126
Titan sub: crew have died after catastrophic loss of pressure chamber, US Coast Guard confirms
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
126 points (99.2% liked)
World News
22055 readers
152 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The more I have read about this, the more disgusted I am. This company generally, and the CEO personally, took all sorts of shortcuts to build this thing.
The CEO stated that he didn't want to have any ex military submarine experts as part of the team, because they were "uninspiring" and "50 year old white guys", and he'd rather have young college grads who are inspiring. The real reason: the college grads were simply cheaper. He didn't want to pay the ex military experts. That's it.
The CEO lied to CBS news in their CBS Sunday morning report and told them that Boeing and University of Washington consulted with them on the design of the submersible. Both organizations told the NY Post today that they had no involvement with it. So that was a fucking lie. All he did was use the UW lab after hours.
The use of a Logitech PS3 style controller to navigate the vehicle...what the actual fuck.
Because this was a submersible in international waters, there are virtually no regulations. That needs to change. If the UN needs to draft a treaty for countries to ratify to regulate these things in international waters, then that's what needs to happen.
I don’t see the issue in using a controller, the US Navy does the same
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/18/17136808/us-navy-uss-colorado-xbox-controller
I do think it’s ironic that they used a Logitech controller instead of an Xbox controller, but the reasoning is probably similar to the US Navy’s
I do. I've been an avid PC Gamer my entire adult life and I've never had a Logitech product that wasn't terribly glitchy. When I heard that bit it made me feel like Moss in The IT Crowd.
Did you use this specific controller? It is actually a beast, very high quality and durable. I've used a Logitech Rumblepad 2for almost a decade. The only issue I had with it is that it did not support xinput, only direct input, so a lot of games do not support it anymore. But still works like a charm.
However I won't trust my life on it.
Logitech used to make good controllers - dunno how they are now. But they shouldn't have used a bluetooth one. But they did have a backup controller also. And probably didn't plan on getting close to any obstacles they could collide with.
Imo it's the least problematic part of the whole setup.
The difference is they collab with the military to make actual quality shit. Their consumer products are just a side-gig!
The fact that it's a wireless controller is what I really don't understand. Why would you want to risk interference, battery issues, etc?
I think it's because they said they'd pass it to the passengers to let them control it. Easier to hand around. Maybe? Which would still be dumb because it introduces risks and they could just swap seats instead.
Using a controller is fine, but I'm sure they are hardwired. There is a Today show interview where the CEO specifically said they use them over bluetooth.
Absolutely all shit made up in my brain from my hatred of bluetooth. I could definitely see the controller dying because they forgot to charge it, tried to connect the spare but bluetooth being bluetooth wouldn't. Then they drift into the Titantic, get a puncture and implode.
Vivid imagery befitting the general reliability of Bluetooth (witness me covering one of my EarPods to get the other one to connect up and sync with my phone at least once a day) but putting all the pieces together, my best guess is that the pressure vessel split at one of the seams between the cylindrical carbon fiber center section due to fatigue at the joint, well above their target depth. There's a reason why every other DSV designed to reach those depths uses a single-piece spherical pressure vessel.
I keep people saying the porthole window was only rated for ~1300 meter dives, though I haven't seen the source for this yet.
Also fiberglass as a material and the way they were cheaping out on checking it for imperfections.
But yeah also the join. It seems so obviously a horrible idea.
Ahhhh now that’s insane, there’s no good reason for that to be wireless at all…
The big difference I see is what it's controlling. Sure, the Navy used Xbox controllers for intuitive use of the periscope. I bet if you asked them "please make all ship attitude controls, and therefore crew safety, reliant on this," they would laugh at you and walk away.
I have to admit that a game controller, at least the ergonomics and controls of one, likely makes more sense than it would seem at first blush.
I think it’s more a problem with circumstances and optics. If all was well and this whole fiasco didn’t happen, I could see it being framed as a sort of goofy trivia piece, just like the US Navy’s use. But when things go wrong as they did here, it feels like the kind of bit that’s incredibly easy to reach and dunk on.
