Submarine on expedition to Titanic wreck goes missing, "search and rescue operation" underway
- Thread starter Richard Cranium
- Start date
- Local time
- 8:58 AM
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 66,245
- Reaction score
- 241,080
- Location
- Maskachusetts
Imploded Titanic submarine seen for first time as pieces recovered from sea floor
The Titan’s wreckage was seen for the first time in pictures taken on Wednesday, more than a week after it imploded in the depths of the Atlantic
www.independent.co.uk
- Local time
- 9:58 AM
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 30,844
- Reaction score
- 54,751
- Location
- Hanover, Pennslyvania
- Local time
- 9:58 AM
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 19,383
- Reaction score
- 37,915
- Location
- State of insanity
Wealthy people went on a private expedition, which resulted in instant demolition of vessel & occupants. So, why all this effort to recover debris pieces & who is paying for it ?
- Local time
- 6:58 AM
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2023
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 4,499
- Location
- Brush Prairie, WA
Coupla questions. What is the duration of the trip and can you see the Titanic from the Ohio River? I have the money.
1 Wild R/T
Well-Known Member
Clarification needed... "The Titanic" or a "Titanic"... Cause at the bottom of the Ohio river I'm sure something "Titanic" is down there..... But "The Titanic" might be somewhere else.....
Your gonna need to pony up more than $2500 to see "The Titanic"... "And It's not gonna be a Hemi..." (Joe Dirt)
They can't afford the entry fee..... sticks for Rebel!!!!if they want to pay big money to see rusty metal, they can come here
- Local time
- 9:58 AM
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 22,188
- Reaction score
- 64,044
- Location
- South Jersey USA
747mopar
Well-Known Member
I caught bits and pieces, seemed like epic failures on many levels do to negligence. My big complaint is why million will reportedly be spent on gathering the wreckage? What a waste of money, I can see if it were a Naval vessel that was attacked or had a major failure that needed to be investigated but a poorly designed private vessel???
As a veteran submariner, the Hunley raising gave mixed signs; it is a grave site (they did get confederate military burial on land) and a piece of history is now on display . Same with USSR/Russian Kursk, ok, they are our advosary, but in sub fleet, they ARE our "Order of The Phin" brothers!!!
- Local time
- 6:58 AM
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 18,624
- Reaction score
- 37,206
- Location
- Surrey, B.C. Canada
Much of the cost had already been spent during the initial search process, and once the Odysseus ROV finally located what was left, since it was equipped to do so it made sense to recover whatever pieces it could while it was in the area. Once discovered, the actual recovery process for the mini sub took less time than the actual search and the other ships and aircraft involved were no longer part of the cost process.
Calling it a "poorly designed private vessel" is easy, but it has to be proved that it was poorly designed, or for that matter it could be a decent design but poorly constructed. It had made the trip down and back in the past, its not like it imploded on the very first try.
Reasons for recovery are multiple; for one, much of mankind's progress has been built on failures. Analyzing what has gone wrong leads to improvements. We all know that the tragedy happened, and now the U.S. Coast Guard (among others) wants to know exactly why it happened. Just like the FAA reconstructs aircraft wreckage to investigate what happened to cause an accident.
It's likely there will be lawsuits, despite waivers having been signed. Having as much physical evidence on hand will be helpful for all parties in pursuing legal action. France, England and the Canadian Transportation Safety Board will all have ongoing investigations and will need to examine as much evidence as possible.
Then there's the chance that bodily remains may have been brought up as well which may help give a sense of closure to the families involved.
- Local time
- 6:58 AM
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2023
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 4,499
- Location
- Brush Prairie, WA
I believe @Photon440 nailed it. Follow the money. There will be insurance, lawyers and insurance lawyers involved regardless of the waivers signed. How about Stockton Rush? Did he sign a waiver? He has money and heirs. And I did see something about 'presumed human remains'. This tragedy happened deep beneath the ocean surface and the families will want that closure if it's possible.
padam
Well-Known Member
Yep, if all the lawyers were down there with the Titan, we wouldn’t need to recover anything.
Disagree with you dear sir, in so many ways. Having lived on one for 4 years, and "experienced" under water depths & effects of sea pressure on hull & equipment that also is exsposed to those pressures and "subsafe" & "level 1" requirements for submarines, I disagree. If Stockton Rush "GAVE A DAMN", his vessel would have been "CERTIFIED" BEFORE exploration. The oceans are totally different from aviation/aerospace, a 1mm hole in a sub, especially at 12000 feet, then it is in upper atmosphere/space & 0 seconds to respond.
