this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
88 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22180 readers
9 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:

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Film director James Cameron has expertise in designing and testing these submersibles, and he has many criticisms of the design of the sub that imploded, and of the hubris of the CEO who ignored repeated safety warnings from the diving community. He also mentions that the sub seems to have been attempting to resurface when it imploded, suggesting that they were aware the hull was starting to fail.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Epilektoi_Hoplitai@lemmy.ca 66 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Hubris is the word.

The CEO Stockton Rush, just off the top of my head:

  • Fired his own director of marine operations for formally reporting “numerous issues that posed serious safety concerns". These included that the viewport was only rated to 1,300 meters, the carbon fiber hull had flaws which gave it the potential to fail, and that the hull integrity monitoring systems installed in response "might only provide 'milliseconds' of warning before a catastrophic implosion".
  • Refused to submit to an industry certification process for the sub, despite being warned in an open letter with dozens of signatories that failing to do so risked "negative outcomes (from minor to catastrophic)".
  • Denounced the laws regulating submarine tourism as having "needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation".
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Denounced the laws regulating submarine tourism as having “needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation”.

He was a consistent Republican donor, apparently, so probably a devotee of the "regulations are holding back innovation" religion. In other words, "I want to cut costs and make more profit, so I'd rather risk people's lives than spend money to protect them."

[–] DoucheAsaurus@kbin.social 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

He died like he lived, shirking safety in the name of commercialization.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

he never thought the leopards would eat his own face.

or he never thought his sub would be his coffin.

Well, he put his mouth^(and the rest of his head) where his money was...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fauxreigner 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

As I recall, he literally said regulations were holding back innovation for submersibles.

[–] RustledTeapot@kbin.social 30 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This trend of companies firing the person responsible for giving safety warnings is really troubling, and I'm concerned that our whole planet is going to go down like that someday.

[–] laird_dave@feddit.de 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Don't worry, the planet's gonna be fine.

Humanity on the other hand...

[–] blivet@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"The planet," in terms of a rock orbiting the Sun, sure, but we are killing an awful lot of flora and fauna that would be doing fine if we weren't around to fuck things up.

[–] TheCalzoneMan 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Life always finds a way. At least until the moon has drifted so far from our orbit that our atmosphere is no longer sustainable and the oceans boil off the surface of the planet.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CoderKat@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation

Gosh, I can't imagine something as minor as passenger safety being important... Seriously, is this guy real or is it three psychopaths in a trenchcoat?

[–] taurentipper@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

Currently neither, just some small squashed pieces on the ocean floor

[–] twitterfluechtling@lemmy.pathoris.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Seriously, is this guy real or

He was real. Is he still real, as a mangled corps? Probably a matter of definition...

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago

He is still real, in the hearts of many other CEOs.

[–] xc2215x@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Who knows with him.

[–] sensibilidades@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"might only provide 'milliseconds'

"Don't give me your mumbo-jumbo Mister Scientist - will the alarm go off or not?!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] editediting@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

At least he wasn't a hypocrite about regulations.

[–] realChem 41 points 2 years ago

Really interesting to hear an actual expert with experience at depth (and at this exact site) discuss this story. I'm glad the anchor didn't cut in too often and let him speak at length. Thank you for sharing!

[–] MaxPower@feddit.de 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

If it really happened the way he says it did (implosion at 3,500 ft when they were travelling down to 13,000 ft) this sub was in no shape or form suited for this dive.

It's not confirmed at this point as I understand and Cameron also disclosed it as a rumor in a recent interview on Youtube.

Just read about Stockton Rush's (CEO and "pilot" of the sub, presumed dead) views about security:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_Rush

It's just amazing how an aircraft pilot, a guy with an ivy-league degree in aerospace engineering can have such twisted ideas about standards, regulations, and security in general.

No way in hell would I have signed up for this haphazard dive.

[–] anaximander@feddit.uk 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Apparently the viewport was rated for 1300m, and they were driving to 4000m. The fact it survived as long as it did is testament to the manufacturer's standards. The fact that it failed is utterly unsurprising.

Also the inspector they hired to verify the sub's safety was denied when he requested equipment to scan and test the hull integrity, was fired when he raised these concerns, and was sued for leaking company secrets when he tried to report it to OSHA.

Honestly the only surprising part is that it survived the previous thirteen dives before this one.

[–] BiggestBulb@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I thought it only dived three times total?

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

It surfaced three times total.

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

aerospace engineering

While obviously he intellectually knew the requirements were different, and even managed to build something that survived a few trips, I almost wonder if there is a certain amount of mental inertia there, similar to the old saw, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In aircraft, and even spacecraft, you do so much more to save weight than would be necessary or appropriate for designing a submarine, and your pressure vessel will never need to handle more than 1 atmosphere. Again, I'm not suggesting that he was literally stupid and didn't understand that at some level, but I haven't heard from anyone who's been around subs who thinks he was on the right developmental track.

[–] dragoonies 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you read the Wikipedia entry on the Titan submersible, it mentions somewhere that the original designer only intended it as a one time use vehicle. That doesn't inspire confidence.

