To quote bill oreilly, “Fuck it! We’ll do it live!”

my guess is that they did test in a shallow location, but ... not nearly enough unit tests.

One of the critics said that the pressure vessel is subject to fatigue and is not inspectable, so even testing the final article is not going to help. They are not facing small engineering issues, and didn’t seem well equipped to tacle hard stuff (I would venture, by lack of money).

I guess sometimes you've just got to get bolted into a steel coffin and sink to the bottom of the ocean to see what happens.

My guess is they didn't sent it down 1000 times under robotic controland then tear it all down and look for damage, stress fractures, or to estimate lifetime. I mean why in the hell weren't there multiple and redundant, independently powered, sonar locators for example? You would be truly amazed how far sound can travel in water.

They probably aren't allowed to put this in the water of any country that has watercraft rules. The reporter from CBS reads the form he had to sign, at 2:40 in this video: https://youtu.be/29co_Hksk6o

It says something like "this experimental craft has not been certified by any regulatory body". They probably have to be in international waters to put it in water.

It's entirely legal to design and build your own boat and put it in the water pretty much anywhere in the world.

If you want to carry paying passengers then things are different, but that's why they were officially crew.

(Crew members who are paying to be there has a very long history. One of the last lines operating sailing ships, in the 1920s and 30s, made money from merchant marine cadets whose countries still required them to have a certain amount of experience as crew of a sailing vessel to get their ticket.)

I guess I was thinking about the licensing requirements in the US. It seems like you need a license for any powered watercraft.

https://www.boatus.org/study-guide/boat/registration/