That’s simply not true. This point of view is being argued by many-on news outlets, print and online news sources, social media, at dinner tables, around the water cooler, etc.
I personally don’t have a problem with the rescue, but if you believe that only a few individuals on CC are making the argument that this was an inappropriate use of resources, you aren’t paying attention.
When precisely was that known by the Coast Guard? I don’t think they said “well, this is a carbon-fiber hulled deep-sea vessel using a Logitech game controller, so let’s call the whole thing off because this is crazy. It’s every man for himself.” Of course they wouldn’t/didn’t do that, and it would be inhumane if they did.
I do agree with you that I am concerned that paid expeditions like Musk, Bezos, OceanGate, etc etc etc are using these resources. But to me, that suggests the need for greater oversight by governments to minimize the chances of these things happening in the first place and also extracting a fee for doing so to help subsidize the costs of search-and-rescue or other emergency services.
But to leave humans to die? No, IMO.
I did. When on Sunday night my husband said CNN’s breaking news was about some submersible being lost on a Titanic tourist dive, the first thing I asked, “OceanGate?! Oh god.”
What is the total cost of the rescue effort? anyone cares to estimate
I assume you are excluding most urban hospital emergency rooms in our country?
TheUS Navy has its own submarines to practice with( with better safety/rescue/tracking); it certainly didnt need to use its limited resources on this.
By the same token, I hadn’t. I guess the company was based in Washington state, so it makes sense that folks there or even in the deep-sea community knew about it, as well as extreme tourism travel agents. I would hazard to guess that most hadn’t heard.
I frankly didn’t even realize that there was such a thing as paid tourist trips to see Titanic.
But, my specific point is that the US Coast Guard etc. couldn’t have let this be the standard as to whether it would engage in a search. We really can’t expect someone in the Coast Guard to research OceanGate while the tragedy was unfolding and then recommend to the mission commanders, “let’s sit this one out because they cut massive corners.”
Recriminations (and even recompense) can be done after the fact.
I think the majority of people assume the majority of people agree with their own opinion, but half are incorrect.
They didnt need to know anything about the company. They knew it was an adventure tour of 5 people sightseeing at 1300 feet underwater about 100 miles off the coast.
So as in other normal rescues, the USCG could send a boat or helicopter to see if anything is visible/retrievable on the surface.
Not 10 ships, 6 planes, and a load of expensive robots and equipment for this futile task.
Judging from the comments on NYT, CNN, and other media outlets, a whole lot of people agree with me.
I believe the plan was to go 13,000 feet below the surface, making rescue efforts even more complicated (and costly) than the average nautical accident.
I am not an expert in Coast Guard law and regulations, but is there an adventure/extreme tourism exception? If not, I don’t have problems in the US participating. I guess this was outside of US territorial waters, so it was voluntary, not compulsory.
And remember, there were SEVERAL countries involved, and both private and public resources used.
Let’s use an analogy closer to CC:
if a college kid gets absolutely wasted after a night of drinking, would we expect the emergency/first responder services to say: “the kid knew or should have known this would mess them up, and we have other things to do. We won’t respond to render first aid, as we need to keep ourselves fresh and ready for more deserving people who don’t put themselves at risk by their own acts.”
How is that different? Would any parent or any decent human being agree with this?
And thankfully, comments in chats etc aren’t an arbiter of what is the right and wrong thing to do.
Well said.
Don’t urban emergency room treat all comers?
I would guess that these rescue missions, beyond the explicit purpose of finding this vessel’s passengers, serve other purposes for all involved. It’s an opportunity to test communications, equipment, training, etc. They could dream up training exercises as well, but I’d like to think they came away from this with some valuable learning and experience.
I’m not advocating for disasters as training fodder, but it seems unlikely thatthere was no value whatsoever in it for the rescuers.
This is a good explanation of why experts sounded the alarm over the unconventional design of the submersible:
“Elongating the cabin space in a submersible increases pressure loads in the midsections, which increases fatigue and delamination loads, said Jasper Graham-Jones, an associate professor of mechanical and marine engineering at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom.
Fatigue, he said, is like bending a wire back and forth until it breaks. Delamination, he said, is like splitting wood down the grain, which is easier than chopping across the grain.
Furthermore, the Titan’s hull had been subjected to repeated stress over the course of about two dozen previous dives, Graham-Jones said.
Each trip would put tiny cracks in structure, he said. “This might be small and undetectable to start but would soon become critical and produce rapid and uncontrollable growth.”
Great article, particularly for us non-engineers/scientists.
James Cameron was particularly critical of the composite hull and the shape of the Titan. On the latter, he pointed out that this was because they had so many passengers.
By contrast, he mentioned on his expeditions there had never been more than three souls on board.
I understand their positions. At the same time I think we need to be careful when it comes to unconventional designs.
I recently heard a good quote about this: “many times when you are thinking outside the box, the people inside the box will think you’re crazy”
That is a different question versus your initial statement that I was responding to.
Not with the same standard of care and or compassion. Fully insured versus indignant, private vs public, wealthy side of town versus poor side.
I can assure you that in NYC the wealthy and insured banker twisting an ankle exiting a limo would have a very different experience arriving out Mount Sinai on the upper East side then the uninsured and poor hourly worker who showed up at Brookdale hospital in Brooklyn with the same injury.
I recommend watching the video at the top of this article. At the end, it explains the difference between the design of Titan and the tried and proven technology.
Welcome to capitalism!
And no, I’m not surprised that a wealthy person can choose to pay to get a different experience than the baseline level that those who can’t pay receive for free.