Nuclear submarine for scientific research

[Anonymous No.5360402]

The US Navy has 71 nuclear subs in its fleet. There are 0 nuclear science subs in the world.

This seems bizarre. Why not devote at least one to research? There used to be one dedicated to this purpose, for studying the ocean under the ice of the North Pole.

Why no nuclear research subs today, when we have so many military subs that aren't being used?

[Anonymous No.5360421]

What for? Specifically, I mean.

[Anonymous No.5360427]

>>5360421
>What for? Specifically, I mean.

Same things we used the NR1 for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_submarine_NR-1

>NR-1's missions included search, object recovery, geological survey, oceanographic research, and installation and maintenance of underwater equipment. NR-1's unique capability to remain at one site and completely map or search an area with a high degree of accuracy was a valuable asset on several occasions.

>Following the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986, NR-1 was used to search for, identify, and recover critical parts of the Challenger craft.[1] Because it could remain on the sea floor without resurfacing frequently, NR-1 was a major tool for searching deep waters. NR-1 remained submerged and on station even when heavy weather and rough seas hit the area and forced all other search and recovery ships into port.

>In 1995, Dr. Robert Ballard used the NR-1 and its support ship, the MV Carolyn Chouest, to explore the wreck of the HMHS Britannic, the sister ship of the RMS Titanic, which struck a mine and sank off the coast of Greece while serving as a hospital ship during WWI.

[Anonymous No.5360438]

>>5360427

We don't fly the space shuttle anymore. So, we don't need a nuclear science sub to recover wreckage when they explode.

[Anonymous No.5360579]

>>5360402
well for one, nuclear submarines use highly enriched fissile material(~90%)

[OP No.5360590]

>>5360579

Sure, but if we have enough for our fleet of 71 nuclear subs even though there's no credible opposing super power with their own comparable nuclear navy, surely we can spare one sub for conversion into a science vessel?

[Anonymous No.5360596]

Submarines have windows now?
Is that safe?

[Anonymous No.5360599]

Obviously there's a monolith somewhere deep in the ocean and the US knows about it, just like the one on the moon.
They wouldn't do this kind of thing just for fun

[Anonymous No.5360601]

Because the non-nuclear research subs the usa has can actually go deeper.

[Anonymous No.5360606]

>>5360601
>Because the non-nuclear research subs the usa has can actually go deeper.

Sure. But often, they have to cancel their dives because violent surface weather makes it dangerous to deploy or recover submersibles using the A-frame crane ships typically used for that.

If we could instead modify a nuclear sub to deploy and recover deep diving submersibles from below the reach of storms, that alone would be hugely valuable. It would increase by many times the frequency of dives we could afford on the same annual budget.

[Anonymous No.5360675]

I suggest 150% of the NASA budget be devoted to deepwater exploration.

It's commonly known that we know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our own oceans. It's a real fucking crying shame that nobody is interested in exploring something as great as the ocean, which could contain more great discoveries than all others made in history put together. I mean, there's probably an enzyme that some unknown coral produces somewhere in the sea that can act as a cure for cancer.

Space may be the final frontier, but let's be honest, it's just not practical. Meanwhile, Atlantis may exist in the oceans, we just don't know about it. I mean we think we're great and know all this shit, but we are completely out of place in the oceans, and I don't need to remind you that they make up the majority of the surface of the earth. It's truly amazing how little we know about them. I just wish people cared as much about the seas as they do space. It's a crying shame.

[Anonymous No.5360690]

>>5360675
Why?
Why take it from NASA? What the fuck.

Take some from the massive defense budget.

[Anonymous No.5360698]

>>5360690

He didn't mean take it from NASA. He meant match their budget plus 50% extra.

>>5360675

>Meanwhile, Atlantis may exist in the oceans, we just don't know about it.

Let's not go crazy. We've found grapefruit sized single celled organisms, and the only known biologically immortal creatures (a type of jellyfish). What's actually there, and yet to be discovered, is incredible enough without drawing on mythology.

[Anonymous No.5360709]

Well, this thing is being built now and is supposed to be complete by 2013. It's not what you asked for, but it's pretty cool. It can send out and receive a mini-sub from below the water line, like someone suggested.

[Anonymous No.5360719]

>>5360709

I guess that'll do. It does look cool.

[Anonymous No.5360727]

>>5360596
>Submarines have windows now?
>Is that safe?

You better be fucking kidding me

[Anonymous No.5360733]

>>5360698
You think you can back that up?

[Anonymous No.5360736]

is sci frozen or is it just me?

[Anonymous No.5360743]

is le /sci/ broken?

[Anonymous No.5360814]

>>5360709
how could that ever be practical when compared to just a big boat?

[Anonymous No.5360851]

>>5360814
Going off my vast knowledge of absolutely nothing nautical.

It looks like it would be incredibly stable in rough weather. As apposed to a large boat which can be dangerous.

[Anonymous No.5360873]

>>5360851
Also the bottom part would be below the ~10m zone and can dive out the bottom and return to the bottom without fear of decompressing your bodies too fast

[Anonymous No.5360891]

>>5360402
Cost and maintenance are major factors not to mention the sale of a submarine with nuclear fuel is unlikely to civilians of any non government denomination.

[Anonymous No.5363119]

>>5360590
nuclear submarines use weapons grade uranium. Using weapons grade fissile material on a civilian vessel probably isn't going to fly.

[Anonymous No.5363152]

>>5360675
>>It's commonly known that we know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our own oceans.
Bullshit. We just found out recently that we visited all the wrong places on the Moon. We only have physical samples from one terrane on the moon.

See this for more:http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug00/newMoon.html

We also have no fucking clue what happens to the surface when there's a moonquake, a rather common occurrence.

We're not sure if the moon has electrostatic storms:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/07dec_moonstorms/

Pick related, it's how much area was covered by Apollo 11.

[Anonymous No.5363182]

Nuclear powered Hamster Environments?

[Anonymous No.5363197]

>>5360709

Completed next year? Shouldn't there be some actual photos by now?

That thing is crazy looking, yo.

