Titanic sub firm: A maverick, rule-breaking founder and a tragic end

[Social Media]

 

Stockton Rush wanted to be known as an innovator. It didn't seem to matter how he did it.

Bright, driven, born into wealth, his dream was to be the first person to reach Mars.

When he realised that was unlikely to happen in his lifetime, he turned his attentions to the sea.

"I wanted to be Captain Kirk and in our lifetime, the final frontier is the ocean," he told a journalist in 2017.

The ocean promised adventure, adrenaline and mystery. He also believed it promised profits - if he could make a success of the submersible he helped design, which he directed his company OceanGate to build.

He had a maverick spirit that seemed to draw people in, earning him the admiration of his employees, passengers and investors.

 

"His passion was amazing and I bought into it," said Aaron Newman, who travelled on Mr Rush's Titan sub and eventually became an OceanGate investor.

But Mr Rush's soaring ambition also drew scrutiny from industry experts who warned he was cutting corners, putting innovation ahead of safety and risking potentially catastrophic results.

It wasn't something he was willing to accept.

 

FULL STORY

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Rather a theme of our age, cutting regulation/safety v innovation.

 

Keep these events in mind next time the subject comes up.

[newnative]

Explore all you want, risk your life all you want, be reckless and 'rule-breaking' all you want, but not with civilians on board.

[HappyExpat57]

Someone asked me if I thought all the Titanic sub jokes were in bad taste.

 

I said, "No, I don't think they're in bad taste. I also don't think they're jokes.

 

"I think we're at a point in society where the friction between regular people and the ultra wealthy is fostering genuine hate, and I don't think it's unjustified.

 

"Why would the average man mourn the death of a billionaire taking a frivolous expensive trip and having the hubris to ignore the risks?"

[scottiejohn]

BTW who will be paying for the very expensive SAR operation?

[VocalNeal]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

BTW who will be paying for the very expensive SAR operation?

They'd come and look for you, if you went missing in a boat????

[mrfill]

1 hour ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Someone asked me if I thought all the Titanic sub jokes were in bad taste.

 

I said, "No, I don't think they're in bad taste. I also don't think they're jokes.

 

"I think we're at a point in society where the friction between regular people and the ultra wealthy is fostering genuine hate, and I don't think it's unjustified.

 

"Why would the average man mourn the death of a billionaire taking a frivolous expensive trip and having the hubris to ignore the risks?"

Is the answer 'because they are considered so much more important than the 500 poor lives lost in the boat off Greece' ?  It does show that the de-sensitising programme is working fine.

[Tug]

You can’t break the rules when working in the underwater environment they will break you.how nice to be born into wealth and live the life of a wannabe explorer to bad he didn’t have the discipline to make it happen now we the taxpayers are left to pay for the cleanup that sucks 

[hotchilli]

20 hours ago, Social Media said:

But Mr Rush's soaring ambition also drew scrutiny from industry experts who warned he was cutting corners, putting innovation ahead of safety and risking potentially catastrophic results.

It wasn't something he was willing to accept.

He will now.

[jerrymahoney]

16 hours ago, newnative said:

Explore all you want, risk your life all you want, be reckless and 'rule-breaking' all you want, but not with civilians on board.

US NASA learned that hard lesson in 1986 Challenger disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christa_McAuliffe

 

 

[Credo]

15 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Someone asked me if I thought all the Titanic sub jokes were in bad taste.

 

I said, "No, I don't think they're in bad taste. I also don't think they're jokes.

 

"I think we're at a point in society where the friction between regular people and the ultra wealthy is fostering genuine hate, and I don't think it's unjustified.

 

"Why would the average man mourn the death of a billionaire taking a frivolous expensive trip and having the hubris to ignore the risks?"

 

15 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Someone asked me if I thought all the Titanic sub jokes were in bad taste.

 

I said, "No, I don't think they're in bad taste. I also don't think they're jokes.

 

"I think we're at a point in society where the friction between regular people and the ultra wealthy is fostering genuine hate, and I don't think it's unjustified.

 

"Why would the average man mourn the death of a billionaire taking a frivolous expensive trip and having the hubris to ignore the risks?"

Your comment is interesting.  Around the same time, a boat loaded with 750 migrants sank off the coast of Greece.  At least 350 migrants drown.  It was largely ignored or dropped from the news cycle in a nanosecond.  The news was squarely focused on how much air was left in the sub.   

We know that many of the remarks about migrants drowning focus on how it's their own fault, where did they get the money, why don't they stay home and make their own country better, etc., etc.   But we get chastised for less than solemn remarks about the enormous amount of time the news has spent on 5 people in a sub.    

[jerrymahoney]

NBC News ran an article on the disparity of treatment. But look at the picture of a similar refugee boat:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/syria-migrants-boat-sinking-titanic-submersive-missing-rcna90336

Edited June 27, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[JonnyF]

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Rather a theme of our age, cutting regulation/safety v innovation.