[–] socphoenix@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That is freaking insane! So they knew this wasn’t meant for repeated dives and did it anyway…..

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NevermindNoMind@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There's also that old adage about experts being particularly vulnerable to believing they are smart and capable in other fields. It seems this is particularly prevalent among engineers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sarsaparilyptus@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Anecdotally, I've met almost two dozen people with high level engineering degrees who were about as sharp as a bowling ball when it came to literally everything besides their coursework. Each one of them with whom I shared my perspective that "critical thinking skills are all that matter for measuring intelligence, not the ability to memorize data; chimpanzees can do that better than we can anyway" reacted very negatively, which I've always thought was interesting.

I don't want to imply that everyone with an advanced STEM degree is a dullard and a weiner, a drone who can only produce results if he memorizes reams of other peoples' work. It's just an overrepresentation peculiar to that kind of field, just like how the humanities have an eternal plague of arrogant dicks who got philosophy all figured out at age 14.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

As someone who is good at memorization (although not as much post COVID) but has been historically poor at critical thinking, I agree. People kept telling me I was "smart" and that there was no way I could fail X or should fail X, but life experience and slow but steady analysis showed me that no, everyone (including my parents and teachers) were wrong. I was dumb as bricks, I'm just good at memorizing things.

I'm aware that my critical thinking skills aren't great. I'm also aware that I had no business going to college (and failing of course) studying what I did (computer science) and that it's actually very good and liberating to admit how fallible you are, and how bad you are at things, because it gives you the freedom and insight to know what you can do instead of what you can't.

I've lived long enough to see stupid people succeed at what "smart" people fail at, just because they're honest enough and humble enough to admit when they can't do something, and also when they're wrong. I saw that doing something right imperfectly (but effectively) is more useful than doing something wrong with perfect execution. It's the difference between going forward at a walk, and going backwards with a rocket thruster.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dragoonies 6 points 2 years ago

The reports I heard said communication was lost when the sub was at a depth of 3300 meters, not feet. But yeah, carbon fiber seems like a bad choice and the thing was an implosion waiting to happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

His name's James, James Cameron, the bravest pioneer, no budget too steep, no sea too deep, who's that? It's him! James Cameron!

[–] debounced@kbin.run 7 points 2 years ago

James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is... James Cameron.

[–] DoucheAsaurus@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Legendary director and king of the box office James Cameron?

[–] RoundToo@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Are you getting the music up there?

[–] brihuang95@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

hasn't this guy gone to the deep sea in a sub all by himself? wild

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Cameron did it in a sub that was tested and certified. The Titan sub was not actually tested or certified, because that would have been expensive.

Hell, Titan's view port was only rated for 1300 meters, not the 4000 meters of the Titanic wreck.

[–] grahamsz@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Hey - it's only 1.7 miles short, it just sounds bad when you put it in meters

/s

[–] brihuang95@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago

oof, guess it shouldn't be surprising that they went missing...

[–] darkmugglet@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

That's justification for a negligence claim. Staying that your sub meets or exceeds a standard and knowing the view port wasn't certified to those depths is the very definition of negligence. And then knowing the vessel was only a single use and using multiple times seems like a really good claim on manslaughter. Rush is lucky he's dead.

[–] Epilektoi_Hoplitai@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 years ago

He's pretty involved in the deep sea submersible community by all accounts, supposedly he's dived to the Titanic site 33 times and been involved in the design of some of the vessels used.

[–] communication 4 points 2 years ago

Cameron made a documentary about his sub called "Deep Sea Challenge" that's pretty enjoyable. It's available for free on Pluto TV, for those able to VPN into the USA.

Cameron's sub wasn't officially certified, but it was extremely well tested and he's been clear that he never would have let anyone else use it without certifying it first.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] binwiederhier@discuss.ntfy.sh 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I know this is possibly a little insensitive, but I find it quite poetic for the folks to die similarly, and in proximity to the Titanic. They must have really liked the Titanic, and they died doing something that they've probably looked forward to a long time.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I feel bad for the 19 year old boy. He didn't want to go and was very nervous, but it was Father's Day and he wanted to please his dad.

[–] lunarshot 8 points 2 years ago

yeah that’s the most tragic part of the story in my mind. I hope it was quick and painless for his sake.

[–] MaxPower@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Lol quite poetic indeed: Titanic was considered to be "unsinkable" and OceanGate's CEO said "security is a waste".

They both got a hard reality check from nature and physics.

[–] jon@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, way dumber than the Titanic. Titanic was one of the safest ships of its era. It could withstand 4 of its watertight compartments being completely flooded and stay afloat. The issue was that they grazed the iceberg in such a way that 6 compartments ended up being compromised. Despite that, it still stayed afloat for 2 hours. Look how much crap its sister ship the Olympic went through and stayed afloat.

This stupid thing was a disaster waiting to happen.

[–] TheGayTramp@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago

It also would’ve stayed up a lot longer if the watertight compartments had gone all the way up, so water couldn’t have continued filling ones further aft. It still had more compromised than it could withstand, but it may have been able to remain afloat long enough for the Carpathia to arrive for rescue

load more comments
view more: next ›