Missing submersible near wreck of Titanic

[Iskra]

Seems like a race against time, but unless the submersible has surfaced, the odds of rescue seem slim due to the deep depths involved.

Interesting that such an experience is even available though. Having been on a small submarine that went in coastal waters, I’m not sure I’d go anywhere near something that went so extremely deep, even to see something as interesting at the Titanic. Apparently the control system inside is extremely simplistic and it uses a play station controller for navigation!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65953941

1. Search teams are racing against time to find a tourist submersible that went missing during a dive to the Titanic's wreck
2. Five people were onboard when contact with the small sub was lost about an hour and 45 minutes into its dive
3. As of Monday afternoon, it was thought the crew members had four days-worth of oxygen left at most
4. One of those believed to be on board is British businessman and explorer Hamish Harding
5. Two Pakistanis are also on the craft - businessman Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman
6. Stockton Rush, chief executive of OceanGate - the firm behind the dive - is also being widely reported to be on the vessel
7. French explorer Paul-Henry Nargeolet is thought to be on board, according to a Facebook post by Mr Harding before the dive started
8. The Titanic wreck is located about 600km (370 miles) off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada

 

[Bantamzen]

Seems like a race against time, but unless the submersible has surfaced, the odds of rescue seem slim due to the deep depths involved.

Interesting that such an experience is even available though. Having been on a small submarine that went in coastal waters, I’m not sure I’d go anywhere near something that went so extremely deep, even to see something as interesting at the Titanic. Apparently the control system inside is extremely simplistic and it uses a play station controller for navigation!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65953941

In all honesty a PS controller would be more than adequate for something like that if all its doing is passing control inputs to the sub's software. They are very well built, resilient and accurate. However going out so far & deep into the North Atlantic is definitely not something particularly advisable even for the most experienced of explorers. If anything goes wrong, which sadly it seems may have, there's little chance of recovery.

 

[Iskra]

In all honesty a PS controller would be more than adequate for something like that if all its doing is passing control inputs to the sub's software. They are very well built, resilient and accurate. However going out so far & deep into the North Atlantic is definitely not something particularly advisable even for the most experienced of explorers. If anything goes wrong, which sadly it seems may have, there's little chance of recovery.

Yes, I just don’t think there are enough other vehicles in the world that can get to that depth, let alone lift another submersible, to make rescue viable.

A maritime patrol aircraft has been dispatched so that should be able to detect the submersible if it has reached the surface.

Apparently, it’s not the first time that the submersible has lost communication to the mother ship (these being done by text message), so that does provide some hope.

 

[dosxuk]

Apparently, it’s not the first time that the submersible has lost communication to the mother ship (these being done by text message), so that does provide some hope.

While communicating by text message may seem primitive, it is probably the only reliable method of communication. Radio waves are extremely attenuated passing through water, making real time voice or video communication at any sort of depth basically impossible. Text messages can be sent out using very low bandwidths which have a usable range. At the depths involved, non-radio communication (e.g. light or sound as carriers) is basically impossible too.

It's actually easier to communicate with a space probe travelling outside of the galaxy than it is a submarine 4km from the surface.

 

[43066]

It doesn’t sound particularly hopeful, but clearly a very high risk expedition, so one assumes they knew what they were getting into.

I do wonder why people who are essentially tourists feel the need to visit a wreck which is also a mass grave, and which has already been explored and documented; frankly it seems a little self indulgent and distasteful.

 

[Iskra]

It doesn’t sound particularly hopeful, but clearly a very high risk expedition, so one assumes they knew what they were getting into.

I do wonder why people who are essentially tourists feel the need to visit a wreck which is also a mass grave, and which has already been explored and documented; frankly it seems a little self indulgent and distasteful.

While I do kind of agree that it seems an unnecessary risk for a wreck we have a good understanding of, I suspect it’s more being part of an elite club that have visited the wreck that motivates such tourism. However, is such curiosity any different to visiting one of the former Nazi camps, the Stasi HQ, Pearl Harbour or perhaps visiting Pompeii?

 

[43066]

While I do kind of agree that it seems an unnecessary risk for a wreck we have a good understanding of, I suspect it’s more being part of an elite club that have visited the wreck that motivates such tourism. However, is such curiosity any different to visiting one of the former Nazi camps, the Stasi HQ or perhaps visiting Pompeii?

I’m sure you’re right re. wanting to be in an elite club.

