New evidence strongly suggests that OceanGate’s submersible, which imploded and killed all passengers on its way to the Titanic wreck, was unfit for the journey. The CEO, Stockton Rush, bought discounted carbon fiber past its shelf life from Boeing, which experts say is a terrible choice for a deep-sea vessel. This likely played a role in the submersible’s tragic demise.

  • BaconIsAVeg@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m saddened by the amount of taxpayer money that was spent searching for 5 millionaires who went missing while on a joyride in a test vehicle.

    • 6h0st_in_the_machin3@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, money could have been saved… here’s why:

      1. The US Navy’s submarine detection network heard a “boom” on the day of the implosion, which they kept close to their chests…
      2. Sounded the alarm, they spent money and resources looking for something they were almost sure was lost…
      3. After the expiration of time when the submarine “could be recoverable” was when they said “well… we did heard something the other day”…

      Imagine the other possible scenario where the say on the first day “Hey, the sub imploded, we heard it on our underwater microphones, we won’t spend money looking for these people…”
      And then a future investigation reveals that they got stuck somewhere or lost power but were “buoyant” for 48 hours or so, and died for lack of oxygen when no one was looking for them.

      Can you imagine the lawsuits?

      • marco@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Easier way to say it is that there was just no way to be sure what that boom was.

      • aksdb@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are too far along in the chain of causalities. The tax payer money was wasted the moment they went under water with an unfit “sub”. The search was only necessary because of that.

    • kestrel7@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hear you. The best I can do is tell myself that hopefully the Coast Guard personnel and other mariners got some practice/training which will be useful in emergencies in the future. And it’s still right to try and save someone, even if they put themselves in the dangerous situation.

    • FlowVoid@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I doubt it was much of an added expense. The search was carried out by Coast Guard and Navy personnel, who would be getting paid regardless.

      If the sub hadn’t gone missing, it’s quite likely their time and resources would have been spent on practicing some sort of rescue mission.