 

Keep these events in mind next time the subject comes up.

Without innovation you wouldn't be able to board a flight to Thailand. Would we have told the Wright brothers not to try to fly in case it ended up costing taxpayer money rescuing them if they crashed? Innovation often comes with risk. 

 

Nobody forced these people to get on the sub. It was their own free will. Was it reckless? Yeah probably, same as climbing mountains, same as paragliding, downhill mountain biking, big wave surfing, cave diving, Parkour. Should we regulate those activities as well? 

 

Maybe we can just lock everyone in their homes after working hours, let them pay their taxes on their approved devices and be "educated" by highly regulated BBC documentaries since any kind of fun or innovation potentially costs the government money. That would be very "safe", very "regulated".

[BritManToo]

25 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Without innovation you wouldn't be able to board a flight to Thailand. Would we have told the Wright brothers not to try to fly in case it ended up costing taxpayer money rescuing them if they crashed? Innovation often comes with risk. 

Not sure I can see how it cost any EXTRA taxpayer money.

The boats and crew all get paid whether in use or not.

At least this way the equipment is of some use and not sitting around idle in a navy yard.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Not sure I can see how it cost any EXTRA taxpayer money.

The boats and crew all get paid whether in use or not.

At least this way the equipment is of some use and not sitting around idle in a navy yard.

I think there is probably some taxpayer money involved but it's no different to rescuing someone from a mountain or maybe an elderly lady who has fallen from their mountain bike in a local bike race.

 

I believe a lot of the negativity is from the jealous, bitter types who can't stand that people who have been more successful than them choose to spend their money on non essentials like this.

[jerrymahoney]

37 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Without innovation you wouldn't be able to board a flight to Thailand. Would we have told the Wright brothers not to try to fly in case it ended up costing taxpayer money rescuing them if they crashed? Innovation often comes with risk. 

 

Nobody forced these people to get on the sub. It was their own free will. Was it reckless? Yeah probably, same as climbing mountains, same as paragliding, downhill mountain biking, big wave surfing, cave diving, Parkour. Should we regulate those activities as well? 

 

Maybe we can just lock everyone in their homes after working hours, let them pay their taxes on their approved devices and be "educated" by highly regulated BBC documentaries since any kind of fun or innovation potentially costs the government money. That would be very "safe", very "regulated".

Along the lines above :

 

Opinion
Before condemning the Titan’s pilot, consider his side of the story

 

“You know, and I know, the cause of this accident,” thundered Lord Brabazon of Tara, a daring aviator who held the very first official pilot’s license in the United Kingdom. “It is due to the adventurous, pioneering spirit of our race. It has been like that in the past, it is like that in the present, and I hope it will be in the future.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/24/titan-submersible-pilot-stockton-rush-explorer/

 

https://archive.fo/P79An

Edited June 27, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[bendejo]

I don't have a high opinion of Elon, but at least he has the sense to not ride on one of his rockets.

Or maybe he watches the show "Billions."  (Where a Musk-alike character dies when his rocket blows up)

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by bendejo

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Without innovation you wouldn't be able to board a flight to Thailand. Would we have told the Wright brothers not to try to fly in case it ended up costing taxpayer money rescuing them if they crashed? Innovation often comes with risk. 

 

Nobody forced these people to get on the sub. It was their own free will. Was it reckless? Yeah probably, same as climbing mountains, same as paragliding, downhill mountain biking, big wave surfing, cave diving, Parkour. Should we regulate those activities as well? 

 

Maybe we can just lock everyone in their homes after working hours, let them pay their taxes on their approved devices and be "educated" by highly regulated BBC documentaries since any kind of fun or innovation potentially costs the government money. That would be very "safe", very "regulated".

Without safety and regulations, aircraft wouldn’t be reaching Thailand.

 

But thank you for bringing up air transport, one of the most regulated and safest forms of transport; regulations that came about as a direct result of ‘suck it and see’ accidents killing people.

 

The idiot behind this accident wasn’t ‘innovating’ he was ignoring the safety and fired the guy who warned him of the safety problems.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Along the lines above :

 

Opinion
Before condemning the Titan’s pilot, consider his side of the story

 

“You know, and I know, the cause of this accident,” thundered Lord Brabazon of Tara, a daring aviator who held the very first official pilot’s license in the United Kingdom. “It is due to the adventurous, pioneering spirit of our race. It has been like that in the past, it is like that in the present, and I hope it will be in the future.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/24/titan-submersible-pilot-stockton-rush-explorer/

 

https://archive.fo/P79An

Like the technology of submarines, the technology of flight is well understood.

 

Engineers and Designers know how to make safe aircraft, just like other Engineers and Designers know how to make safe subs.