Visiting ancient archeological sites or, in the case of the Nazi camps Stasi HQ etc., places where bad things happened, but which are now essentially museums with educational significance, seems to me to be very different to visiting a deteriorating ship wreck just to ogle at it (and presumably take selfies?!). There’s nothing more to be learned, and they’re sitting in a submersible, so there isn’t even any challenging diving element to it.

Unlike the other sites diving to the Titanic also creates a risk that others will risk their own lives mounting a dangerous rescue.

 

[Vinnym]

I do wonder why people who are essentially tourists feel the need to visit a wreck which is also a mass grave, and which has already been explored and documented; frankly it seems a little self indulgent and distasteful.

I totally agree.

 

[75A]

For all the rights or wrongs of doing it ,those people are considerably braver than me.
As a child I would be taken to nearby Portsmouth for Navy Days, nothing on earth ever convinced me that going onboard a submarine was a good idea, my Mother, Father & Sister would happily go into the abyss, my cousin and I would look on from dry land say silly b.....s. or words to that effect.

 

[ainsworth74]

Their only hope is that they're bobbing around in the surface somewhere. If its on the bottom, assuming the vessel is intact, there's basically no chance of rescue as the number of vessels that can both get that deep and might be able to do something useful (like cut the sub free if its trapped on something, attach a cable from the surface, tow it to the surface itself, etc etc) is extremely low and getting any of them to the area in in the time available (which I think runs out on Wednesday?) is basically impossible. Best case scenario is that the sub failed catastrophically and imploded in which case death will have been instant, likely before they even knew they were going to die. The thought of being stuck on the seabed, in that claustrophobic environment knowing that there's basically no hope of rescue doesn't bear thinking about, possibly the only thing worse would be being on the surface and trapped inside (seeing as apparently it can only be opened from the outside) and running out of air even though you're surrounded by breathable atmosphere.

Have to say that whatever there reasons for going down it does seem mad that they got in that submarine. The thing looks like the submarine equivalent of a Pacer. You couldn't have paid me £250,000 to get in it to go down the wreck let alone pay the company that much to take me down! As someone who was a bit of a Titanic nerd in their youth if you offered a me a trip on one of the proper scientific submarines operated by a reputable organisation (and I'd even include the Russian ones in that list, it's one of those gucci capabilities that actually lives up to the hype) to go down and see the wreck site I'd be up for it. But this ramshackle outfit? Hell. No.

 

[Iskra]

Their only hope is that they're bobbing around in the surface somewhere. If its on the bottom, assuming the vessel is intact, there's basically no chance of rescue as the number of vessels that can both get that deep and might be able to do something useful (like cut the sub free if its trapped on something, attach a cable from the surface, tow it to the surface itself, etc etc) is extremely low and getting any of them to the area in in the time available (which I think runs out on Wednesday?) is basically impossible. Best case scenario is that the sub failed catastrophically and imploded in which case death will have been instant, likely before they even knew they were going to die. The thought of being stuck on the seabed, in that claustrophobic environment knowing that there's basically no hope of rescue doesn't bear thinking about, possibly the only thing worse would be being on the surface and trapped inside (seeing as apparently it can only be opened from the outside) and running out of air even though you're surrounded by breathable atmosphere.

Have to say that whatever there reasons for going down it does seem mad that they got in that submarine. The thing looks like the submarine equivalent of a Pacer. You couldn't have paid me £250,000 to get in it to go down the wreck let alone pay the company that much to take me down! As someone who was a bit of a Titanic nerd in their youth if you offered a me a trip on one of the proper scientific submarines operated by a reputable organisation (and I'd even include the Russian ones in that list, it's one of those gucci capabilities that actually lives up to the hype) to go down and see the wreck site I'd be up for it. But this ramshackle outfit? Hell. No.

I do agree with your assessment. There’s a maritime patrol aircraft looking for it that would detect it easily if it was on the surface.

 

[DanNCL]

The saddest thing about this is that the crew could still be alive and well aware that there's little hope of rescue. I can't bear to think how awful it must be to be trapped inside a small vessel knowing you're about to die.

One of the news articles, can't remember which one now, mentioned that anyone going on an expedition on this submersible had to sign a waiver that explicitly states multiple different ways you may die on the expedition.

 

[AlterEgo]

These guys have really turned up the f*** around and find out meter to a new level. A complete death trap which wouldn't have looked out of place in a The Day Today sketch lampooning tedious wealthy nobodies and their vain and valueless "re-exploring" of places like Everest and the Titanic. There's a video of one of the participants chucking at the waiver which mentioned how the craft was approved by no regulatory body "where do I sign!?".

Of course one hopes they are found but I do so from a place of zero sympathy.

