Last week a sea venture that would get little notice had it gone according to plan became a national news story. Tongues wagged, opinions were shared, speculation ran rampant. News reports featured every available person who could provide insight into what might have happened.
Some suggested the submersible, named Titan, could be tangled in a fishing net floating in the depths. Or perhaps it snagged upon the Titanic itself. That has happened to at least one submersible in the past. A horrifying possibility, but a very real one.
It was even postulated the Titan could be on the surface, its five-person crew awaiting discovery and rescue. Sealed in from the outside, in that scenario their lives would depend on them being found by someone who had the right sized wrench handy to facilitate the opening of the hatch that led to the outside world.
It turned out none of that was the case. The Titan came to grief in a flash. Unimaginably powerful external pressures exerted on the structure caused it to implode and disintegrate so violently and so quickly those inside likely had no idea there was a problem.
Like the passengers of the Titanic itself, the shipwreck the Titan was dispatched to view up close, what might have been perceived as the greatest adventure of their lives became an inescapable tragedy — one the rest of us will Monday morning quarterback for years to come.
Such is the nature of risk. Adventurers, explorers, pioneers, refugees, and so many more categories of human beings have discovered the downside of their exploits, to the sorrow of those left behind. Yet, each time a high-profile loss of life comes to the attention of the public, a question is floated into the public arena that can be distilled down to this: Should this sort of thing be allowed?
The answer is, of course, yes. Emphatically, yes. Without a doubt, without reservation, yes.
Exploration, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I could not say what Sir John Franklin or the members of his 128 man crew found compelling about their search for the Northwest Passage. The world was a much different place in 1845 when they sailed from port. They failed in their attempt, of course. All were lost.
At the literal polar opposite end of the world Captain Robert Falcon Scott and his party were lost on their return trip from the South Pole, having arrived there successfully, but in second place. Roald Amundsen and his team skied and dogsledded their way to the bottom of the globe first, having left the site only days earlier. Disappointment and death was Scott’s reward for all his effort, not the fame and riches he imagined.
Then we might consider Francois Coli and Charles Nungesser, who flew gallantly westward from France with the intention of being the first to fly from Paris across the Atlantic Ocean to New York, non-stop. Perhaps they succeeded. Perhaps they didn’t. Nobody knows. While there are rumors of sightings of the White Bird in Newfoundland, no trace of the airplane, or those men, has ever been found.
Just two weeks later a young man named Charles Lindbergh attempted the same feat. Lindbergh was alone and traveled in the opposite direction. We all know that. We all know he landed safely in Paris as well, opening up the world to the idea of inter-continental air travel that is so common and safe today.
When I was a small boy the term astronaut came into common usage, along with the Soviet version, cosmonaut. Never before had men launched themselves into the vacuum of space. This was all part of our never-ending quest to test our mettle, to push beyond known boundaries, to go faster, higher, farther than anyone had before. That’s our way.
Being first isn’t always the point, though. Often, the first conquest is messy, dangerous, and fraught with unforeseen issues. Delays, cost-overruns, injury, and even death are part of that process. Yet those who wish to be participants line up to take their turn. To push the limits of the possible new horizons. Often, eventually, with great success.
When Franklin departed for the Northwest Passage the best technology in the world moved at the speed of the wind, minus the drag of the sea. Today, we send humans into space where they will live and work for extended periods of time. They circle the entire Earth every hour and a half.
We do this so frequently and with such a high level of safety that most of the population of the Earth doesn’t even notice anymore. Rocket launches aren’t big news anymore. They are old hat to all but those directly involved in the process. Those folks know the risks, they accept the challenge, and all of humanity benefits as a result.
In the face of tragedy, emotions run high. A number of our friends and neighbors will hold a strong belief that such dangerous endeavors should be off limits. Until we know how to do these things safely and with no risk of failure, they shouldn’t be allowed.
I counter that myopic viewpoint with this thought. It’s not even possible to walk into your own kitchen with a guarantee of safety. From slicing a bagel to frying chicken for dinner, thousands of us are injured each year. The same goes for those who fall in the shower. It happens.
