Titanic "tourist" submarine

[Dazo]

Pretty sure if it was a tenner to get in there wouldn’t be as much condemnation of people visiting historical sites. 🙄

Edited June 20, 2023 by Dazo

[hughesie27]

Getting annoyed that people want to offer a service with willing customers who know the risks is strange. 

[Mikey1874]

It's like everything. You do things for the experience. 

 

Decent experience to visit the Titanic. 

[Tazio]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

It's like everything. You do things for the experience. 

 

Decent experience to visit the Titanic. 

Yep, hundreds if not thousands of hobby divers explore wrecks every year just in the UK alone. 

[Taffin]

13 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Getting annoyed that people want to offer a service with willing customers who know the risks is strange. 

 

And yet there will is a hugely costly rescue/recovery going on. Presumably those on board are footing the bill?

[iantjambo]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

And yet there will is a hugely costly rescue/recovery going on. Presumably those on board are footing the bill?

 Not to mention those that then have to put their own lives at risk during said rescue/recovery.

[Der Kaiser]

2 hours ago, highlandjambo3 said:

This one is open to the public and is in a place called Keil on the north coast of Germany……lovely place:

Absolute bat shit facilities inside, crew sleeping on boards on top of torpedoes, the captains room was basically a room with a very small bed and chair to sit on, No door just a curtain.

 

 

Visited the Uboat in Hamburg on my brother stag.

 

Fascinating but glad I never had to work in one.

 

 

 

I'm lying.....I'd have loved to be sinking cargo ships in WW2

[Shooter McGavin]

Let’s just hope this will be the last trip of it’s kind, especially in such a shan looking tin can.

[Ron Burgundy]

33 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Pretty sure if it was a tenner to get in there wouldn’t be as much condemnation of people visiting historical sites. 🙄

Those ghoulish voyeurs that visit the Colosseum in their millions every year. Sickos.

[Der Kaiser]

At what point do you start to think rescue isnt coming and start kissing?

 

Or....or is this just me?

[Harry Potter]

13 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Let’s just hope this will be the last trip of it’s kind, especially in such a shan looking tin can.

Made of carbon fibre, is this a super strong material ? 

[hughesie27]

39 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

And yet there will is a hugely costly rescue/recovery going on. Presumably those on board are footing the bill?

I'm sure if you asked them right now they would. Or the families.

[Taffin]

14 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I'm sure if you asked them right now they would. Or the families.

 

Given they can't now be asked, that's not much help. Everyone would pay once they're in danger. That should all be in place prior to engaging in something like this.

 

If it's not being funded by the tourists, the sub operator or their insurance then I can 100% why people are annoyed by it.

 

The whole thing sounds reckless and unprofessional. Saying "you're happy with the risks" before engaging in something dangerous for no real reason is fine as long as you then own that statement and don't rely on others footing the bill and risking their lives.

[Dazo]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

And yet there will is a hugely costly rescue/recovery going on. Presumably those on board are footing the bill?

Does anyone foot the bill for being rescued ? Regardless yes I’m sure they would happily foot the bill if rescue. 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Does anyone foot the bill for being rescued ? Regardless yes I’m sure they would happily foot the bill if rescue. 

 

99% sure people who get into distress when climbing Everest for example are privately rescued via their expedition company, their insurance or 'footing the bill'.

 

My point though is around hiding behind "customers knew the risks"...knowing the risks is very different from knowing them and accepting them. It's poor to run something like this without having the means to carry out, or pay for the rescue attempts. This provider just seems totally reckless. Sometimes, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[BlueRiver]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Getting annoyed that people want to offer a service with willing customers who know the risks is strange. 

 

It is eh? 

 

Bizarre thread.

 

As for the costs of rescue, I hope we withdraw any emergency services from attempting any rescues of people from situations that carried inherent risk. 

 

Plane came down and you're bobbing in the middle of the sea in a life jacket? **** you you knew the risks. 

[Taffin]

13 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

It is eh? 

 

Bizarre thread.

 

As for the costs of rescue, I hope we withdraw any emergency services from attempting any rescues of people from situations that carried inherent risk. 

 

Plane came down and you're bobbing in the middle of the sea in a life jacket? **** you you knew the risks. 

 

Not even remotely the same. See my example of Everest evac for something more comparable.

 

Also the risks of going in a plane are miniscule, and presumably you'd have travel insurance and your airline operator would also have insurance. Or, you'd have your own civil aviation insurance.