 

[kristiang85]

I do wonder why people who are essentially tourists feel the need to visit a wreck which is also a mass grave, and which has already been explored and documented; frankly it seems a little self indulgent and distasteful.

They all actively take part in research, and are trained to do so. And by paying they are contributing to further research, but obviously they can say they've 'been there'. Some families of Titanic victims do welcome this exploration to find out more about their relatives' fate. So I don't think its distasteful at all.

At the end of the day, it is human nature to be fascinated by death, as it's the one last thing we truly know nothing about, hence why many are drawn to such sites. There's lots of interesting psychology research on dark tourism, etc. that's worth looking up. Many societies are a lot less squeamish about it than we are.

There's a video of one of the participants chucking at the waiver which mentioned how the craft was approved by no regulatory body "where do I sign!?".

That was a journalist who was invited onto an expedition last year.

As for myself, even if I was a billionaire I'd go nowhere near that thing or any other submersible. Being under that much water in the pitch black with no comms scares the life out of me.

No matter what you think of their motivations, at the end of the day these are five human beings, all with family and friends, stuck in a metal tube the size of a transit van, most likely on the ocean floor, in pitch black and not knowing what's going on, and knowing that their oxygen is rapidly dwindling. Also the media don't mention that the sub is not heated and its almost zero degrees down there, so most likely they will freeze to death before succombing to lack of air*. It sounds utterly horrific.

*Source: the French explorer who's one of the missing people

 

[jon0844]

Lots of people on Twitter seem to think the submersible is connected via Starlink and think Elon Musk can save them.

Of course it is the ship above that has the connection, although Elon may now be able to use the sub he offered to fix those kids trapped in a cave...

 

[Bletchleyite]

These guys have really turned up the f*** around and find out meter to a new level. A complete death trap which wouldn't have looked out of place in a The Day Today sketch lampooning tedious wealthy nobodies and their vain and valueless "re-exploring" of places like Everest and the Titanic. There's a video of one of the participants chucking at the waiver which mentioned how the craft was approved by no regulatory body "where do I sign!?".

Of course one hopes they are found but I do so from a place of zero sympathy.

Plenty of people choose to do dangerous stuff and come a cropper while doing so. Climbing Everest is one good example of such a pursuit that stands a very high chance of being fatal. Flying a wingsuit is another.

That doesn't mean I don't sympathise with a fellow human who is potentially suffering, even if by their own poor choices. I think zero sympathy is quite cold. Yes, death was a possible outcome of making the choice they did, and they made it in full knowledge of that possibility, but that doesn't make it any less tragic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2023 ==

No matter what you think of their motivations, at the end of the day these are five human beings, all with family and friends, stuck in a metal tube the size of a transit van, most likely on the ocean floor, in pitch black and not knowing what's going on, and knowing that their oxygen is rapidly dwindling. Also the media don't mention that the sub is not heated and its almost zero degrees down there, so most likely they will freeze to death before succombing to lack of air*. It sounds utterly horrific.

Hypothermia, once you're past the shivering stage, is apparently quite a peaceful way to go. You stop feeling cold and slowly lose consciousness.

Hypoxia isn't terrible either, there's no drowning reflex, you similarly just fade out peacefully. The strong motivation to breathe is about CO2 buildup in the body (and is why CO poisoning happens - the body absorbs it but *doesn't* have that reaction to get rid of it unlike CO2). Though I don't know what breathing a CO2-heavy atmosphere would feel like. It is however totally different from any form of asphyxiation which is a terrifying idea.

There are plenty of accounts of both of these from high altitude climbers who have been close to the brink but been rescued just in time.

The knowing must be terrible, but probably far less bad than e.g. being in a plane you know can't land safely or unable to escape from a building fire - you at least know the end won't be violent nor painful.

 

[kristiang85]

Hypothermia, once you're past the shivering stage, is apparently quite a peaceful way to go. You stop feeling cold and slowly lose consciousness.

Hypoxia isn't terrible either, there's no drowning reflex, you similarly just fade out peacefully. The strong motivation to breathe is about CO2 buildup in the body (and is why CO poisoning happens - the body absorbs it but *doesn't* have that reaction to get rid of it unlike CO2). Though I don't know what breathing a CO2-heavy atmosphere would feel like.

There are plenty of accounts of both of these from high altitude climbers who have been close to the brink but been rescued just in time.

The knowing must be terrible, but probably far less bad than e.g. being in a plane you know can't land safely or unable to escape from a building fire - you at least know the end won't be violent nor painful.

