Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Research Vehicle Reaches the Bottom of the Ocean

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the ah-ooo-gah dept.

Earth 165

timothy found BBC coverage of the voyage of the Nereus, which on May 31 dove to the bottom of the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench. Only two vehicles have accomplished this feat before, the last 11 years ago. "The unmanned vehicle is remotely operated by pilots aboard a surface ship via a lightweight tether. Its thin, fibre-optic tether to the research vessel Kilo Moana allows the submersible to make deep dives and be highly manoeuvrable. Nereus can also be switched into a free-swimming, autonomous vehicle. ... The Challenger Deep... is the deepest abyss on Earth at 11,000m-deep, more than 2km (1.2 miles) deeper than Mount Everest is high. At that depth, pressures reach 1,100 times those at the surface."

cancel ×

165 comments

Are you ready kids? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191125)

Aye aye, Captain!

Re:Are you ready kids? (0, Troll)

bigblacknigger (1440657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191245)

Nobody cares about your mother's cunt. It's greasy, it's smelly and you could park a suburban in that goddamn thing, and it doesn't help matters that she's a white female. Get it away from me.

Re:Are you ready kids? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191295)

Mod parent up! First post and on-topic!

Re:Are you ready kids? (1, Offtopic)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191393)

For a completely on topic but irrelevant post, see Dilbert [dilbert.com] . :P

Re:Are you ready kids? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191559)

I have an iPhone stuck up my ass. What do I do?!?!?!?

Re:Are you ready kids? (4, Funny)

Your Pal Dave (33229) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191855)

I can't hear you!

Re:Are you ready kids? (1)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192009)

And... There will be no accusations, just friendly crustaceans. Under the sea.

undersea progress (2, Funny)

codename.matrix (889422) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191137)

Wow, that is great. Hope they find some interesting stuff down there. Maybe some animals we didn't even know existed. Next up: Building the Seaquest

Re:undersea progress (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191149)

You're asking a lot there, buddy. Don't you think they got enough pressure as it is?

Re:undersea progress (0, Troll)

bigblacknigger (1440657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191219)

Put a cock in it, jackoff. You fucking Linux dweebs are the worst.

Re:undersea progress (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28193269)

You're so funny. I read through your post-modern anarchistic discursive evaluation and suddenly burst out laughing at the sheer ironic perversity it describes.

Ooops.

Sorry,

I'm

replying

to

the

wrong

post.

Hope

I've

wasted

your

Re:undersea progress (3, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191423)

Couple that with the fact that we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Re:undersea progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191389)

No, first they have to finish something more important: This thread is useless without pics.

Re:undersea progress (2, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191525)

I've walked [danheller.com] on the bottom of the ocean before. The picture's not me, just an example. ;)

Re:undersea progress (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192039)

Yea, Dethklok recording their new album and a giant radioactive seahorse.

Re:undersea progress (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192237)

They've been there before, with a manned craft, back in the 60s. They used something called a bathyscaphe. They just found some flounder down there.

Re:undersea progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28193607)

However low you go, you'll still find lawyers beneath you

I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191189)

Will see a craft reach the surface of one of the gaseous giants. Now that would be a helluva science and engineering project.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (5, Interesting)

sgbett (739519) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191231)

I'm impressed with the two guys who did it *manned* in the 60s

from tfa :

In January 1960, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh made the first and only manned voyage in a Swiss-built bathyscaphe known as the Trieste.
The vessel consisted of a 2m-diameter (6ft) steel sphere containing the crew suspended below a huge 15m-long (50ft) tank of petrol, designed to provide buoyancy.
During the nine-hour mission, the two men spent just 20 minutes on the ocean floor; enough time to measure the depth as 10,916m (35,813 ft).

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (3, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191255)

Men had balls in the 60s.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191345)

Men had steel balls in the 60s.

Fixed that for you.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191447)

Men had steel balls in the 60s.

They sure did! But now days they are made of plastic :(

So much for progress.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (3, Interesting)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193111)

So much for progress.

Depends - Quote [physorg.com] :"By mimicking a brick-and-mortar molecular structure found in seashells, University of Michigan researchers created a composite plastic that's as strong as steel but lighter and transparent."

CC.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

Jophiel04 (1341463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191899)

Men had balls of steel in the 60s.

