By D. Maan, Jadetimes News
Reflections on the Titan Submersible Tragedy, A Year Later
One year ago, the Titan submersible was destroyed on an ill fated mission to the wreck of the Titanic. Ocean explorer Victor Vescovo explains why the mishap could make future deep ocean voyages safer. The Ocean is a place where you've got to really know your stuff before you can step outside the box. You don't move fast and break things, as they say in Silicon Valley, if the thing you're going to break has got you inside it." Deep ocean explorer, scientist, and filmmaker James Cameron, appearing on 60 Minutes Australia, June 9, 2024.
It's been a year since the submersible Titan imploded at the site of the RMS Titanic. Two of my friends and colleagues, PH Nargeolet from France and Hamish Harding from the UK, were onboard. I worked extensively with PH for several years on the design and operation of the ultra deep diving submersible Limiting Factor, while Hamish and I visited the deepest point in the ocean, Challenger Deep, together. Their loss was not just a big news story: to me, it was personal.
A year later, many ask: "How has the incident changed deep water exploration?" There are two answers.
The first is, "I very much hope, not much."
By that, I mean that I sincerely hope this incident does not make people more fearful of diving into the depths of the extraordinary ocean, the lifeblood of our world. Three quarters of the world's ocean is completely unexplored, home to multitudes of undiscovered species, geological puzzles that can help us understand seaquakes and tsunamis, and possibly insights into how the world is affected by climate change.
Unfortunately, the sensationalism surrounding the accident and the instinctive fear many people have of the deep ocean have perhaps made some of those unfamiliar with submersibles more anxious about getting into one. But this absolutely should not be the case; just as people should not stop traveling by air after they hear reports of a fatal aircraft accident. Those of us in the submersible community the builders, pilots, and researchers have not hesitated in continuing to extensively dive in these vehicles, which should give everyone else confidence in their safety.
Understanding the Unconventionality and Risks of the Titan Submersible
It is crucial to recognize the complete unconventionality of the Titan submersible. It was an anomaly in the history of submersible design, operation, and safety. Unlike every other deep diving submersible, which is based on a metal or acrylic sphere, the Titan was primarily constructed of carbon fiber molded into the shape of a cylinder. Safety concerns about the vessel were raised as early as 2018 by former employees of OceanGate, the company that owned the Titan. Almost every deep ocean engineering expert I know implored OceanGate not to dive the Titan, warning that it was only a matter of time before the submersible would implode and people would be killed. These warnings were ignored.
The Titanic ignored numerous warnings about extensive icebergs along its route, much like OceanGate disregarded warnings about its flawed submersible design
Parallels Between the Titanic and OceanGate Tragedies, Lessons for the Future
Unfortunately, Stockton Rush, the founder and chief sub pilot of OceanGate, dismissed safety concerns as obstacles to innovation and his ambition to establish a viable commercial operation. He chose carbon fiber for constructing a vessel large enough to carry enough passengers to offset the high costs of building and operating a deep diving submersible. These compromises, made for economic reasons and potential technological bragging rights against what he viewed as an overly conservative industry, proved fatal.
Historical parallels are evident. The Titanic did not adequately heed warnings about extensive icebergs along its route, just as OceanGate ignored warnings about its flawed submersible design. The Titanic had insufficient lifeboats because more would have allegedly cluttered the deck and ruined the view for passengers, while the Titan used carbon fiber to accommodate more passengers. There was also the recurring theme of hubris: the Titanic was deemed "too big to sink," and the Titan was intended to be "revolutionary." Both were considered perfectly safe by their owners but ultimately were not.
A second potential impact of the Titan's loss on deep ocean exploration
The accident eerily repeated many elements that contributed to the Titanic tragedy over a hundred years ago. However, this disaster could and should have a similar positive effect on future global safety regulations. In the aftermath of the Titanic's loss, the stringent Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations were established and endure to this day. These regulations govern the equipment, procedures, and training required to operate commercial vessels at sea. Thus, the Titanic's tragedy, as devastating as it was, ultimately saved many more lives by prompting new safety measures to prevent a similar disaster. Similarly, the loss of the Titan could lead to improved safety protocols and regulations for deep ocean exploration, ensuring such a tragedy does not happen again.
Humanity should always pursue exploration and strive to expose as many people as possible to the extraordinary wonders of our world
Similarly, the Titan disaster offers a glimmer of hope. While we await the findings of investigations by the US Coast Guard and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, there are growing calls to enhance safety measures in the submersible industry. "Non classed" submersibles those not certified by accredited third parties should never be authorized to transport commercial passengers. Experimental crafts, akin to aviation, should be permitted to operate to advance technology, safety, and capability. However, individuals unaware of the risks involved should not have access to purchase tickets for travel in experimental craft.
Merely signing a waiver, circumventing laws in international waters, or using legal maneuvers to classify commercial passengers as "crew" when they are clearly not should not shield risky operators from operating prohibitions or retroactive legal consequences upon returning to any port.