[caww]

I see this like any other exploration where people choose to test the limits. Be it personal or otherwise. They understand the risks in dangerous environments. Even the best tested equipment can go wrong....

[Jonty30]

I’m going to take a guess and say the CEO dispensed with safety concerns, because of money issues. It became a choice between not launching subs and losing his company or launch subs and try and correct problems along the way.

In my opinion, if I’m correct, he should have perhaps been more modest about what he could do. There is a lot to see when you go 1000 feet below the sea. He might have been able to generate a lot of business by being more realistic and still work on a sub that he could go 12,500 feet.

[Jamestown1630]

This doesn’t seem to have been ‘best tested’ equipment.

It’s true that the people made their choice and took their chances; but it doesn’t seem to have been a fully informed choice.

[NorthMountain]

Even the best tested equipment can go wrong....

Challenger was:

1) Using a new, poorly tested putty between segments on the SRBs ... because Save da Erf.

2) Launched significantly outside weather parameters. The ENGINEERS at Morton Thiokol said "Don't Launch". The MANAGERS at NASA said "Go for Launch", because they wanted to look good.