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!

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Loses Deep Sea Vehicle

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the davy-jones's-locker dept.

Science 93

First time accepted submitter Mr D from 63 (3395377) writes in with news about a WHOI vehicle that has been feared lost. "On Saturday, May 10, 2014, at 2 p.m. local time (10 p.m. Friday EDT), the hybrid remotely operated vehicle Nereus was confirmed lost at 9,990 meters (6.2 miles) depth in the Kermadec Trench northeast of New Zealand. The unmanned vehicle was working as part of a mission to explore the ocean's hadal region from 6,000 to nearly 11,000 meters deep. Scientists say a portion of it likely imploded under pressure as great as 16,000 pounds per square inch."

cancel ×

93 comments

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

I'm not buying you another one (3, Funny)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 5 months ago | (#46978371)

Where do you last remember seeing it?

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46978413)

Did they look behind the fridge? If you lose something it's nearly always there.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (2)

JustOK (667959) | about 5 months ago | (#46980961)

Try IN the fridge. My remote always ends up in there.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 5 months ago | (#46982913)

Why are you watching TV in the fridge?

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 5 months ago | (#46985239)

Helps keep my beer cold while I drink it.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

Ranbot (2648297) | about 5 months ago | (#46978461)

Some wild research students must have gone for a joy ride with the professor's submersible. Kids these days! Get off my oceanic trench!

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#46981185)

Get off my oceanic trench!

Said the actress to the bishop. :-P

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 5 months ago | (#46978711)

In a hole in the bottom of the sea.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46979769)

Here are some goggles and a snorkel. Go and get it.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (3)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 months ago | (#46979377)

They should tie a string or some kind of high tech fiber made of glass or something onto it so they know where it is. Never lost my mittens after my mom strung them together with yarn.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46979405)

Probably under the couch with all the other cat toys...

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46980107)

I'm not buying you another one

Especially since, apparently, they weren't playing with it nicely.

It's not a fishing expedition, for f*ck's sake, it's an exploratory mission. "Probably" imploded? WTF? The damned thing is on a tether. If you pull up the tether, and it's not there (even if part of it imploded), then you didn't have your tether secured properly.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 5 months ago | (#46981937)

IIRC, such an implosion is not unlike an explosive device going off -- it sends shock waves that shatter things, send shrapnel out, etc. It's likely that the tether that was close to the imploding vehicle was got cut up as well.

Re:I'm not buying you another one (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | about 5 months ago | (#46985085)

If you watch "Return to Midway", during one of the first dives, they have an implosion of some part on their ROV. The quote said it was similar in force to a stick of TNT going off at close range.

A larger catastrophic implosion would naturally result in an even larger amount of damage.

Plus, the ROV that was lost was only trailing a slim fiber optic cable for control signals, not for power, and definitely not strong enough to haul up a ton or two of metal off the ocean floor.

One stone, two birds (3, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 5 months ago | (#46978441)

They can look for the Deep Sea Vehicle and flight MH370 at the same time in that area. Very economical.

Re:One stone, two birds (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 5 months ago | (#46980235)

Wrong side of that little island down there called Australia...

Re:One stone, two birds (0)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#46981499)

Wrong side of that little island down there called Australia...

How do you know? Do you have some inside knowledge that everyone else doesn't?
The fact that they haven't found the plane means that it's somewhat likely that they
are searching in the wrong spot. It easily has the range to reach this spot so it's
probably about as good as spot to look as the next as from what I gather they are
basically throwing darts at a dartboard at this point.

Re:One stone, two birds (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 5 months ago | (#46984001)

Wrong side of that little island down there called Australia...

It easily has the range to reach this spot

Sure. Their fuel load was about 4000km shy of reaching the Kermadec Trench, but they could have easily made that up by playing some Queen over the PA system.

Re:One stone, two birds (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#46984671)

Wrong side of that little island down there called Australia...

How do you know? Do you have some inside knowledge that everyone else doesn't? The fact that they haven't found the plane means that it's somewhat likely that they are searching in the wrong spot. It easily has the range to reach this spot so it's probably about as good as spot to look as the next as from what I gather they are basically throwing darts at a dartboard at this point.

Didn't you know, MH370 landed on top of the mythical city of Atlantis.

Re:One stone, two birds (1)

JaneTheIgnorantSlut (1265300) | about 5 months ago | (#46980655)

First MH370 in the Indian Ocean, then this one off New Zealand. Clearly Godzilla is heading into the Pacific.