"Closure for Family" will NEVER happen for those on Thresher (1963) and Scorpion (1968) my dear @Photon440
- Local time
- 6:58 AM
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 18,624
- Reaction score
- 37,206
- Location
- Surrey, B.C. Canada
Thanks for your input based on experience and years of service, I work with an ex-submariner and it's certainly an interesting life.
I had not commented regarding whether the vessel should have been certified, the fact remains that there was no requirement to do so in international waters. That does not indicate that I didn't think that certification would have been a good idea or indeed a requirement. Of course, there have been fully certified submarines that have failed as well.
But I'm puzzled, you say "Disagree with you dear sir, in so many ways" and yet didn't actually point out a single sentence of mine that you disagreed with.
Did you not like my assessment of costs of search vs. recovery? If you don't like that the US Coast Guard is putting money into the investigation, then disagree with them if you like.
Did you not agree that there are multiple reasons for wanting to recover wreckage parts?
Did you not agree that there could be lawsuits?
And yes, of course there is a fundamental difference between deep sea diving and aeronautics. And yet, they can both be similar in that a catastrophe can occur in a fraction of a second with no time for response. And finding the exact cause of the problem is not a bad thing.
"Closure for Family" will NEVER happen for those on Thresher (1963) and Scorpion (1968) my dear @Photon440
I'm not sure what those disasters have to do with this private venture, but many news sources have already commented on the recent recovered remains being a source of closure to the families. It wasn't my opinion, I was merely relaying what was already being said.
Certification would have allowed "DSV" experts, those who are experienced in deep sea operations to go over vessel from drawings, design, materials, calculations, operation, emergency & operational policies/procedures, safety systems, control systems, backup systems et al...in other words, "...white guys over 50..." WHO know what they are doing. NO CERT, NO DIVE!!! There ARE Maritime laws world wide, they may not be the same across the board, but they are there for a reason.
Sounds like Rush was too arrogant to "turn to the experts" imo.
Lawsuits a given, part of society today: With maritime laws in place, GUARENTEE people will file suit against the USCG, RCCG, and all the maritime governmental agencies, wanting big $$$$. WHY? FOR WHAT?? Rush did this himself and passengers went along with it. Leads to question not being asked/talked about WAS THERE ANY "EXPEDITION" INSURANCE? If NO, WHY NOT? Was it because vessel was NOT "CERTFIED" for maritime operation?
Tax payers on hook for the bills.
"WELL, THEY WERE TRYING NEW METHODS, MATERIALS and SYSTEMS: CUTTING EDGE TECH", I say BULLSHIT!! Don't you "think" the experts (...white guys over 50 with DECADES of knowledge & experience) have ALREADY looked at these over the last 20+ years of sub/DSV "growth"???
Sounds like Rush was too arrogant to "turn to the experts" imo.
Lawsuits a given, part of society today: With maritime laws in place, GUARENTEE people will file suit against the USCG, RCCG, and all the maritime governmental agencies, wanting big $$$$. WHY? FOR WHAT?? Rush did this himself and passengers went along with it. Leads to question not being asked/talked about WAS THERE ANY "EXPEDITION" INSURANCE? If NO, WHY NOT? Was it because vessel was NOT "CERTFIED" for maritime operation?
Tax payers on hook for the bills.
"WELL, THEY WERE TRYING NEW METHODS, MATERIALS and SYSTEMS: CUTTING EDGE TECH", I say BULLSHIT!! Don't you "think" the experts (...white guys over 50 with DECADES of knowledge & experience) have ALREADY looked at these over the last 20+ years of sub/DSV "growth"???
Basket case
Well-Known Member
It was a poorly designed unit, not certified by any agency experienced in deep diving submersibles using proper materials, and was known to be developing stress cracks from its last several dives.
That’s exactly what I was saying early on in the thread. The Navy knew Sunday it when boom. With their listening possibilities, they can tell you when a whale farts in what ocean and most likely what type of whale! They knew!
So, Why wasn’t it reported then rather than an entire weeks worth of utter bullshit? We all know!
Regardless of the reason, it’s reprehensible to keep those families on the edge for that long knowing what took place and using it for self serving needs!
Xp, This Administration's MO Is Nothing But Lies, and Propaganda, and MUCH of It, Sponsored By Foreign Entities...
Similar threads