Life carries risk. But life does not automatically result in new discoveries, or the development of advanced technologies. Those great benefits come directly and indirectly from those of us who feel the compulsion to do the unthinkable, to stretch the limits of human capabilities, to go where most fear to tread.
We cannot learn to do safely anything we have not done before. Hazards decrease as knowledge and experience increases.
Do not join the throng of voices demanding the cessation of activities that are perceived to be dangerous or excessively risky. Instead, join the smaller, more altruistic crowd that sees the value of reaching higher to achieve something of value that has been broadly accepted as being beyond our reach.
That goal may be entirely achievable, if only someone were smart enough, and brave enough to try.
If a guy wants to try this on his own then have at it! But selling rides on a non compliant and unsafe submarine? That should absolutely be illegal.
Exploration and doing stupid ideas are two different things. Laws have to be there to protect the public and even the people themselves. It’s not personal limits being forced on people. I think some of the comments here are from people weaving in and out of traffic at high speed. The idea that are no limits on a person is laughable. Laws are just common sense to those who lack the experience or judgment to use rational thinking. Even a two-year-old has to be told not to touch a hot stove. Some adults never learn it. Laws are there for all of our protection. The mission here could have easily been accomplished within the safety standards of the deep dive community. The builder was bull headed and ignored it. It’s one thing to do software with make and break. It’s quite another to build a deep dive ship or an automatic car. People die. Glue on ends of a shell with dissimilar materials and then pressurize it??? There needs to be a law if people can’t figure that out consequence for themselves.
I frankly don’t care that these 5 men lost their lives on a commercial venture. I very much do care that the rest of the world had to try to save their sorry derrières, at great expense to the taxpayers of the countries involved. The would-be rescuers incurred personal risk, as well. Who will pay for all of the planes and boats that took part in the search, as well as all of the people involved? Hopefully it will come out of the estate of the fool CEO who used inappropriate materials to satisfy his ego.
I think you’re confusing ‘exploration’ and liberty to do as one pleases free from external intervention with the need for good common sense, planning for contingencies and the impact and consequences that an unexpected or unplanned outcome presents. Translated … if you want total liberty … don’t expect someone else to come rescue your butt if it goes bad.
The society doesn’t just throw up their hands and say, “Well … what did you expect?” They try to help. And IF — in that process — others lose THEIR lives, then the society has the right to demand some semblance of reasonableness in design, planning and execution.
A good example is of the missing five Avengers just after WWII. Flight 19 was just a seemingly normal Navy navigation training exercise. Fourteen men went missing and when the PBM Mariner went out to look for them, 13 more were lost.
So MY position on all of this is that there has to be a modicum of oversight — either private or governmental — to make sure that a reasonable plan is in place as well as a plan for rescue.
As usual, you’ve oversimplified what is a very complicated situation.
We can do what we want. On land and sea usually if something goes wrong those involved get hurt or perish. However it is different when we fly. There are many innocent people below that could get hurt if a pilot or mechanic makes a mistake. So the government controls it all and those the are liable when a innocent get hurt or killed will pay the price……
That is why pilots and mechanics and air traffic controls are certificated by the government.
They go through training constantly and the government can and has taken away their privileges…..
Aviation. is very different….
OceanGate declined meeting design standards for deep submersibles.. They eschewed design reviews and ignored input from others that have built and operated deep diving submersibles. There are questions about the viability of carbon fiber for this use. Carbon fiber has superb tensile strength, but poor compressive strength, and the epoxy matrix used to bind the carbon fibers is weakened at cold temperatures. The deep ocean is very cold. I don’t know how many of these design questions were shared with the customers for this dive. Absent this information, rich customers were unable to make informed decisions on whether or not to participate in the dive. I have no problem with individuals taking risks for themselves to advance design options, but taking money from others to join you without helping them fully understand the risks seems criminal to me. Exploring the unknown is a noble endeavor and should be encouraged for adventurous individuals. That said, risking customer’s lives without helping them understand the tricks involved has the potential of derailing potential design advances. This accident will have a negative effect on advancing novel approaches to deep submersible design. Future efforts will be much more conservative because of this catastrophic failure and that is a negative result for the whole world.
