"OceanGate did the bare minimum in building the submarine because the private company was skimping and didn't get certified, because they knew they wouldn't pass." James Cameron This is how the Oscar-winning director of « Titanic » and a diving enthusiast explained the tragedy of the « OceanGate ». The company that boasted a collaboration with NASA (denied by the Space Agency) has behind it events unclear on management, on the design of the vehicle, on exploration tests, on relations with employees.
In the USA it was known but no one prevented bookings towards the abyss. The clearest thing since its debut has always been the amount to pay to go and see the remains of the liner: 250 thousand dollars per person. A figure within the reach of very few people, exposed to extreme risks. Going 3800 meters deep for the pleasure of seeing abandoned wrecks up close certainly gives a strong adrenaline rush. " Exact. But it is a tragedy that could have been avoided » he explains Alessio Rovere, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology at the Cà Foscari University of Venice. Oak before Venice was at Columbia University, worked and is a member of MARUM of Bremen, an institute of world excellence where instruments are built and research is carried out in the deepest seas.
Professor, why could the OceanGate disaster have been avoided? Is it said that the mission also had scientific purposes?
“It could have been avoided by bringing a robot ROV onto that sub. It's certainly not the same as selling the Titanic live to tourists. I went to look for scientific reasons, but I found very few, almost none. Perhaps it was to test the corrosion level of the Titanic's grate. But this verification would not have told us anything from a scientific point of view.
Why do people go on these dives spending so much money?
«I think we need to think a little more about the risks we accept. In the submarine there were people who signed a disclaimer in which they also accept the risk of dying. However, then there are other people who have to go to sea to go and rescue those in difficulty and who in turn put themselves at risk. Let's think if the submarine was found. To recover it, the risks for the operators would have been enormous ».
Exploring the oceans is expensive. Technologies and instruments are constantly evolving and research institutions need many funding. Another thing is the desire to want to go deep or take a ride in space. From the point of view of the new frontier of tourism for super-billionaires, yes Elon mask for space flights, which stockton rush , the CEO of OceanGate who died in the accident, have been able to satisfy the desires of those who are looking for "an opportunity to get away from everyday life" and which is also environmentally sustainable. Apart from the fact that space buses pollute.
But how useful is it to explore the oceans?
«From a scientific point of view it is very important, continues Rovere. There are huge reasons to do research. With the necessary differences, we know much less about the oceans than the other planets. Of some parts of the oceans, we still know practically nothing. The waters through the various layers of sediments and marine organisms have kept records of the past climate. Thanks to them today we can know the ancient climates of our planet ».
An environmental value that is not well known, despite the fact that Oceans Day is celebrated every year.
«The seabed, for example, is important for regulating the global climate. As you know, this is a very topical theme linked to the oceans. In the depths there are species that we do not yet know, whose existence reaches up to the human food chain ».
At what point are these studies?
«The studios had a great epic in the 60s – 70s with the commander Jacques-Ives Cousteau or thanks to the 18-metre Italian bathyscaphe Trieste, designed by August Piccard. The Trieste in 1960 descended for the first time in the Mariana Trench, in the Pacific Ocean. The deepest point ever reached by a human being was touched at about 11 thousand meters, for exploration and scientific observation. It is a trend that reaches up to more recent times with director James Cameron's Deepsea Challenger. In 2012 he too descended into the Mariana Trench. But it was a scientific mission in which those who had designed the submarine participated.'
After the implosion of the OceanGate in the USA, the debate started whether exploration revenues tourism also somehow serve to finance research into the abyss. And against the light you can see the interest of travel insurance Jules Verne. The non-profit Titanic International Society has distanced itself from "visits" to the wreck. We seriously consider ending them in the name of safety, she wrote. The business has been hit for either wretched irresponsibility or to look after savings, as Cameron says. The investigations will tell but if an economy is to develop around these operations, it is better to stop and think. In the era of super technologies applied to navigation, there is also discussion in Italy of how not to sink - it is appropriate to say - in order not to invest in protective technologies for seafarers. Whims cloaked in historical curiosities are nefarious as we have seen.
Professor Rovere, how is it possible that safety on these vehicles is so neglected?
“Be careful, we've known since the days of the first submarines that sending people to the seabed is extremely risky. Whether for studies or for any other reason. You go into a very difficult environment, where there is enormous pressure. Researchers know this well. If there is a technical failure that can be solved quickly on a boat on the surface, on the seabed it cannot be solved so easily and therefore the risks increase ».
The studies won't stop, and pleasure trips are something else. What are the solutions to avoid witnessing other accidents?
«For some time now we have begun to study ways to remove people and have the same results. Means that could go on the seabed controlled from the surface, from a control room. They are vessels attached to a cable attached to the ship, a cable which can be many kilometers long. Or we have pre-set AUV type robots sent to the seabed to collect data. In this way the risks for people are practically non-existent and good results are obtained ». But that's the science. Expensively paid adrenaline rushes by no means belong to scientists troubled by notoriously unscrupulous adventurers.