Fixed.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192443)

Batman's steel balls can fix Supman's balls of steel. Hands down. :P

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191955)

Hell, even the women had steel balls in the '60s.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191613)

They certainly did [youtube.com] . (also in 1960)

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191341)

Men in the 1960's landed on the surface of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune?

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (2, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191353)

The Trieste is very cool, you can see it in person at the the US Navy Museum [wikipedia.org] which coincidentally is next door to NCIS headquarters.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193115)

Is that the same NCIS building the goth chick, grey haired guy, ex-mossad agent, British medical examiner and two young blokes work at too?

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (4, Interesting)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191373)

I'm impressed with the two guys who did it *manned* in the 60s

from tfa :

In January 1960, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh made the first and only manned voyage in a Swiss-built bathyscaphe known as the Trieste.
The vessel consisted of a 2m-diameter (6ft) steel sphere containing the crew suspended below a huge 15m-long (50ft) tank of petrol, designed to provide buoyancy.
During the nine-hour mission, the two men spent just 20 minutes on the ocean floor; enough time to measure the depth as 10,916m (35,813 ft).

Yeah, I remember seeing a special on that when I was younger (like 10 years ago), and I still remember it, because it's such an awesome story. I really suggest that if anyone is bored you look this story up, it's really awesome.

The sad thing is that once they hit the bottom, the sand down there was so fine that it threw up a cloud of it that never cleared during the time that they were there, so they didn't get to see much except for what they saw right before they landed!

-Taylor

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192069)

I bet they didnt stay long because as soon as they got down, their first observation was, "uh oh, there's something FISHY about the ocean floor let's go back up"

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (2, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192485)

Are you sure that's the only time men got down there? I'd not be surprised if the Seaview [wikipedia.org] didn't manage it at least once. After all, that's exactly the type of thing she was built for.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192827)

Absolutely, the Trieste and the crew do seem to be more impressive than a robotic vessel in 2009. Trieste was engineering ingenuity and creativity, and the crew members, well, they had some balls!

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (3, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191271)

Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to be the first man to set foot on the surface of the sun!

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (3, Funny)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191713)

After getting through the corona, that should feel downright refreshing.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (5, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191733)

That's why I'd do it at night.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

cailith1970 (1325195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191833)

Damn it, 15 mod points and I HAD to use 'em all up before I read this comment. Talk about premature evaluation! :)

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192027)

a cloudy day would be better.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191921)

I always find getting through a Corona refreshing.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191385)

Will see a craft reach the surface of one of the gaseous giants.

Unlikely, seeing as the gas giant planets don't have surfaces.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191443)

Yes, it does [bgu.ac.il] .

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193065)

Yes, it does.

What part of "possible" don't you really understand?

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193513)

Lol, are you serious?

What is at the centre of a gaseous planet then? Is it gas and liquid all the way done, lol.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193605)

'Is it gas and liquid all the way done, lol.'

Don't be silly; it's turtles.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (1)

ryanleary (805532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191721)

Unlikely, seeing as the gas giant planets don't have surfaces.

The sun is a planet?

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191751)

one of the original seven, in fact. Along with the moon.

What do you think "planet" means, anyway? Hint: IAU did not invent the word.

Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28192269)

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees.

All I want to know.. (3, Funny)

nanospook (521118) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191205)

Do they have a good pizza/wing place down there?

Re:All I want to know.. (4, Funny)

Scutter (18425) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191289)

Do they have a good pizza/wing place down there?

No, but there's a Starbuck's.

Re:All I want to know.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28192679)

And its across from another Starbucks.

Only Two Vehicles (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191207)

Plus all the boats that sank.

Pray for some luck (-1, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191217)

I hope that while down there, those folks can find some life forms with proteins that can fight off the AIDS or cancer menace.

It's sad that when afflicted by these diseases, the prognosis on the whole, is a death sentence. That is to say, it's a matter of time before the diseases exhaust your will to live.

Sad indeed.

Re:Pray for some luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191235)

off-topic. soapbox's are over 2 aisles.

When will (3, Interesting)

schrodingers_rabbit (1565471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191275)

submersibles actually manage to stay at the bottom of the trench for extended lengths of time? Short visits can only tell scientists so much about ordinary conditions. A permanent unmaned observation station could record a much larger data sample. Now all that's left to do is develop technologies that can withstand the pressure and power themselves of sulphur-feeding clamlike tube creatures.

