Titanic tourist submersible gone missing

LionAquaLooper

They scheduled a press conference straight away.  Let's see what they say but it sounds ominous.  

welshboyo

LionAquaLooper said:

They scheduled a press conference straight away.  Let's see what they say but it sounds omimous.  

That thing must have lost power, sunk to the bottom, hit the bottom and just disintegrated...probably wasn't designed to withstand any type of impact at those pressure levels...

ICBM

Gilly said:

Timcito said:

There's an unsettling perversity about my puny, vulnerable little human frame being so high up or so far down, an absurdity that almost doesn't bear contemplating. What on earth (ahem!) are you doing flying at jet velocity above the clouds in a tin tube constructed by fallible human knowledge and limitations?? Because when we put huge distances between ourselves and terra firma, whether up or down, then we're pretty much sitting ducks if anything serious goes wrong. And go wrong it most certainly does at some point.

True but I bet you drive a car, which is statistically far more dangerous.

Not actually true, although the airline industry would like you to think it is - it depends on how you measure it, and which is the most useful statistic. Air travel is much safer than cars *per passenger kilometer*, and since airliners travel long distances compared to cars that skews the stats. But per passenger *journey*, they're actually about three times more dangerous - ie you're three times as likely to die on any specific occasion you get into an aircraft than on any specific occasion you get into a car.

Have a look at the table here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons

(NB, also mentioned in that article is that aviation industry insurers use the passenger-journey statistic, not the passenger-kilometer one, which is quite telling.)

Submarines - or submersibles - are not mentioned, but presumably would be fairly high up on both counts if they were.

VimFuego

ICBM said:

Gilly said:

Timcito said:

There's an unsettling perversity about my puny, vulnerable little human frame being so high up or so far down, an absurdity that almost doesn't bear contemplating. What on earth (ahem!) are you doing flying at jet velocity above the clouds in a tin tube constructed by fallible human knowledge and limitations?? Because when we put huge distances between ourselves and terra firma, whether up or down, then we're pretty much sitting ducks if anything serious goes wrong. And go wrong it most certainly does at some point.

True but I bet you drive a car, which is statistically far more dangerous.

Not actually true, although the airline industry would like you to think it is - it depends on how you measure it, and which is the most useful statistic. Air travel is much safer than cars *per passenger mile*, and since airliners travel long distances compared to cars that skews the stats. But per passenger *journey*, they're actually about three times more dangerous - ie you're three times as likely to die on any specific occasion you get into an aircraft than on any specific occasion you get into a car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons

what also slightly skews it is modern cars are insanely safe. I've attended a couple of RTC's now where the cars have been reduced to rubble and the occupants, once cut out, pretty much walk away with only bruising and scratches. It takes a lot to die in a car nowadays. Sadly, if you're in a plane crash, there generally isn't a happy outcome. Planes crash less, but crash harder. 

DiscoStu

I was working in Lossiemouth today and there were far more Typhoons flying from the RAF base than usual. You normally see 2 or 3 out on training runs but there were at least 6, maybe 8 that were buzzing around today. And then this MASSIVE plane took off over my head, followed later by a couple of private jets, all getting an escort from Typhoons.
Turns out the big boy was a C-17 Globemaster, loaded up with cables and headed for the search area. Amazing to think that the North of Scotland is involved in all of this.

ICBM

VimFuego said:

what also slightly skews it is modern cars are insanely safe. I've attended a couple of RTC's now where the cars have been reduced to rubble and the occupants, once cut out, pretty much walk away with only bruising and scratches. It takes a lot to die in a car nowadays. Sadly, if you're in a plane crash, there generally isn't a happy outcome. Planes crash less, but crash harder. 

Very true. Statistics like this are open to interpretation anyway, especially when the accident rates are extremely low, as they are with aircraft. As an example, Concorde went from being the safest airliner type (by total distance flown without a fatality) to the most dangerous (by proportion of crashes to number built) in one accident. In truth, it was always a potentially dangerous aircraft, there were just so few of them that it took a long time to become clear.

Back to the main story, it looks like they're out of time even if something catastrophic didn't happen... and there's now a possibility that it did - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/22/titanic-sub-titan-debris-field-search-area-latest

Reverend

Bbc is reporting that they have identified parts of titan in the wreckage.

boogieman

Reverend said:

Bbc is reporting that they have identified parts of titan in the wreckage.