[Anonymous No.5363200]

>>5363119

This would be a concern. It would either have to be operated by the military, or under strict government oversight. Imagine if a rogue civilian decided to sail the thing to Iran or melt down the reactor in Chesapeake bay or something.

[Anonymous No.5363230]

>>5360709
What advantages does this have over a bunch of cheap sea gliders?

[Anonymous No.5363236]

>>5363230

You can put people on it. Humans are still quite handy things to have around for making observations, strange as it may seem.

[Anonymous No.5363240]

>>5363236
Why would you need humans to make observations?

[Anonymous No.5363260]

>>5363240

Well obviously humans are going to be making an observation one way or the other. What's better, first-hand through a big glass bubble like >>5360727 or second-hand through a video recording shot by a mechanical recording device? Details may be lost or obscured by the quality of the video, imperfections in the lens, mechanical failures, etc. etc.

Love your Mark 1 Eyeball, son. It still hasn't been made obsolete.

[in/q/uisitor [Tetra Koiwai] !5P0TETRAO2!!hepukiaX4WX No.5363286]

why not make a sub that could tunnel through the earth or reach the very bottom of the sea? i'd like to know whats at the bottom. its way to dark down there and some nice bioluminecent fish would be an interesting capture. and it would be an ideal location for a city. geothermal power, 0 likelyhood of attack, assuming it was well managed within a super bio-dome we could pretty much make an entirely different civilization, all we'd need is better drills to expand within the earth and we'd be golden.

[Anonymous No.5363287]

>>5363260
Ah, but those can't cover a very wide area and are very expensive to maintain and operate. You can do pretty huge sea surveys with sea gliders, you can even make observations of marine life using acoustic recognition.

>>second-hand through a video recording
Nobody's going to believe your big fish story without a picture.

>>Love your Mark 1 Eyeball, son. It still hasn't been made obsolete.
Eyeball ROVs were made obsolete long ago, though oil companies still like to use them for inspection. They don't even have samplers man. Don't know what your attraction is to mark one. Probably won't even work with modern video equipment.

[Anonymous No.5363291]

>>5363287

You're one of those people who think we should only be sending probes into space and not humans, aren't you.

[Anonymous No.5363301]

>>5363286
>>tunnel through the earth
Why?
>>reach the very bottom of the sea
has been done recently by James Cameron.
>> ideal location for a city
Making large titanium spheres that can withstand the pressure of challenger deep for even small submersibles is not a simple task.

[Anonymous No.5363317]

>>5360606
Research subs always dive in calm weather so they can surface in an emergency, there would be zero benefit to having a sub as a support vessel. Even less so, if the sub needs to be taken out of the water for repair that couldn't be done without astronomical cost on a submarine. It would cost as much as a new submarine to be able to bring it inside the pressure hull, a modification like that would be a new submarine only more complex and costly than the first.

[Anonymous No.5363328]

>>5363152
Fuck, thinking about going to the moon still gives me chills.

[Anonymous No.5363335]

>>5360690
>>5360698
I did mean take it from NASA, if we have to. I mean seriously, the obsession of this generation of playing rocket-ship has gone too far, we're all going to die looking at the sky before we realize the shit that's going on right beneath our noses.

Though I agree we should fund all types of scientific research and much less military research. I don't mind if we fund space exploration as long as we are spending just as much (ideally more) on ocean research. Which will never happen due to space's huge popularity. Also, NASA shouldn't be in charge, it all should be privatized.

[Anonymous No.5363340]

>>5360709
That thing, while looking super awesome, is never going to happen. They will be forever searching for funding, and it's going to break constantly. Just look at it, it's way too top heavy. What happens when one really big wave hits? Or some really bad storm? It makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.5363344]

>>5363291
Nah man, I just support the Ballard approach to sea exploration.

Why send humans down when they're just going to be looking at TV monitors anyway? Why send humans down when you can stream live video from an ROV to scientists all over the world? Why send humans down when you can get low enough ping to control an ROV from pretty much anywhere on Earth?

Let's wire up the sea dammit!

[Anonymous No.5363348]

>>5363340
Nah man, they got Cousteau on this one who's going to make a movie out of it. There may not be much science to come of it, but at least we'll get a movie

Plus they supposedly started construction in october.

[Anonymous No.5363349]

>>5363340

>That thing, while looking super awesome, is never going to happen.

Oh? And you're sure of that? http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/sea-orbiter

>They will be forever searching for funding

They did, for the last 12 years. Then recently they secured it in full and began construction.

>and it's going to break constantly. Just look at it, it's way too top heavy. What happens when one really big wave hits? Or some really bad storm? It makes no sense.

It's buoyancy stabilized, like a buoy. The below-water section is weighted down, pulling it 50% underwater. Basic physics makes it stay rigidly upright and resist any attempt to tip it over.

[Anonymous No.5363356]

>>5363152
Still, who cares? Seriously, what will moon exploration get us? We learn more about space rocks, whoopdie-fucking-doo. Call me back when there is chance of life, something that can actually affect the lives of people living now.

Meanwhile, deep sea exploration can get us a bunch of cool shit in terms of medicine, industrial materials, food, the possibilities are virtually endless.

Mankind can go play around on the moon once we've dealt with the serious problems facing our species and planet now. Yeah that might not be in our lifetime but who cares, take a step back and look at things objectively, like a true scientist, for a change.

[Anonymous No.5363358]

>>5363317
>Research subs always dive in calm weather so they can surface in an emergency, there would be zero benefit to having a sub as a support vessel.

...Except that it would make it possible to dive in weather that isn't calm. Do you read your own posts?

>Even less so, if the sub needs to be taken out of the water for repair that couldn't be done without astronomical cost on a submarine. It would cost as much as a new submarine to be able to bring it inside the pressure hull, a modification like that would be a new submarine only more complex and costly than the first.

That's precisely why it would be valuable to have. A home base for a deeper diving submersible which provides a dry 1atm shirtsleeves environment in which to repair, recharge and refill it. The cost would not be "astronomical", a new set of nuclear submarines with a large airlock capable of recieving this baby (pictured) are already on the way.