Wise or unwise? That is not the question. Those who comment about expense of rescue/search should note that this is a universal reaction to all tragedies whether foolhardy or not. It is part of the human condition. Recovering the wreckage of Titan, however gruesome, may advance knowledge; that is part of the picture, even though not part of the plan. As to recklessness: many states where skiing is possible have laws that protect the ski slope operators from lawsuits for accidents. Makes sense, whose fault is it if you go off course into the woods and slam into a tree? Does society want to outlaw skiing because there is a huge cost to society for treating needless injuries and burying dead? There’s thousands more victims than the loss of Titan in both suffering and economic costs.
Folks can do what they want…or at least what they can afford. What galls is the public picking up the tab in international waters for SAR to rescue thrill seekers. They were not scientists, explorers, or researchers. The dive contributed nothing to our body of knowledge nor did it increase commerce. The whole escapade reminds me of wilderness dilettantes who—when cold, tired, frightened, & unprepared—climb to the top of a hill for cell reception & demand to be rescued.
Amen! I feel the exact same way as you do! This tragedy had absolutely nothing to do with research or exploration it was simply a useless tourist excursion! Should not have been allowed!
I pay taxes, a lot of taxes. A big chunk goes to the military (coastguard) and I am thankful for them. I have worked in fiberglass to include carbon fiber, etc. For the most part, fiberglass is stronger than steel pound for pound. Each of these materials have their own properties, therefore I, speaking for myself learned a lot about this carbon fiber implosion, which may help me make some decisions in other designs down the road (currently looking at a simple landing gear for a small airplane), so to say this had no positive data is a misstatement. Having said that I still have a tough time supporting an over zealous entrepreneur and a few over zealous super rich guys feeding their ego’s. As far as tax’s go there is not much I can do, so personally I would rather pay for a rescue than give billions to a entity that really don’t care about you, or me.
This is a case of money allowing a Father to indirectly kill his son. It’s a good thing he died with him rather than live with that Knowlege.
Never underestimate the power of money to help fools do stupid things…
Fools and their money are soon de-parted!
So, in an endeavor like this… The advice/consultation of experts on the subject of extreme depth diving were not considered crucial. OK. It’s open ocean, international waters so ‘liberty’ prevails… “I know ‘best’ how to build a deep sea vessel and take passengers on the journey of a lifetime.”
OK. EXCEPT… lets consider a bigger picture.
The mother-ship required registration and a land-based port. Canada[?]. They departed for the dive site, with NO fanfare and likely no more than a ‘notice of intent’ to dive the wreckage of the Titanic. Hi-Ho off we go.
When all hell broke loose and communication was lost with Titan… the mother ship made the call to next of kin saying ‘T**S**’ all are lost. No bodies are recoverable. We have ‘signed liability release papers, don’t sue us. And no refunds what-so-ever’. Going back to port NOW… NO!!! this is me being scarcastic.
The mother-ship sent out a MAY-DAY distress call to the world for support… which mobilized a vast number of aircraft, surface vessels and remote sub-sea vessels… as soon as they could ‘spool-up’ with NO warning/preparation for exteme deep sea mishap… of an unknown nature.
NO EXPENSE WAS SPARED… and… NO RESOURCES WERE LEFT IN PORT.
THIS WAS NOT a venture into the unknown by early ‘first-explorers’ on-their-own… facing daunting/unknown/unforeeen challenges to their life and limb… AS PER MOST OF THE EXAMPLES GIVEN ABOVE.
NO EXCEPTION… except for space flight… which has vast pool of resources, experience, knowledge and technical requirements built-into in specially designed/tested/certified spacecraft.
This was tourism… in a 100% unforgiving environment. All-or-nothing at +500-Bar sea-pressure levels. Brrrrrrrr.
