Adventure to the Titanic goes terribly wrong [Staff Warning in OP]

277,774 Views | 1587 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
ConstructionAg01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PA24 • 6:41p, 6/22/23
AG
Bingo.
Reply Quote
1
BBRex
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Guitarsoup • 6:41p, 6/22/23
AG
Guitarsoup said:
JB!98 said:
Guitarsoup said:
JB!98 said:
Off topic, but who thinks the Navy had a pretty good idea of where the Titanic was before it was "Discovered". If they have SOSUS they would have noticed the flow sound of a large object and had to account for it as background noise in a filter. Putting position, two and two together, Boom Titanic location.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Don't think we had SOSUS in 1912.
Talking about before it was "discovered" in 1985. Pretty sure SOSUS was around in the early 1970's in the Atlantic.
I don't know that sound surveillance for objects making active noises and moving is quite the same as the things used to find non-moving objects half buried on the bed of the ocean.


If you are using passive sonar, isolating known, consistent noises can help you remove those noises or frequencies from your search. The question would then be was the SOSUS array sensitive enough to make the water noises around the wreck something they could or would document and classify. And there are how many wrecks in the Atlantic? Wouldn't they have to identify them all?
Reply Quote
annie88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:43p, 6/22/23
AG
Two of the people on the submarine were Indian, but they keep pushing the white guy angle.

Also, many people have taken numerous sub trips down to the Titanic over the last 40 years. It sounds like this company and their woke CEO we're woefully either inexperienced and had the wrong equipment.

If you read the statement from James Cameron, who's taken over 33 dives down there. He was very critical of their equipment and their experience.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/titanic-director-james-cameron-breaks-silence-submarine-disaster
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Duckhook
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:43p, 6/22/23
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I don't know anything about engineering or deep sea exploration, but it's my understanding that this guy completely disregarded existing requirements and common sense.

More regulations aren't needed if people can completely disregard them and do whatever the hell they want.
Much has been made of the waivers signed by the "passengers." Do those waivers protect Oceangate?

My initital take is no, they do not. This is in the gross negligence/wanton disregard category which void those, in general.

Yeah, but this company is going to rapidly cease to exist. Absent any insurance coverage (which I'm doubtful exists), anybody suing for any reason is just going to be dividing up whatever inventory/equipment is laying around their manufacturing facility.
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 6:43p, 6/22/23
AG
Quote:
USS Scorpion had two nuclear tipped torpedoes aboard when she went down.
Completely different situation. Scorpion was Skipjack class, not Thresher.
Reply Quote
1
AustinCountyAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YokelRidesAgain • 6:44p, 6/22/23
YokelRidesAgain said:
aggiehawg said:
Much has been made of the waivers signed by the "passengers." Do those waivers protect Oceangate?

My initital take is no, they do not. This is in the gross negligence/wanton disregard category which void those, in general.
Not sure it matters, they're done either way. How many people are going to sign up to go down to Titanic on a similar vessel after this?

Essentially no non-insane people would hop on board if it was free, much less pay $250K for the privilege.


Eventually people will take the risk and do this again. It's like aviation. You have to start somewhere.

However, if I could afford or even wanted to travel down that deep in the ocean it damn sure wouldn't be on a piece milled camper world project with a company that operates out of a building that's nothing more than a loading dock. Unbelievable that this dude got people to trust him on this thing. Granted he does deserve some credit since he was able to make multiple trips to titanic, but it's pretty damn clear his operation was a ticking time bomb, and well, the bomb finally exploded.
Reply Quote
6
Guitarsoup
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:45p, 6/22/23
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
USS Scorpion had two nuclear tipped torpedoes aboard when she went down.
Completely different situation. Scorpion was Skipjack class, not Thresher.
We were discussing the two Navy wrecks that Ballard was in charge of finding when he using the cover of looking for the Titanic. Those two wrecks are the Scorpion and Thresher.