[Anonymous No.5363364]

>>5363348
I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.5363371]

>>5363349
I'm sorry, but this whole idea is just stupid.
As a scientist, I have to be skeptical of these things. It's way too pretty to be functional for actual research. It's all fluff.
I think the people behind this project are better at creating CG animation and making movies than they are doing actual science.

pic related: actual deep sea explorers and their vessel

[Anonymous No.5363372]

>>5363356
>Meanwhile, deep sea exploration can get us a bunch of cool shit in terms of medicine, industrial materials, food, the possibilities are virtually endless.

Have you seen this shit? Europoors are going to have a Sealab three times bigger than ours, with the same model of panoramic cupola as on the ISS.

www.hydronaut.eu

[Anonymous No.5363378]

>>5363371
>It's way too pretty to be functional for actual research. It's all fluff.

That isn't skepticism. It isn't even a rational or informed opinion. Look at the picture. It's an industrial fully crewed A-frame ship. This is what we need, today, to get a submersible into and out of the water. And it can only do it in perfect weather.

The cheat, the clever engineering way around this, is to give the submersible somewhere to surface far enough underwater that choppy surface weather cannot endanger it. And a vessel designed to be supremely stable in that rough weather. You can either achieve this by making the vessel massive, or by designing it to achieve stability through the principles Sea Orbiter's based on.

In other words it's a very efficient design for what it does; transporting, deploying and recovering a deep diving submersible in any weather with as small a crew complement as possible. Add to this saturation diving capability, with a permanent ambient pressure below water living space, and an integrated decompression chamber, and you've combined the functionality of the Aquarius, a deck mounted deco chamber, and an A-frame ship, operable by a fraction of the crew.

[Anonymous No.5363384]

>>5363372
No, but that's pretty cool, I'm down. I'm surprised by Europoor ingenuity, we'll see if it will actually get done.

lol @ the video showing them having chickens inside

[Anonymous No.5363392]

>>5363358
>Except that it would make it possible to dive in weather that isn't calm.
They would not be able to SURFACE in an emergency. It's all well that they could be recovered but if something serious went wrong there would not be time. There would also be no possibly of rescue should recovery be impossible.

>The cost would not be "astronomical", a new set of nuclear submarines with a large airlock capable of recieving this baby (pictured) are already on the way.
It would involve making a new pressure hull, that would be astronomical. Provide a link to these submarines, "airlock" does not mean it is taken out of the water, it just means they are attached.

[Anonymous No.5363393]

>>5363371
>pic related: actual deep sea explorers and their vessel

That isn't a vessel. It's a stationary laboratory.

[Anonymous No.5363395]

>>5363384
>lol @ the video showing them having chickens inside

Yuros don't go anywhere without chickens. The lab should be shaped like a gypsy caravan.

[Anonymous No.5363396]

>>5363378
Choppy surface weather can affect things just below the surface as well. You need to be pretty deep before it will get less intense. And this station would bob up and down all the time, making it really hard for most normal people to acclimate to.

Also, even underneath the water there are currents that flow throughout the ocean, not to mention a fuck-ton of inquisitive sea animals that will try to make their homes directly on the vessel that will need to be scrubbed off, otherwise even larger predators will be attracted and might endanger the lives of crew members who go out to explore or threaten the structural integrity of the vessel itself.

Very efficient doesn't make up for the 1 day when all shit goes to hell, which is pretty much guaranteed to happen at least once.

[Anonymous No.5363397]

>>5363356
>>what will moon exploration get us?
A foothold to the rest of the universe, the technology we need to become a multiplanet species.

>>industrial materials
How else are we going to get materials for constructing solar power satellites that would enable us to move up the Kardashev scale past 1(we aren't even at 1).

Oh and plenty of nice technology along the way. After all, it ain't easy living on an airless rock!

As you said, the possibilities are endless.

[Anonymous No.5363401]

>>5363393
ves·sel [noun \ˈve-səl\]
Definition of VESSEL
1a : a container (as a cask, bottle, kettle, cup, or bowl) for holding something

-Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

[Anonymous No.5363405]

>>5363392
>It would involve making a new pressure hull, that would be astronomical. Provide a link to these submarines, "airlock" does not mean it is taken out of the water, it just means they are attached.

I'm looking now. Here's the external pressure hull airlock they use currently (pic related). The new class of subs just internalizes it.

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

>They would not be able to SURFACE in an emergency. It's all well that they could be recovered but if something serious went wrong there would not be time. There would also be no possibly of rescue should recovery be impossible.

They don't return to the surface. They return to the "mothership". It's like I am talking to a wall.

The Chinese government is financing the construction of neutral buoyancy deep "sea stations" powered by naval reactors, with exactly the airlock/minisub capability we've been discussing:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/09/china-underwater-mining-station

[Anonymous No.5363406]

>>5363397
>A foothold to the rest of the universe
>multiplanet species.
How long do you think it will take us before this happens?
Do you know how far away the closest star is?
So we establish a colony on another planet, what then?

It's just not worth it for all the trouble we'd have to go through to make it happen. Have you ever worked in the field? It's hard getting even simple shit done right even here on earth.
>Kardashev scale
You've been watching too many sci-fi movies.

[Anonymous No.5363408]

>>5363396
>Choppy surface weather can affect things just below the surface as well. You need to be pretty deep before it will get less intense.

200 feet, to eliminate surface influence entirely. by 50 feet, it's minimal and considered safe (The SO's moonpool is 60 feet down). There are already Navy boats with ambient pressure sub deployment moon pools on the underside of the hull. Sea Orbiter uses the same trick, with a more compact vessel.

>And this station would bob up and down all the time, making it really hard for most normal people to acclimate to.

The simulations and model tests indicate exceptional stability. I trust Rougerie's engineers more than your opinion.

[Anonymous No.5363409]

>>5363401

Nice save, but you know what you meant.

[Anonymous No.5363410]

>>5363405
>They don't return to the surface.
And what if recovery isn't possible, say in an emergency? It's like I have to say everything twice.

[Anonymous No.5363415]

>>5363410
>And what if recovery isn't possible, say in an emergency? It's like I have to say everything twice.

Like if there's a storm? Indeed, not safe to surface. Precisely why a submarine capable of recovering the deep diving submersible at a depth of 200 feet or deeper offers such a tremendous value.