I am even sure this danger vastly exceeds Mt Everest expeditions… where each individual is on-their-own… until they are NOT… then efforts for saving lives and recovering bodies have to be weighed against the terrible risks faced by the recovery teams. BUT at least these expeditions have ‘plans and resources’ ready and at hand. NOTE: even with all of this ‘in-place’, at least 12-climbers have been killed in this high altitude endeavor [and unknown other injuries]… JUST THIS YEAR 2023.
OH yeah… and one last note…
It was reported that the ‘US Navy detected the possible implosion of the Titan close to the Titanic debris area’.
In truth what the USN revealed was that the super-secret SOSUS system… which monitors oceanic sounds thru ultra sensitive listening stations strategically positioned around the ocean-depths… was actually capable of detecting and triangulating the location of this relatively ‘small discrete event’… with astonishing precision.
I’m sure that our allies and adversaries found this ‘revelation’ regarding the SOSUS system VERY informative!! Using simplified analysis/tests, the potential capabilities of the SOSUS system for monitoring the worlds oceans has been revealed.
I’ve known about SOSUS for years, I’m not CIA/FBI/NSA etc., heck, I get seasick if I so much as look at a boat. SOSUS was a secret when it was new, which was likely decades ago, it hasn’t been a “secret” for a long time. They just don’t talk about it a lot.
The media isn’t known for discretion. If you read “Spare” (yawn), they had to pull the guy out of Iraq because the media blew his cover. Someplace I saw an article that the media managed to announce D-day several days in advance, but luckily, nobody in Germany was paying attention.
The existence of SOSUS is well-known (it’s even referenced in the 1990 Hunt for Red October). The limits of its abilities were revealed to the Russians by the Walker spy-ring before his arrest in 1985. Lately, I read that time on the SOSUS net is being shared with scientist & marine researchers to track the migration of not only whales & dolphins but all sorts of pelagic animals.
Ahhhhh.. The SOSUS system is still secret since it’s capabilities have been evolving AND the numbers/positions of these acoustic sensor-stations in the ocean depths are never published… and likely keep being adjusted/moved/replaced for increased acoustic-discrimination and sensitivity and covertness.
Mathematicians/engineers/physicists have an uncanny way of starting with the known… ‘detected implosion of a small composite submersible near the Titanic wreckage’… Then simply calculate what the acoustic signature of the implosion was… then calculate where likely SOSUS stations are located and estimate their acoustic capabilities… ETC…
Hey we all know Area 51 exists… but what do we REALLY know about Area 51? Come-on, give me a ‘real-world hint, PLEASE!!!
Years and years ago my very timid mother told me that it was dangerous “out there”, there might be tigers. (In northern New Jersey?)
I said great, I want a tiger skin rug, I’m going to go buy a rifle.
Risk is inherent in life. Minimize your risk by fastening the seat belts in your life. The trick is to not do stupid things. The REAL trick is to realize what constitutes a “stupid thing” and then not do it. Always remember, Darwin is alive and well, and he is watching.
Jamie, I’m with you. All the world’s great inventions had risks, including aviation, automotive, nautical, medical, etc. I doubt that the first test of the wheel went without problems. Concerning customers of this ill-fated voyage, I have great sympathy. This was their choice and freedom to accept this adventure. According to the paperwork they signed, death was a possibility. Whether this was wise or not they knew the risks. I respect their right to choose the adventure. Do any readers want anybody second-guessing the adventures they choose? I didn’t think so! On a two-lane highway, you trust an oncoming car with the possibility of a 140 MPH head-on crash.
I guess I don’t see much difference between the Titan deep sea trips for wealthy paying customers and the trips into space by Space X and Virgin Galactic for wealthy paying customers. Until a tragedy occurs, each of those excursions, while not qualifying as true explorations, is just another risky adventure—sort of like flying in a small plane is in the eyes of many people who wouldn’t think of getting into one. I would not want to go on any such trips, because my personal risk tolerance wouldn’t allow it even if I could afford it. But it’s not for me to say what others’ risk tolerance should be. And yet my risk tolerance is much higher than many who think it’s too high—and it is, for them. I fly small planes—at night, over the mountains, through canyons. I took my small boat throughout the San Juan Islands and Gulf Islands with only my dog as company. I have backpacked in wilderness. For many, each of those exceeds their risk tolerance.