 

This wasn’t some daring leap into an unknown sphere of human endeavor, it was sheer idiocy, arrogance and hubris.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Without safety and regulations, aircraft wouldn’t be reaching Thailand.

 

But thank you for bringing up air transport, one of the most regulated and safest forms of transport; regulations that came about as a direct result of ‘suck it and see’ accidents killing people.

 

The idiot behind this accident wasn’t ‘innovating’ he was ignoring the safety and fired the guy who warned him of the safety problems.

 

 

Of course, when trips to the titanic in subs are commercially available to millions of people per year we will need regulations on the industry.

 

But we are talking about the innovation stage here. You own post stated "Safety vs innovation". If you stifle it we will never reach the point that air travel is at today. These guys knew the risks, they basically "took one for the team" so that in the future people will be able to travel safely in a regulated industry.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Of course, when trips to the titanic in subs are commercially available to millions of people per year we will need regulations on the industry.

 

But we are talking about the innovation stage here. You own post stated "Safety vs innovation". If you stifle it we will never reach the point that air travel is at today. These guys knew the risks, they basically "took one for the team" so that in the future people will be able to travel safely in a regulated industry.

What innovation?

 

Mini-subs already exist, the technology to build mini subs already exists.

 

I very much doubt the passengers knew the risks, though we do know from court records that Stockton Rush was informed of the risk, chose to ignore the risks and fired the guy who was warning him of the risks.

 

RIP his victims.

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What innovation?

 

Mini-subs already exist, the technology to build mini subs already exists.

 

I very much doubt the passengers knew the risks, though we do know from court records that Stockton Rush was informed of the risk, chose to ignore the risks and fired the guy who was warning him of the risks.

 

RIP his victims.

 

So you are saying that because subs already exist, innovation stops? 

 

So presumably you would have stopped innovating aircraft around about this time? 

 

 

They knew the risks, they were intelligent people who signed the waiver. Death was mentioned 3 times on the very first page. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So you are saying that because subs already exist, innovation stops? 

 

So presumably you would have stopped innovating aircraft around about this time? 

 

 

They knew the risks, they were intelligent people who signed the waiver. Death was mentioned 3 times on the very first page. 

 

 

There was no innovation.

 

Without knowledge of the gross dereliction of safety and regulation how could the passengers ‘know the risk’?

 

Stockton Rush’s death has saved him from spending the rest of his days in court and a spell in the slammer.

 

Tge good news, heMll not be killing anyone else with his recklessness.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There was innovation.

 

Without knowledge of the gross dereliction of safety and regulation how could the passengers ‘know the risk’?

No proven evidence of gross dereliction of safety. They could have been struck by an underwater object for all we know.

 

The risks were spelled out in the waiver that they signed. The risk of death was mentioned 3 times on the first page. They signed it. Why do you always need a 'victim'? Such a strange mentality.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Stockton Rush’s death has saved him from spending the rest of his days in court and a spell in the slammer.

Good to see you can predict the outcome of future trials that will never take place. A handy skill to have.

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Tge good news, heMll not be killing anyone else with his recklessness.

No proven evidence that he killed someone with his recklessness.

 

This wouldn't have anything to do with his links to the Republicans by any chance would it? ????

 

https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/the-left-says-stockton-rush-deserves-to-die-for-backing-gop/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No proven evidence of gross dereliction of safety. They could have been struck by an underwater object for all we know.

 

The risks were spelled out in the waiver that they signed. The risk of death was mentioned 3 times on the first page. They signed it. Why do you always need a 'victim'? Such a strange mentality.

 

 

Good to see you can predict the outcome of future trials that will never take place. A handy skill to have.

 

No proven evidence that he killed someone with his recklessness.

 

This wouldn't have anything to do with his links to the Republicans by any chance would it? ????

 

https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/the-left-says-stockton-rush-deserves-to-die-for-backing-gop/

 

The facts of Rush’s disregard for and ignoring of safety and regulations is a matter of court record. He fired his safety advisor for doing his job and warning of safety concerns.

I had absolutely no idea he was at all linked to the Republican Party, though it doesn’t surprise me given his disregard for safety and regulation.

 

Perhaps this explains why right wingers are defending him.

Waivers do not indemnify operators against gross dereliction of safety/gross negligence.

 

Example below, you’ll find similar in almost all jurisdictions:

 

https://www.southfloridainjurylawyerblog.com/amp/liability-for-gross-negligence-cant-be-waived-in-release-form/

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[Pink Mist]

A troll post has been removed

[SunnyinBangrak]

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What innovation?

 

Mini-subs already exist, the technology to build mini subs already exists.

 

I very much doubt the passengers knew the risks, though we do know from court records that Stockton Rush was informed of the risk, chose to ignore the risks and fired the guy who was warning him of the risks.