I’m not inclined to hinge my disappointment on the game controller, but I can’t blame anyone for doing that, either.
Oh yeah. There was a show years ago called Bomb Patrol: Afghanistan where EOD techs were on deployment detonating roadside bombs. The robot they used was controlled by an Xbox controller and the guy best at the job was their youngest team member because….video games
sad PC gamer noises
I've done some mountaineering. The people going down would have known the risks and accepted them for an opportunity for a once in a lifetime opportunity to go to the titanic.
Whilst in retrospect, things like this seem like a stupid risk, sometimes, you become so focused on wanting to do something that you take them.
Personally, the idea of being stuck in a tin can with thousands of pounds of pressure surrounding me with absolutely no redundancy/backup though isn't my kind of thing (same reason I take a rescue beacon when hiking, i always want some kind of backup. Even on Everest, they have some backup)
I’m inclined to characterize this loss as reckless and needless, but I find myself agreeing with likewise here. Some opportunities are the once-or-so in a lifetime sort. There’s likely such opportunities out there that I’d love to take if I had the means, even if the risks were great.
I can completely understand people wishing ill on those lost here. As I said, I think there’s an element of hubris and needlessness in this disaster that makes it upsetting, and that doesn’t even get to the likes of the discrepancy in coverage between this incident and the greater loss near Greece this week.
Still, I suppose I hope this risk was worth it to at least a few of the souls on board.
-
[Open Only if you’re down with adding another bummer of a news article to the pile.]
-I say “at least a few of the souls” rather than “the souls” for a regrettable reason. The aunt of Suleman Dawood has gone on record to claim that he told a relative he was “terrified” to go. Whether this is the likes of pre-trip jitters or substantial anxieties is not for me to say, but however way it checks out, it adds to my disappointment in how this submarine was slapped together.
Did paying customers fully understand the risks, though? Seems the CEO was rather adept at bullshitting. And saying he didn't want military experts on the team because they weren't "enthusiastic" is just a load of crap. I bet they saw what a death trap the sub was and wanted no part of it.
Yeah. Paying customers fundamentally can't become submersible experts overnight, even if they were inclined to do as much research as possible. Our modern society relies on trusting that experts know what they're talking about, and that they are involved where they should be in the first place, and often assuming that "they wouldn't be allowed to do this if it wasn't safe, surely".
Yeah, we're sorta inclined to believe in what an authority tells us and it's not easy to tell when we're being fed tasty looking bullshit. Especially when we want it to be true.
Although, the CEO did go down with his ship. I think he at least believed his own bullshit.
Fair enough. If he had done it all by himself, it would've been fine. If someone wants to risk their own lives, it's up to them. It is honestly kinda impressive to roll your own bat like that and actually manage to get it sorta working. But as soon as he started selling the trips, the situation is completely different. He knew his glorified tub wouldn't pass any sort of inspection and still went full steam ahead. He had numerous people telling him it wasn't safe and he just ignored them. He knew, he just hoped it would work anyway because he was in to deep.
I forgot to mention in my earlier reply that this was a reminder that also helped change my perspective. Putting your own life in danger unfortunate, but ultimately your own decision. Making a negligent decision that affects a wider industry is unfortunate, but seems like a risk in business in general.
Willful negligence that costs the lives of others demands consideration for how things can be done differently. The first best time to have defined and enforced those standards would’ve been before we lost these lives. The second best time to do so is now.
I agree. Can't really see how it would work in practice in international waters though. Who should enforce it for example? UN, maybe? Some new international coast guard type organization operating only on international waters? Should the local marine or coast guard be responsible for the vessels under the same flag even on international waters? Kind of a big job, that. I'm no maritime expert by any stretch and international law and treaties aren't in my book of tricks either. It can't be entirely impossible, but I'm not your man on this. There's quite possibly some simpler solution that would at least improve the situation, but... Maybe if local companies was bound to local regulations even on international waters and their actions could be prosecuted according to that, things might at least improve. At least for a case like this, provided his company was US based in the first place and/or the boat they used. I dunno.