[Anonymous No.5363421]

>>5363408
Where are you getting your data? How do you know it's so safe, have you ever actually been out in the real ocean? During a storm?
>I trust Rougerie's engineers more than your opinion.
But should you? You don't even know who I am, for all you know I could be one of those engineers, or the professor that taught them.

[Anonymous No.5363422]

Yarg, the sea, she be a fickle mistress.

Let's not forget what has happened, some ships were said to be "unsinkable". Nature will try her best to prove that wrong.

[Anonymous No.5363423]

>>5363421
>Where are you getting your data? How do you know it's so safe, have you ever actually been out in the real ocean? During a storm?

Indeed, I have. I am one of the specialists you pretend to be here:

>But should you? You don't even know who I am, for all you know I could be one of those engineers, or the professor that taught them.

[Anonymous No.5363424]

>>5363415
>Like if there's a storm?
No, this is the explanation as to why it would never be safe to dive in a storm. It's stormy, you can't surface. The submersible support vessel is incapable of recovering the vehicle for whatever reason. Now the vehicle has no hope of recovery or rescue.
It is imperative that a vehicle must be able to surface regardless of where the support ship is.

[Anonymous No.5363429]

>>5363424
>The submersible support vessel is incapable of recovering the vehicle for whatever reason. Now the vehicle has no hope of recovery or rescue.

So the sub uses airlock 2 instead of airlock 1.

>It is imperative that a vehicle must be able to surface regardless of where the support ship is.

But in your scenario, "It's stormy, you can't surface." The only safe harbor is the mothership submarine. That is the value it offers. The solution is to engineer it so that there is never a situation where it cannot recover the submersible, not to abandon the idea entirely.

[Anonymous No.5363431]

>>5363406
Did you know that there is a 1 in 500 chance humans could go extinct in the next century?

>>Do you know how far away the closest star is?
very, let's focus on dyson sphering our sun first.
>>So we establish a colony on another planet, what then?
Then we've made it even harder for humanity to be extinguished. Though space colonies make more sense than planetary colonies.

>>You've been watching too many sci-fi movies.
And you aren't aware of the economic benefits of moving up the kardashev scale. Now I'd imagine it'd make it easier to get simple shit done. Even here on earth

[Anonymous No.5363441]

>>5363429
>So the sub uses airlock 2 instead of airlock 1.
And what if it isn't the airlock, it has lost power. Or the vehicle is the problem and cannot be recovered.

>The solution is to engineer it so that there is never a situation where it cannot recover the submersible, not to abandon the idea entirely.
You will never engineer a solution that is completely fault tolerant. There will always be the possibility of failure and while you're spending so much effort on engineering a solution the best solution is just to wait for better weather. It's cheaper, safer and easier.

[Anonymous No.5363443]

>>5363431

We don't have to choose one or the other. There's a reason astronauts train underwater. The technologies we use to send humans to the deep not only benefit us by unlocking rich deposits of precious metals, oil and methane hydrate (not to mention undiscovered organisms) but also these advances are directly applicable to better spacecraft, planetary colonies, etc.

It is a many times greater engineering challenge to build a sub that can send humans to the marianas trench, than to build a space capsule such as the Orion, or Dragon. The latter is only more expensive because of the cost of rockets. Developing the former overcomes design challenges many times greater than required for spacecraft.

When we one day pierce the ice of Europa, or any other body outside the Earth with an ocean, we will explore that new sea for the same reason we explored ours. For minerals, fuels, energy, and to find new life. And the technology we developed to explore our own ocean will make it possible.

[Anonymous No.5363447]

>>5363441
>And what if it isn't the airlock, it has lost power. Or the vehicle is the problem and cannot be recovered.

Then you lose a vehicle. Sometimes, in space and in the sea, that happens. You rebuild and press on.

>You will never engineer a solution that is completely fault tolerant. There will always be the possibility of failure and while you're spending so much effort on engineering a solution the best solution is just to wait for better weather. It's cheaper, safer and easier.

It isn't cheaper, though. The high cost of scrubbed missions and crewing large A frame ships is why Sea Orbiter was proposed, and approved.

[Anonymous No.5363450]

>>5363431
>Though space colonies make more sense than planetary colonies.

You have to stop making sense, and at least just stop thinking.

[Anonymous No.5363454]

>>5363384
>No, but that's pretty cool, I'm down. I'm surprised by Europoor ingenuity, we'll see if it will actually get done.

Well, here's what they have built so far. This is an actual ESA project, not some private endeavor, so they don't lack for money.

>lol @ the video showing them having chickens inside

Europeans.

[Anonymous No.5363464]

>>5363447
>Then you lose a vehicle.
And the crew, all because you wanted to go when it was stormy.

>It isn't cheaper
Do you have any evidence for this, if you say this was the reason it was approved there must be a record. Do you really think scrubbed missions are more expensive than modifying and maintaining a nuclear submarine?

[Anonymous No.5363477]

>>5363464
>And the crew, all because you wanted to go when it was stormy.

Look, you're contriving unrealistic scenarios because you're pompous and doubling down on your layman's opinion instead of budging. Because we're on the internet so there's nobody to make you be reasonable.

>Do you have any evidence for this, if you say this was the reason it was approved there must be a record. Do you really think scrubbed missions are more expensive than modifying and maintaining a nuclear submarine?

From what I gather, the sea orbiter will provide the functionality we're discussing, without the nuclear part.

I do think if the Chinese government is funding a nuclear deep sea base capable of deploying and recovering multiple submersibles and diving suits they must have good reason to believe it makes sense to do so.

[Anonymous No.5363485]

>>5363443
>It is a many times greater engineering challenge to build a sub that can send humans to the marianas trench, than to build a space capsule such as the Orion
bullshit. Do you know what it takes to get a spacecraft human rated?