Cable? Why? (5, Interesting)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191293)

Somebody smarter than myself, please comment on why we need a cable over a distance of 11km? There's a ton of off-the-shelf radio equipment that can easily handle that distance with very high bitrates.

I can imagine two possible problems:

First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

Second, the varying pressures and temperatures might distort a signal to the point where it is unusable. I'm referring to dielectric effects and the fact that the dielectric constant would not be constant in this sort of operation. But would it be "constant-enough"?

Re:Cable? Why? (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191337)

First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

Yes, it just might be. In fact, it is. You see, salt water is conductive.

Re:Cable? Why? (5, Informative)

commlinx (1068272) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191343)

First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

Yes salt water is very good at attenuating RF, the higher the frequency the worse it is. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia that highlights some of the difficulties, especially in relation to antenna size. Also at those frequencies you can end up with transmission rates less than one bit per second.

Re:Cable? Why? (4, Informative)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191401)

The VLF system used to communicate with Navy Submarines is an example. A message that could be received as a burst from a satellite in 2 seconds can take 20 minutes or more by VLF and that is with 1000 yards of antenna streamed from the boat.

Re:Cable? Why? (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192533)

Yeah, try explaining to a government official that you need more funding because you're using elves to talk to your submarine. :P

Re:Cable? Why? (4, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191357)

First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

I don't have direct knowledge of the behavior of radio waves in water, but I would strongly guess this.

Even sunlight peters out at depths measured in dozens of feet, and that you need pretty strong lights to illuminate even 10 feet in front of you if you're at the bottom. Going through two miles of water would likely be quite a feat.

Further, I'm pretty sure that the reason water is "blue" is that blue light tends to penetrate better (think looking up from the perspective of a SCUBA diver 20 or 30 feet down), which suggests that longer wavelengths get blocked more, which is exactly the opposite of what you would want for radio penetration.

Re:Cable? Why? (2, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191565)

This is mostly a nitpick, but water is blue because other frequencies of visible light get absorbed and turned into molecular vibrations (or something like that, I never fully understood that mechanic). This is an entirely separate phenomenon from what causes it to attenuate RF signals.

I only bring it up because blue, and even red, light are much higher frequencies than would be used in RF transmissions (10^14 Hz for visible light as opposed to 10^11 at the most for RF).

Re:Cable? Why? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191367)

Because of the electrical conductivity of salt water, submarines are shielded from most electromagnetic communications.

Very low frequency signals can penetrate about 20 meters.

Extremely low frequency signals can be received from deeper but are extremely limited in bandwidth.. and you need to use the whole earth as an antenna, etc.

Re:Cable? Why? (2, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191381)

You got it the first time. Radio transmission is very difficult in the water. You're pretty much limited to ultra low frequency transmission, like the military uses to talk to subs. It's slow, about 1 bit /sec [dtic.mil] and might have problems at extreme depths or in complex topography.

Hence, the tether.

Underwater radio (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192049)

There's active work going on [wirelessfibre.co.uk] with underwater radio. It's really tough to do in salt water. But it's not quite impossible. There's considerable interest in making something that can push data through 100 meters of water depth. Oil industry operations would like to talk to their stuff on the ocean floor.

At longer ranges, there's at least one research project [europa.eu] which claims that there's a transmission window in seawater between 1MHz and 10MHz. They hope to get data across 1KM. That will be useful if it works.

ELF works; the US and the USSR both have used it in the 70-85 Hz band. The trouble with ELF is that the wavelengths are so long at 80Hz that you need an antenna the size of a county.

Re:Cable? Why? (2, Interesting)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192103)

I saw on the Science Channel show "Brink" about experimental LASER communication for close-range ship or sub-to-sub communications or sub to aircraft communications. Here is a link to the people trying to perfect it: http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jav/jav_0184.html [janes.com] . It seems to hold some promise.

Re:Cable? Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191391)

Somebody smarter than myself, please comment on why we need a cable over a distance of 11km? There's a ton of off-the-shelf radio equipment that can easily handle that distance with very high bitrates.

really? a ton of radio equipment capable of transmitting through 11km of water? oh, you meant through air? wtf does that have to do with this? 802.11 signal strength fluctuates with the humidity in the air, you dont think 11km of water might have some affect on signal propagation?
 