You know what, that’s a good question and getting to a perspective I somehow found hard to explore on my own 🤔.
Generally I’m quite strongly in favor of regulations precisely because of this kind of question. The lay customers likely didn’t fully understand the risk they were taking—fully and throughly understand as an expert would. Achieving that kind of understanding takes expertise in a field, and expertise takes years, if not a lifetime to build. I don’t it’s reasonable to expect everyone to have an expert and informed opinion on everything, so I think a society ought to have the responsibility of establishing regulation to protect people from that kind of valid and inevitable ignorance. Sure, the five on board were billed as brave adventurers, but can I confidently say they were informed? Save for the negligent CEO, I’m not so sure I can.
-
I think my hesitation to extend that mindset to this is because the idea of underwater tourism, let alone deep sea tourism felt like uncharted territory to me. Not “against” mind you, more “hesitant.” I think we ought to make progress safely and responsibly, especially if we’re doing so with lay people tagging along, but part of me worries that putting up too many guard rails and too much red tape can stymy legitimate, good faith progress. A regrettable part of regulations is that a fair amount of them are written in blood. Sacrifice, in a way, is sometimes necessary to know just where those guard rails ought to be.
But I’m starting to realize that this is likely not as uncharted as I thought. I can’t believe it didn’t occur to me on my first impressions, but of course we have the potential to make informed safety decisions here—submarines have been around a hot minute, we have the precedent to build an informed understanding of what’s safe and what isn’t. It’s starting to settle more in now, too, that we have more expert individuals and groups in this area than I thought that can help define informed standards.
-
For the sake of those that were on board and their families, I still hope that this was indeed a risk that at least some of them legitimately wanted to take. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if you’re right in that most of them didn’t fully grasp the risk they were taking.
As for my stance on how this should be approached going forward, I dunno if it was your intention or just a side question, but I suppose I can say I changed my mind! I think we’re at a point where we can make informed decisions on how to regulate this, and we ought to do so sooner rather than later 🤝.
I can't say I fully thought out my comment to that extent, but I do agree that we need proper regulations to protect us from shady business practices, even if the CEO in this case believed it to be safe enough to take the same risks as the customers. But that is beside the point. Proper regulations protects the public even in that case.
How those regulations could be enforced on international waters is whole bag of cats that I don't even have a shoot-from-the-hip kinda opinion on. UN somehow? I don't know.
I certainly wouldn't have an informed idea on how that could be handled, either. What I have to offer toward particulars amounts to spit balling 🤷♂️.
If I had to guess though, I'd bet you and @patchymoose@rammy.site are getting at it. A UN treaty could play a part in establishing a baseline to build up on. Perhaps the key could be to indirectly govern it rather than trying to directly govern happenings in international waters? Operations that depart from signing countries could guarantee that their vessels meet basic standards, even if those offshore operations are ultimately conducted in international waters.
I'd imagine that it may shift a noteworthy amount of operation departures to non-signing countries, but I'd also think that increasing the barrier of entry and making such standards highly visible would make a noteworthy difference regardless.
I think the problem here is that there's willful recklessness buried in the risk taking here. It's like running a shady skydiving operation and being like "yeah, the professionals are full of it and just want my money, you don't really have to repack the chutes carefully, just stuff that shit in there, it'll be fine. Trust me bro, it's worked for me, like, five times."
There were so many obvious and stupid risks this guy took. There were multiple near misses that should have raised alarm bells, as well as expert whistleblowers who were dismissed. It's frankly a wonder it took this long to fail, and a shame this moron took other people out with him because he was able to just hand wave it all as "risk taking".
I do tend to agree actually..
With Everest, there is a huge amount of risk management. Same with Parachuting.
With this maybe slightly less. That being said, if I found out the CEO was going to be piloting it, I'd assume it's safe. However, then again, there was the Rob Hall and Everest Incident too (but I feel like that was less preventable on Rob's side)