Let's do a cost comparison:
Jame's Cameron's submersible: $8 million
1 Pad abort system test for the Orion capsule: $220 million

In short, the cost of testing one subsystem of the Orion capsule was way more than the cost of Cameron's sub R&D and all. How's that for an engineering challenge?

sources
http://www.space.com/8350-nasa-test-launches-rocket-escape-system-astronauts.html
http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/03/james-cameron-challenger-deep-mariana-trench-deep-sea-dive/


>>europa minerals fuels energy
WHY? New life I understand, but if we're exploring europa's oceans to find fuels, energy, or minerals then humanity deserves to go extinct.

[Anonymous No.5363493]

>>5363485
>How's that for an engineering challenge?

Same life support tech, main difference is one resists 14.7psi differential from inside, the other resists a 16,000 psi differential from the outside.

>In short, the cost of testing one subsystem of the Orion capsule was way more than the cost of Cameron's sub R&D and all. How's that for an engineering challenge?

Government bloat, and the high cost of rocketry in general, something I already acknowledged and lamented.

>WHY? New life I understand, but if we're exploring europa's oceans to find fuels, energy, or minerals then humanity deserves to go extinct.

On that point I was more discussing the possibility of settling a habitable exoplanet. If it's anything like Earth, we'll want to go into it's ocean for the same reasons we went into ours. But you're right, on Europa we'd just be looking for life.

[Anonymous No.5363519]

>>5363477
>you're contriving unrealistic scenarios
Like recovery not being possible, wow that's unrealistic. Emergencies happen, it's important that a submersible can safely surface.

>they must have good reason to believe it makes sense to do so.
They will have their reasons but that doesn't mean deploying in bad weather is among them.

[Anonymous No.5363541]

>>5363519
>Like recovery not being possible, wow that's unrealistic. Emergencies happen, it's important that a submersible can safely surface.

No, like literally every system and backup failing simultaneously.

>They will have their reasons but that doesn't mean deploying in bad weather is among them.

It is, however, an advantage of their approach. This is the same principle, for oceanic exploration, as having lagrange point space stations is for space exploration. A safe harbor when Earth, or in this case the surface, is inaccessible. The future of man in the sea is submarines that never come up. Undersea vessels that stay undersea.

[Anonymous No.5363562]

>>5363541
>No, like literally every system and backup failing simultaneously.
That doesn't have to happen, you're just being obtuse. You say I cling to layman's opinions but your argument clings to the unfounded opinion that aborts are more costly than this extremely over-engineered solution.

>It is, however, an advantage of their approach.
Not if they take my opinion which you have no evidence they do not.

[Anonymous No.5363579]

>>5363493
>>same life support tech
No it isn't. Orion's life support tech has to work in zero g.
>>main difference is one resists 14.7psi differential from inside, the other resists a 16,000 psi differential from the outside
Aren't we forgetting that orion has to bear intense vibrations on top of rocket, go supersonic on the way up, have equipment that works in ZERO GODDAMN G, be able to dock with other spacecraft with out destroying them, work all while be bombarded by deadly space radiation and micrometeoroids, keep four humans alive for 21.1 days in space, survive hypersonic reentry on the way down, deploy chutes to slow down, and deploy airbags. And if anything goes wrong anywhere, there's a good chance said humans will be very dead.

All James Cameron's sub has to do is meet pressure vessel code and carry enough breathable oxygen for ~ 2 days, go down, and go up. If anything goes wrong, he can drop the ballast and be at the surface pretty quickly.

[Anonymous No.5363586]

>>5363562
>That doesn't have to happen, you're just being obtuse. You say I cling to layman's opinions but your argument clings to the unfounded opinion that aborts are more costly than this extremely over-engineered solution.

We already pay for the maintenance of 71 nuclear subs in a world with no credible opposing naval power. Converting one into a science sub is a reasonable proposal. It would entail no overall spending increase beyond the one time cost of the modifications. This is a way to leverage excessive military spending towards a positive endeavor.

>Not if they take my opinion which you have no evidence they do not.

No evidence? Did you read the article? They're building a deep sea base that can deploy and recover multiple deep diving submersibles for exactly the reasons I explained. If you want to have a long loiter time and to do daily submersible dives regardless of weather, this is how you do it.

[Anonymous No.5363608]

>>5363579
>No it isn't. Orion's life support tech has to work in zero g.

Yes, it is. The basis of submersible and space capsule life support systems is identical. Compressed oxygen, CO2 scrubbers, rebreathed nitrogen and other constituent gases. Neither relies on gravity to work.

>Aren't we forgetting that orion has to bear intense vibrations on top of rocket

Nothing compared to the pressure of the challenger deep.

>go supersonic on the way up

See above. Also, related to the rocketry aspect.

>have equipment that works in ZERO GODDAMN G

As does the exact same equipment aboard submersibles. It isn't gravity dependent.

>be able to dock with other spacecraft with out destroying them

There are also submersibles which dock to SSGNs. Under significantly more pressure.

[Anonymous No.5363606]

>>5363586
>We already pay for the maintenance of 71 nuclear subs in a world with no credible opposing naval power. Converting one into a science sub is a reasonable proposal. It would entail no overall spending increase beyond the one time cost of the modifications. This is a way to leverage excessive military spending towards a positive endeavor.

You're deflecting. So why keep the submarine why not just build or modify a surface support ship, it would be cheaper than a new pressure hull.

>Did you read the article?
No, if there's a specific quote saying "we plan to operate regardless of weather" I'm sure you can quote it for me. It's not my job to make your argument.

[Anonymous No.5363614]

>work all while be bombarded by deadly space radiation

Inert metal shielding, whoop de fuck. Call me when it holds up at 36,000 feet.

>and micrometeoroids

It doesn't actually have any defense against this. They're fucked if one hits them. Compare that to enduring hundreds of times the pressure differential, with a panoramic transparent cockpit.

>keep four humans alive for 21.1 days in space

Nothing compared to a nuclear submarine's endurance.

>survive hypersonic reentry on the way down

So it's good at falling.

>deploy chutes to slow down, and deploy airbags.

"Advanced parachute technology". Lol. Again, because of the rocketry.

>And if anything goes wrong anywhere, there's a good chance said humans will be very dead.

In all cases, as stated, because of the rocketry aspect.

[Anonymous No.5363633]

>>5363606
>You're deflecting. So why keep the submarine why not just build or modify a surface support ship, it would be cheaper than a new pressure hull.

