patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,245,814 comments by 14,877 users - HANrongli online now
OceanGate verses Remotely Operated Vehicles
invite response
2023 Jun 27, 12:47am 768 views 9 comments
Comments 1 - 9 of 9 Search these comments
1
richwicks
2023 Jun 27, 12:53am
richwicks
2023 Jun 27, 12:53am
SunnyvaleCA says
Because you can just duplicate the video after that point, and never have to go back.
But you're correct.
It's like nations claiming they are going to the moon again. Well. Why? Send a robot. It's a lot cheaper, and there's only a 2 second delay round trip. You can collect tons of samples as well, do anything you want and do it at a fraction of the cost with no possibility of having to announce that everybody died in a freak accident.
There's really no point in engaging in these highly dangerous expeditions. It's a 50's way of thinking. I don't even think it makes very good sense to send people to the ISS - in fact, I think the ISS is pretty worthless. Just what science has come out of it?
For a tiny fraction of the cost, you could afford $100k of video cameras and other electronics and have a better view on a 4k TV back on the surface than you would down there looking through a ridiculously thick glass window.
Because you can just duplicate the video after that point, and never have to go back.
But you're correct.
It's like nations claiming they are going to the moon again. Well. Why? Send a robot. It's a lot cheaper, and there's only a 2 second delay round trip. You can collect tons of samples as well, do anything you want and do it at a fraction of the cost with no possibility of having to announce that everybody died in a freak accident.
There's really no point in engaging in these highly dangerous expeditions. It's a 50's way of thinking. I don't even think it makes very good sense to send people to the ISS - in fact, I think the ISS is pretty worthless. Just what science has come out of it?
2
DhammaStep
2023 Jun 27, 3:11am
Especially in the context of the Titanic. We have so much high quality archival content from several expeditions already. What else do they think they'll find at this point? It must be part of that lack of satisfaction with having a normal life some people have. The kind of dissatisfaction that drives people up mountains and needles into arms I guess.
4
RWSGFY
2023 Jun 27, 8:50am
RWSGFY
2023 Jun 27, 8:50am
DhammaStep says
There was nothing cutting edge or scientific about that operation. The whole deep diving covfefe has been perfected since 1960s. The US Navy has submersibles capable of diving these depths SAFELY since 1964 (and they are still in service). French have these. Brits, Germans, everyfuckingbody have them since 1960-70s. Even always late-to-the-party Soviets has bought two of similarly capable subs ftom the Finns back in mid-80s (and rented them out to Cameron for his Titanic wreck filming in the 90s).
So it was about tourists money and nothing else.
Especially in the context of the Titanic. We have so much high quality archival content from several expeditions already. What else do they think they'll find at this point? It must be part of that lack of satisfaction with having a normal life some people have. The kind of dissatisfaction that drives people up mountains and needles into arms I guess.
There was nothing cutting edge or scientific about that operation. The whole deep diving covfefe has been perfected since 1960s. The US Navy has submersibles capable of diving these depths SAFELY since 1964 (and they are still in service). French have these. Brits, Germans, everyfuckingbody have them since 1960-70s. Even always late-to-the-party Soviets has bought two of similarly capable subs ftom the Finns back in mid-80s (and rented them out to Cameron for his Titanic wreck filming in the 90s).
So it was about tourists money and nothing else.
5
WookieMan
2023 Jun 27, 9:23am
WookieMan
2023 Jun 27, 9:23am
DhammaStep says
This. And who cares? It's a fucking sunken ship. Do they think they're going to find treasure or something? I get snorkeling and near surface scuba, but why in the flying fuck would anyone want to go there in the first place? Going deep your possibilities of death raise exponentially more than probably most activities you could do. It's over in the snap of a finger.
I just don't get the infatuation with the Titanic. Has anyone seen a modern day cruise ship? They generally all larger and more impressive. Plus based on ship size there are many other far deadlier ship sinking's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Lady_Elgin
I know it's 300 vs 1,500 dead, but the Lady Elgin was tiny.
Lady Elgin
Class and type Sidewheel steamer - passengers and package freight
Tonnage 1037.70 gross[1]
Length 252 ft (77 m)[1]
Beam 32.66 ft (9.95 m)[1]
Height 13 ft (4.0 m)[1]
Notes Wood hull vessel
Titanic
Class and type Olympic-class ocean liner
Tonnage 46,329 GRT, 21,831 NRT
Displacement 52,310 tons
Length
882 ft 9 in (269.1 m) overall
852 ft 6 in (259.8 m) registered
Beam 92 ft 6 in (28.2 m)
Height 175 ft (53.3 m) (keel to top of funnels)
Just because you could fit more people on the damn thing doesn't mean it was the worst maritime disaster. And the unsinkable ship is bull ship. https://www.historyonthenet.com/the-titanic-why-did-people-believe-titanic-was-unsinkable It was to protect future sales for the ship yard and promotion. Never understood how it got overhyped so much.
Especially in the context of the Titanic. We have so much high quality archival content from several expeditions already. What else do they think they'll find at this point?
This. And who cares? It's a fucking sunken ship. Do they think they're going to find treasure or something? I get snorkeling and near surface scuba, but why in the flying fuck would anyone want to go there in the first place? Going deep your possibilities of death raise exponentially more than probably most activities you could do. It's over in the snap of a finger.
I just don't get the infatuation with the Titanic. Has anyone seen a modern day cruise ship? They generally all larger and more impressive. Plus based on ship size there are many other far deadlier ship sinking's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Lady_Elgin
I know it's 300 vs 1,500 dead, but the Lady Elgin was tiny.
Lady Elgin
Class and type Sidewheel steamer - passengers and package freight
Tonnage 1037.70 gross[1]
Length 252 ft (77 m)[1]
Beam 32.66 ft (9.95 m)[1]
Height 13 ft (4.0 m)[1]
Notes Wood hull vessel
Titanic
Class and type Olympic-class ocean liner
Tonnage 46,329 GRT, 21,831 NRT
Displacement 52,310 tons
Length
882 ft 9 in (269.1 m) overall
852 ft 6 in (259.8 m) registered
Beam 92 ft 6 in (28.2 m)
Height 175 ft (53.3 m) (keel to top of funnels)
Just because you could fit more people on the damn thing doesn't mean it was the worst maritime disaster. And the unsinkable ship is bull ship. https://www.historyonthenet.com/the-titanic-why-did-people-believe-titanic-was-unsinkable It was to protect future sales for the ship yard and promotion. Never understood how it got overhyped so much.
Why would anyone want to go through all the effort of putting fragile and temperamental humans into the OceanGate vehicle instead of just going with a Remotely Operated Vehicle. I really don't see any advantage of being in that tiny can instead of up on the surface operating everything remotely through a fiber optic cable.
Here's an article on such remote vehicles: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/subs/rovs/rovs.html
For a tiny fraction of the cost, you could afford $100k of video cameras and other electronics and have a better view on a 4k TV back on the surface than you would down there looking through a ridiculously thick glass window.