Oh I know this (it's also mentioned in the video I posted), but having four days facing that fate and stuck in such close quarters must be utterly horrid and I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

But let's keep positive that they will get rescued for now, however slim it might be.

The craft has 7 ways of getting back to the surface, so there are plenty of systems in place to enable it in an emergency. If we discount a hull breach, as apparently this is very, very unlikely (but obviously possible), then there are two likely scenarios really:
- They did get back up to the surface, and are floating somewhere waiting to be found, which is difficult in this ocean (however, as contact was lost near the wreck, you'd have thought it would be a narrower search area by now).
- They got stuck either on some wreckage or in a discarded fishing net (one of the company's founders great fears), and cannot ascend.

If the latter there's a tiny chance that an unmanned sub could go down and extricate them, but only if a specific set of circumstances is present. But that's the hope really.

Unfortunately, the equipment needed for this is stuck in Guernsey apparently, as the US authorities have not given permission for it to be flown to the US as its a public holiday and all the approvers are off...

 

[bramling]

These guys have really turned up the f*** around and find out meter to a new level. A complete death trap which wouldn't have looked out of place in a The Day Today sketch lampooning tedious wealthy nobodies and their vain and valueless "re-exploring" of places like Everest and the Titanic. There's a video of one of the participants chucking at the waiver which mentioned how the craft was approved by no regulatory body "where do I sign!?".

Of course one hopes they are found but I do so from a place of zero sympathy.

I have to say I’m surprised how amateurish this submersible seems to be.

I don’t have an issue with people doing risky stuff, there’s an element of risk in anything, but this does seem a bit much, especially as others now have to become involved if attempting a rescue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to say I’m surprised how amateurish this submersible seems to be.

I don’t have an issue with people doing risky stuff, there’s an element of risk in anything, but this does seem a bit much, especially as others now have to become involved if attempting a rescue.

There are probably as many people who would be quite happy to risk their lives attempting a rescue on something like this (or on Everest, say) as would be willing to do it in the first place. Not everyone has the same view on risk - and it's natural that in a rail forum (an industry that is about as risk-averse as you can possibly get) the consensus may be otherwise.

 

[bramling]

It doesn’t sound particularly hopeful, but clearly a very high risk expedition, so one assumes they knew what they were getting into.

I do wonder why people who are essentially tourists feel the need to visit a wreck which is also a mass grave, and which has already been explored and documented; frankly it seems a little self indulgent and distasteful.

I don’t really have a problem with people visiting Titanic, especially as it’s so long ago now. This particular way of doing it does seem pretty nuts though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t really have a problem with people visiting Titanic, especially as it’s so long ago now. This particular way of doing it does seem pretty nuts though.

I'd not do it, but I'm horribly claustrophobic so I'd not get in the thing on dry land either.

I have however probably done things climbing (no, not Everest, I'm not that mad) that carry more risk than that did.

 

[Iskra]

A cable-laying support vessel has arrived on scene with a Remotely Operated Vehicle that can apparently reach depths of 3000m

https://twitter.com/davidlmearns/status/1671100591391555584?s=46&t=lo2dgPQcj4ppK-VC860FLA

 

[kristiang85]

I have to say I’m surprised how amateurish this submersible seems to be.

I think there's too much emphasis put on that by sections of the media. The survival capsule itself is highly engineered, in conjunction with NASA. And that's the main bit you want to be secure.

As for the rest of the tech, too much complexity can just mean more things go wrong - why do you need fancy gadgets if simple, reliable ones work? And the cabin was purposefully kept free of lots of equipment and buttons so nobody could accidentally break anything or compromise the mission (a risk, e.g. if a visitor with less experience of these depths suddenly had a panic attack, for example).

 

[43066]

Have to say that whatever there reasons for going down it does seem mad that they got in that submarine. The thing looks like the submarine equivalent of a Pacer. You couldn't have paid me £250,000 to get in it to go down the wreck let alone pay the company that much to take me down! As someone who was a bit of a Titanic nerd in their youth if you offered a me a trip on one of the proper scientific submarines operated by a reputable organisation (and I'd even include the Russian ones in that list, it's one of those gucci capabilities that actually lives up to the hype) to go down and see the wreck site I'd be up for it. But this ramshackle outfit? Hell. No.

Agreed. and same for me. The litmus test for a true Titanic enthusiast was whether they’d heard of it before the 1997 film release (at least for those of us old enough).

The comparison to a pacer sounds about right. I’ve also just thought of a (very) bad taste joke involving another similarity between pacers and this vehicle, but perhaps it’s too soon.