Jesus.
Reply Quote
15
aggiedata
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:47p, 6/22/23
AG
Someone reads this board

Reply Quote
8
jabberwalkie09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:50p, 6/22/23
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
USS Scorpion had two nuclear tipped torpedoes aboard when she went down.
Completely different situation. Scorpion was Skipjack class, not Thresher.
I'm not sure what that has to do with one being on an operational deployment and the other still undergoing sea trials.

Edit to add: Loss of Thresher is what prompted the SUBSAFE program but Scorpion had not been certified as part of that program.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Joes
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nosoupforyou • 6:50p, 6/22/23
nosoupforyou said:
Didn't I read that this was the 3rd voyage it has taken to the Titanic? If so, why didn't it make it this time?

Hard and fascinating story - appreciate the news updates that come through here, but I picked up on page 26
It had made more than 20 trips to the Titanic.
Reply Quote
3
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:51p, 6/22/23
AG
Yeah, people keep conflating total trips with trips with paying customers, mostly due to bad reporting. 20something total trips. 3 with paying passengers.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Guitarsoup
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Joes • 6:53p, 6/22/23
AG
Joes said:
nosoupforyou said:
Didn't I read that this was the 3rd voyage it has taken to the Titanic? If so, why didn't it make it this time?

Hard and fascinating story - appreciate the news updates that come through here, but I picked up on page 26
It had made more than 20 trips to the Titanic.
Sounds like it was completely safe.
Reply Quote
2
Keeper of The Spirits
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:55p, 6/22/23
AG
Yeah I imagine the last asset was the Ocean Gate sticker they took off the door the other day. They knew this thing was over on Sunday and startied liquidating everything they could probably in the name of raising funds for a rescue, that's probably all been or being spent now
Reply Quote
5
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to annie88 • 6:58p, 6/22/23
AG
annie88 said:
Two of the people on the submarine were Indian, but they keep pushing the white guy angle.
Fine distinction but they were Pakistani - NOT Indian.

For American racial purposes, that makes them Caucasian which used to drive one of my Indian co-workers nuts because he wanted to be a minority. Even voted for Obama.
Reply Quote
12
1 edit
Anti-taxxer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:58p, 6/22/23
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I don't know anything about engineering or deep sea exploration, but it's my understanding that this guy completely disregarded existing requirements and common sense.

More regulations aren't needed if people can completely disregard them and do whatever the hell they want.
Much has been made of the waivers signed by the "passengers." Do those waivers protect Oceangate?

My initital take is no, they do not. This is in the gross negligence/wanton disregard category which void those, in general.

I keep thinking, "man, those families are gonna sue that company's ass off".

Then I remember that all of these people knew what a complete **** show this was going to be, and not only went anyway, but paid $250,000 to do it.

If anything, all of these families should pay back whoever paid for this search.
Reply Quote
1
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:00p, 6/22/23
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I don't know anything about engineering or deep sea exploration, but it's my understanding that this guy completely disregarded existing requirements and common sense.

More regulations aren't needed if people can completely disregard them and do whatever the hell they want.
Much has been made of the waivers signed by the "passengers." Do those waivers protect Oceangate?

My initital take is no, they do not. This is in the gross negligence/wanton disregard category which void those, in general.
Those waivers are not worth the paper they are written on. The first question is which jurisdiction's law applies. Many jurisdictions are reluctant to enforce waivers at all. Second, as you correctly noted, waivers cannot protect against gross negligence in any jurisdiction of which I am aware.

The estate of the billionaire CEO will almost certainly also be liable. Even though he was doing business in the form of a limited liability entity, It sounds like all of the key engineering decisions were made by him personally. Thus, the use of a limited liability entity will not protect his estate from liability.
Reply Quote
5
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:00p, 6/22/23
AG
Yeah, maybe Mr Fast and Loose with safety was sloppy with the legal structure, but with a high risk business like this, logic would be making sure you have a legal structure in place that is rock solid at insulating personal assets from the business. That said, given this guy's hubris, amount of personal investment, and apparent negligence, he may have effed that up allowing some of these families to clean out his estate
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Joes
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Guitarsoup • 7:01p, 6/22/23
Guitarsoup said:
Joes said:
nosoupforyou said:
Didn't I read that this was the 3rd voyage it has taken to the Titanic? If so, why didn't it make it this time?