Including the end cap. So it’s definitely imploded. 

tony99

No idea like, but I'm guessing that happened as soon as they lost contact. All the crazy speculation of what was going on in the sub was probably all for nothing 

Gilly

ICBM said:

Gilly said:

Timcito said:

There's an unsettling perversity about my puny, vulnerable little human frame being so high up or so far down, an absurdity that almost doesn't bear contemplating. What on earth (ahem!) are you doing flying at jet velocity above the clouds in a tin tube constructed by fallible human knowledge and limitations?? Because when we put huge distances between ourselves and terra firma, whether up or down, then we're pretty much sitting ducks if anything serious goes wrong. And go wrong it most certainly does at some point.

True but I bet you drive a car, which is statistically far more dangerous.

Not actually true, although the airline industry would like you to think it is - it depends on how you measure it, and which is the most useful statistic. Air travel is much safer than cars *per passenger kilometer*, and since airliners travel long distances compared to cars that skews the stats. But per passenger *journey*, they're actually about three times more dangerous - ie you're three times as likely to die on any specific occasion you get into an aircraft than on any specific occasion you get into a car.

Have a look at the table here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons

(NB, also mentioned in that article is that aviation industry insurers use the passenger-journey statistic, not the passenger-kilometer one, which is quite telling.)

Submarines - or submersibles - are not mentioned, but presumably would be fairly high up on both counts if they were.

But deaths per distance travelled is the more important statistic. I drive my car every day and get on a plane once every few years so the chances of me dying in a car crash are significantly higher.

ICBM

Gilly said:

But deaths per distance travelled is the more important statistic. I drive my car every day and get on a plane once every few years so the chances of me dying in a car crash are significantly higher.

Overall, yes - but not each time you get in it. Personally I find the chance of dying on any given journey marginally more worrying. This is why you can't take the usual 'air travel is safer than car travel' claim entirely at face value - and especially, the often-repeated trope that the most dangerous part of air travel is driving to the airport - it's not, it's only a third as dangerous as getting on the plane.

darthed1981

Edit: no jokes in this thread, forgot where I was.

Looks like the sub crew were killed a few days ago.  Rest in Peace.

Jeremiah

ICBM said:

Gilly said:

But deaths per distance travelled is the more important statistic. I drive my car every day and get on a plane once every few years so the chances of me dying in a car crash are significantly higher.

Overall, yes - but not each time you get in it. Personally I find the chance of dying on any given journey marginally more worrying. This is why you can't take the usual 'air travel is safer than car travel' claim entirely at face value - and especially, the often-repeated trope that the most dangerous part of air travel is driving to the airport - it's not, it's only a third as dangerous as getting on the plane.

I notice that those statistics are from 1990 - 2000. Probably both cars and aircraft are safer now than then, despite some recent high profile air crashes

LastMantra

Is it not just that there have been far more car crashes than plane crashes? 

goldtop

LastMantra said:

Is it not just that there have been far more car crashes than plane crashes? 

There are so many car crashes that statistics are less likely to be skewed by one-off accidents (like the Concorde example above).

Also: car accidents have benefitted from massive improvements in medical care, paramedics, their training, the time to A&E, the trauma care, etc. So the car accident that would have killed you in 1960s might now leave you significantly impaired but alive. The same can't be said for aircraft accidents.

PhilW1

My sister in law has sussed it, she said
 “it blew up an hour after take off”
?.

LionAquaLooper

PhilW1 said:

My sister in law has sussed it, she said
 “it blew up an hour after take off”
?.

Pretty much, except you wouldn't blow up but rather implode down in those depths. 

LastMantra

goldtop said:

LastMantra said:

Is it not just that there have been far more car crashes than plane crashes? 

There are so many car crashes that statistics are less likely to be skewed by one-off accidents (like the Concorde example above).

Also: car accidents have benefitted from massive improvements in medical care, paramedics, their training, the time to A&E, the trauma care, etc. So the car accident that would have killed you in 1960s might now leave you significantly impaired but alive. The same can't be said for aircraft accidents.

Not sure what you're saying.

More people die in plane crashes now? 

Sporky

LionAquaLooper said:

PhilW1 said:

My sister in law has sussed it, she said
 “it blew up an hour after take off”
?.

Pretty much, except you wouldn't blow up but rather implode down in those depths. 

Do we know it went down, not up? 

LionAquaLooper

Sporky said:

LionAquaLooper said:

PhilW1 said:

My sister in law has sussed it, she said
 “it blew up an hour after take off”
?.

Pretty much, except you wouldn't blow up but rather implode down in those depths. 

Do we know it went down, not up? 

We do now. They just released a statement.