Beta
×

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!

Submarine Tech Reaches For Deep Ocean Record

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the dropped-my-pen dept.

Earth 164

disco_tracy writes "US Submarines CEO Bruce Jones and his team have just announced that they've developed new technology for a submersible that could take ocean explorers 36,000 feet deep, to the bottom of the Pacific's Mariana Trench."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fascinating. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951142)

Re:Fascinating. (-1, Offtopic)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951170)

My eyes, They do nothing!

Re:Fascinating. (0, Offtopic)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951216)

That'll teach you for clicking on a [blogspot|reddit|gawker|tumblr|go.gl|bit.ly|tinyurl|tiny.cc|is.gd|ow.ly|kxk.me|tr.im] link. You know they hurt.

Re:Fascinating. (-1, Offtopic)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951226)

You'd think "dailypoopblog" would be enough of a giveaway.

Are you an arab? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951316)

Are you an arab?
Are you pissed off?
Are you a pissed off arab?

http://goo.gl/W8XBA [goo.gl]

Re:Fascinating. (0)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951324)

Yes my error. This isn't my grandfathers internet any more.

The most Brutal part (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951144)

Metal.

Re:The most Brutal part (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952172)

I was going to say pshaw, *I* can provide "technology for a submersible that could take ocean explorers 36,000 feet deep".

It's called a rock, a big honking rock.

But metal will work too. Kudos to you sir!

Giant squid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951154)

"You can hire some giant squid to come over with a sledgehammer and just start bashing away on that glass sphere. And it won't hurt it."
  wait vat?

Re:Giant squid? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951194)

You've never been down there? It's amazing!

Re:Giant squid? (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952014)

You can hire a giant squid? AWESOME. The Bart Simpson in me wants to know *where*!

Re:Giant squid? (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952084)

"You can hire some giant squid to come over with a sledgehammer and just start bashing away on that glass sphere. And it won't hurt it."

That's correct. The glass sphere won't hurt a giant squid.

southern hillarians visited by archaic vessel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951158)

another second coming? looks old enough. propellers? right out of the literature. looks like the refugeous move to mebotuh may be before 2025 after all.

the insidious angel of debt was lashed onto them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951312)

it's like a subordinate of the angel of death (where it gets it's money) but quite dreadful on it's own merits, which is usury for all of the unchosen, & their excess number of spawn. endless suffering, 'til debt do us part. as it was written, about several of the sacraments.

11000m for the other 95% of the world. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951210)

That's really impressive.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1, Offtopic)

greenfruitsalad (2008354) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951286)

i really don't get why this has to be measured in feet. If you must use imperial system, wouldn't 8 furlongs, 5 chains and 10 yards sound nicer? btw, my daily ride to work is 2 735 000 centimetres long.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (2)

greenfruitsalad (2008354) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951304)

and (of course) by 8, i mean 54 furlongs.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (2)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951354)

Because furlongs, and chains are not in common usage?
And because if the submitter did put it in furlongs and chains there would be a million assholes (Im gonna guess including you) bitching about slashdot using an anachronistic form of measure.

Now you can claim that the imperial measurement system itself is by and large outdated, but it is still in use here in the US, and this is a US based webpage. So if you dont mind, we would prefer keeping the words that are in common usage here in the states.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951422)

Ah you already made my point, I should have drilled down before saying the same thing...

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951440)

Incidentally, here in Kentucky we use furlongs - at the horse racing track.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (-1, Flamebait)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952042)

You also fuck your relations. So we really don't care about what kind of outdated measuring you folks use.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1, Informative)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951416)

Because Slashdot is an American website, not European.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (-1, Troll)

pahles (701275) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951478)

And here I thought it was called the WORLD Wide Web...

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951640)

And here I thought it was called the WORLD Wide Web...

Yep, anyone anywhere in the world can access this US-based site and bitch about how hard it is to convert from feet to meters. FYI, one foot is approximately 30.5cm.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

Chocolate Teapot (639869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951482)

6000 fathoms [wikipedia.org] you insensitive clod!

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

Chocolate Teapot (639869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951492)

....which is a little under 2 leagues

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952140)

How many Libraries of Congress is that?

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (3, Interesting)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951442)

Thanks for the information. Slashdot should adopt a policy, like Wikipedia, that all measurement units should be metric with the alternatives in parenthesis. This way, everybody would be happy. Slashdot has editors. Is it so hard for them to fix this?

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (2)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951496)

I think in metric myself, but really, this is very far down the list of things I want the editors to be more diligent about.