By all accounts that's the exact rationale behind the sea orbiter. I'm just saying we could do it the same way the Chinese are by sparing one of our 17 SSGNs for science.

>No, if there's a specific quote saying "we plan to operate regardless of weather" I'm sure you can quote it for me. It's not my job to make your argument.

My argument has been made, to a reasonable person's standard.

[Anonymous No.5363640]

>>5363606
>You're deflecting. So why keep the submarine why not just build or modify a surface support ship, it would be cheaper than a new pressure hull.

By all accounts that's the exact rationale behind the sea orbiter. I'm just saying we could do it the same way the Chinese are by sparing one of our 71 SSGNs for science. 70 for military use, 1 for science. Why not? Is 71 the precise number needed to keep enemy navies in check?

>No, if there's a specific quote saying "we plan to operate regardless of weather" I'm sure you can quote it for me. It's not my job to make your argument.

My argument has been made, to a reasonable person's standard.

[Anonymous No.5363648]

>>5363614
>Nothing compared to the pressure of the challenger deep.
Pressure is not the same as vibration.

>Inert metal shielding, whoop de fuck.
When there is a weight limit this doesn't work. Electronics do have to be specially space hardened. This is just ignorant.

>It doesn't actually have any defense against this.
It does, the outer skin of spacesuits and spacecraft is to shield from impacts. It cannot sustain a large impact but it's complete bull to say it cannot take anything, there is a vast range of relative velocities possible in orbit. See shuttle window impact.

>Nothing compared to a nuclear submarine's endurance.
Comparing apples to potatoes. A sub has access to water, from which it can make coolant and air as well as use it for consumption and propulsion.

>So it's good at falling.
>I'll ignore this because I can't compare it to pressure again.

>"Advanced parachute technology"
It is actually, supersonic parachutes for spacecraft are very sophisticated.

And you accuse other people of uninformed arrogance.

[Anonymous No.5363657]

>>5363640
>Why not?
You need to answer "why" when your asking for money.

>My argument has been made, to a reasonable person's standard.
You never made an argument. You claimed it would save money but you couldn't prove it.

[Anonymous No.5363666]

>>5363648
>Pressure is not the same as vibration.

You're right. The amount of pressure we're talking about is an order of magnitude more dangerous than launch vibration.

>When there is a weight limit this doesn't work. Electronics do have to be specially space hardened. This is just ignorant.

As was your claim that rebreather derivative life support was in any way gravity dependent.

>It does, the outer skin of spacesuits and spacecraft is to shield from impacts. It cannot sustain a large impact but it's complete bull to say it cannot take anything, there is a vast range of relative velocities possible in orbit. See shuttle window impact.

And you're seriously comparing this to crafting a mathematically flawless 6 inch thick titanium sphere

>Comparing apples to potatoes. A sub has access to water, from which it can make coolant and air as well as use it for consumption and propulsion.

Indeed, some of the many ways in which it's more technologically sophisticated.

>It is actually, supersonic parachutes for spacecraft are very sophisticated.

They are also related to the rocketry aspect. In my very first post I allowed that any additional cost was due to the need for rockets. We are comparing only the vehicles themselves, omitting the means by which they get to the respective realms in which they operate.

>And you accuse other people of uninformed arrogance.

Says the guy who thought a space capsule's life support system was wholly different from that of a submersible and in some way had to be modified to be gravity independent

[Anonymous No.5363667]

>>5363657
>You need to answer "why" when your asking for money.

Part of the appeal of the proposal is that it uses a military submarine rather than an all new vessel.

>You never made an argument. You claimed it would save money but you couldn't prove it.

At that point I thought we were discussing sea orbiter vs. an A-frame ship.

[Anonymous No.5363676]

>>5363666
>The amount of pressure we're talking about is an order of magnitude more dangerous than launch vibration.
Opinion.

>As was your claim that rebreather derivative life support was in any way gravity dependent.
Not my claim.

>And you're seriously comparing this to crafting a mathematically flawless 6 inch thick titanium sphere
Irrelevant. And it's not "mathematically flawless".

>some of the many ways in which it's more technologically sophisticated.
Comparing apples to oranges. One has access to consumables the other does not.

>Says the guy who thought a space capsule's life support system was wholly different from that of a submersible and in some way had to be modified to be gravity independent
Not me.

[Anonymous No.5363682]

>>5363608
>The basis of submersible and space capsule life support systems is identical
life support on orion also includes taking care of human waste, which is quite difficult in zero g.


>Also, related to the rocketry aspect.
so you are handwaving it away?

>>There are also submersibles which dock to SSGNs.
AH, but cameron's sub CANNOT.

>So it's good at falling.
says someone who has no idea how difficult hypersonic aerodynamics are. When something's going hypersonic, air literally hits it so hard it IONIZES and becomes PLASMA!

[Anonymous No.5363685]

>>5363667
>Part of the appeal of the proposal is that it uses a military submarine rather than an all new vessel.
Why would it make any difference? Why couldn't a surface vehicle be modified.

>At that point I thought we were discussing sea orbiter vs. an A-frame ship.
So you don't have an argument. We were discussing the merits of operating in bad weather, there are none.

[Anonymous No.5363688]

>>5363608
You have no idea what you are talking about.

>The basis of submersible and space capsule life support systems is identical. Compressed oxygen

What? You run a fucking electric current through water and it separates the oxygen and hydrogen, then you piss the hydrogen out of the sail. On deployment we would submerge for literally months at a time. Do you think our O2 tanks were the size of Australia or something?

>Nothing compared to the pressure of the challenger deep

Vibration =/= pressure. How you could think those are comparable is beyond me.

>It isn't gravity dependent

I can think of dozes of devices on board a 688i class sub that rely on gravity. The first that comes to mind would be the moisture separators in the Steam Generators. Without those the impingement would eat up the TGs in minutes.

>There are also submersibles which dock to SSGNs. Under significantly more pressure.

Tiny little vehicles docking with a boat designed specifically for that task. And, again, pressure does not matter when the mother ship is stationary or moving at a constant rate without varying course. Also, SSGN docking/undocking maneuvers do not happen at anywhere near the depth you apparently think they do.