You Sank My Battleship! (-1)

theodp (442580) | about 5 months ago | (#46978455)

Battleship [wikipedia.org]

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46978619)

You linked to a wikipedia article on the game Battleship?

I've read the comments on three stories this morning. Anything remotely scientific is full of nothing but lame joke comments. The one about the sun is full of "my hot sister" comments. It's pathetic.

Got down to this comment on this story, and it's nothing but idiotic jokes.

The flipside is anything political. Those stories will get hundreds of comments with nothing but pointless bickering.

There is no useful discussion on this site anymore. I'd list some alternatives, but I don't want you ignorant fucks to ruin the others.

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (2)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 5 months ago | (#46978657)

I've read the comments on three stories this morning. Anything remotely scientific is full of nothing but lame joke comments. The one about the sun is full of "my hot sister" comments. It's pathetic.

Agreed. Let's talk about planets in the solar system instead. The 7th from the Sun seems like an interesting one, don't you think?

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46979443)

Agreed. Let's talk about planets in the solar system instead. The 7th from the Sun seems like an interesting one, don't you think?

So, when that one gets downgraded like Pluto did, will they call it a planetoid or an assteroid?

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal, tip your waitress.

He he, the button I need to click next says "sub-mit". He he.

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 5 months ago | (#46982973)

You do know that they renamed it in 2620 to put an end to that joke....

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46978705)

You linked to a wikipedia article on the game Battleship?

I've read the comments on three stories this morning. Anything remotely scientific is full of nothing but lame joke comments.

The only reason the story is posted on Slashdot is because of the sensationalism of accidents. For a serious discussion or an interesting article the story about when it was designed/built should have been posted.
The topic at hand is more of the political type and as such it will be made fun of at Slashdot since there is nothing else of technological interest until its disappearance is further investigated or a new one that can withstand the deeps is design.

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46978747)

You consider a story on the lose of a single submersible in an accident to be "remotely scientific," and you're calling the rest of *US* idiots?

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46978883)

A scientific ROV is kind of by definition remotely scientific... literally science done remotely.

Re:You Sank My Battleship! (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 5 months ago | (#46980981)

You've got a sister?

Maybe it defected... (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 5 months ago | (#46978479)

Maybe it defected. Is the protocol officer still alive?

Re:Maybe it defected... (1)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 5 months ago | (#46978607)

Maybe it defected. Is the protocol officer still alive?

I think you mean political officer.

Re: Maybe it defected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46979265)

It would liked to have seen Montana...

Columbia River. . . . (1)

dtmos (447842) | about 5 months ago | (#46984075)

Well, if it crossed the Pacific and went upstream the Columbia River, it might have made it to Montana -- although there are a surfeit of dams to overcome along the way.

Re:Maybe it defected... (1)

milkmage (795746) | about 5 months ago | (#46979299)

slipped on some tea if I recall.

Best we start building giant robots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46978545)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim_(film)

Oddly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46978561)

We get so used to successful operations of these things that we forget how dangerous and harsh the environment is down at that depth.

Get another (1)

fey000 (1374173) | about 5 months ago | (#46978583)

Perhaps Wood's hole can fund another?

Re:Get another (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46979319)

Perhaps Wood's hole can fund another?

Woods, not "Wood's".

I weep at the idea that idiots like you are breeding, but then I remember that you
are on Slashdot and I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that is almost certainly never
going to happen because Slashdot people don't get any pussy.

Re:Get another (1)

praxis (19962) | about 5 months ago | (#46979967)

Slashdot people don't get any pussy.

Not all Slashdot people are biologically male, you insensitive clod. Also, you are also Slashdot people. Yes, I am feeding the troll. I know I shouldn't.

Re:Get another (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#46984703)

I would so mod you up.

Re:Get another (1)

qwak23 (1862090) | about 5 months ago | (#46986441)

I'm fairly positive that Not all Slashdot people who are not biologically male are heterosexual, you insensitive clod. Though logically, if we assume that all Slashdot people who desire "pussy" are unable to acquire "pussy" (in the case of lesbians we assume that said "pussy" is not their own), then the ACs comment stands, even if it is a bit rash.

Though I am uncertain as to how this pertains to the discussion of a crushed submersible.