 

RIP his victims.

 

I believe his "innovation" was shaping the pressure chamber like a toilet paper tube, others had previously been spherical. I suspect he did this so could fit more paying passengers onboard rather than as a tech improvement.

 

The more info coming out about Rush's decisions the more it looks criminal. Shame he's not here to face the music.

 

"A conversation he had with OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush the night before the expedition, however, still haunts him to this day.

According to Weissmann, Rush had bought the carbon fiber used to make the Titan "at a big discount from Boeing," because "it was past its shelf life for use in airplanes."

In other words, Rush knew that the carbon fiber — which is a very poor choice of material for a deepsea vessel, as many experts have pointed out — already potentially had flaws that could've played a role in the Titan's tragic demise."

https://futurism.com/oceangate-ceo-expired-carbon-fiber-submarine?fbclid=IwAR2LaiLo7w1X_VgSopnHY9nYZVP2DuBqlPhNVHdZp3wHl6fxZKpG6LNAYjA

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I believe his "innovation" was shaping the pressure chamber like a toilet paper tube, others had previously been spherical. I suspect he did this so could fit more paying passengers onboard rather than as a tech improvement.

 

The more info coming out about Rush's decisions the more it looks criminal. Shame he's not here to face the music.

 

"A conversation he had with OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush the night before the expedition, however, still haunts him to this day.

According to Weissmann, Rush had bought the carbon fiber used to make the Titan "at a big discount from Boeing," because "it was past its shelf life for use in airplanes."

In other words, Rush knew that the carbon fiber — which is a very poor choice of material for a deepsea vessel, as many experts have pointed out — already potentially had flaws that could've played a role in the Titan's tragic demise."

https://futurism.com/oceangate-ceo-expired-carbon-fiber-submarine?fbclid=IwAR2LaiLo7w1X_VgSopnHY9nYZVP2DuBqlPhNVHdZp3wHl6fxZKpG6LNAYjA

 

 

 

I hadn’t seen that news, thanks for posting.

 

It’s not just the age of the carbon fiber but also the grade, the layer pattern, the resin, the curing, the exclusion of voids and a host of other ‘technology application’ issues.

 

I have two ‘high end’ carbon fiber racing bikes, their price premium is almost entirely down to the costs of the carbon fiber grade and its application. They both came with extensive NDT certification.

 

Chinese copies are available, but frequently suffer catastrophic failure.

 
But even reputable manufacturers sometimes get it wrong, collapsing frames and snapped handlebars occurred multiple times in last years ‘Grand Tours’.

 

Carbon fiber, like all materials is only fit for service if correctly specified and applied. There’s reference in this thread to Rush’s clear failure to understand the materials he was applying and the methods of application.

 

RIP his victims.

 

[JonnyF]

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But even reputable manufacturers sometimes get it wrong, collapsing frames and snapped handlebars occurred multiple times in last years ‘Grand Tours’.

Exactly. Should the CEO of these companies go to jail because one of his/her bicycles failed? One would assume the bicycle industry is regulated yet these things still happen. Even a proponent of safety over innovation like yourself still rides these carbon fibre bikes knowing they can, in certain circumstances collapse. These people did the same, knowing they could die. And die they did. It can happen when you take huge risks like deep sea exploration in one off, experimental vehicles. That's why they had to sign a waiver that mentioned death 3 times on the first page. And sign it they did, hence they knew the risks (unless they didn't read it which again is their responsibility).

 

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

RIP his victims.

They are not his victims. 4 of the 5 are grown adults who chose to take a very risky mission to the bottom of the ocean in an experimental vehicle after signing a waiver. If they didn't know that carbon fibre was a poor choice for the vehicle that is their responsibility to find out and then make an informed decision. Not unlike when I take a ride in a Jeepney in Philippines I know that they are not made from the ideal materials under strict QC and design laws, but I still hop on and hope for the best knowing I could die in the event of a crash. I'm not a victim of the Jeepney designer if I die in a Jeepney, I simply took an unnecessary risk and got unlucky.

 

Nobody forced them onto the vehicle at gunpoint, quite the opposite they paid 250k USD each. The only one you could argue was a victim was the teenager, but if he IS a victim then he is a victim of his father's poor judgement and pressure to go, not a victim of Rush.

[SunnyinBangrak]

Another not widely reported snippet, which paints a grim picture of a likely stressful attempt at an urgent/emergency ascent before imploding, rather than the blissfully unaware happy one minute gone the next scenario most are assuming.

 

"They probably had warning that their hull was starting to delaminate and starting to crack," he said.

"It's our belief, we understand from inside the community, that they had dropped their ascent weights, and they were coming up, trying to manage an emergency," Cameron added."

https://www.insider.com/james-cameron-says-titan-sub-likely-tried-surfacing-before-imploded-2023-6