In fact, at this point the entire editing process is far down the list of Slashdot annoyances: the freaking browser window keeps scrolling up several pages to expand the fucking parent post when I just want to middle- or right-click a link, leaving it up to me to find the post and sentence I was just reading. I swear I have never seen a more aggravating non-feature than this.

(PS: I know I can just disable the new UI to stop Slashdot from messing with mouse clicks. I actually like the new UI, but I might have to do that. I keep hoping they're going to fix it RSN.)

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951804)

In fact, at this point the entire editing process is far down the list of Slashdot annoyances: the freaking browser window keeps scrolling up several pages to expand the fucking parent post when I just want to middle- or right-click a link, leaving it up to me to find the post and sentence I was just reading. I swear I have never seen a more aggravating non-feature than this.

(PS: I know I can just disable the new UI to stop Slashdot from messing with mouse clicks. I actually like the new UI, but I might have to do that. I keep hoping they're going to fix it RSN.)

This. A million times this.

Re:right-click Mod Up~ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952372)

In fact, at this point the entire editing process is far down the list of Slashdot annoyances: the freaking browser window keeps scrolling up several pages to expand the fucking parent post when I just want to middle- or right-click a link, leaving it up to me to find the post and sentence I was just reading. I swear I have never seen a more aggravating non-feature than this.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (0)

k_187 (61692) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951508)

Probably not, but you also assume that the editors care.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (3, Funny)

jittles (1613415) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951788)

Thanks for the information. Slashdot should adopt a policy, like Wikipedia, that all measurement units should be metric with the alternatives in parenthesis. This way, everybody would be happy. Slashdot has editors. Is it so hard for them to fix this?

I'm sorry but that is the most asinine comment I have read all day. All month even. What's the point of using the metric system when we have the Library of Congress system. If you're dealing with something that cannot be converted to the Library of Congress system, then it must not be worth mentioning.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952120)

Wait, the Library of Congress is only one of the dimensions. The others are the Volkswagen Beetle and the Football Field.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951928)

Why convert? The sub company is American and the website is American. Perhaps you should do yr own converting, and think a little bit about why you think the world should mold itself to your desires.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952028)

think a little bit about why you think the world should mold itself to your desires.

Dear gods, the irony lobe in my brain is fit to burst.. America's whole international policy seems to be to mold the rest of the world to its desires..

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951994)

Funny but when I watch Top Gear UK they actually say things like "miles per hour", "miles per gallon", "zero to sixty", and "quarter mile time". When I read the UK magazine Bike I see many of the same measurements but most frustrating is that they give the size of the fuel tank in liters but the fuel economy in MPG! Same thing when I read UK car magazines. When I go to car websites in the UK they also have MPG listed.
So do the whiners spend as much time on the Top Gear website and sending letters to the editors, letters to the BBC, and complaining to the car companies about them using miles, gallons and so on as they do when a US based website does?

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952594)

So do the whiners spend as much time on the Top Gear website and sending letters to the editors, letters to the BBC, and complaining to the car companies about them using miles, gallons and so on as they do when a US based website does?

I have no idea, I don't live in the UK. Last time I was there, they were using the metric system in a half-assed way. They half-ass many things, like their membership in the EU, for instance.

You realise that this website, although US-based, is used by people all around the world, don't you?

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952632)

It gets better, any road signs for long distances over here are in miles, but for short distances, some will measure the distance in yards, and others in metres.
Basically the UK has been converting from imperial to metric measurements for about the last 60 years.
I recon we'll be most of the way there in another 60...

Australia are doing a better job, they use km and kW when talking about cars.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952224)

http://www.google.com/search?q=36000+feet+in+meters [google.com]

Not trying to be snarky... I work in the US for Denmark-based company so I have found Google a great tool for unit conversion, currency conversion, and basic translation. I even receive emails written in Danish periodically, which I find humorously more ethnocentric than my fellow Americans because only 6-ish million people in the world speak Danish :-)

Also, its really hard to have that inane but universal conversation about the weather if you don't have temp conversions memorized (F =~ 32 + 2C roughly for conversation sake)

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952380)

Slashdot doesn't have real editors anymore. Just people with the title of editor.

Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. (1)

sirdude (578412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951758)

Thank you!

God-damned Troglodytes.

Seems totally safe! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951212)

FTA: "They call it the pressure boundary," said Raggio. "It's the boundary between you and instant death."

Okay then, where do I sign up...?

