
James Cameron's entirely new submarine - terhechte
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/earth/james-camerons-rocket-plunge-to-the-planets-deepest-recess.html?_r=1&hp
======
andrewjshults
While it's not a submarine, the FLIPresearch vessel is an interesting example
of laying out a sea going vessel in a vertical manner
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP> and
[http://worldphotocollections.blogspot.com/2009/06/flipping-s...](http://worldphotocollections.blogspot.com/2009/06/flipping-
ship-amazing-photos.html)). In the case of the FLIP, the idea is to provide an
ultra stable platform by putting the majority of the ship underwater. It's
quite the spectacle to see it look like it's capsizing and then just continue
to sit there once it has gone vertical.

~~~
eps
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YI3c_sGocc> \- 1 min video of the actual
flip.

------
psykotic
> He is to cram his 6-foot-2 frame into a personnel sphere just 43 inches
> wide, forcing him to keep his knees bent and his body largely immobile. The
> dive plan calls for him to remain in that position for up to nine hours.

My heartfelt sympathies go out to Cameron--it sounds like riding coach on a
transcontinental flight.

------
ry0ohki
The Nereus has already been down there unmanned:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nereus_(underwater_vehicle)>

If you are wondering what it saw there are some videos here:
<http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=33775>

------
asdkl234890
_and announced plans to ride it solo into the planet’s deepest recess_

Why? What can he do _in_ the sub, that he couldn't do remotely? Nothing
obviously, he wants to be in the sub, because he wants to be in the sub.

~~~
ctdonath
Be there.

~~~
DrStalker
If he digs a hole while he is down there then he can set a new world depth
record.

~~~
jholman
I don't think so. The depth record for an artificial hole is held by the Kola
Superdeep Borehole. It reached a depth of 12,262m (relative, presumably, to
ground level).

The lowest known point in the Challenger Deep is 10,911m below sea level.

Unless they started 1350m or so above sea level, he's gonna hafta do some
serious digging down there to make up the difference.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_superdeep_borehole>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Earth>

~~~
deathwarmedover
Wikipedia seems to indicate that the Kola superdeep borehole has since been
surpassed in 2008 and 2011 by oil drilling operations. The current record
holder is Sakhalin-I at 12,345 meters:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I>

~~~
jholman
In fact, if you read that article more carefully, you'll find you're not
reading the relevant part of that article.

The Kola Superdeep Borehole set two records: deepest point reached, and
longest borehole. The latter record was, as you say, surpassed twice by oil
operations. But if you look at the context of the comment I was replying to,
it's clear that Dr Stalker was talking about deepest point reached (surely no
one thinks Cameron could dig a multiple-kilometer hole from his submarine).
And so it is the deepest-point-reached record that is relevant, which was not
surpassed by oil operations. This is because those oil boreholes are diagonal,
with a large horizontal component.

Also, based on the information I could find, I don't actually know how deep
the KSB is, relative to sea level, because I don't know what altitude its
"ground level" is, and all the depth measurements I could find are relative to
ground level.

------
samstave
Regardless of what one may think of his movies; this is bad ass.

I am surprised that there is not a fleet of autonomous subs roving the ocean
floor and mapping it which belong to Google.

Or any other body for that matter.

Seems like it would be a good idea to make small, unmanned subs that "roomba"
the ocean floor collecting data, mapping and taking video and pics.

They should surface whenever their batteries run low, solar re-charge and
upload their data.

His website is pretty cool too.

<http://deepseachallenge.com/>

~~~
tomjen3
Google would totally build those as soon as they find a way to sell ads to
angler fish (I am betting there is a market for dating services, at least for
male angler fish).

At the moment though there doesn't seem any reason to do that.

~~~
polyfractal
Obligatory link to The Oatmeal's angler fish comic:

 _"How the male angler fish gets completely screwed"_

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler>

------
alaskamiller
Yesterday we had a love fest over Elon Musk, but I for one always thought
James Cameron's sidetrack into deep sea exploration to be really, really
awesome.

We know more about the moon than our own deep seas. Chilling in a Martian
greenhouse is cool but meeting the Bloop is cooler.

------
ck2
James Cameron is going to personally descend 6.8 miles under water?