Re:Get another (1)

praxis (19962) | about 5 months ago | (#46993465)

I was indeed leaving out those that desire that which they already have.

Under Pressure (0)

theodp (442580) | about 5 months ago | (#46978637)

Under Pressure [rapgenius.com] : Brings a building down / Splits a sub in two

I Refuse to RTFA or take the summary in context (0)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 months ago | (#46978723)

Who in their right mind would make a deep sea research submarine out of wood, which has holes in it! I mean we are in the 21st century. We rarely make boats out of wood anymore, We defiantly don't make million dollar research devices out of wood, and if they did, they would use high quality wood, not ones with holes in it!

Re:I Refuse to RTFA or take the summary in context (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 5 months ago | (#46980807)

Who in their right mind would make a deep sea research submarine out of wood, which has holes in it! I mean we are in the 21st century. We rarely make boats out of wood anymore, We defiantly don't make million dollar research devices out of wood, and if they did, they would use high quality wood, not ones with holes in it!

The holes are in it to keep the pressure equalized. Duh.

Re:I Refuse to RTFA or take the summary in context (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 5 months ago | (#46981005)

Those holes were an early version of Windows. Every once in a while, you'd see a Blue Sea of Death.

Re:I Refuse to RTFA or take the summary in context (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#46984745)

Those holes were an early version of Windows. Every once in a while, you'd see a Blue Sea of Death.

Blue Sea of Death = Niflheim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

Re:I Refuse to RTFA or take the summary in context (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46984263)

No, but it was probably still running WInXP and due to the expiration of patches from MS it apparently was vulnerable to some flaw that wasn't going to be patched.

Tethered? (2)

Sporkinum (655143) | about 5 months ago | (#46978761)

The article said it had an optical fiber tether. Nothing on how strong the tether was, but I am assuming it was like breaking a fishing line, so no way to retrieve a portion of the device. They did say that they found pieces floating on surface though.

Re:Tethered? (1)

cusco (717999) | about 5 months ago | (#46984281)

Wonder how long it would take to arrive at the surface from that depth.

The Abyss (1)

unixcorn (120825) | about 5 months ago | (#46978791)

It's aliens hiding out in the deep. They will bring the submersible back once they are done studying it.

Re:The Abyss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46993837)

"Little Geek just folded!"

How about a string? (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 5 months ago | (#46978795)

They should have tied a string to it.

Re:How about a string? (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 5 months ago | (#46978867)

They should have tied a string to it.

Yeah, nothing like a multi-ton submarine suddenly losing all its buoyancy to sink the mothership it's tethered to at the surface...

I think it's *designed* to cut loose.

Re:How about a string? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 5 months ago | (#46978911)

Well, since the machine weighs no more under water, when filled with water, than the empty sub does when lifted onto and off of the ship, I'd say the scenario of the sub somehow dragging the mother ship to the bottom in the event that it floods is pretty far fetched.

Re:How about a string? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46978937)

Not if you consider the size of the shark.

Re:How about a string? (1)

sjwt (161428) | about 5 months ago | (#46979253)

But the sub and ship are not stationary objects or ones that will magically hold their positions, the sub and could be extremely far out side of the center of mass, adding an extra couple of tonnes of force suddenly pulling in one direction is not good. (dont forget the weight of your extremely long tether too)

Re:How about a string? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46981565)

The tether weighs the same on the spool or in the sea.

Re:How about a string? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46984807)

Which is mostly irrelevant when you're considering the impact that tether would have on the centre of balance if it's yanked on by a falling sub, is it not?

Re:How about a string? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46986745)

It's pulling down either way (I'd expect the tether to be much heavier than the sub, but maybe I'm wrong - the sub would have to be quite stout to nearly resist crushing at that depth).

Re:How about a string? (1)

sjwt (161428) | about 5 months ago | (#46987567)

Once your centre of Mass moves past your center of balance you will tip over.

Just like how on old school scales moving the tiny weights to the side changes the balance, go to far and the scales tip over, their is no way to keep the ship and the sub directly located over each other, if it was dropped from the center of the boat and went straight down,and there were no ocean currents(they can change directions at different depths) No wind, No waves and you could manage to move both the ship and the sub in the same direction at the same pace accounting for differences in buoyancy and resistance, then yes you would have a point.