Transparent Aluminum (2, Interesting)

broggyr (924379) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951232)

I am surprised no one said "Transparent Aluminum" yet. "How do we know he didn't invent the thing?!"

Re:Transparent Aluminum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951558)

Transparent Aluminium is otherwise known as Saphire. So it is actually not a joke.

Re:Transparent Aluminum (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952040)

Because it's just glass, not transpartent Aluminum (which has been around for quite a while now too).

36,000 feet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951238)

That's almost 11 kilometres for the rest of the world, about 95% of it.

Re:36,000 feet (0, Troll)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951450)

Again, this is an American website. Host your own Slashdot.eu.

Re:36,000 feet (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951706)

You're a cock.

Re:36,000 feet (-1, Troll)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951862)

Your mother agrees

Re:36,000 feet (1)

sirdude (578412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951870)

If it was an American site, wouldn't it be slashdot.us? Or is that an invitation for mischief?

Re:36,000 feet (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951540)

Doesn't sea depth have its own units? If you're going to use archaic units you could at least use the right ones....

Re:36,000 feet (2)

Camshaft_90 (908670) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952044)

Hard to Fathom, EH? Sorry. Can't help myself.

Where? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951258)

Where is this "Mariana Trench"? Is it deep?

Re:Where? (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951298)

http://www.marianatrench.com/ [marianatrench.com] - Deepest spot on the planet...

Re:Where? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952694)

Well, deepest spot on the planet's surface. Once we have a submersible that can navigate down starting at the mouth of an active volcano, we should be able to go further.

TFSoQ (0)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951272)

That's not an article, that's a series of quotes.

record ? (0)

Eivind (15695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951278)

The Trieste visited the bottom of the Mariana Trench in 1960. It even says so right in the article: "return to..." i.e. we where there before, now we're going back.

What exactly is the record here ?

Or is it just another case of the editors not bothering to read the article OR research the basic facts ?

Re:record ? (0)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951376)

Perhaps its because no one has been there since 1960.
Perhaps its because the submarine is apparently a glass sphere.
Perhaps they plan to go deeper.
Perhaps the article they linked to used the word "record"

Did you read the article or research any basic facts? Naw I guess not. You just wanted to bitch.

Re:record ? (1)

sverdlichenko (105710) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951660)

How exactly can they plan to go deeper: go down and then dig?

Re:record ? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951840)

In 2003 scientists in Hawaii found other places in the Mariana Trench that are as deep as the Challenger Deep. Perhaps they could go there?

Its called the HMRG Deep
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3071749.stm [bbc.co.uk]

There is another place called the Tonga Trench that has some pretty low spots also. There is a good chance the the challenger deep isnt the deepest place in the ocean, in fact its depth has had to be adjusted numerous times. It has been measured at 35,760 ft, 36,201 ft , 35,840 ft. Its hard to measure something that deep, in that kind of environment, and be 100% the numbers aren't off even as much as 0.25%.
The Tonga Trench has been measured at 35,702.
The HMRG Deep has been measured at 35,209.
Either of those two spots can actually be lower then the Challenger Deep if there was the slightest error in the measurement.

Re:record ? (2)

Eivind (15695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951754)

The article indeed uses the word, twice even. Once in the title, and once in stating that submarines have a "good safety record" which is a different kind of record.

i.e. the article doesn't even hint at what kind of record is intended.

Going deeper than to the bottom of the worlds deepest trench, would be quite a trick. Do you suppose this new sub can submerge in geology ?

Re:record ? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951880)

I can debate the fact that there may be deeper places in the ocean, in fact I think its likely.

Yes, but it was used in the article and in the title of the linked article. In fact the slashdot title, IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TITLE IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.

You were being a pedant, and an asshole. I called you on it. I call you on it again. You do not have a leg to stand on for bitching at slashdot for the title. You are acting like a whiny known it all 12 year old. If you have an issue with the wording in the title then you should complain about the editors at the linked page, not slashdot.

That and you never countered my other two points, that perhaps its because no one has been there in 50 years, or the fact its a glass submarine.

I eagerly await your reply.

Re:record ? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952216)

Perhaps its because no one has been there since 1960.

So, doing something no one has done since 1960 is now a record? [thefreedictionary.com]

Re:record ? (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951646)

Or is it just another case of the editors not bothering to read the article OR research the basic facts ?

You must be new he...errr, nevermind.

Re:record ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952112)

The Bathysphere Trieste reached an estimated depth of 10,911 meters (35,797 ft) in early 1960. I believe they were within 30 feet of the bottom but my memory is cloudy on that part.