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote. You're a fucking know nothing civilian talking out of his ass, and if you said any of this shit in the presence of a submariner he would slap you in the face with his dick. And you'd deserve it.

[Anonymous No.5363715]

>>5363666
>>Says the guy who thought a space capsule's life support system was wholly different from that of a submersible

It is, or I guess I should say it will be, Orion will be using a new non-consumable scrubber that uses pressure swing absorption instead of the lithium hydroxide scrubbers cameron used.

OH and let's not forget the Orion ECLSS does have to collect water from the air in zero g, a process that's going to be quite a bit different than here on earth.

[Anonymous No.5363726]

>>5363688
>What? You run a fucking electric current through water and it separates the oxygen and hydrogen, then you piss the hydrogen out of the sail. On deployment we would submerge for literally months at a time. Do you think our O2 tanks were the size of Australia or something?

In the post you quote I am talking about submersibles, not submarines. Submersible life support is basically identical to a rebreather.

>You have no idea what you are talking about.

I can see how you'd think that, based on the submersible/submarine misunderstanding. But the error was yours. The rest of your post is based on that misunderstanding, so there's no point in continuing until you read this, realize your mistake, and we're on the same page.

<I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote. You're a fucking know nothing civilian talking out of his ass, and if you said any of this shit in the presence of a submariner he would slap you in the face with his dick. And you'd deserve it

>I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote. You're a fucking know nothing civilian talking out of his ass, and if you said any of this shit in the presence of a submariner he would slap you in the face with his dick. And you'd deserve it.

I'll let this slide. You simply didn't realize I was describing a submersible rather than an SSGN. Understandable. But better not to shoot your mouth off like this in the future until you're certain you haven't misunderstood what is being discussed.

[Anonymous No.5363731]

>>5363715
>It is, or I guess I should say it will be, Orion will be using a new non-consumable scrubber that uses pressure swing absorption instead of the lithium hydroxide scrubbers cameron used.

The scrubbers on every submersible I have ever piloted or worked on forced recirculated air through a cartridge of sodasorb. It did not matter what orientation it was in. I can see you're searching for some scenario in which you can remain technically correct. There's no need. Fighting is tiresome. It was never necessary to hurl shit. Space capsules are cool. Submersibles are cool. Can we agree on that and discuss the finer points of each like adults?

[Anonymous No.5363750]

>>5363726
Oh, of course! You were talking about submersibles, like you have any fucking clue how those work. Let me guess, when it comes to submersible design, vibration and pressure are functionally the same thing, right? But, hey silly me for not realizing that your space ship will be operating with a massive mother-ship tethered to it, for no more than a few days at a time right?

You're still an idiot fucking civilian talking out of his ass.

[Anonymous No.5363754]

>>5363750
>Oh, of course! You were talking about submersibles, like you have any fucking clue how those work.

Indeed, I do. I own and operate one which I built myself.

>Let me guess, when it comes to submersible design, vibration and pressure are functionally the same thing, right?

No, and I never said this. What I did say is that the engineering requirements for enduring the pressure at the bottom of the marianas trench exceed in complexity the engineering requirements for enduring launch vibration.

>But, hey silly me for not realizing that your space ship will be operating with a massive mother-ship tethered to it, for no more than a few days at a time right?

Pardon?

>You're still an idiot fucking civilian talking out of his ass.

I think I was a pretty good sport about that part where you wasted everyone's time by confusing submersibles with submarines.

[Anonymous No.5363759]

>>5363731
>>sodasorb
now therein lies the difference. Sodasorb is consumable, it chemically reacts with CO2 to remove it.
Consumables are expensive on space missions, so NASA has decided to eliminate them and use a pressure swing absorption process to remove CO2 wherein the only thing consumed is energy.

I acknowledge that the scrubbing system is gravity independent while the moisture removal system is not.

[Anonymous No.5363786]

>>5363759
>I acknowledge that the scrubbing system is gravity independent while the moisture removal system is not.

A breakthrough. And I acknowledge there are a great many systems required in zero gravity which are not in a submersible. It is still my possibly subjective opinion that the engineering requirements, in particular the design and forging of the pressure hull but also things like thermally managing a lithium battery pack in an extremely cold and thermally conductive environment are at least on par with if not in excess of those involved in engineering a space capsule, so long as the complexity of actually getting it into or back from space are left out.

Both are very near the apex of current technology where sustaining human life in extreme environments is concerned. I don't know how quibbling over which is marginally closer to that apex escalated to this point but I have no taste for that kind of ugliness and hope we can keep it out of discussion from this point on.

[Anonymous No.5363797]

>>5363786
>>things like thermally managing a lithium battery pack in an extremely cold and thermally conductive environment
Ah, but that simplifies your battery protection system requirements quite a bit. One of the biggest problems with lithium batteries is how to remove the heat they generate. Cold water simplifies things quite a bit.

[Anonymous No.5363808]

>>5363797
>Cold water simplifies things quite a bit.

I've just stuck my neck out in an attempt to broker a peace between us. Do you really want to keep this up?

[Anonymous No.5363814]

I hate sea explo versus space explo threads. It's like watching two best friends fight. You want both to win. You want neither to lose. But because they compete for funding it seems impossible for there to be frictionless coexistence especially when the funding levels are already so asymmetric.

[Anonymous No.5363854]

>>5363423
You're dumb, I never claimed to be anything.
Next question.
What exactly are you a specialist in, and what makes you particularly qualified to know what a scientific research vessel of this type would require?

[Anonymous No.5363862]

To at least kind of get back to the original topic. The biggest reason nuclear submarines are used in the first place is for stealth reasons. Diesels engines are loud as balls, and you have to surface to use them. A researcher just doesn't need the longevity or the stealth of a nuke sub. And if they do, then they might just need to make a few trips.

Also, there are the logistical and funding problems associated with crewing a submarine with a nuclear reactor. Especially since it isn't common practice to have them on research subs, that means there isn't consistent work for the people running the reactor. How often would something like that really get used anyway? Unless of course a research firm really wants to continue to pay a submarine crew year round, whether they are working or not.

