Lessons from a sub-standard sub
The most striking part of the story is the shoddy and careless standard of engineering of a vehicle built to operate in the extreme conditions of the deep ocean. For example, its viewport was rated safe for depths of up to 1,300 meters, but the depth at which the Titanic lies -- and thus the pressure -- is three times greater. It did not carry the emergency communication devices which ought to be standard for such a vehicle. There have been numerous stories of people familiar with the Titan expressing concerns about safety over the years.
Much of the reason for this seems to have been standard libertarian disdain for regulation. OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush has said that "at some point, safety is just pure waste." In an interview four years ago, he complained that the submersible industry is "obscenely safe because they have all these regulations. But it also hasn't innovated or grown -- because they have all these regulations." The company apparently evaded those regulations by various means when building the Titan. Mr Rush was aboard the vessel when the inevitable consequences of this attitude caught up with it, and is now dead. People who evade safety rules often end up discovering, in tragic fashion, why they exist.
The more recently-arisen problem of woketardia may also have played some role. Rush explicitly hired a young and "diverse" workforce at OceanGate, disdaining the "fifty-year-old white guys" with military experience who commonly form the backbone of such companies. I suspect that those more experienced and qualified people had an off-putting tendency to point out that his views on safety precautions were dangerous horseshit. Whatever the reason, when employees are hired on some basis other than their ability to do the job, in almost all cases the quality of whatever they are producing is likely to suffer.
The episode also illustrates that in such cases, the consequences of people's risk-taking and foolishness are not borne only by themselves. The costs of the search-and-rescue effort must have run well into the millions. Hopefully OceanGate's assets can be seized to recover some of that cost.
Aside from OceanGate's crummy engineering, we mustn't forget the deeply dishonorable character of the whole enterprise. This was not exploration or scientific research. It was a bunch of rich men (one of them a billionaire) on an outing to gawk ghoulishly at what is, in effect, a mass grave, showing their class's typical contempt for normal human sensibilities and decency.
Perhaps not unrelated, a good deal of the social-media chatter about the saga had an air of mockery and even schadenfreude (that link is from Fox News, so it's laced with lots of wailing about how bad and terrible and awful this is). While certainly in poor taste, this is surely inevitable in a period of gross economic inequality and of domination over our politics and society by a tiny super-rich class. Perhaps the wealthy, and those who treat them as celebrities, would do better to take this opportunity to consider seriously why they are so hated.
We live in an age when someone like Elon Musk, whose rockets and cars are notorious for exploding and whose bungled management of Twitter threatens its very survival, can talk about leading a private-sector colonization of Mars and be taken seriously. The fate of the Titan is a reminder of what is likely to happen if such a project, vastly larger and more complex, is attempted by a narcissistic billionaire who also seems to believe that the rules don't apply to him and his ventures.
The ocean is not a playground. It is a totally alien environment filled with horrible-looking things that spend all their time trying to eat each other. If you are wise you'll completely avoid it. If not, at least pay it the respect of taking sensible precautions against its dangers.
15 Comments:
It reminded me of a conversation I had a few years ago where a couple of people were stunned that the engineering and material science required by a deep seas submersible far exceeded that required of a spacecraft. Holding in a bit less than one atmosphere in a vacuum is a lot easier than keeping out 400 atmospheres.
Well, yes Pliny. In many ways we know more about the surface of Mars than the bottom of the sea. Oh, that's because we've sent robots there.
I don't have a problem with that libertarian "free spirit thing" but if you do that it's entirely at your own risk and the tremendous cost of the rescue attempt should be met entirely from that. I have no problem with people doing completely bloody stupid things off their own bat as long as they pick up the tab.
I was also deeply struck by the quantity of coverage this got compared to the catestrophic loss of life on a migrant boat in Greek waters about the same time.
My only positive thought is the... er... Titanic effort the likes of the US, Canadian and other militaries put into this attempt to rescue idiots on a fool's errand had an ulterior motive. Which was to demonstrate to Putin that NATO have much greater underwater capability than Russia. This is important considering things like Nordstream and the repeated Russian threats to sever deep sea comm-links. In this context it is perhaps worth remembering the fate of the Kursk sub. Seriously, do you think this was a plausible motive for deploying such resources as both a training exercise and a display of strength? Because frankly I can think of no other justifiable reason to mount such an operation on the off chance of rescuing a bunch of jerks who did this for morbid giggles and fits in something that looked like it was made from a pair of old bath-tubs in some shed.
I have to wonder if the coverage had anything to do with the things people think but don't dare say.. a reporter wouldn't say something like, 'Gee, why doesn't he pull himself up by his own bootstraps' or 'maybe less avocado toast and no iPhone and he could have afforded a better vehicle'.
There's something fascinating about death being the great equalizer... can't wave your billions at the Grim Reaper so he will go away.
I was actually horrified, as being underwater and not knowing which way to come up has been a recurring nightmare for me since I was a child and nearly drowned.
I know, they didn't drown, they were smashed into oblivion instantly and probably never even knew it.
Well written! I completely agree. The word "hubris" was used quite often by people who wrote about this avoidable tragedy.
"The price tag for the trip was reportedly $250,000. The accommodations were cramped, and the destination was roughly 2½ miles below the surface of the cold, remote North Atlantic. Then there was the liability waiver that reportedly mentioned risk of death three times on its first page alone."
Pliny: That's a good way of looking at it. The conditions in the deep ocean are, in some ways, more extreme than those in space. Of course, in space any rescue mission to save a damaged or off-course spacecraft would be not merely difficult but flatly impossible in almost all cases -- something for Musk's prospective recruits to consider.