I also seem to recall that someone else visited that depth much later ('80s or '90s?) but deliberately did not go deeper and thus let the current record stand out of respect. Wood's hole oceanographic institute comes to mind but I don't have the time right now to research it.

WOW! (3, Insightful)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951292)

So I'm astonished that (they claim) they'll be able to make a FULL SPHERE of glass as opposed to some puny porthole.

Some questions:
A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?

I assume there will have to be holes to allow power, cooling/heating, communications right? Another point of failure?
(Actually I read a story where some grad student had figured out a way of transmitting powe/communications THROUGH a submarine's metal hull using sonic waves.)

Where in the world will they test this thing to one and a quarter times the max. pressure? (And I thought engineering standards were to one and a half max.)

Re:WOW! (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951346)

So I'm astonished that (they claim) they'll be able to make a FULL SPHERE of glass as opposed to some puny porthole.

Some questions: A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?

I assume there will have to be holes to allow power, cooling/heating, communications right? Another point of failure? (Actually I read a story where some grad student had figured out a way of transmitting powe/communications THROUGH a submarine's metal hull using sonic waves.)

Where in the world will they test this thing to one and a quarter times the max. pressure? (And I thought engineering standards were to one and a half max.)

Agreed on the entry, one would assume a perfect half sphere(oid). You could easily contain power and air inside the sphere for controls and control the engines and accessories wirelessly. Transmitting power through the sphere using magnetic inductance would be simple as well, you don't have to resort to sonic/micro waves which could damage the glass. You would have a CO2 scrubber and oxygen like on a space station.

It's so exciting, Corporations now have the unrestricted ability to rape vast and uncharted regions of the earth, completely hidden away from watchful eyes while we sleep peacefully in our beds.

Re:WOW! (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951476)

micro waves which could damage the glass

Relatively few plastics adsorb microwave radiation, and your comm signals are probably at wifi or lower levels. Ask some ham radio guys about radar domes and antenna insulators. Plexi is actually tolerably useful for antenna insulators, long term outdoor survivability is not good but it has the virtue of not creeping much and is cheap.

Re:WOW! (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951494)

micro waves which could damage the glass

Relatively few plastics adsorb microwave radiation, and your comm signals are probably at wifi or lower levels. Ask some ham radio guys about radar domes and antenna insulators. Plexi is actually tolerably useful for antenna insulators, long term outdoor survivability is not good but it has the virtue of not creeping much and is cheap.

You obviously didn't read the article.

Re:WOW! (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951534)

micro waves which could damage the glass

Relatively few plastics adsorb microwave radiation, and your comm signals are probably at wifi or lower levels. Ask some ham radio guys about radar domes and antenna insulators. Plexi is actually tolerably useful for antenna insulators, long term outdoor survivability is not good but it has the virtue of not creeping much and is cheap.

You obviously didn't read the article.

Right. "Instead of using acrylic for the passenger compartment, they plan to use thick common glass shaped into a sphere.". An incredibly dumb idea due to brittleness, but, its their lives... Total brain freeze while posting because I had acrylic on my mind. Anyway glass insulators are traditional on ham radio antennas. Outdoor survivability is poor because they're brittle, but they are RF transparent and non RF reactive (think of how many ultra high power transmitter glass vacuum tubes have been used over the decades)

Re:WOW! (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951590)

Right. "Instead of using acrylic for the passenger compartment, they plan to use thick common glass shaped into a sphere.". An incredibly dumb idea due to brittleness, but, its their lives... Total brain freeze while posting because I had acrylic on my mind. Anyway glass insulators are traditional on ham radio antennas. Outdoor survivability is poor because they're brittle, but they are RF transparent and non RF reactive (think of how many ultra high power transmitter glass vacuum tubes have been used over the decades)

It was the crystalline structure of the glass I was thinking of, there is a quote form some (I assume) non scientist at the end saying that these properties of glass are not well understood. I wouldn't want to be the one testing it either.

Re:WOW! (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952950)

Outdoor survivability is poor because they're brittle,

Not really (for high quality glass). High voltage transmission lines have used glass cap and pin [wikipedia.org] insulators for years. They stand up to abuse quite well but are more expensive than porcelain insulators.

TFA stated that glass tends to get stronger under compression and cited that as one reason to select glass over an acrylic.

Re:WOW! (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951498)

> It's so exciting, Corporations now have the unrestricted ability to rape vast and uncharted regions of the earth, completely hidden away from watchful eyes while we sleep peacefully in our beds.

