Amid the search for this submarine over the last week or so two things occurred to me. Firstly, why is the media hyper fixating on a couple of lost rich people when over the same period a boat full of migrants in the Mediterranean went down with hundreds of people killed? And secondly I remembered a Jeff Bell article from 2007 called “rocket plane roulette” in which he discusses the risks and ethics of sub orbital space tourism (at least for those wealthy and insane enough to go), which arguably also applies to expeditions to the Titanic.
The article is a bit dated, but still worth a read. TLDR, space flight, even sub orbital space flight, is very dangerous and some of those risks just can’t be engineered away. He points out that government run sub orbital programmes had catastrophic loss rates in the order of once every 57 or 114 missions (depending on how you do the maths). This is equivalent to the risks of flying daylight bombing missions over Germany during World War 2. And even the aircraft that survived often only lasted a few dozen missions before being forced to retire due to wear and tear. Plus there were many aborted launches, which presumably won’t be revenue raising flights. Which raises the question, is it ethical or financially sane to be operating such a dangerous craft on a for profit basis?
Not least because of the legal consequences when things go wrong. As Jeff points out, just because Mr rich signed a waiver before boarding doesn’t protect you from lawsuits. There are certain rights you can’t sign away (this is the first thing they teach you about with tort law). And anyone who can afford $250,000 for a trip to the stratosphere (or to the Titanic) will likely have wealthy relatives (who can afford good lawyers) who won’t have signed anything. And they will be able to demonstrate real loss, both financial and emotional. In short, one has to question the viability of any space tourism operation, or this Titanic operation.
Well if anything the situation with these Titanic expeditions is even worse. Submariner, or deep sea divers, are among the more dangerous jobs in the world. Yes bomber crews had it bad, but consider that during World War 2 the German U-boat service experienced a casualty rate of 75%, one of the highest loss rates of any military branch during the war.
Now granted modern subs in peace time are much saver, but they still count as a fairly dangerous working environment. Even military subs still come to grief, for example the 2017 loss of the ARA San Juan or the 2021 loss of the KRI Nanggala. And both of these were Navy losses, i.e. a well trained crew on a professionally built modern sub. Plus they were operating in conditions a lot less risky than the much deeper waters near the Titanic wreck. Even professionally driven subs have nearly come to grief operating near the Titanic.
On which point, speaking as an engineering, this sub design looked a bit iffy to me. It had too many inherent design flaws for my liking (a pressure vessel made of three separate parts when one would do, no emergency escape hatch, operating alone rather than as part of a pair, etc.). In fact Bob Ballard and James Cameron (who dived to the challenger deep in his sub, as well as to the Titanic) both had misgivings about the sub too. If it were a commercial ship or an aircraft it would likely have never been allowed to sail. But as it fell within a legal loop hole, no such process really existed. Of course that also means the owners can’t point to compliance with government legislation when they defend themselves in court. It also means there is no manditory upper limit to losses per person (as is the case with aircraft crashes).
And with a dozen or so ships and aircraft now helping with the search, many of them US and Canadian government vessels, it places a financial cost on taxpayers, probably in the order of tens of millions. Who is going to pay for that? And going back to my point earlier, if the taxpayer is expected to pay then surely we get to decide who we rescue (I vote we rescue the migrants, billionaires can afford their own rescue).
And its not the only situation either. We also have seen a rise in deaths on mount Everest, with massive queues of mostly non-climbers pushing for the summit with heavy Sherpa support. But that means putting the Sherpa’s in the firing line too, as well as more junk on the mountain. Not to mention when things go wrong, some dare devil Nepali pilot has to come in and pluck these thrill seekers ass out of the fire.
So this whole situation does raise some important questions. Is it okay for the rich to put other people’s lives at risk (as well as their own) just for some bragging rights. It also further emphasises how we live in a plutocracy. If one of the chosen elite gets in trouble, we throw the kitchen sink at saving them, regardless of cost. But if a pleb gets into trouble, well that’s his problem. He should have thought of that before fleeing his home for his own safety. Socialism for the rich and a libertarian free for all for everyone else.
daryanenergyblog 
Reblogged this on daryanblog.