NickM: The problem with the "free spirit thing" is that in practice rescue services are not going to just coldly let people die because they made foolish decisions, so some public cost in such cases is inevitable. In this case, for one thing, the 19-year-old passenger was more or less pressured into the trip by his father, and would not have deserved to be abandoned to his fate (if rescue had been possible) based on libertarian ideology. Perhaps the solution is for people engaging in certain dangerous activities to be required to pay into an insurance fund that would cover the cost of rescues. A person who can afford $250,000 for a few hours in an enlarged tin can can afford a further $100,000 for insurance. People are required to buy insurance to drive a car, after all. Even then, some people would find ways to evade the rule, as Rush found ways to avoid safety regulations.
The fact is, the hard-libertarian ideology and attitude is simply out of congruence with the way reality itself works. There are inherent interdependencies among people which can't be blathered away with Ayn Rand squid-ink.
The idea that the rescue effort was partly a message to Putin is an interesting one. The Moon landings were mainly motivated by displaying technological superiority over the USSR. I doubt that that was really a major motive in the sub rescue effort, though. If such a "message" was a real priority, the government could have engineered some way of sending it under more controlled conditions.
Ami: I'm sure that's true about death being a "great equalizer", especially in a case like this. When the threat of death is from disease, injury, or most other causes, wealth can provide some improvement to a person's odds of survival, but in this case there was absolutely nothing all their money could do for them.
And no doubt the horror of the situation was part of the fascination. I have to try to avoid thinking about it on too deep a level. I have a thing about water too -- I get anxiety just driving across a bridge that goes over a river.
Shaw: Thanks! "Hubris" played a huge role in this. Even with such a scary disclaimer, rich people in most cases have lived lives insulated from the consequences of their mistakes, and I think this shapes a distorted view of risk -- they end up with the default feeling that bad things can't really happen to them.
I was not touting Randism. The insurance idea is a good one and the analogy with the admittedly mundane activity of driving a car works for me.
Yes, I'm sure a show of strength in this field could have been engineered under much more controlled circumstances and wasn't quite suggesting it was the prime motivation but I'll betya some folks in the Pentagon were thinging at least this would be a positive side-effect.
A bloke down my local was showing his phone around last night. It had a picture of something he'd cobbled together out of cardboard boxes and duct tape. He'd the pic posted somewhere and was offering trips in it into active volcanic calderas for $250,000. This was met with grim hilarity all round.
Idiootic hubris, though shalt be mocked even in Nick's local in Cheshire!
Taken together it all sort of reminds me of Empedocles jumping in Mt Etna to prove he was a god.
Great Empedocles, that ardent soul, leapt into Etna and was roasted whole.
- Matthew Arnold
NickM: I didn't think you were being a Randroid. It's Rush and his ilk who pretty obviously were / are.
I suspect your guy with the cardboard contraption is only among the first of many to see the grim humor in the situation. The essential ridiculousness of it is too blatant to ignore. Soon we'll be seeing memes of Oscar the Grouch offering deep-sea dives in his trash can, or Snoopy selling flights aboard his doghouse / World War I fighter plane.
If one wished to support Empedocles's claim today, one could declare that after three days he miraculously arose from the volcano alive again, did some final preaching, and then rose to Heaven. There's neither more nor less evidence for him doing that than for anyone else doing it.
Oddly enough, by most accounts, the volcano spat out one of Empedocles' sandals... Didn't a mob hound Brian in the Monty Python movie follow a discarded samdal?
My only question is, "How soon can we get TFG on a homemade submersible?" We can tell him there are Big Macs in there.
NickM: I'm sure it's just a coincidence. The volcano story is a myth, whereas Life of Brian is the true Gospel divinely revealed by the prophets of Monty Python themselves.
Bluzdude: I'm not sure that would work. His massive fast-food farts would create enough internal pressure in the sub to balance the outside pressure and prevent the implosion.
i feel sorry for that young man pressured into the trip by his Dad. However, the CEO - not so much. I love how his libertarian values hold up just until the rescue operation - then it is socialism all the way.
That's another reason a strict libertarian stance on things like this is unworkable. Even if Rush himself had stuck to his principles to the last and not wanted any government effort made to rescue him, it would still have been necessary to do so because of Suleman Dawood, who was not really there of his own free will, and the other passengers who, to varying degrees, may not have fully realized what they were getting into or shared the ideology.
It was not "wasted" money. It was a real world test of a response to an emergency situation. A test of a plan to coordinated resources forusin a situation in which a vessel is in distress. The Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) developed by the United States Navy detected the implosion and was aware Monday that no rescue would be forthcoming. It was however an opportunity, lessons learned.
Spirilis: I'm sure the various agencies involved do such testing and training as they consider necessary, and pay for it themselves. In this case they had no choice but to respond to the situation, which may even have involved some risk to agency personnel. By your logic, nobody would ever need to pay for anything, since any service performed -- even a dentist filling a cavity -- is valuable experience for the service provider.
These people cost the government millions and it should have come out of their pockets one way or another.
Well I hate to say this, and I don't want to sound cold. But...
It was reported that likely the passengers did not feel a thing because it happened so quickly. Well, my take is, I hope not.
At least for the leader/designer of the sub. It would be fitting for him to realize in the that last second, as the sub cracks open and the water rushes in, that: "Oh shit!"
And THEN it was over.
Post a Comment
<< Home