You may remember BP didn't need a submarine to pretty much destroy the bottom of the sea.

Re:WOW! (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951606)

> It's so exciting, Corporations now have the unrestricted ability to rape vast and uncharted regions of the earth, completely hidden away from watchful eyes while we sleep peacefully in our beds.

You may remember BP didn't need a submarine to pretty much destroy the bottom of the sea.

Yes, now they can go right to the bottom of the greatest depths and fuck the rest of it up. And I'm sure they will, they destroy with impunity.

Re:WOW! (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951370)

A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?

I would expect that with the proper "gasket" between the two halves, the outside pressure would seal it even more than you could otherwise expect.

Keep in mind that it'll have something like a thousand atmospheres of pressure holding the two parts connected, provided the sphere and gasket can hold up to the pressure.

Re:WOW! (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951414)

When I was a kid, I wanted to make one of these to dive to the bottom of the 60 foot lake in our backyard, sorta...

So I'm astonished that (they claim) they'll be able to make a FULL SPHERE of glass as opposed to some puny porthole.

Probably Plexiglass. Plexiglass is a trademarked brand name. Everyone else calls it acrylic or PMMA. My grandfather's B-17 had a hemisphere of plexiglass for the "ball turret". Lexan (tm) aka polycarbonate would have been a heck of a lot more bullet proof, other than it was invented by the Germans, and in 1953, a bit late for the war. Anyway, two acrylic hemispheres is a traditional design technique for "diving bell" style / non-propulsion submersibles, for many decades. The gasket in between tends to be compressed tighter, which is great on the descent, maybe a bit worrisome on the ascent. In other words, other than utter failure scenarios, if its gonna leak, its gonna leak on ascent, and the leak is gonna get worse as pressure decreases, which is a bummer.

I assume there will have to be holes to allow power, cooling/heating, communications right? Another point of failure?

Wedge shaped plugs. No stress concentrations. The other trick is only passing communications signals thru the acrylic... I suppose a modern system would use bluetooth. The outside electrical gear is flooded in mineral oil at full sea pressure just like a (real not toy) radio controlled submarine. Its not hard to design a system that literally has no holes, just two clear hemispheres, a gasket, and some manner of radio or lightwave comms to control the outside gear. Traditionally, however, they always seem to install a way overengineered hatch and some mechanical gadget inside the sub to release both the tow cable and the heavy keel (worst case, if the winch on top jams or the tow cable breaks, they can rocket up to the surface like a cork.)

Where in the world will they test this thing to one and a quarter times the max. pressure? (And I thought engineering standards were to one and a half max.)

Well lets use some "engineering estimating". An atmospheric water column is about thirty-something feet. So thirty-something thousand feet divided by thirty-something feet is about one thousand atmospheres pressure. One atmosphere pressure is about fifteen PSI. Fifteen PSI per atmosphere times about a thousand atmospheres equals about fifteen thousand PSI. Personally I'd test it to double, so we'll call that thirty thousand PSI.

"Off the shelf at autozone" err maybe off the shelf at TSC, you can buy a couple thousand psi rated hydraulic hose. Just giving an idea of what you're in for, its about ten times that pressure. Its gonna take more than a ginned-up log splitter and a big tank. Supposedly Buffalo Hydraulic sells off the shelf 40 ksi systems, i donno about that being true or false. Anyway the general idea involves "supertanker size" hydraulic cylinder (or equivalent) with the sub inside it floating in oil or water, and then pump in a small amount of air until you get to 30 ksi. For obvious reasons you fill the vessel almost completely with liquid rather than just using air.

Frankly the simplest way to "prove" it is to make about three of them, massively overengineer them, and set off depth charges around an unmanned one on the bottom. Of course that is a bit hard on the exotic sea life you're trying to investigate.... You could sink an unmanned one, with a giant hydraulic "nut splitter" around it, and see what it takes to crack it, hopefully a heck of lot.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951472)

Re: Probably Plexi: RTFA A.

Re:WOW! (0)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951582)

A's hardly ever RTFA. If they did, they would be less likely to be A's.

Re:WOW! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951560)

Probably Plexiglass.

You know how I know you didn't read the article...?

Re:WOW! (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951678)

EXACTLY.

Crib notes (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951300)

"We're going to repeat something that was already done 50 years ago, except we're be filing patents to stop anyone else doing it again. Click here to invest."

Re:Crib notes (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952852)

already done 50 years ago, except we're be filing patents to stop anyone else doing it for 17 years.