Hard and fascinating story - appreciate the news updates that come through here, but I picked up on page 26
It had made more than 20 trips to the Titanic.
Sounds like it was completely safe.
All I did was answer the question factually. Heck, I've been saying consistently that it was obvious that it imploded on descent. All this drama about searches and dwindling oxygen and counting clocks (down to the second in places, idiotically) for days on the news was just for drama and "entertainment".
Reply Quote
5
Guitarsoup
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DannyDuberstein • 7:04p, 6/22/23
AG
DannyDuberstein said:
Yeah, maybe Mr Fast and Loose with safety was sloppy with the legal structure, but with a high risk business like this, logic would be making sure you have a legal structure in place that is rock solid at insulating personal assets from the business
He also came from money big money, so probably multiple generations of family that protected assets.
Reply Quote
2
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinCountyAg • 7:05p, 6/22/23
AG
AustinCountyAg said:
Eventually people will take the risk and do this again. It's like aviation. You have to start somewhere.

However, if I could afford or even wanted to travel down that deep in the ocean it damn sure wouldn't be on a piece milled camper world project with a company that operates out of a building that's nothing more than a loading dock. Unbelievable that this dude got people to trust him on this thing. Granted he does deserve some credit since he was able to make multiple trips to titanic, but it's pretty damn clear his operation was a ticking time bomb, and well, the bomb finally exploded.
You need to watch the Theranos biopic about Elizabeth Holmes.

When the technology is too good to be true and people have too much money and not enough common sense, they become Fox Mulder - "I Want To Believe". Especially if the person doing the selling has any charisma at all.

And I bet if they had the chance to do it all over again, they would make the exact same choice.
Reply Quote
6
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Guitarsoup • 7:06p, 6/22/23
AG
Right, but like i mentioned in my edit, even if you set it up "right" to begin with, it can end up muddled and compromised if he was not careful about how he personally transacted with the entity and activity of the business. Caution and patience didn't seem to be his strongest assets
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Guitarsoup
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DannyDuberstein • 7:10p, 6/22/23
AG
DannyDuberstein said:
Right, but like i mentioned in my edit, even if you set it up "right" to begin with, it can end up muddled and compromised if he was not careful about how he personally transacted with the entity and activity of the business. Caution and patience didn't seem to be his strongest assets
This is why I don't have any assets.

Reply Quote
8
Anti-taxxer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:10p, 6/22/23
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I don't know anything about engineering or deep sea exploration, but it's my understanding that this guy completely disregarded existing requirements and common sense.

More regulations aren't needed if people can completely disregard them and do whatever the hell they want.
Much has been made of the waivers signed by the "passengers." Do those waivers protect Oceangate?

My initital take is no, they do not. This is in the gross negligence/wanton disregard category which void those, in general.

I read (on here) a few days ago that the passengers had to be classified as "crew members" for insurance purposes.

I think the CBS guy said something about a waiver that was multiple pages long, and included "death" multiple times.

I can't wrap my mind around any insurance company covering this under any circumstances. And I feel like if a person sees this thing, and still thinks it's a good idea to go miles under water in it, they waive any ability to seek compensation.
Reply Quote
1
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Philip J Fry • 7:14p, 6/22/23
AG
Philip J Fry said:
It's the rumor that banging could be heard at 30 minute intervals they really irritates me on this he side of the media. Easily refuted, but that doesn't sell clicks.


This is most of what I meant above, Just blatant lies repeated as fact. That's journalism now. You can't believe anything from the media even when it's not even political!
Reply Quote
8
AgsMyDude
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sea Speed • 7:16p, 6/22/23
AG
Sea Speed said:
BQ78 said:
Coast Guard ain't really in the military but they are a highly professional, especially existing as they do in the US government, organization.


