That wasn't the question. He went off on his political tangent as always. The question was why was the US not allowing a British vessel that could hook up the sub and bring it to the surface.
OT: Missing Titanic Sub
- Thread starter Mikemarc
- Start date
And betting potentially on your life the company is doing it in a safe manner with tested and appropriate equipment just because you paid alot? According to a few here, the sub was not designed to dive anywhere near those depths AND was the only one NOT certified for the depths like the handful of comparable other subs in it's class. A little due diligence before plunking down 250k would have raised red flags in many people's eyes. Seems like what they didn't lack in money was counter balanced by their lack of street smarts. Would you be willing to get into a plane designed/constructed but NOT certified by anyone for flight? Take your son on it like one guy?
Never have my kid on that. My daughter is 20. No way.
I already said they should have vetted the company better.
That doesn't make the activity itself insanely unfathomable and extreme the way people are acting.
Sometimes they try to stick some of the search cost onto the company, but I'm not optimistic they'll see a dime.
The search isn’t really costing any money. What else would these people be doing? Mopping the decks for the 75th time in a day?
I know what you're saying. These Coast Guard and Navy people are being paid anyway (as they should be). But I would think there are a lot of extra expenses being incurred here aside from that.
To me, it's no different than somebody trying to become the ten billionth person to be escorted up Mt. Everest. Good for them, but unless they're doing something constructive, or at least not super-risky with no good reason, I don't really feel that great about financing a search when things go wrong.
I guess I'm not very nice...
The pressure chamber imploded. So they died very quickly.
To help me understand your position and set some parameters on how you feel, would you mind answering a hypothetical question?
If Jeff Bezos ran into a problem on his recent space trip, and was stranded in orbit forever, would you be okay with a NASA rescue mission?
Yeah, easy to feel that way ...until you're on the receiving end of rescue efforts.
Of course, but it's a macro level policy issue, not a question about what I would want...
Not really.
And it's absolutely about what the public would want, like everything else.
Um....mopping the deck on regular patrol Vs. rushing all resources out to international waters -> planes, helicopters, the remote control sub.... this thing is costing you major $$$.
Some of you people are acting like real jackasses in this thread
Incorrect.
Again, maritime laws and maritime customs apply here.
The USN and USCG vessels involved are already at sea. This is just a different activity.
The private vessels (like the Horizon Arctic and L'Atalante) are performing their duties at no cost. Again, this is a long-standing custom. People are rescued at sea by commercial vessels diverted from their normal course on a pretty regular basis. They are obligated by maritime law to do so. Nobody gets a bill.
The aircraft tossing sonobuoys into the water on a regular basis were Canadian. So you're not paying for those, either.
I appreciate your unemotional and non-cliched response.
Lots to think about and (in my case) to reevaluate, so thank you for that...
I've heard numerous accounts (a couple of them firsthand) of sailors who have had emergencies at sea and have subsequently rendezvoused with large merchant ships which have diverted from course. The merchant vessels in question transferred spare parts, tools, food and drink to the sailboats and then went on their way.
It's actually pretty cool that some foreign-flagged vessel will go out of its way to lower down a few dozen eggs, some meat, veggies and vodka.
lol you think they get funded per trip? Everything is already paid for. Oh wow, they have to pay for extra gas for actually having to do their job.
But why seal it?
In my experience (literally only watching movies), couldn't they have the door be held shut from the inside with a bar or something similar to other submarines?
Then it could be opened from the inside if need be.
Why the bolt shut?
Just like this event, NASA doesn't have the equipment readily at hand for a rescue. The Coast Guard and Navy on site had nothing they could have deployed to retrieve it if they found the vessel intact.
I'm well aware of the nominal costs of operating C130J for Maintenace and pilot ready status versus LRPSNR
these operations 400-900 miles offshore are completely different than "normal"....
To say the costs being incurred (sea and air) "would have been incurred anyway" is simply incorrect. There are huge differences in use of assets - not even to get into increased risks to life...
I'm not saying it isn't (wasn't) money well spent - but, to call it "the same" is absurd.
Last edited:
Titanic claims 5 more lives. That shipwreck really has a hold on some people.
Someone stated that will be the new excursion, seeing both wrecks, very sad. Navy has just released they picked up a huge implosion shortly after losing contact with the sub on Sunday.https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ion-on-sunday-official-100321445?id=100224153
Ugh. The son of the Paskistani businessman on board had no desire to go, but agreed to join his father as a Father’s Day gift….
Horrible.
Horrible.