Titanic tourist sub goes missing sparking search

[BoltSnap]

It's the Orcas now, get with the times.

Orca Sharks, they live VERY deep in the ocean and never come up to the surface. Is this good?

 

[Dody]

He can be the leader of the group of Titanic descendants who welcomes the 4 Titan survivors to their new underwater world and shows them untold secrets of the great ship.

You should propose this story to J. Cameron. The plot is more interesting and less inept than Titanic or Avatar 2. Abyss was good though.

 

[gamon]

You should propose this story to J. Cameron. The plot is more interesting and less inept than Titanic or Avatar 2. Abyss was good though.

The Titanic descendants have found a way to get a pump going using materials scrounged from the wreckage and fuel they found in undamaged storage tanks. Over the years they've gradually been creating more and more pockets of air, gradually filling the structure and it's only a matter of time before the wreck gains enough positive buoyancy to try to break free of the bottom substrate that holds it and it's inhabitants prisoners of the deep.

 

[Bigbella]

You should propose this story to J. Cameron. The plot is more interesting and less inept than Titanic or Avatar 2. Abyss was good though.

Except for The Abyss magic, alien "they did something to us" lack of decompression sickness and an agonizing death on the surface, in the last reel.

I saw it in the theater -- they booed . . .

 

[lionfish-eater]

As a science writer who does ^^this^^ for a living, I must state that your assessment is broadly stereotyping and sounds - let's just say, a bit "dramatic." You see, I work as a liaison between scientists and journalists, and I can tell you from experience that yes, sometimes journalists get facts wrong or misrepresent something. On the other side of the coin, however, it is important to consider that more often than not, experts use so much jargon and couch their statements in so many eventualities and in-the-weeds details that the essence of the subject gets drowned in caveats and vagueness. The more convoluted the information presented by the expert, the less likely it makes sense to someone without a science background, necessitating translation, and that process puts accuracy at risk. Neither scenario is conducive to the common goal - informing the public. A good reporter will do everything they can to get the story right, and a good expert will recognize the gist of something, particularly if it's very technical, and make it accessible without dumbing it down. Both take a lot of skill and training. I absolutely do understand that experts can get frustrated with "the media," especially when experiencing a situation in which they are were grossly misquoted or their statements reproduced out of context. That should not happen, and this is where public information officers, such as myself, come in. We can help prevent this from happening in the first place. Many of us who do this kind of work have backgrounds in both science and journalism, so we "get" how people tick in both worlds. I pride myself on a track record of outcomes that are satisfactory for both parties, the expert and the journalist. My experience tells me it can be done. It just requires a bit of effort and willingness to engage in the process and learn over time. My question to an expert who finds themselves grossly misquoted on a recurring basis would be, "What are you doing to make yourself understood, and is there possibly room for improvement?" Just some food for thought.

This would have been communicated better if you used paragraphs rather than a wall of text

 

[agilis]

The Titanic descendants have found a way to get an pump going using materials scrounged from the wreckage and fuel they found in undamaged storage tanks. Over the years they've gradually been creating more and more pockets of air filled structure and it's only a matter of time before the wreck gains enough positive buoyancy to break free of the bottom substrate that holds it and it's inhabitants prisoners of the deep.

Is this really true? I thought the wreck was in two separate pieces. Are there really descendants living down there? For real?

 

[Gone for diving]

Composite World - Composite submersibles: Under pressure in deep, deep waters . Note that this source refers to the sub at Cyclops 2. It was later renamed as Titan.

In this article it says.

The finished Cyclops 2 will measure 6.7m long, 2.8m wide and 2.5m tall

Why is it not round?
Why would that be?
Seems like its intentionally weaken right off the bat.

 

[gamon]

Is this really true? I thought the wreck was in two separate pieces. Are there really descendants living down there? For real?

Yes its true most of the descendants are living in the larger piece but plans are under way to re-unite the two sections and weld them together prior to the "Day of the Big Ascent".

Only those sufficiently trained can swim between the bow and stern sections while carrying tools and supplies, and there have been a few unfortunate incidents some directly related to opportunistic sharks and orcas which provide plenty of fodder for suspenseful scenes and "jump scares".

 

[lostsheep]

Can we lock this thread now?

IBFTL

Is this really true? I thought the wreck was in two separate pieces. Are there really descendants living down there? For real?

 

[lionfish-eater]

I had no idea there were so many experts on submarine design here on Scubaboard