Should there be regulations governing these things, whether deep sea excursions or space excursions? That’s not for me to say. But I don’t agree with those who say all such trips should be prohibited.
One of my favorite sayings, often attributed to Mark Twain, goes like this: Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore, Dream. Discover.
Exploring and exploiting are not the same. This was nat a pioneer mission.
Well said, and I agree with the assessment. This wasn’t some pioneering first. This was a wealthy entrepreneur essentially preying off the wealth and ignorance of others.
Based on everything I have read and interviews in his own words, the CEO exhibited (IMHO) at least 3 if not 4 of the “hazardous attitudes” that pilots are taught to recognize and avoid. I would have been concerned just to go out in the water with him. The compounding problem here appears to be that he carried those same attitudes into his “engineering” duties in designing, building, and testing this this thing. And, again IMHO, the fait accompli here is that he convinced wealthy adventurer that the inherent risks they were accepting had been addressed professionally and responsibly when they had not.
There are plenty of risky activities undertaken every day in responsible ways. (SCUBA and GA are two of several I can claim.) The key is having good gear, understanding the limits, respecting those limits, and not pushing the boundaries of the “right way” as a general rule. I can’t see that any of that was applied here. If he was so sure of his design and wanted to “prove” it as the Guinea pig, then more power to him. If the others had, in an environment of full disclosure, (still) agreed to pay their share of costs for a chance to go along, maybe that’s okay too. But glamming this up like a beachside parasailing ride and taking dozens of paying, trusting souls with him for profit was another entirely.
Agreed..when you are the lone one then fine, when you take others, no so sure!
I agree with Phil, exploring is one thing but advertising something as safe when no one really knows it is to make a profit is a different story or to cover expenses should not be allowed! The paying passengers knew the trip was dangerous but assumed it was mostly safe which it was not! The business man who took his son with him obviously considered the dive somewhat routine!
It has been reported that Stockton Rsuh, an heir to the Standard Oil fortune, refused the advice of experienced submariners because they were “too many old, white men”. Clearly, wokeness kills. The answer to the question posed here is an emphatic YES. Allow government to “regulate” it and it will generally always end in CYA and NO. There is no better form of regulation than free markets, unfettered by any level of government intervention. Companies who waste their customers’ money, or cause them harm or even death, do not stay in business very long. Freedom from government regulations increases profits, the magic signal to entrepreneurs to pursue an idea. This can and should be extended to every activity in life. Why do we need any government regulations at all? Look at aviation – since the government has imposed stricter and stricter regulations, the number of aircraft producers and pilots has steadily fallen. The once-vibrant ultralight sector, which allowed a lower cost of entry to aviation, was virtually wiped out by the LSA/SP rules when two-seat ULs and UL flight schools were essentially banned. Mises said it right: “”Liberty is always freedom from the government.”
“Wokeness”- something most people can’t even define, did not kill this crew. Laissez-faire capitalist, libertarianism is what killed this crew. The very idea that free markets can regulate themselves is laughable. Of course freedom from government regulation increases profits. Keeping the air and the water clean cuts into the bottom line. Also, the decline of the number of aircraft producers has more to do with vexatious litigation and the enormous cost of liability insurance and lawyers than any FAA regulations. Pilot training is more expensive as a result which explains why there are fewer students. And why do we need government regulations at all? Maybe that works at the grass strip you fly your Cub out of but for almost everywhere else, a little “Hold Short” goes a long way.
It’s one thing to push the boundaries of knowledge or science as an explorer who is presumably well-aware of the risks. It’s another thing to push the boundaries of knowledge and science while carrying paying passengers, who may or may not really understand the risks. Our laws do not permit transporting paying passengers in experimental aircraft, and what happened to the Titan shows why it isn’t a good idea.
I believe this article is perfectly stated and its underlying philosophy is independent of paying customer or not-paying customer. Just because you pay for something does not reduce the risk and, more so, does not change one’s underlying desire to push personal boundaries.
I am tired of those who force their personal limits on others because they can’t stomach the consequences.