[Anonymous No.5363887]

>>5363814

The way I see it, space exploration is extremely promising in the long term, less so in the short term. And undersea exploration is exactly the opposite.

Space is inarguably the future of humanity, but for right now, we're dicking around in low earth orbit doing the same old microgravity experiments on plants and worms in a 150 billion dollar space station many times larger than needed for that. Meanwhile our only underwater lab which was only the size of the ISS's Destiny module, which was invaluable for longterm study of coral decline as it relates to oceanic acidification, was recently shut down to save 3 million a year.

So while I recognize that space is our destiny, prioritizing it so completely over ocean exploration in the near term is the wrong path. Especially when it involves defunding one entirely. There's a lot of amazing stuff in our oceans waiting to be found, let's put at least SOME funding towards it.

[Anonymous No.5363888]

>>5363431
>1 in 500 chance humans could go extinct in the next century
I don't know where you got this shitty soundbite, but yes I am very aware of mankind's ability to destroy itself at any moment.
What I don't get is how space exploration is supposed to solve this problem.
>Dyson sphere
Just fuck you, this is so unbelievably impossible and pointless for anyone that matters right now.
>space colonies
Do you know how difficult it would be to create a completely self-sustainable colony in outer space? Practically impossible. Human beings are animals that require solid ground, there are certain things they just couldn't produce in space for extended periods (talking generations), eventually (and very quickly) they would run out of some resource or another. Transportation costs would be exorbitant, and that defeats the whole purpose of a self-sustaining colony anyway. It just can't be done, at least not now or within anyone who's living's lifetime. So it's impractical to even try. It will only result in the death and/or suffering of whoever chose to become involved.
A colony on another world doesn't mean immediate survival for the human race. Have you even considered the ramifications of placing a species that evolved on one world on a completely alien world? Biology is pretty resilient, but it isn't that resilient, it can be very fragile. You would need to sustain a population of hundreds, if not thousands to ensure enough genetic diversity to carry on the human race.

>economic benefits of moving up the kardashev scale
Are you currently employed, do you know how the economy works? I mean your ideas are cool and all, but it would just be foolish to expect to see any of this happen within our lifetime. I'm not opposed to these ideas, I'm just opposed to people wanting to spend a lot of time and money on them now when greater problems exist.

[Anonymous No.5363894]

>>5363862
Good point. There would be no reason for any company to fund a nuclear sub to be running at all times, the cost outweighs any immediate benefit. It's more cost-effective to wait until someone else does all the hard work.
Also, the UN won't even let Iran have nuclear energy, do you think they are going to be cool with some mad scientists having it? Probably not (agreeing and expanding on your points, not trying to argue).

[Anonymous No.5363899]

>>5363887
This man said it. Space is something we can work on later, but the sheer disinterest in the oceans is really quite an idiotic waste of resources.
Space is like the cool jock football team everyone likes that gets all the school's funding, while the ocean is like the lowly tennis team that only has one racket.

[Anonymous No.5363903]

>>5363862
>How often would something like that really get used anyway? Unless of course a research firm really wants to continue to pay a submarine crew year round, whether they are working or not.

...You mean like the military already does, for our fleet of nuclear submarines? I'd wager we'll find more frequent reasons to use one for science, than for submarine warfare.

>5363894
>Also, the UN won't even let Iran have nuclear energy, do you think they are going to be cool with some mad scientists having it? Probably not

It would be government owned and operated.

[Anonymous No.5363911]

>>5363903
Entire reason for nuclear subs is mutually assured destruction. If we get nuked, we gotta nuke back. Nothing can get funding better than fear. Unfortunately, science isn't based on fear... yet.
It would have to be a government the international community trusts. That excludes basically anyone except western nations, which can't even find funding for things like NASA which everyone jerks off to every night.

[Anonymous No.5363921]

You don't get the reason why the navy uses nuke subs, bro. Nuclear deterent. IF the united states got nuked for instance. People can stop nukes that come from stationary silos. They'll see those sons of bitches coming from a continent away. (literally)

However, they can't do shit about submarines. They pop up right the shit next to their countries, and they blow them into fucking oblivion. As long as our subs are out there skulking around not doing anything, nukes are off the table for offensive purposes. That's why everyone was freaking out during the cuban missile crises. If Russia put nukes there, we couldn't do shit to stop them before they hit a major city. Our nuke subs are like that... but more politically acceptable. (international waters are pretty bitchin)

[Anonymous No.5363925]

>"I think you know why I've called you both before me. To grovel for funding. Space guy you go first"
>"We found more red rocks on Mars"
>"FUCKING INCREDIBLE!!! Shit, ocean guy, that's going to be a hard act to follow. Whaddya got?"
>"We found a biologically immortal jellyfish capable of de-aging to a juvenile sta-"
>"Is it an alien jellyfish?"
>"..W...Well no, but we could develop longevity drugs based o-"
>"Ocean, why. Why do you waste my time like this. Space guy?"
>"Yeah?"
>"I'm giving you ocean guy's funding."
>"With this, I can confirm again that there used to be water on Mars, with 1% additional certainty than before"
>"And that's why you're my golden boy. Ocean guy, are you still here? Leave already, it hurts to look at you."
>"B...but climate change affects the oceans, we rely on fish stocks f-"
>"MNYEH MNYEH CLYMUHT CHAYNGE, MUH OSHUNS. That's what you sound like. Space guy, let's hear a plan for putting humans on Mars so they can find red rocks, instead of letting robots hog all that glory."

[Anonymous No.5363936]

>>5363925
10/10, would publish in respectable scientific journals

[Anonymous No.5363940]

>>5363286
Why would anyone want to live underwater? As if fear of drowning wasnt enough, you have to be scared maybe a little crack will happen, then the entire weight of the ocean just came crashing through

[Anonymous No.5363944]

>>5363940

>Why would anyone want to live underwater?

Pic related

>As if fear of drowning wasnt enough, you have to be scared maybe a little crack will happen, then the entire weight of the ocean just came crashing through

It would be in no more than 100 feet of water. There's no rule saying you'd have to live on the absolute bottom. It could even hover with neutral buoyancy.