Oceangate Sub Missing

Obviously there are so many red flags around the science of the sub and the money (and ego) of the rich paying passengers led them to a position of risk which was way beyond their comprehension.  Should they have made further enquiries…? probably; I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.  Looking at the video and background it’s very apparent that the central objective was about making money rather than scientific endeavour.  But i would stop short of calling it a scam – CEOs of fledgling companies have a tendency to be highly promotional and scammers are usually able to count the proceeds of the crime whilst in this case the CEO perished too.

TBH the money making side could be to facilitate the CEO’s desire to peruse his er hobby.

Didn’t Enzo Ferrari flog the road cars so he could carry on the racing.

I agree and I think that those drawing parallels between them are mostly just indulging in lazy, predictable point scoring.

TBH I raised it as it sits uneasy with me, I don’t think the resources to go for the sub were mobilised due to it being a load of rich people but just find it unsettling that very little seems to have been done to stop 500-600 immigrants drowning.

I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.

Or you may have observed how safety conscious they obviously were. You can like to think whatever you choose but until you’ve been in their position it’s nothing but speculation.

I work in an industry with a history of horrifying accidents (Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima) where every armchair expert likes to comment on how preventable each was and how obvious the failings were.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it sure as hell doesn’t make things obvious before the fact. The CEO can rot in hell for all I care but the so-called “mission specialists” were nothing but gullible victims in all of this.

I thought this was an excellent insight into both the mindset of “toxic wealth” that can drive risky behaviour when people get wealthy quickly, and the predatory way these people can be “sold” to. Jason Calacanis has a couple of different podcasts, and I always think he’s got a great ability to see the bigger picture. Really interesting to hear his insights and self awareness as a tech billionaire (not just on this issue but in general):

I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.

But equally people might take that as comfort in that they know when to back off.
Its tricky since obviously a ton of information has come up which makes it fairly clear it was playing Russian roulette but how much of that was easily available until the shit hit the fan is unclear. Especially since in some of the cases legal threats seem to have keep people quiet.

I really don’t think it has anything to do with wealth. People die doing ambitious things all the time, it’s just usually in mountains or falling out of planes rather than under water. These people were rich because the ticket price was high.

There is/was a whole load of testing and certification … people on the Titan made their own mind up if they think its important to them or ignore it.

No. There was not. That is clear from the article I posted, which you’ve clearly not read properly, just skimmed through just to find a few titbits to back up your existing assumptions.

andyrm
Free Member

risky behaviour

You mean like hurtling down a rocky hillside with scant protection on one of the most dangerous vehicles made for such a thing ?.

I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.

anyone who’s been bought one of those ‘experience days’ tickets for a hot air balloon trip would be familiar with numerous aborted trips’ because conditions aren’t right on a particular day. I spent 18 months repeatedly preparing to go on a hot air balloon tomorrow then calling a number at 7pm to listen to a message telling me it’s cancelled.

(anyone with a lawnmower would be familiar with that frankly.)

i think for the passengers being part of that bigger operation- being out in that part of the ocean, being amongst a bigger technical operation around the sub and those preparations to dive and waiting for the window of opportunity  is all part of the trip.

the operation and its leader being a con isn’t something the victims of the con can be blamed for. There’s nothing stupid or reckless (or deserving) about the passengers. They hadn’t had the benefit of hindsight or had the worlds media serve them up a daily diet of every terse email from a disgruntled employee or the options of James Cameron telling us what he’d always knew had happened the moment it became clear to everyone what had happened , or factoids about carbon fibre. We all seem very sure about the choices we’d have made in the same situation but the situation would never be presented to us- we weren’t even aware it could be. Until news broke of the sub going missing….. non of us knew it had even existed. The facts and risks and regulations ( or lack of)  being tossed about on this tread were not plastered over the media and internet.

thecaptain

But isn’t it your position that it shouldn’t be? The customer can do their due diligence.

Nope, a scam part should be illegal IMHO (insofar as that can be enforced). That is claiming false certification etc. though how you do that once the whole thing gets moved to a country like Liberia because of legislation in say Canada is another matter.

Who are we to tell them not to spend their money on helping out a Nigerian prince in a tight spot. Or buying tickets for their Russian girlfriend to fly over and meet them.

If that’s your mate or relative etc. you can “tell” them (warn them) as much as you like. I certainly would… what you can’t do is after telling them its a scam actually prevent them.

(You can also point out that if the Nigerian Prince by some miraculous freak did turn out to be for real they are asking you to launder money that is illegal as an aside).

To put this back in the investment sphere… lets say you got offered an investment opportunity for a new diamond mine in Yemen.. and lets say you know little or nothing of diamond mines but some organisation is claiming they found kimberlites.
As a private investor you can either do some due diligence or not. It seems improbable but there is pre-cambian basement and some Archean down there somewhere.

