this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
74 points (100.0% liked)

News

40 readers
2 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago
 

Court documents reveal a former OceanGate employee had several safety complaints over the tourist submersible—and then he was fired.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh, the delicious irony that the CEO was on board...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

King of fuck around and find out

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Huh, thats new to me.

And i couldn't find it in the linked article,
am i blind or are you referencing a different article?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks, Oh wow.

After reading all the articles,
about how it was clear to the company that the sub was an obvious deathtrap,
im genuinely supprised the ceo was dumb / bold enough to actually board it himself.

Thats an almost biblical level of
"fuck around and find out"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

one thing we've learned about most billionaires is they arent very smart and surround themselves completely with 'yes people'. And they also seem to have almost no ability to assess risk, like buying business that they personally know almost nothing about, like twitter and submarines.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the submersible was only built to a certified pressure of 1,300 meters, although OceanGate intended to take passengers down to depths of 4,000 meters.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?

Professor: Well, it’s a spaceship, so I’d say anywhere between zero and one.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh...I didn't realize until now that there were actual people on board. All the headlines said the submarine itself was missing and I wasn't interested enough to click.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I love this comment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Damn. Is there realistically any chance of those people being located and rescued in time?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Supposedly there is oxygen for 4 days, so it it is in tact and they can get it to the surface by early Thursday, maybe.

But more likely there was a structural failure and they are all dead, crushed by the extreme depth.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The sudden lose of communication to me screams catastrophic structural failure..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In which case, there wouldn't even be time to scream…

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wasn’t really sudden. Best they had was text messages that were occurring at a 15 minute interval. They stopped 1:45 into the dive.

They waited until 30 minutes after they were supposed to be back to report it missing (which I think is standard)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

They had two communication systems. They had the text messaging and an automated "ping" that went every 15 minutes. Both stopped suddenly at 1:45.

Quote from apnews

"There are only two things that could mean. Either they lost all power or the ship developed a hull breach and it imploded instantly."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I read an analysis of scenarios for the sub, and the best case is that they had a power failure but managed to surface. This is plausible because if something went wrong they would just need to drop their weights and float up naturally.

In that case, they're floating somewhere on the surface without communications and just need to be spotted.

But even that isn't a good situation because the ocean is ginormous and the sub is locked from the outside, so they're still limited to another day and a half of air supply.

If they're alive but under the surface, the search is nearly hopeless.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If that were the case they would have some sort of emergency transponder on board. They are 100% crushed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I read an analysis of scenarios for the sub, and the best case is that they had a power failure but managed to surface. This is plausible because if something went wrong they would just need to drop their weights and float up naturally.

I'm not sure dropping the weights would help from that depth. There's a point at which the pressure of the water above you cancels out any buoyancy lifting you up. It's not even that super deep for divers; I don't know what it is for a duct-tape-and-zip-tied backyard-crafted submarine, though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the submersible was only built to a certified pressure of 1,300 meters, although OceanGate intended to take passengers down to depths of 4,000 meters.

I think it's too late before they reached the Titanic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the required depth of 4,000 meters.

Well at least they saved some money.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it depends on what depth they are at. You have to depressurize and you need time to do that.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it's still water-tight, occupants wouldn't need to decompress since the interior is still near atmospheric pressure. If it leaked at 13,000 ft... the bends are the least of their worries.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

ooo you're right! Thanks for the catch!