 

Descending nearly 4,000m under the sea in a bodge job sub to gawp at a shipwreck without insurance with a provider who can't rescue you? Tbh, yeh, I would say no public money or services should be used for any corresponding rescue.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Taffin

[hughesie27]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Not even remotely the same. See my example of Everest evac for something more comparable.

 

Also the risks of going in a plane are miniscule, and presumably you'd have travel insurance and your airline operator would also have insurance. Or, you'd have your own civil aviation insurance.

 

Descending nearly 4,000ft under the sea in a bodge job sub to gawp at a shipwreck without insurance with a provider who can't rescue you? Tbh, yeh, I would say no public money or services should be used for any corresponding rescue.

Proportionally the sub is probably safer than a flight.

[Taffin]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

Proportionally the sub is probably safer than a flight.

 

What does that mean? Proportional to what?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Getting annoyed that people want to offer a service with willing customers who know the risks is strange. 

By the same token then, **** them.

 

Leave them there and let’s all move on, makes no difference to any of us.

[BlueRiver]

19 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Not even remotely the same. See my example of Everest evac for something more comparable.

 

Also the risks of going in a plane are miniscule, and presumably you'd have travel insurance and your airline operator would also have insurance. Or, you'd have your own civil aviation insurance.

 

Descending nearly 4,000m under the sea in a bodge job sub to gawp at a shipwreck without insurance with a provider who can't rescue you? Tbh, yeh, I would say no public money or services should be used for any corresponding rescue.

 

Why not? Do you need to be flying on a holiday somewhere for two weeks? 

 

You've no idea how much this rescue is costing for one thing but you're just demanding we leave people to die. Fair enough. 

 

Plus all the insurance in the world doesn't remove the risk and danger for rescue services that others are concerned about. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by BlueRiver

[hughesie27]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

What does that mean? Proportional to what?

Proportional to each other. I reckon % of flights and crashes is higher than % of subs failing. Therefore flights are more dangerous. Not stats to back that up of course just guessing.

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Proportional to each other. I reckon % of flights and crashes is higher than % of subs failing. Therefore flights are more dangerous. Not stats to back that up of course just guessing.

 

I'd suggest it's overwhelmingly the opposite, even in general but particularly in regards to this sub, and this route. It's got a 1 in 3 failure.

[Dazo]

44 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

99% sure people who get into distress when climbing Everest for example are privately rescued via their expedition company, their insurance or 'footing the bill'.

 

My point though is around hiding behind "customers knew the risks"...knowing the risks is very different from knowing them and accepting them. It's poor to run something like this without having the means to carry out, or pay for the rescue attempts. This provider just seems totally reckless. Sometimes, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

How risky is it though ? I genuinely don’t know but I’ve rarely heard of these subs getting into trouble. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but the risks don’t seem to be that high. 
 

Just seems to be a hint of because they have paid a lot of money they are somehow different from any other person who wants to explore historical sites. 

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

I'd suggest it's overwhelmingly the opposite, even in general but particularly in regards to this sub, and this route. It's got a 1 in 3 failure.

I'm talking about incidents that have resulted in deaths.

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Dazo said:

How risky is it though ? I genuinely don’t know but I’ve rarely heard of these subs getting into trouble. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but the risks don’t seem to be that high. 
 

Just seems to be a hint of because they have paid a lot of money they are somehow different from any other person who wants to explore historical sites. 

 

I'd say a 33% failure rate is pretty high.

 

I'm not talking about submarines in general, I simply have no knowledge of them. But reading about this one and what it was doing, it seems pretty obvious that it was extremely risky.

 

'In his report from last year, Pogue reads from what appears to be a waiver which describes the submersible as an “experimental” vessel, "that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma or death".'

 

The difference is they are doing something really dangerous, for no purpose other than curiosity. All for it, it's cool and exciting. Rescue should be self funded and organised by the operator though. Or the risks understood and accepted. All imo, of course. If others want to fund vanity tourism from the public purse that's their prerogative 👍

[The Future's Maroon]

I’m sure I read years ago the man who discovered the titanic has one massive regret - he had the option to stop others/tourists visiting the site but he didn’t at the end of the day it’s one huge graveyard and he thought afterwards that it should have been left in place with nobody going near it.

 

as for these rich twats…**** them

Edited June 20, 2023 by The Future's Maroon

[Taffin]

12 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I'm talking about incidents that have resulted in deaths.