Re:How about a string? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46994633)

But people really do operate RSVs this way, without much of a problem. The boat is very much heavier than the cable+minisub, and the cable will break long before it could capsize the ship. I've seen pictures of ships used for this purpose that were broad twin-hull designs with plenty of open space in the middle, but I know the Navy also does similar operations with conventional ship hulls.
 

Re: How about a string? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46979677)

That's a narrow assumption completely ignoring the possibility of a giant squid or krakken pulling the sub and mother ship under to its lair. Think man, think.

Re:How about a string? (2)

n1ywb (555767) | about 5 months ago | (#46979243)

A typical oceanographic trawl winch will part 9/16" steel rope like it was nothing, which requires a force of about 27,000 lbs, and the ship doesn't even notice.

It's no lost (3, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 5 months ago | (#46978861)

It's just pining for the trenches.

Re:It's no lost (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#46984779)

It's just pining for the trenches.

Pining for the trenches, what kind of talk is that? Look, why did it implode on its back the moment I got down to 9999 meters?

SeaQuest DSV (0)

TribesPlaying-iuSioN (548280) | about 5 months ago | (#46979179)

Send the SeaQuest or Darwin to find it. :)

Re:SeaQuest DSV (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 5 months ago | (#46981023)

Thunderbird 4 to the International Resecue!

Ob. Slightly Scientific Comment... (4, Informative)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 5 months ago | (#46979247)

Years ago (not saying how many!) I worked with a university program specializing in autonomous underwater vehicles. Their designs made the submersibles nominally buoyant so that when they lost power they would eventually surface. For deep sea applications I'm sure it's more difficult.. If it were crushed, then I imagine all bets are off.

Re:Ob. Slightly Scientific Comment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46979757)

If it were crushed, then I imagine all bets are off.

Gee, do ya think?

Re:Ob. Slightly Scientific Comment... (3, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about 5 months ago | (#46984295)

These vehicles typically use glass spheres (containing air) [benthos.com] for buoyancy. We also experimented with a ceramic "foam" - basically millions of tiny hollow glass beads glued together and molded to fit into unused portions of the vehicle. They're more reliable, but don't provide as much floatation for a given volume. Any equipment and electronics you have on board has to go inside the larger glass spheres, so you always have some of those aboard.

The founder of Benthos gave us a lecture on the tech. When one of them implodes, the energy released is the ambient pressure at depth times the volume. This is why you can't simulate an implosion in a tank - the moment the implosion begins, the pressure drops, and the energy release stops But at depth, the water simply fills in any lost volume with more water at the same pressure, and the energy release continues until the entire volume of air is crushed. The smaller sphere in the link (13 inch or 33 cm diameter) has an air volume of about 15 liters. At 9000 meters, the pressure is 90.57 MPa. So its implosion releases 1.36 MJ - about as much energy as 2/3rds of a stick of dynamite. The glass spheres which implode basically revert back to sand. You can imagine how much more energetic it is if something as large as a submarine [wikipedia.org] implodes.

Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (0)

Viol8 (599362) | about 5 months ago | (#46979271)

I know it was unintentional, but scientific vehicle or not, its now just more scrap sitting at the bottom of the sea polluting it (battery chemicals, polymers etc). There should have been a contingency plan for an implosion - hardly an unexpected event at that depth.

Re:Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46979593)

The debris from a two ton ROV doesn't even begin to compare to the daily avalanche of crap we dump on the seafloor.

My father in law was a sonar operator aboard P3's in the 70's and 80's. The thousands of sonor buoys he dropped in the ocean would probably surprise you. They're designed to operate for a while and then, when the batteries are nearly dead, flood and sink to the sea floor so they can't be recovered and reversed engineered. There's a stretch of ocean bed in the north atlantic that must just be carpeted with the things.

Luckily the sea floor is a big place.

Re:Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46980595)

Luckily the sea floor is a big place.

It's also a very corrosive place.

Re:Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#46984841)

No its not. http://news.discovery.com/hist... [discovery.com] Named Halomonas titanicae the bacteria are eating our wreck's metal and leaving behind "rusticles," or icicle-like deposits of rust. The porous rusticles will eventually dissolve into fine powder. So most of those bouys will be consumed and meet the fate of the Titanic, dissolved to dust. So if there is bacteria eating iron there is ones eating sulfur and other chemicals as well.

Re:Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46990115)

No its not.

Salt water under high pressure is not corrosive? You've never dealt with stuff underwater for very long, have you?

