves and zero about whether they have enough water for 3+ days.

There's apparently banging in the area in 30 minute intervals. That's hopeful.

Getting them to the surface within the confines of their remaining oxygen limit is another story....

Honestly, this case is somewhat extraordinary, in a deeply disturbing way.

First there was this amazing quote from the CEO who is missing on the craft right now

"You know, at some point, safety is just pure waste," Rush told CBS' David Pogue during an episode of his "Unsung Science" podcast. "I mean, if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk-reward question."

Second, aside from being made from questionable experimental materials, the sub was being controlled by an old, off brand xbox controller. There were numerous design and safety issues that were known at the time of departure. They kinda just did whatever in the F they wanted to. It's a millionaire game of Fuck Around and Find Out and they're not used to finding out.

Third, the damage waiver

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.”

A nervous-looking Pogue makes a face and says, “Where do I sign?” in the footage recorded when he went on the $250,000 (£195,000) trip to see the Titanic at the end of last year.

I get that it's just some rich idiots (and one of their kids) crossing the river styx, but it's not very often you see such amazing disregard for basic safety.

They have money

For me, it's because this situation is a nightmare situation. I can't think of many more aweful ways to go. There is a chance that right now people are dying in a tube at the bottom of the ocean. Slowly. Or even worse, they could be on the surface. Able to see out their window but suffocating to death just hoping to see a ship come by. Maybe they saw a ship and it passed by. Maybe they died instantly is a rapid collapse.

I dunno, it's just the epitome of horror. I keep finding myself thinking about possibilities and what it's be like and what I'd do.

More mysterious. Spookier. Generally more novel. Like you said, people get lost at sea all the time. People rarely get lost thousands of miles below sea.

I mean, I agree that the construction is sketchy (runs the whole thing from an off-brand playstation controller? Couldn't splurge on the $800 for a real cassette toilet?), but acrylic and carbon fiber are appropriate material choices, if they were used in the appropriate thicknesses and configurations.

I would also say that I don't think people SHOULD be risking their lives at this point. We're looking at a case of people who took an informed risk and understood that there was danger associated with the recreational activity they were undertaking. These people either had vast monetary resources and could have consulted the best experts in the world, or had significant prior experience and knowledge. While obviously withholding information interferes with informed consent, and that may or may not have played a role, I don't think this is morally equivalent to rescuing someone from a burning building. There's also simple probability - the odds of rescuing them alive and well aren't good, and to put someone else's life at risk for the off chance that they succeed would be unethical in my opinion.

It is an interesting dilemma though isn't it? On the one hand, emergency services are there for a reason. In general, you don't want people to hesitate to call them because seconds matter in life threatening situations. What makes people hesitate? Fining them a shitload of money for being dumbasses who need rescuing.

On the other hand, it creates a bit of a moral hazard. People feel like they can go out and be morons, get in trouble, then get rescued by expensive professionals.

I feel like these people should face some punitive measures for being dumbasses and ignoring all kinds of safety advice etc. But again, people in the future might not call 911 or whoever when they should, because of that thought "what if I get fined a million bucks for being a dumb dumb?"

Just something to think about.

That's the coast guards job isn't it? Should we just let people die without attempting to save them just because it's costly?

There are few enough billionaires who got there by being a good person that one could easily assume that number was effectively zero. Not saying they deserve death, but your hyperbole isn't helping.

Isn't there an automatic beacon that transmits when on the surface?

And why isnt it tethered?

Yeah I don't think you're very far out on that limb. The likelihood of successful rescue is extremely low.

I can't really believe anybody would spend $250K on a submarine expedition with the guy in charge of Ocean Gate, and his incredibly cavalier attitude toward safety.

I think thats referred to as "recovered"

You cannot rescue a dead body. Those are retrieved.

I read somewhere when air runs out you just fall asleep

I watched a news segment on these subs before this event, and the "door" is one of the caps which is bolted on from the outside. Even if they surfaced, they'd be trapped inside until they run out of oxygen...

Here's the video

Thing probably breached. And imploded. Insta death. I was reading that the acrylic window was only rated to 1,300 m (4,300 ft).

I don't care how much money I had, there's no fucking way I would have gotten on that thing or done anything that involved going down into the ocean at that depth.

True, but there's also a pilot who's just doing his job. I'm also a little iffy on the 19 year old kid. Idc about the rest though

I have plenty of criticisms about billionaires, but saying we should just let them die is going too far.