I'm referring to dielectric effects and the fact that the dielectric constant would not be constant in this sort of operation. But would it be "constant-enough"?

could you have any more of a wank fest? did you just learn the word dielectric and feel the need to try it out and impress some geeks? the "IM A FUCKING MORON" sign on your forehead is a dead giveaway

Re:Cable? Why? (-1, Troll)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191439)

Pretty poor troll. Anyone who knows the existence of words like "dielectric" already knows the answer.

Next time pay more attention to playing dumb. You are out of your depth, troll-wise.

Re:Cable? Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191581)

Why the fuck do you think people are using SONAR underwater, and not radio?

Re:Cable? Why? (5, Informative)

ssimmons (22842) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191605)

... the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

The ocean isn't just good at blocking transmissions. It's ridiculously good at blocking radio waves. If you work the math on this [qsl.net] page, you can see that your basic WiFi transmission (at 2.4 GHz) will experience an attenuation of almost 1700 dB/meter! At that rate you'd get far less than a millimeter of penetration.

Even the lowest frequency short wave bands (1.8 MHz) get 46 dB/meter attenuation. It starts to get possible to receive RF when you get down in the kHz range but of course, your data rate goes to hell.

For underwater communications under a couple hundred meters or so you can use an acoustic modem. Even then, your best data rate is going to be on the order 2400 baud or less.

If you want high speed underwater communications, you gotta use a cable.

Re:Cable? Why? (2, Interesting)

Earthquake Retrofit (1372207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192577)

OK that tears it. I'm turning in my tinfoil hat for a saltwater Stetson.

Steve

Re:Cable? Why? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28192731)

Congratulations - you managed to be so wrong that you were modded Funny.

Nice, but what does it do? (3, Insightful)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191311)

It may give us access to 100% of the sea floor, but given the expense of sea exploration, how much will we actually explore? Setting records is nice and all, but it takes time, effort, and money to map the deep sea floor in any kind of detail.

It should be able to take samples and such, but what about repeat dives? The artile was a bit lacking, but hopefully google will turn up the juicy details on this particular little bot....

Re:Nice, but what does it do? (2, Funny)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191387)

I would love to see Google Street View of the ocean floor. Who knows what we'll find down there... And it's easy for Google too; no complaints about privacy breach.

Re:Nice, but what does it do? (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191653)

I suspect it would be like the time there was a volcano in New Zealand and somebody there set up a web cam people elsewhere could monitor it. Somebody in a different hemisphere took a look and because the scene was black assumed the surrounding area had blown up. Of course they were looking at night and had forgotten the time difference.

Re:Nice, but what does it do? (1)

thespeech (1335765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191887)

I think Great Cthulhu might have something to say about that. Cthulhu ftagns no more

Re:Nice, but what does it do? (4, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191965)

And it's easy for Google too; no complaints about privacy breach.

They are getting sued by SCO though, for violating their patent for sinking to the lowest depths possible.

Re:Nice, but what does it do? (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192051)

LOL... unless the fish start complaining that their location is classified information so that sharks dont use google ocean floor to find their hideout :)

Re:Nice, but what does it do? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28192205)

Sharks *are* fish, you insensitive biped!

Re:Nice, but what does it do? (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192425)

I don't often LOL because of a post, but you made it happen! Man, how did you come up with that?

how hard can it be? (1)

sir_montag (937262) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191359)

Not to belittle the achievement, but how hard can it be to make something that won't crumple? Does every bit of equipment need to be at 1 atmosphere for it to function? Are there no solid-state components?

Re:how hard can it be? (2, Interesting)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191619)

It's pretty certain that the components are not functionning at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Give or take, the rule of thumb when diving is that the pressure goes up by 1 atmosphere for every 10m of depth. With a depth of 11000m, that's 1100 atmospheres of pressure. That's one of the most reliable methods they use to measure depth, actually.

It's not the outside pressure that causes things to crumple. It's the difference between outside and inside pressures. With that in mind, and keeping in mind that electronics don't get decompression illness, I think it'd make more sense to pressurize the sub. Especially considering that it's a lot easier to contain high pressure at the surface than it is to withstand it at the bottom... case in point, I have an aluminum scuba tank sitting in my basement which is pressurized to 3200 PSI. That's over 217 atmospheres of pressure inside the can, a fifth of the way to the pressure at the bottom of the ocean, and it's not even close to the highest pressure scuba tank I've ever seen. (it's about the max pressure you can have with a yoke connector, but a DIN connector can take a significantly higher pressure).