However you’d be prudent to do some due diligence and get some certified geochem/dating and check with an expert before committing life changing amounts of money. As a first step you might want to check some radiometric dating, ask to see some photo’s of thin sections etc. or ask an expert to do that on your behalf and check for a REE signature that they didn’t just take some Kimberlite from South Africa

So in essence you should be able to trust an analysis by a recognised lab. If they claimed it was analysed by UCL then it should have been analysed by UCL etc. switching samples should be illegal but you’d do well to check they didn’t.

If on the other hand they claim “it’s not applicable we are looking at an “experimental” new type of kimberlight” and all the experts know nothing, just send us the money etc. then its very likely a scam regardless of the BS they put on a corporate website.

I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.

and

But equally people might take that as comfort in that they know when to back off.

Just highlights that it shouldn’t be left to untrained individuals to have to find out for themselves that what they want to do is safe or not. These responses are both reasonably good interpretations of the same piece of information that any Joe Public could conclude. Unless it comes with expert analysis, neither of the folks who make these assumptions knows who is right to be cautious, and who is wrong to be hesitant. or vice versa

Lay people cannot be the sole arbiters of their own safety for some things, and so far as operating perhaps the single most risky thing a Joe Public can reasonably pay to do (short of being blasted into space) there should be a commensurate level of openness and transparency from the operator, that in this case was either sadly lacking, or hidden on purpose.

I agree with @stevextc that folks should be free to do largely what they want, but with these sorts of extremes, all the info should be present to enable them to make a reasonable choice. They didn’t get that opportunity here.

There is no current legal controls on submersibles as such, anywhere in the World.

What there is, are engineering standards, set by Classification Societies. They set standards for ships and marine operations, O&G, Offshore wind etc. There are 11 of them, of which, 3 have standards for submersibles. (I think).

These are commercial operations, they are there to make money and some have better reputations than others.

There is no legal requirement to have ship or offshore structure “classed”. However, it is almost impossible to operate without it. The main reason being that you can’t get insurance without it.

Oceangate operated from a ship that was classed and was under the Canadian flag, it would of been fully compliant and insured.

The sub wasn’t classed or insured. It wasn’t illegal and I can’t see how it could be made to be so when in International waters.

As a casual thought, I wonder if people are picking over the maritime insurance policy for the launch ship? Given that the paying passengers were classed as crew…

One thing that has struck me… There were 3 fee paying passengers onboard. Surprised that they could cover the costs of the whole expedition for $750,000. Crew, fuel, hire of the  support ship, airfares to the UK to assure them that it was safe etc. This was also the only Titanic dive scheduled for this year, so they weren’t pulling $750k every 2 weeks.

One thing that has struck me… There were 3 fee paying passengers onboard.

On the sub yup. However on all the other trips that have been reported there were several sets of passengers. I would guess 6-9 allowing for three dives over the length of the trip.
Its reported though it was still loss making at this stage with it being unclear where the cash was coming from.

Its reported though it was still loss making at this stage with it being unclear where the cash was coming from.

Wasn’t it coming from Stockton Rush himself? I understood that the end point was to flog the sub to the military and spy agencies and the trips to the Titanic were a bit of a loss leader to prove the tech.

The sub wasn’t classed or insured. It wasn’t illegal and I can’t see how it could be made to be so when in International waters.

Same way the US and other countries control the cruise liner industry. You want to dock in their ports you play by their rules.
OK whilst not actually illegal the US and Canada would be able to make it extremely difficult not to play by their rules.

Wasn’t it coming from Stockton Rush himself?

Its unclear just how wealthy he is, maybe some other backers as well?

I understood that the end point was to flog the sub to the military and spy agencies….

The story I saw was for oil companies and possibly others interested in ocean floor resources.

@dissonance, yeah, heard both of those as well. Theory seems to be that he’s wealthy enough to fund it himself for the time being, but not wealthy enough for it to go on endless without another source of funding.

I also heard that he wanted a fleet of them for high roller types with vessels in the deeper spots all around the world.

Same way the US and other countries control the cruise liner industry. You want to dock in their ports you play by their rules.
OK whilst not actually illegal the US and Canada would be able to make it extremely difficult not to play by their rules.

They did play by the rules. In Canada they had a Canadian flagged vessel, once outside 12 miles all bets are off.

nickc

I agree with @stevextc that folks should be free to do largely what they want, but with these sorts of extremes, all the info should be present to enable them to make a reasonable choice. They didn’t get that opportunity here.

What I have been trying to say is that for that set of passengersand previous ones the lack of that information should be all the info they needed to make a reasonable choice.

