Very much like the original Titanic disaster, in which the majority of deaths were of those in 3rd class and the crew, whereas media interest has almost always focused on the wealthy passengers.
2 Likes
That brings up something which isnât being discussed in the media - you donât just need O2, you need to remove CO2, we donât know what capacity the sub has for preventing CO2 accumulating and it might be much less than 96 hours.
In any case even they have more CO2 scrubbing capacity than they have O2 capacity the current estimate is 20 hours of oxygen, given that they havenât found the sub yet I doubt it will be enough to effect any rescue.
4 Likes
The BBC news website has a q&a. I havenât seen this question brought up.
It would be interesting to know as you say.
Surely they would have scrubbers/rebreathers - itâs standard practice in every submersible Iâve had dealings withâŚ
Yes, they absolutely need to have scrubbers for the normal dive - but they work by chemically reacting with the CO2 so they get used up.
1 Like
Indeed. Iâm familiar with the general principles as I prepared some of the evidence for the inquiry into the HMS Tireless disaster.
1 Like
Iâm impressed - though in the case of Tireless the question âwhich oneâ is pertinent 
The 2007 Oxygen generator explosionâŚ
The Oceangate website simply says that it offers âLife support - 96 hours for 5 crewâ
Has anyone seen if theyâre looking on the surface? If they had to get shot of the ballast they could be miles away from the search site
I donât think so, waivers and disclaimers all the way plus a Company with few assets and no insurance.
1 Like
The people that built and operated this submersible donât seem to have much time for âstandard maritime practiceâ.
1 Like
They have been searching the surface and still are, I believe, apparently it wonât be easy to spot given the vast area to cover and big seas.
2 Likes
Al la Apollo 13 with their improvised scrubbers.
2 Likes
I was just about to quote Apollo 13
2 Likes
One presumes, then, that includes CO2 removal capacity.
It depends - waivers will only go so far if they are found to have skimped on accepted safety standards - reckless endangerment and all that.
I watched a sky news interview with Roger Mallinson yesterday and his account of being trapped in a submersible which apparently one idiot had not fixed the hatch on properly and they sank with it more or less open. His account was bad enough to imagine and it was in the 70âs to when rescue craft were thin on the ground where they existed but they were saved and he is now an elderly man who still has his faculties and can remember it all.
1 Like
I think society has become a little complacent about technology âjust workingâ. This stuff is on the leading edge and Heath Robinson at best. That doesnât mean it shouldnât be done, in fact the opposite, I admire their bravery. But I wonder if you have bought a seat as opposed to having a deep professional understanding of what you are getting in to, would you pay anymore attention to the safety warnings than on, say, a Ryanair flight? Sure, they have to say all this stuff but itâs never going to happen.
An old childhood friend, he lived a few houses down the road, has made this trip a couple of times. The last time I bumped I bumped into him heâd just returned from his first Titanic dive, my interest was such I never even mentioned it 
I wish I had now.
CEO onboard?
So it seems.
However, there are claims that corners were cut where safety was concerned in order to save money
Still, I suppose if thatâs good enough for NASAâŚ.âŚ
1 Like