Re:Missing Titanic Sub Faced Lawsuit over Depths It Could Sa...
by oliveshell on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @04:36AM
(#36415968)
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
Apparently the idea was that a lighter sub could be more easily and cheaply deployed around the world without needing to rely on a large, expensive support ship with heavy-lift capabilities. [1]
Basically, it was a cost-cutting measure.
1: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/worlds-first-deep-...
Re:Missing Titanic Sub Faced Lawsuit over Depths It Could Sa...
by tim333 on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @08:31AM
(#36417639)
I was thinking about that but a steel sub can only really weigh as much as the same volume of water which probably limits things if you are going to 4000m. Too much weight and it'd sink like a stone.
Re:Missing Titanic Sub Faced Lawsuit over Depths It Could Sa...
by civilitty on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @08:33AM
(#36417650)
> The advantage of CF is low weight. But who cares what a submarine weighs?
The heavier a sub is the bigger the ballast tanks have to be to compensate and the more energy is wasted on moving it, just like any other powered vehicle.
Re:Missing Titanic Sub Faced Lawsuit over Depths It Could Sa...
by zardo on Thursday June 22, 2023 @11:27AM
(#36433631)
Do they even have ballast tanks? I saw mention of steel ballast they drop at the bottom.
The biggest benefit of reduced weight on this thing would be minimizing the size of the crane and surface vessel needed to deploy and recover it.
The advantage of CF is low weight. But who cares what a submarine weighs?
Some of the articles about it's construction indicate that many of the engineers were aerospace engineers.
I wouldn't want a submarine engineer designing a plane, and vice versa.