I sure hope he comes back, I'd like to see Avatar 2.

They need to come up with a brilliant way to make the water pressure work
against itself to keep the hull intact.

Otherwise gravity always wins.

~~~
danssig
>I sure hope he comes back, I'd like to see Avatar 2.

Why do we need more sequels? Wouldn't you rather see him make something new?
And if you truly want a stupid Hollywood Sequel you probably have a better
chance if he _doesn't_ come back.

~~~
sukuriant
You know, you're absolutely right. Terminator 2 was a terrible movie.

Not all sequels, especially when they're in the hands of James Cameron, are
bad.

And yes, I'd like to see Avatar 2, as well.

------
mrsebastian
More info on the tech behind Cameron's submarine:
[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/121183-the-tech-that-
will...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/121183-the-tech-that-will-help-
james-cameron-win-his-race-to-the-bottom-of-the-ocean)

------
drucken
"The Abyss"? James Cameron literally takes it to another level...

Anyone know if there is any additional risk of decompression sickness or other
health issues merely from the speed of descent/ascent?

~~~
joshAg
Almost certainly not since the submarine is pressurized, just like how an
airplane is.

~~~
sopooneo
So it starts out at as high a pressure as it will end up at the bottom?
Because of course the problems of pressure are reversed in deep sea submersion
as compared to high altitude flight. You have to pressurize a plane, the
submarine will pressurize itself.

~~~
fleitz
No. Airplanes are not air tight therefore they require pressurization.
Submarines are air tight therefore no pressurization is required.

If the air in a submarine starts to 'pressurize' the last thing you're worried
about is the bends. In a pressurization event on board a submarine you're
going to be far more worried about how to get the ocean out.

The other issue is that when the air pressurizes it heats up almost instantly,
it's generally believed that a large leak in a sub would create a wall of
flame.

~~~
D_Alex
"it's generally believed that a large leak in a sub would create a wall of
flame."

What complete and utter rubbish. Please provide a single reference for this
"general belief". Or better still, apologise for posting crap.

Air, and gases generally, do heat up when compressed adiabatically (without
exchange of heat with surroundings). But filling half the sub with water -
that's a large leak, right? - and hence doubling the pressure would only
produce about a 60 degree increase in temperature - not quite enough for a
wall of flame eh? - _if_ no heat was lost from the air to such things as jets
of cold water entering the sub in this scenario.

~~~
joshAg
<http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-122838.html>

"When the hull of a sub fails, it normally fails ni one location, and water
shoots in through that spot, relieving the stress on the rest of the
structure. That's why all the wrecks you see in video from actual crash sites
look so intact.

Of course, the inrush of water also has the effect of rapidly pressurizing the
inside of the sub 'till it matches external pressure. This rapid compression
of the air inside has the effect of drastically raising the temperature, so
what the victems inside probably see is an explosion (big wall of flame
rushing through the inside)."

"Interesting point. Since compression is quick, it is adiabatic, PV^\gamma = K
applies. So if the pressure doubles, the volume of air reduces to .6 of its
original volume the temperature will increase by a factor of 1.2 (eg from 300K
to 360 K) which is pretty warm but not enough to ignite anything. When the
wall of water has consumed 80% of the volume, the temperature is up to 570 K
(300 C). So the sailors at the end of the sub watching the oncoming wall of
water get fried before they drown."