The bottom line, though, is that you can make a sub that can withstand a *much* greater depth by designing/building it to be pressurized on the inside, too.

Re:how hard can it be? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191685)

Uhh. those solid state components you're thinking of tend to have voids in them, e.g. what's under that lid on the CPU.. a bare die and a bunch o' bond wires. Squish city at 1000 Atm.

What about wires? More than enough pressure to push water through the wire using the insulation as a tube.

It is REALLY, REALLY hard to design stuff to work at 1000Atm. What do you use for bouyancy? (Trieste used gasoline.. a liquid that is about the same compressibility as water) Syntactic foam with silica microspheres is fairly popular, because the tiny hollow spheres are pretty strong.

Interestingly, it's harder to design something that won't crush than something that won't explode. That is, building a compressed gas tank to hold 20,000 psi is easier than building one that won't crush under 20,000 psi.

Re:how hard can it be? (5, Interesting)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193087)

You seem to know a bit about submarines so perhaps you could answer a question that has puzzled me. If you build a submarine like an onion with a hull inside a hull and put pressurized water / air between the two hulls to half the outside pressure would each hull then only need to be strong enough to resist half the external pressure?

I can't see the flaw but it feels wrong because it seems to imply that it would be at least theoretically possible to build a submarine out of sheets of tin-foil as long as there were enough layers and the pressure could be maintained accurately enough.

Re:how hard can it be? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192571)

Isn't it an option to remove the difference between outside and inside?

Is it so hard to build electronic components that:
- Are individually insulated from the surrounding water.
- Have no internal compressible parts.

You'd then be able to let the water in. No pressure difference, no crunchy toy.

Re:how hard can it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28192631)

Something that won't crumple in 1,100 atmospheres, sweety.

So then they were the first customers (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191429)

to the walmart setup down there by one of the previous vehicles.

And what did they find? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191571)

MEGATRON!!!!

What They Aren't Telling Us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191617)

Is that they found an undersea kingdom full of nubile, singing mermaids wearing clamshell bras.

Disney and Universal are in a bidding war for the rights.

Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... (4, Funny)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#28191645)

That'll make for one traumatic moment when the lead mermaid tries to surface and bursts open from the tremendous drop in pressure. I don't think my kids would want to see that one.

Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... (0, Troll)

CarlaBernatti (1568597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193145)

This is the way to find new life. Every year a lot of new sealife is found which mankind did not know about before in the deep of the oceans. And maybe it is possible to find in the future what is going on in the Bermuda triangle and what is the cause of the different magnet behaviour in that area http://www.asian-porn-teens.com/ [asian-porn-teens.com] http://www.geisha-sluts.com/ [geisha-sluts.com]

Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28193839)

This happens frequently bringing back fish and organisms from as little as 800-1000m. Gas expansion in body cavities or swim bladders cause the animals to explode because they are hauled to the surface much faster than they can adjust to the surrounding pressure differences. It ain't a pretty sight at time, including the eyes popping out of the fishes heads :S
Best approach to avoid is an extremely slow recovery, so give the mermaid enough time to put on her makeup while you're hauling her up, and you might avoid the eye-popping experience.

Say hello to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191831)

Megatron for me.....

No biggie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28191893)

The last time this happened was seven hours ago. And the slashdot post announcing it appears to be identical...

But check out what it brought back! (1)

SomeGuyFromCA (197979) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192247)

"They said it was hauled from the Challenger Deep, but I'm positive that beast never swam in terrestrial waters until a week ago."

Twists in the fiber optic cable (4, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28192923)

I worked on an ROV simulation back in the 90's and we needed to keep track of how many times the ROV turned around because twists accumulate in the cable. At some point you may have to sit in place and spin for a bit to undo the twists. Terrible things happen when the tether gets too twisted.

That reminds me of... (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | more than 5 years ago | (#28193429)

We call out to the beasts of the sea to come forth and join us, this night is yours
Because, one day we will all be with you in the black and deep
One day we will all go into the water


Man, I need that to help wake up.

Reaching the bottom of the sea is *easy* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28193521)

It's getting back to the surface intact that's the trick.

Nah, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28193883)

as everyone here knows, the deepest abyss on Earth is goatse.

P.S. why am I getting "useless" as captcha?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...