can't believe how irresponsible Stockton Rush was re the submersible

[nomadic5]

People warned him about the safety of that vessel but he ignored them. Why would they lie to him? Is that what he thought, that they were lying?

But why didn't he at least give them the benefit of the doubt? I mean, who wants to go to the depths of the ocean anyway... but especially when there are people saying there could be problems?

That thing was not even open-able except from the outside

That would have been sufficient information for ME, that is for sure!

Sometimes it's good to have phobias... like claustrophobia..

 

[shockedcanadian]

People warned him about the safety of that vessel but he ignored them. Why would they lie to him? Is that what he thought, that they were lying?

But why didn't he at least give them the benefit of the doubt? I mean, who wants to go to the depths of the ocean anyway... but especially when there are people saying there could be problems?

That thing was not even open-able except from the outside

That would have been sufficient information for ME, that is for sure!

Sometimes it's good to have phobias... like claustrophobia..

He clearly believed it was very safe or he wouldn't have been on the sub. The brain is unique, how it works at then granular level is still a mystery. Many people need a couple of confirming or reinforcing experiences to be convinced of a "fact", others may require far more detailed proof. He was clearly convinced and clearly wrong. My Dads U.S military buddy, a jet mechanic, told me years ago when I was a kid that "if people saw the shape of commercial airplanes they'd not feel comfortable flying". That comment has stuck with me and to this day has me afraid of flying (on top of height fears,.lack of control etc).

 

[whitehall]

The submersible vessel was proved safe. Something happened.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The submersible vessel was proved safe. Something happened.

Yes, it imploded.

 

[whitehall]

Yes, it imploded.

Too bad but log on to 'air disasters' for some perspective. A Canadian passenger jet with an out of order fuel gauge took on fuel which was incorrectly measured in liters instead of pounds and ran out of gas on a flight.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Too bad but log on to 'air disasters' for some perspective. A Canadian passenger jet with an out of order fuel gauge took on fuel which was incorrectly measured in liters instead of pounds and ran out of gas on a flight.

I'm not sure I understand the connection. Are.you going to compare the regulations and historic precedence of such air flight and processes to this unfortunate sub?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The submersible vessel was proved safe. Something happened.

Yes, it imploded.

Evidence that it apparently wasn't so safe, after all.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Too bad but log on to 'air disasters' for some perspective. A Canadian passenger jet with an out of order fuel gauge took on fuel which was incorrectly measured in liters instead of pounds and ran out of gas on a flight.

When an airliner crashes, it makes big news, because one event kills hundreds of people at once.

But weigh every such mishap against all the trips made on all the airliners that reach their destinations without incident, and the while body of evidence is that flying by airliner is one of the safest means of transportation.

We don't have nearly the body of established empirical evidence about the use of submersibles. We know enough about the concept to know that at the sort of depths at which the Titan was trying to operate, that any craft is under huge amounts of pressure, with a huge potential for a catastrophic failure if the vessel isn't structurally sound enough to withstand it.

It's only in the wake of the Titan mishap that it occurred to me to wonder about the depths at which various kinds of submarines and submersibles operate. It turns out that 12,000 feet—the approximate depth of the Titanic—is incredibly deep. Our military's latest class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, the Virginia class, has a test depth of eight hundred feet. That seems to be about par for submarines of its general type. The Titanic wreckage is about fifteen times that deep. A modern nuclear-powered military submarine would implode long before it reached the depth of the Titanic, probably long before it reached whatever depth the Titan was at before it imploded.

The technology to make that sort of submarine is significantly different from the technology to make a craft that can safely operate at much greater depths.

 

[bodecea]

People warned him about the safety of that vessel but he ignored them. Why would they lie to him? Is that what he thought, that they were lying?

But why didn't he at least give them the benefit of the doubt? I mean, who wants to go to the depths of the ocean anyway... but especially when there are people saying there could be problems?

That thing was not even open-able except from the outside

That would have been sufficient information for ME, that is for sure!

Sometimes it's good to have phobias... like claustrophobia..

Who needs OSHA laws, eh?

 

[nomadic5]

Evidence that it apparently wasn't so safe, after all.

yes, amazing the logic of that...

LOL

 

[nomadic5]

Who needs OSHA laws, eh?

I don't recall OSHA telling Rush the thing wasn't safe. It was his peers who did that.

so much for your love of gummit over-regulation

 

[whitehall]

I'm not sure I understand the connection. Are.you going to compare the regulations and historic precedence of such air flight and processes to this unfortunate sub?

The intent is to remind a Canadian poster that shit happens.