Catastrophic Loss. Coast Guard press conference: Watch live as USCG gives Titan updates
3 Likes
I don’t really have a problem with public resources like the coast guard doing these types of rescues. The coast guard likely would be doing training drills or other work during this time, using fuel, gaining experience. Should they have to pay a permit fee to help with the rescue expenses? Absolutely.
I live in Colorado and we have a lot of dangerous activities - skiing, biking, hiking, river rafting. Rescues are needed ALL the time. Just last week two people died in rafting accidents and one was on a commercial raft and the guy was rescued fairly quickly but 60 year olds plunged into cold water don’t do well. All the permits (either paid for by the commercial enterprises or part of your ticket to enter a state park, wilderness area, fishing license, etc) include extra fees for rescues. And sometimes they charge people for the rescues, but often that results in people waiting too long to call for help because they don’t want to pay the fee.
But I think the public rescue agencies, even the coast guard, are always learning and this helps them prepare for rescues for those who aren’t daredevils but who just need rescuing in times of emergencies - the school bus that plunges into a river, the young kids caught in the caves in Thailand a few years ago, hikers caught in a hail storm, day sailors capsized in a sudden gale wind.
In this case there was a lot of inter agency (inter country) practice too. My understanding was that Canada took control at the site but Boston Coast Guard had some authority too.
12 Likes
It looks like a catastrophic implosion was the reason they lost contact. So at least they weren’t floating around unable to call for help just waiting to run out of oxygen.
19 Likes
I agree with this. The Coast Guard is there to assist in water rescues: that’s what they do.
I think the bigger question is what, if any, regulation will be to stop these kinds of expeditions from occurring without significant government oversight. Part of the problem with OceanGate is that it operated in international waters, so there probably would need to be a treaty among several countries for these kinds of deep-sea adventures.
One potentially positive thing that might come about from this tragedy is the US’s deep-sea capabilities. Given the US’s military might, I would have thought that it had robotic and other tools to go deep into the oceans. After this, I am not so sure.
But it’s a much greater issue than just deep-sea expeditions. You could say the same for mountaineering. My understanding is that if you have enough cash, you can pay to climb Mt. Everest with very little mountaineering experience.
In OceanGate’s case, there appear to be multiple stories about how it was warned about something like this happening. For example, I heard that the porthole window was only rated down to 1300 meters, not the nearly 4000 meters where the Titanic lays. Also, as noted above, OceanGate apparently gave the impression that it was working in partnership with NASA, Boeing, and the University of Washington. I think all three have denied that or have greatly clarified the precise scope of what they did. NASA apparently did assist in the hull construction but was not involved in any testing.
I guess you can say that all five assumed the risk, but I think there will be a lot of investigation as to what OceanGate told the four passengers, either directly or in press or website statements, to give an impression about the Titan. If there was actual deception, I wonder whether the waivers would be valid.
Terribly sad, but something should be done.
3 Likes
Interesting tidbit I saw in one article I read: when James Cameron was filming Titanic, only two countries in the entire world had the capability to send submersibles as far down. Neither of them was the US. These two countries were France and Russia. I believe the US has at least some such tools like the contraption that was used to retrieve a military plane recently.
1 Like
That was my thought, too. May they rest in peace.
2 Likes
I refrained from posting this while the tragedy was ongoing, but this interview with Dr. Michael Guillen, who went down to Titanic in 2000 in a Russian submersible that nearly got trapped on Titanic’s propellor, is really good.
It’s heartbreaking to watch this. If you’re interested and have a spare 10 minutes or so, it’s well worth watching to see what the traumas he faced and the issues associated with deep-sea voyages:
6 Likes
The prior passengers are beginning to talk on the news shows. One guy has something to do with the Simpsons (writer? artist? Producer?) When asked why he went he said his wife wanted to and they were all suited up but she failed the covid test so he went. He said he loved it. He knew it was risky, signed the 10 million page waiver, and would do it again. Others are saying the same, that they know the risks and want to take them.
I know several people who have climbed Everest or Denali. One suffered frostbite and said he’d do it again. His wife thinks he’s nuts. My friend who climbed Denali said half his group was not prepared (and not very many made it to the summit; he did). They wait along the trail camps and join the next group to head down.
1 Like
The US has lots of amazing but secret capabilities. Ever heard of the Glomar Explorer?
I have no doubt that the US has amazing capabilities that are secret and that I don’t need to know about.
I guess my simple point is that the two ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) that made it to the ocean floor in this search were Canadian and French.
There’s at least one MSM article out there that raises a similar issue, which is what made me raise this, but I can’t find right now. If I do, I’ll post it here.
But, if there was another positive about this, it showed how international cooperation can work, if allowed to.