Lay people cannot be the sole arbiters of their own safety for some things, and so far as operating perhaps the single most risky thing a Joe Public can reasonably pay to do (short of being blasted into space) there should be a commensurate level of openness and transparency from the operator, that in this case was either sadly lacking, or hidden on purpose.

There is a long list of the invited and Joe Public doesn’t really come close to describing them.

In 2004, Kemp filmed Ross Kemp on Gangs.[13] He followed this up with the documentaries Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, Ross Kemp in Search of Pirates, Ross Kemp: Battle for the Amazon and Ross Kemp: Extreme World.

wikipedia

In 2022 Kemp, who had previously taken part in deep sea dives for the television channel Sky History, had planned to mark the 110th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic by recording a documentary in which he would undertake a dive to the wreckage using the submersible Titan. The project was shelved after production company Atlantic Productions deemed the submersible to be unsafe and not “fit for purpose”

It’s just one example… but his production company seem to have found either the info or more likely lack of and quickly got to the sensible decision.

It’s just one example… but his production company seem to have found either the info or more likely lack of and quickly got to the sensible decision.

More likely tried to arrange insurance and when they were refused, pulled the plug. The other documentaries, while needing specialist insurance, would of been insurable.

There is a long list of the invited and Joe Public doesn’t really come close to describing them

Nit picking. They’re not professionals, so they’re public, wealthy fo’shure; but still just Joe Public. That they get called “mission specialists” in the literature is just ego-massaging for v wealthy people

 for that set of passengers

Their wealth or level of resourcefulness is irrelevant People should be free to do what they want, if that’s go to the ocean floor, then cool, if that’s go to the ocean floor with an operator, then they should be able to suppose (or assume) that it’s not going to be on board a totally experimental one-of-a-kind craft that all the other experts in the field think is totally un-safe and the Operations Director has recently been taken to court for whistle-bowing. This should be so obvious as to be not worth disagreeing about.

That they get called “mission specialists” in the literature is just ego-massaging for v wealthy people

From the article posted previously, calling the punters “mission specialists” was a bit of legal loopholery as calling them “passengers”, “customers”, “clients”, “travellers” or whatever would have meant operating under a more stringent regulatory framework.

That it massaged their egos was a side benefit.

They did play by the rules. In Canada they had a Canadian flagged vessel, once outside 12 miles all bets are off.

And the reason they used the Canadian flagged vessel is they had to in order to use the port. If Canada now changes the rules to require any subs to be insured then they would have to do that as well.
Or sail a rather long way.

And the reason they used the Canadian flagged vessel is they had to in order to use the port. If Canada now changes the rules to require any subs to be insured then they would have to do that as well.
Or sail a rather long way.

I posted earlier that I’m pretty certain that they will change the rules to stop the likes of Oceangate operating out of Canada and the USA.

However, it’s a bit of a moot point as there are only 4 or 5 manned subs capable of going to 4000m and they are all built to class requirements. I doubt anyone is going to building anything like Titan in the foreseeable future.

I don’t think this has come up before (sorry if it has, I almost can’t believe it’s not been mentioned) but there’s an episode on The Travel Show ‘Take Me To The Titanic’ that follows an OceanGate expedition in 2022.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0fpz9zw/the-travel-show-take-me-to-titanic

If you search iPlayer there’s also a part 1 without part 2 but this seems to be both parts in one episode (43mins).

I understood that the end point was to flog the sub to the military and spy agencies and the trips to the Titanic were a bit of a loss leader to prove the tech.

The story I saw was for oil companies and possibly others interested in ocean floor resources.

Seems unlikely. All major development efforts in that sphere are in uncrewed platforms. .

Anyone watch the first part of the documentary on the Titan tragedy last night?

Think it was on channel 5.

I bet that went down well.

started watching but it wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know so I got bored and switched over.

I binged out on every story I could get on it at the time though.

Was there any new information?

started watching but it wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know so I got bored and switched over.

I rather assumed it would be submarine bro uses untried tech he’s been advised not to and gets loads of people killed, which I’ve heard/read multiple times already.

I bet that went down well.

Oh dear, making jokes on a tragic accident. Some people really plumb the depths.

Hope I never sink that low.

That’s scraping the ‘imploded’ barrel.

Can’t be bothered watching an entire documentary. Is there a heavily condensed version of the story?

Compressed, something that you can absorb instantly?

Can’t be bothered watching an entire documentary. Is there a heavily condensed version of the story?

Pretty much what ratherbeintobego said 2 posts above

Only watched ~10mins and feels like they are really dragging this story out. I thought they decided that Titan imploded very early on after the descent, the crew and passengers never got close to using available air.

I rather assumed it would be submarine bro uses untried tech he’s been advised not to and gets loads of people killed, which I’ve heard/read multiple times already.

Yeah, so much this. I guess it’s the collected volume for anyone who wasn’t paying attention the first time.