• misguidedfunk@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    No talk of passengers, so at the very least one person is missing, but up to 5. Also they have no other submersible that can reach that depth. From an insurance stance, that sounds like a massive liability risk to undertake, not to mention it’s just unwise.

    • woteorin@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So, in the live feed the BBC has going, there’s a post suggesting that a group of explorers were apparently on board based on one of them’s Facebook feed, so it’s safe to say they probably had the full passenger set on there.

      • RedMarsRepublic@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Really a stretch to call these people ‘explorers’. Apparently one of them made their billions hawking private jets. Sucks to be him…

        • woteorin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          One of the other posts in the feed makes it sound like they only do it a handful of times a year, and that cost is covering a multi-day excursion since they have to wait for conditions to be right. Still, no excuse to not have contingencies, but I think their take gets eaten into a fair bit more than the raw math would suggest.

          • misguidedfunk@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wager they don’t have a recovery vessel because they have people sign contracts only allowing arbitration.

            • StringTheory@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              The CBS guy read aloud part of the thing he had to sign when he rode on it.

              And the video is horrifying on so many levels…

            • woteorin@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wouldn’t be surprised. But, I suspect there’s also a factor of just implausibility. Apparently, the main vessel they use is “experimental”, so it may just literally be impossible to have a recovery vessel without being a literal government.

              My money’s on this being the result of someone ignoring the “hey, these are not good conditions” warnings.

                • jellyfish@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The bit with the contract is @ 2:40:

                  An experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma or death.

                  At least you can’t say they didn’t know what they were getting into. Still an awful way to go, if it did implode at depth, at least it’d be quick.

                  • StringTheory@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think I’d rather implode and go instantly, than be floating on the surface for 4 days and unable to get out while slowly suffocating.

                    Neither is my idea of a good time…

          • schzztl@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            According to the CEO the whole business isn’t even profitable. They spent over a million on gas alone. At least this jerryrigged contraption sinking is the most effective way for their company to stop shitting up the atmosphere over the whims of a few rich people.