 

Well, it's either 0 from 15 or 5 from 15. I'd still rather get on a plane where the risk of death is miniscule than on a sub on a route where 33% of the passengers died, or ended up in a situation where they very easily could have died.

 

 

Edit: if you looked solely at aircraft landing at Lukla for example...you'd have a good case for airplanes being dangerous. This isn't a normal submarine, doing normal things. Even the Navy don't get down to that depth safely. You're making it sound like it's a regular jolly to see the barrier reef or something.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Taffin

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

I'd say a 33% failure rate is pretty high.

 

I'm not talking about submarines in general, I simply have no knowledge of them. But reading about this one and what it was doing, it seems pretty obvious that it was extremely risky.

 

'In his report from last year, Pogue reads from what appears to be a waiver which describes the submersible as an “experimental” vessel, "that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma or death".'

 

The difference is they are doing something really dangerous, for no purpose other than curiosity. All for it, it's cool and exciting. Rescue should be self funded and organised by the operator though. Or the risks understood and accepted. All imo, of course. If others want to fund vanity tourism from the public purse that's their prerogative 👍

I guess it depends on the stages, definitions or circumstances of failure. I’m sure they abort these type of things fairly regularly and do they consider it a failure?
 

I don’t necessarily disagree about the self funding part and I’m sure it will be discussed somewhere when you are paying this sort of money. 

[hughesie27]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Well, it's either 0 from 15 or 5 from 15. I'd still rather get on a plane where the risk of death is miniscule than on a sub on a route where 33% of the passengers died, or ended up in a situation where they very easily could have died.

 

 

Maybe they see themselves as pioneers being the first to explore the oceans with these machines.

The billionaire guy was one of Bezos first passengers on his space flight.

[been here before]

Football, geopolitical warfare, chemical weapons, global pandemics, Brexit, vaccines, US politics, the financial crisis, international terrorism and woke.

 

Just a few of the subjects that the same few posters who comprise the JKB Experts On Everything Panel have pontificated upon and attempted to outsmart each other over.

 

But suddenly we have a subject Google cant really help them on. There simply doesnt seem to be enough information out there on how to rescue a submarine trapped many thousands of feet underwater for the JKB Experts On Everything Panel to draw their intellectual swords and carry the fight of their 'knowledge' to each other.

 

Truly a seismic day. What a time to be alive.

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

I guess it depends on the stages, definitions or circumstances of failure. I’m sure they abort these type of things fairly regularly and do they consider it a failure?
 

I don’t necessarily disagree about the self funding part and I’m sure it will be discussed somewhere when you are paying this sort of money. 

 

Both (planes and this sub) will have significantly more "failures" if you include aborted actions. I'm not, it's done this expedition 3 times and one has resulted in what we have today (which is what I'm referring to as a failure.)

 

 

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

Maybe they see themselves as pioneers being the first to explore the oceans with these machines.

The billionaire guy was one of Bezos first passengers on his space flight.

 

Maybe the do, and good for them...but it's precisely why public resources and money shouldn't be use in the bailout when it goes wrong. I'm not against them doing it.

[Harry Potter]

I find it difficult to understand why the sub cant communicate with the mother ship, due to

the deepness they can only send short texts, pretty grim that fact alone.

[Japan Jambo]

6 hours ago, Tazio said:

 

 

That's mental and with hindsight completely irresponsible.

[Der Kaiser]

1 hour ago, been here before said:

Football, geopolitical warfare, chemical weapons, global pandemics, Brexit, vaccines, US politics, the financial crisis, international terrorism and woke.

 

Just a few of the subjects that the same few posters who comprise the JKB Experts On Everything Panel have pontificated upon and attempted to outsmart each other over.

 

But suddenly we have a subject Google cant really help them on. There simply doesnt seem to be enough information out there on how to rescue a submarine trapped many thousands of feet underwater for the JKB Experts On Everything Panel to draw their intellectual swords and carry the fight of their 'knowledge' to each other.

 

Truly a seismic day. What a time to be alive.

 

A really big net?

[davemclaren]

46 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

I find it difficult to understand why the sub cant communicate with the mother ship, due to

the deepness they can only send short texts, pretty grim that fact alone.

Radio waves don't travel well through a lot of water.  I think they use sonic waves. 