3 Likes
Here it is, from the Denver Post:
> SEARCH FOR TITAN SHOWS NEED FOR MORE DEEP-SEA TECH
An underwater researcher says the search for the Titan shows the desperate need for more deep-sea technology in the U.S.
The unsuccessful efforts have “really opened up people’s eyes that we need a much more robust capability over larger areas of the ocean to be able to detect and sense where things are,” said Nick Rotker, who leads underwater research for non-profit research and development company MITRE.
The U.S. needs more underwater robots and remotely operated underwater vehicles, known as ROVs, to ensure safety, he said, especially as private exploration of the ocean expands.
“The issue is we don’t have a lot of capability or systems that can go to the depth this vessel was going to,” Rotker said.
Several ROVs are in the North Atlantic waters to search for the missing submersible. One found a debris field near the Titanic wreckage that could be linked to the Titan. The debris field was discovered by a robot from a Canadian vessel.
1 Like
According to BBC, the implosion likely did not happened during the last 3 days, but it is too early to tell when it occurred.
“ Timing of implosion too early to tell
It is too early to tell what the timing of the implosion was, Rear Adm Mauger tells reporters.
He said the US Coat Guard had sonar buoys out in the water for 72 hours. Since they had been in place, they had not detected “any catastrophic events,” he adds.”
1 Like
There will always be adventure/thrill seekers who will take chances many of us would not choose to take. I suspect that a lot more people would be willing to take the risks associated with trips like this one, but they can’t afford it. I’m not a risk taker, so I don’t understand it, but I know that there are a lot of people who tempt fate with their adventurous choices and are willing to take the associated risks.
6 Likes
I don’t doubt that, and I am all for taking risks if there is a true understanding of the risks.
I would like my children not be afraid of anything, but to do it smartly and assess the risks for themselves.
As for OceanGate, when you have NASA, Boeing, and UW issuing clarifications and denials about their respective involvement with the Titan, it really makes me wonder what was really disclosed to the four passengers (not including CEO Stockton Rush) by the company.
Commander David Scott of Apollo 15 said this when he first stepped on the moon: “Man must explore.” That is absolutely right (and women too!). I guess thrill seeking is a part of it, but it’s fine if you and your team are experienced and have the right equipment.
But David Scott and his crew were part of a real team at NASA that had their backs at every turn. NASA learned from every mistake and disaster that preceded each mission and made positive changes to fix problems and prepare for any eventuality. This is why Apollo was perhaps humanity’s greatest accomplishment (at least IMHO).
I don’t know if OceanGate rises to that same level.
4 Likes
Wow…
1 Like
Not sure I understand why taxpayers should be on the hook for to “ensure safety” of private ocean exploration. (I get why NASA & the FAA ensure the rockets blasting off over homes have to have some safety.)
All submariners know that only a small % of the bottom of the ocean is ‘mapped’, so much down there remains unknown.
btw, with regard to remote rovers – I have no idea if the US has any and perhaps we do, but they are at work in another part of the world, and could not have been brought to the North Atlantic in time.
3 Likes
Given that (as reported in the WSJ article above) the US Navy knew the fate of the submersible right from the beginning, its perhaps not so surprising that the US didn’t rush to send as much equipment as some other nations.
2 Likes
I find some comments here very insensitive. I hope those people if they ever need help from someone apply the same logic to their situation and don’t expect government or other agencies to help them. From all victims this 19 year old boy is the saddest. Titanic submersible passenger’s aunt says he was ‘terrified’ before trip
4 Likes
You are raising two different issues.
One is the Coast Guard’s charge, which is, in principal part, to aid in water rescue. We can discuss that separately, but, IMO, there needs to be real governmental regulation of these expeditions ex ante (i.e., before the fact). I am very happy for the Coast Guard to have tried to rescue these five souls, but that obviously was not possible.
The separate issue is the extent of the US’s deep-sea capabilities. I have no idea, but, at least the Denver Post and the fact that it was a Canadian ROV, with a French ROV, but not a US ROV, involved makes me wonder.
And I disagree that the US government needs to be letting Elon Musk’s Space X, Jeff Bezos’s space company, etc etc. be able to launch for-profit rockets without getting hefty fees for the time, inconvenience, and effects to the climate that these private ventures are causing.
Musk’s recent launch in Boca Chica, TX that was disastrous is a case in point. This is another example of where the US’s resources are being used to aid private sector/for-profit activities without full recompense. Perhaps there is adequate payment to the US and its taxpayers, but I am not aware of how much Space X is paying to the US for all its for-profit activities in space.
As a taxpayer, I am much happier with NASA doing these things than the Fresh Prince of the First Amendment.
5 Likes