Tell that to my buddy who runs teams who board narco subs


Like this?

https://i.imgur.com/ji2LN2I.mp4
Reply Quote
3
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:17p, 6/22/23
AG
That's reporting these days. One ahole mentions banging every 30 minutes on twitter, every reporter runs with it as "reports are….". That so called profession is a joke
Reply Quote
24
Squadron7
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DannyDuberstein • 7:20p, 6/22/23
AG
DannyDuberstein said:
That's reporting these days. One ahole mentions banging every 30 minutes on twitter, every reporter runs with it as "reports are….". That so called profession is a joke

This needs to be addressed with an entirely different thread because it is huge.

Middling intellects in search of clicks is what the modern MSM really is.
Reply Quote
16
aggiedata
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:27p, 6/22/23
AG
Why hold back the news?

Reply Quote
4
sam callahan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:29p, 6/22/23
Quote:
Why hold back the news?

great distraction from Hunter's Whats App messages
Reply Quote
33
Guitarsoup
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiedata • 7:30p, 6/22/23
AG
aggiedata said:
Why hold back the news?

The people that needed to know probably did.
Reply Quote
26
bonfarr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiedata • 7:33p, 6/22/23
AG
Quote:
The Navy began using the system, which is used to locate enemy submarines, to listen for the Titan almost immediately after it lost contact with its radio ship on Sunday, a US defense official told The Wall Street Journal.


This timeline doesn't make sense if it is true the Ocean Gate team didn't notify the Coast Guard until the Titan was hours overdue from what would have been their 8 hr mission.

Reply Quote
5
BBRex
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiedata • 7:34p, 6/22/23
AG
Because it wasn't definitive. They told the people leading the search to check it out to be sure.
Reply Quote
7
YokelRidesAgain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinCountyAg • 7:38p, 6/22/23
AG
AustinCountyAg said:

Eventually people will take the risk and do this again. It's like aviation. You have to start somewhere.
Well, of course. The difference from early aviation is that people did not start taking passengers up on a heavier than air craft for crazy amounts of money after, like, 20 trips in a new contraption.

(The reason for that is that it was not technically feasible to do so. Otherwise it definitely would have been done.)

Point is that people who risked their lives in early airplanes, or spacecraft, or polar expeditions, or mountain climbing, were doing it for the joy of discovery and/or the glory. They knew they were risking their lives and prepared accordingly.

This was "hey, we can make it down there, let's sell seats for 250 grand a pop". It was just reckless folly to commercialize this poorly tested vessel based on "we made it down a couple of times and didn't die."
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
5
coconutED
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bonfarr • 7:39p, 6/22/23
AG
bonfarr said:
Quote:
The Navy began using the system, which is used to locate enemy submarines, to listen for the Titan almost immediately after it lost contact with its radio ship on Sunday, a US defense official told The Wall Street Journal.


This timeline doesn't make sense if it is true the Ocean Gate team didn't notify the Coast Guard until the Titan was hours overdue from what would have been their 8 hr mission.

I'm not privy to Top Secret surveilance systems, but I'm pretty sure that "using the system" in this case means going over the logs/recordings and looking for anomolies. It's not like there's a guy sitting in a sound booth with headphones on listening to ocean noise 24/7…right?
Reply Quote
8
JB!98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bonfarr • 7:39p, 6/22/23
AG
bonfarr said:
Quote:
The Navy began using the system, which is used to locate enemy submarines, to listen for the Titan almost immediately after it lost contact with its radio ship on Sunday, a US defense official told The Wall Street Journal.


This timeline doesn't make sense if it is true the Ocean Gate team didn't notify the Coast Guard until the Titan was hours overdue from what would have been their 8 hr mission.

Pretty sure it is more shoddy journalism. They knew it the second it happened because it probably flagged the system. They probably didn't know exactly what it was, but the Navy knew when it happened and that it was an implosion. They didn't just start looking 8 hours later.
Reply Quote
10
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.