FTFY.

Title needs work (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951326)

Bad title considering that (as the article states in the first paragraph) Trieste made it to the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean (Challenger Deep in Mariana Trench) in 1960 with a crew of two. I'd say they have the record and since you can't go deeper...not sure it can be broken unless the ocean changes depth there.

Trieste info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

If you're in the DC area the Washington Navy Yard museum (open to the public) has Trieste hanging in the back (right next to Alvin -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin which was used to explore the Titanic). It's worth the trip if you're local or you've been to DC enough that you're not interested in going to the Air and Space museum again.

Museum visit info:

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org8_Visit.htm

Re:Title needs work (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952054)

It may be an accurate title but in a nit picking sort of way. The Trieste was not a submarine but was a bathyscaphe. I believe that it used a guide line and was not freely maneuverable. But in general I would agree with you that it was the first and so far only.

Details of Trieste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952960)

Actually, there was no cable. If you look at pictures of it, the submarine shaped structure was a buoyancy device similar to hot air balloons. They had ballast of iron pellets to go down. To ascend, they released the ballast. (The ballast was held by electromagnets which would drop the ballast in case of a power failure.) At the same there were no maneuvering motors so they were limited to going either up or down.

Re:Title needs work (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952170)

Also the article says that borosilicate is another name for soda-lime glass, which it isn't. Borosilicate is the good, strong, high temperature glass. Soda lime is the cheap, easy melting bulk glass.

they didnt develop shi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951338)

However
http://www.rayotek.com/ [rayotek.com]
are the ones who actually "developed" the tech, these guys are just (potential) customers of Rayotek (seeing as this craft hasn't been built yet)

props for making subs out of plastic that goto 3,000ft and managing to sell them, but all credit for the tech that goes to 36,000 ft should go to Rayotek

now build it :)

chosen ones 'cruise to hormuz' getting flak (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951366)

as always, hold on to your hymens for as long as humanely possible, as those who still have theirs, will be given preferential boarding on the cruise, being billed as the 'ride of swollen pride', in the netherworlds, where there'll be lots of explosions & death nearby, for the unchosens to focus on, while the big Judgment Day party takes over any ability to be distracted, for a bit. that's just one day?

Hasn't Richard Branson already announced this (1)

gnalre (323830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951388)

Didn't Richard Branson already announce plans to visit the deepest point of all the oceans, so I presume he already has the technology to do this?

Yes, he uses one of his balloons.. (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951644)

.. filled with lead.

Branson announcing plans and finding ways to execute them are two separate things. I'm sure he'll look at this too, but might be too expensive.

This May not be a Good Idea (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951564)

BLUE HADES is not going to be happy about this.

I wish that they had not announced (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951636)

It would have been better had the simply built a drone craft, sent it to the bottom and THEN ANNOUNCED IT. That would have a dramatic impact. More importantly, it would enable a major push for them on new crafts.

Re:I wish that they had not announced (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951794)

Disagree, if you want media attention you need to get them in before it happens. Trying to get attention for something that already happened is difficult at best unless it is basically unignorable.

Re:I wish that they had not announced (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952338)

I would not be surprised, personally, if this announcement was actually just a means of generating additional funding needed to complete the development of the project.

factual errors in article or laziness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951850)

"Borosilicate glass, also known as soda-lime glass, has advantages over synthetics. "

Hmm, borosilicate isn't soda lime glass. The former, best known under the trade name Pyrex, is quite different than regular old soda-lime glass. Different melting points, very difference coefficient of thermal expansion, etc.

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951868)

Looking back over the course of your lives, how many of those goldfish bowls you encountered were actually deep atmosphere exploratory craft sent out by piscene overlords?

You see one sitting on a shelf or counter somewhere and you just assume it's someone's pet and the owner put it there but unless you actually asked who it belonged to, can you be sure?

Re:Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952714)

Humans may only be the objects of their research. But yet again, my cat shows who is actually in charge in this universe.

A glass by any other name ... (4, Informative)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952134)

TFA: "Borosilicate glass, also known as soda-lime glass..." That's like saying "Bronze, also known as brass..." The two are compositionally quite different.

Pyrex (R) is Corning's trademark for the borosilicate type and it is commonly used for laboratory ware, oven windows and such. It was also used for the big 200 inch (a bit under 5 meters) mirror at Mt Palomar. [wired.com]

Soda lime glass is the more common type used for windows and beer bottles. You can quickly tell the two apart by looking edge-on into the piece, soda lime glass has a greenish cast.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?