Lots of people on Twitter seem to think the submersible is connected via Starlink and think Elon Musk can save them.

Of course it is the ship above that has the connection, although Elon may now be able to use the sub he offered to fix those kids trapped in a cave...

Not first time tedious wealthy nobodies have been mentioned on the thread!

I think there's too much emphasis put on that. The survival capsule itself is highly engineered, in conjunction with NASA. And that's the main bit you want to be secure.

Albeit it isn’t much good being secure in an NASA engineered capsule that is stuck 2.5 miles below the surface of the Atlantic because something else has broken.

I have however probably done things climbing (no, not Everest, I'm not that mad) that carry more risk than that did.

Really!? Given that (AIUI) far more people have been to the Summit of Everest than have been as deep under the ocean as the Titanic wreck, I’d be interested to know what stats you’re basing that on!

A cable-laying support vessel has arrived on scene with a Remotely Operated Vehicle that can apparently reach depths of 3000m

https://twitter.com/davidlmearns/status/1671100591391555584?s=46&t=lo2dgPQcj4ppK-VC860FLA

I wish them every success with it. I’m also glad the rescue vessel is unmanned.

 

[kristiang85]

Albeit it isn’t much good being secure in an NASA engineered capsule that is stuck 2.5 miles below the surface of the Atlantic because something else has broken.

Well true, but this is what I was saying about the simplistic systems - that minimises the chance of something else breaking. As I said, there's 7 different methods it can use to get to the surface again, from mechanical thrusters to simply releasing ballast (which is done by moving to one side of the sub and letting it fall off, as mad as that sounds). So I really think its a physcial problem (i.e. getting stuck on something) rather than a catastrophic mechanical failure, as there are failsafes for getting them back up if they need to.

But anyway, its all speculation until we know facts.

 

[ainsworth74]

Agreed. and same for me. The litmus test for a true Titanic enthusiast was whether they’d heard of it before the 1997 film release (at least for those of us old enough).

I had indeed heard of it before. My attraction to wanting to see the film was very much as an enthusiast. The romance rubbish just got in the way of the interesting stuff, the sinking itself as far as much younger me was concerned!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really!? Given that (AIUI) far more people have been to the Summit of Everest than have been as deep under the ocean as the Titanic wreck, I’d be interested to know what stats you’re basing that on!

You can't really use stats because so few people have been to the wreck. It's a bit like the way Concorde went from the safest aircraft to the least safe statistically due to one hull loss.

In both cases the hazard is death, and it's fairly likely in certain circumstances. There are essentially very few safety systems in either case.

 

[43066]

I had indeed heard of it before. My attraction to wanting to see the film was very much as an enthusiast. The romance rubbish just got in the way of the interesting stuff, the sinking itself as far as much younger me was concerned!

Indeed. And then of course the never ending debate about whether the stern really did rise as high before the ship broke in half, as depicted in the film (and in some eyewitness accounts), but which various metallurgists and structural engineers have contradicted.

You can't really use stats because so few people have been to the wreck. It's a bit like the way Concorde went from the safest aircraft to the least safe statistically due to one hull loss.

In both cases the hazard is death, and it's fairly likely in certain circumstances. There are essentially very few safety systems in either case.

True.

At least with Everest there’s the massive physical achievement of getting fit though to actually make the climb. It’s also low risk to anyone else as, if you pass away, it’s far too high to attempt a rescue and you will simply be left in situ!

 

[RailWonderer]

It can't be that dangerous if the film director James Cameron did it 12 times. As long as you are prepared and somebody is willing to fund all the precautions taken it isn't dangerous. You just have do it with deep sea expedition professionals to lower the risk. http://www.deepseachallenge.com/the-team/james-cameron/

 

[Gloster]

My understanding, which mostly comes from reading thrillers by Clive Cussler, is that jettisoning the ballast is a last resort, but can or, at least, should be capable of being done manually in case of a complete systems failure. However, it may lead to an uncontrolled ascent, possibly ending in the submersible actually leaping out of the water. It is therefore likely only to be done as a very last resort due to the risk of serious injuries to the occupants. But if the alternative is staying down there…

If the sub has made its way to the surface it is likely that the rescue teams can have a pretty good estimate of where it might be and would be scouring that area. It would also seem probable that the sub has an emergency location beacon for use on the surface which would be independent of all other systems. That nothing has been seen or heard so far does not look good.

Contact was lost one hour and forty-five minutes into the trip. I wonder whether it would have reached the bottom and was caught up in something from which it might just possibly be freed. Or whether a problem appeared during the descent, which is more ominous.