The porous rusticles will eventually dissolve into fine powder. So most of those bouys will be consumed and meet the fate of the Titanic, dissolved to dust.

Which is what I'd call a corrosive environment.

Re:Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#46994315)

to me corrosive meant battery acid level of dissolving human flesh. Not salt slowly dissolving things over a series of decades. So while it s a corrosive enviroment in the physical sense of the definition. What people think is corrosive the ocean is simply not. To most people corrosive is penny dropped into liquid and fizzing for a minute until dissolved. This is what I was saying no to. Not slow dissolve of the iron. So points for being pendantic, points taken way for not getting that people don't understand how salt interacts.

Re:Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46980615)

I always wondered what happened to Sonobuoys after they were dropped....

Re:Thats more junk at the bottom of the ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982787)

From the article, they lost contact, then dozens of small bits of debris started appearing on the surface. I would guess that it was not so much an implosion as an explosion. Perhaps some metal got pushed next to exposed wires and bad things happen (*). Suppose the battery cables short circuited.

I'll find it, but it ain't goin' to be cheap (2)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 5 months ago | (#46979411)

Bad fish. Not like going down the pond chasin' bluegills and tommycods. This shark, swallow you whole. Little shakin', little tenderizin', an' down you go... If you want to get your deep sea vehicle back, then ante up. I don't want no volunteers, I don't want no mates, there's just too many captains on this island. $10,000 for me by myself. For that you get the head, the tail, the whole damn thing.

Definition of Lost (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 5 months ago | (#46979417)

They pretty much know where it is, they just can't get it back.
As opposed to MH370, which nobody knows where TF it is.

Kudos to Wood's Hole (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 5 months ago | (#46979507)

For pushing the boundaries. There wouldn't have been an implosion if they weren't pushing it to the edge.

Some people just don't have an appetite for exploration anymore - I say "job well done."

Either... (1)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 5 months ago | (#46979869)

Put 1090 atmospheres or add 1125 Kg/cm^2... Not everyone is using an archaic unit system. Actually, only very few are...
Thank you,

Re:Either... (1)

Dahan (130247) | about 5 months ago | (#46980539)

Put 1090 atmospheres or add 1125 Kg/cm^2... Not everyone is using an archaic unit system. Actually, only very few are...

Pretty sure kg/cm^2 is even more archaic than psi. Has that been in common use past the 1970s? The current newfangled unit of pressure is the pascal, which is N/m^2.

Re:Either... (1)

styrotech (136124) | about 5 months ago | (#47036461)

Pressure is mass per unit area? Sounds like a specification for paper density.

Surely you meant force per unit area?

I guess ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46980097)

it is crushed submersibles all the way down.

Finally! (1)

kuhnto (1904624) | about 5 months ago | (#46980319)

Someone used the word "implosion" correctly.

This is a pretty significant loss :-( (1)

eagee (1308589) | about 5 months ago | (#46981537)

I visited the woods hole facility over the summer, and they truly run a top notch operation (keeping these vessels in one piece at that kind of pressure is insanely tricky - what they're doing is amazing). I'm really sorry to hear about this loss; I'm sure it's going to have a significant impact on important research they're doing.

Design flaws (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 5 months ago | (#46983249)

I am by no means a submersible expert and I am curious as to what part of the sub imploded.

16,000 PSI might sound like a lot of pressure but in reality we use pressures close to that in hydraulic systems (10,000 PSI systems are quite common) and well over that in hydro-forming systems.

Would vacuuming and back filling the air spaces with a non conductive fluid such as Fluorinert or mineral oil be of any benefit? If you eliminate compressible gases from the design, nothing can implode. Weight could be an issue but the liquid can also help ballast the vehicle. The only spot that could be a problem is with motors but the stator coils could be sealed in a fluid or potted cavity and the armature/rotor could live outside under the external pressure and simply use magnetic coupling (like they do in fish tank filters). Maintenance would be a PITA but sounds like a worthy sacrifice to get something to safely handle those pressures.

They rolled the Depth-O-Meter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46984809)

It exceeded 9999 metres and the DSV thought it was already at the surface. It's still puttering around down there wondering where the bloody h*ll it's cab is...

First of all : one remark (1)

advid.net (595837) | about 5 months ago | (#46987463)

... 11,000 meters deep...
Scientists say ...
... 16,000 pounds per square inch

Time to embrace the metric system [wikipedia.org] , don't you think so ?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?