[japanjambo]

5 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

If they haven’t already, they must be about to run out of oxygen 

They have about 40 hours of oxygen left, supposedly. 

[japanjambo]

Even if the sub has floated to the surface, they can't get out as the thing is bolted shut from the outside. Has to be opened from the outside. So they could still run out of oxygen, unless they are located in time. And the size of the thing will be like looking for a needle in a haystack.  If the sub is located on the bottom of the ocean, there are only about 4 other vehicles in the world that could reach it at that depth. And it takes weeks to prepare them to dive down. So, it is not looking verry good at all. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by japanjambo

[hughesie27]

They should just attach a really long rope or chain to these things.

[CostaJambo]

42 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

That's mental and with hindsight completely irresponsible.

Agree. Dunno what these people were thinking about getting in that thing. Apparently they got a "weather window" and it might have been the only opportunity this year to give it a try, which makes it all the more irresponsible given the state of the vessel.

 

As an aside I wonder how they will decide who gets to strangle the guy that built it in order to preserve oxygen.

[kila]

It's surely not worth the trip down... It's been 3D scanned in detail, can explore it in VR if not now sometime soon. What is there to experience viewing such a wreck and risking your life to go so deep?

 

It's because only a select entitled few can do it. A bucket list to say they've actually seen it themselves for real. Now others are risking their lives to save them. What a waste of resources.

 

[That thing you do]

6 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Getting annoyed that people want to offer a service with willing customers who know the risks is strange. 

 

Exactly. Theres a market for high risk (and high adrenaline) stuff. If theres a market someone will offer it.

 

Cant say it would be on my bucket list, though I would go to space if offered as oddly that seems safer.

 

 

[That thing you do]

2 hours ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

That's mental and with hindsight completely irresponsible.

What an advert for Capitalism

 

Costs $150k or more a shot

Completely experimental vehicle, built by the lowest bidder controlled by an XBox controller.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Everything, it turns out.

[trotter]

4 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Not even remotely the same. See my example of Everest evac for something more comparable.

 

Also the risks of going in a plane are miniscule, and presumably you'd have travel insurance and your airline operator would also have insurance. Or, you'd have your own civil aviation insurance.

 

Descending nearly 4,000m under the sea in a bodge job sub to gawp at a shipwreck without insurance with a provider who can't rescue you? Tbh, yeh, I would say no public money or services should be used for any corresponding rescue.

How do you know there wasn't any insurance provided? How do you know that the bills for search/rescue won't be paid for that matter? Are you in some way affiliated with the company that you have inside info, or are you just making a guess?

[Taffin]

6 minutes ago, trotter said:

How do you know there wasn't any insurance provided? How do you know that the bills for search/rescue won't be paid for that matter? Are you in some way affiliated with the company that you have inside info, or are you just making a guess?

 

I bothered to read two headline news articles/live feeds on two of the national news outlets where an expert suggested something like this was uninsurable from an insurance underwriters perspective.

 

If you've more knowledge, please do share. I'm just going off what's available 👍

Edited June 20, 2023 by Taffin

[Jim_Duncan]

1 hour ago, kila said:

It's surely not worth the trip down... It's been 3D scanned in detail, can explore it in VR if not now sometime soon. What is there to experience viewing such a wreck and risking your life to go so deep?

 

It's because only a select entitled few can do it. A bucket list to say they've actually seen it themselves for real. Now others are risking their lives to save them. What a waste of resources.

 

I disagree that it’s not worth seeing. However, you would have to question the motives of those desperate to do so. Ghoulish behaviour. 
 

Hopefully all survive and all those conducting the S&R come out safe as well. 

[trotter]

35 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I bothered to read two headline news articles/live feeds on two of the national news outlets where an expert suggested something like this was uninsurable from an insurance underwriters perspective.

 

If you've more knowledge, please do share. I'm just going off what's available 👍

So no then? 

I have no idea one way or the other, but you do some strangely worked up over it?

[henrysmithsgloves]

I heard a rumour it has popped up at Hampden 😳

[1971fozzy]

53 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

What an advert for Capitalism

 

Costs $150k or more a shot

Completely experimental vehicle, built by the lowest bidder controlled by an XBox controller.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Everything, it turns out.

perfect summary 

[Taffin]

11 minutes ago, trotter said:

So no then? 

I have no idea one way or the other, but you do some strangely worked up over it?

 

Sorry I'll stop discussing it. Silly me, thought it was the point of a thread.