~~~
D_Alex
Well... I admit to being surprised that you found anything at all in support
of that claim. But one post, one reply on a forum filled with misinformation
does not constitute "generally believed".

~~~
joshAg
"In a modern submarine, where crush depth is likely to be deeper than
1,000/2,000 feet, the hull is likely to implode, collapsing completely. In the
process, the air inside the hull is compressed very rapidly, raising the
internal temperature by several hundred degrees. Everything flammable inside,
including the crew, is incinerated in the fraction of a second before the
water rushes in to crush what's left. It is, indeed, believed to be very fast,
probably faster than anyone aboard would be able to comprehend. You would
simply and instantly go from being alive and wondering when it was going to
happen to being dead and not knowing it had."

"With the rapid compression of the air, there would be a simultaneous step
rise in both pressure and temperature. The air pressure would rapidly
approach, but not exceed, the water pressure. The temperature would, of
course, be proportional to the air pressure, but what the actual numbers are I
am not certain. I am not sure one way or the other whether they would raise to
the point of combustion, but I agree that it’s possible. In any case, they
would be high enough to cause severe burning of the exposed body surfaces. Of
course, the body would also experience the effects of the sudden high
pressurization, resulting in burst eardrums, a ruptured body, perhaps cracking
of the skull (which under a pressure increase of the rapidity would be like
it’s own pressure-tight space, just as would the main body), the eyes would
probably burst (implode), and there would probably be bursting of many blood
vessels. Of course, both any burning effect, already mentioned, and the result
of a rapid pressure impulse on the body would both be in a fractional second.
Loss of consciousness and death would be near instantaneous, as you state. I
can see perhaps enough of a window for the body and conscious to experience
perhaps a very brief moment of thought and sensation, but if there is any at
all, it would be exceedingly brief.

Given what we know from actual hull crushes (and I’m sure that someone knows
waaaaay more than I do since I’m just going by what we learned as part of
being nuclear submariners), the entire submarine would not necessarily crush
all at once. One example is the Golf-class submarine that we recovered from
the Pacific floor as part of our espionage operations (Howard Hughes’ Glomar
Explorer, etc.) Though we only recovered about the front third of that
submariner, we obtained about two thirds of the interior works, since the
submarine breached at some point in the rear and the pressure surge slammed
the interior forward. A second example is the U.S.S. Scorpion, our nuclear SSN
which was lost in the Atlantic in 1967. We believe that we captured on sound
detection devices the sequential collapse of pressure-tight bulkheads as it
crushed, indicating that the hull breached to sea pressure at some point
(certainly the bow compartment based on the cause for sinking) and then as the
boat sank and the rising sea pressure exceeded the strength of the bulkheads
they collapsed in turn from forward to aft. Of course, in this case, each
compartment is acting as its own pressure-tight space. In both submarine
cases, of course, the indication is that the whole sub did not crush all at
once, but experience hull failure at one point, and then had a pressure wave
travel inside the boat. (While it’s horrifying to consider, there is a good
likelihood that the men in the rear-most compartment of the Scorpion heard the
collapsing of the forward bulkheads before the engine room bulkhead failed.)
Given the experience of the Soviet sub, we also know that the forces are
strong enough to rip machinery from it’s mounts and move it, so this adds the
final event on the bodies inside the sub, as they are mutilated in varying
ways as they are caught in both the movement and crunch of machinery and/or
collapsing bulkheads or the hull."

" Theoretically, temperature rise during compression is given by:

T2/T1=(P2/P1)^((n-1)/n)) where n is about 1.3 for air.

If we start at 70F, T1= 530 R (degrees Rankine). P1 = 1 atmosphere P2 = 2000
ft water = 867 psi = 59.4 atm

We have:

T2/530 = (59.4)^(1.3-1)/1.3)

T2 = 530 _(59.4)^(0.231) T2 = 530_ 2.57 = 1362 deg R = 901 deg F

Hot indeed!"

[http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/phorum/read.php?f=5&i=20&#...</a><p>"I've heard
speculation that the implosion would be similar to what happens when you set
off a bomb calorimeter, in which the extreme pressure rise would heat up the
internal atmosphere to the point that combustible materials would be
incinerated as the water rushed in.<p>For illustration purposes, it can be
calculated that a hole in the submarine's hull of just 1-foot diameter (at a
depth of 800 feet) would fill the associated compartment in just a few
seconds. Larger hull ruptures would flood the submarine essentially
instantaneously."<p><a
href="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=553491"
rel="nofollow">http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=553491</a><p>"The
myth that I heard a number of times when I was in the Navy was that the air in
the sub will actually detonate due to the sudden increase in pressure which
causes it to heat rapidly, and the crew will die from the ensuing firestorm
long before they get a chance to die from drowning or the pressure."<p>"The
"long before" comment was considering that all the things that are going to
happen to you in this scenario are going to happen pretty quick. But the
implosion will be ship-wide since the hull is likely to give way in more than
one location and, LA class subs at least, effectively have only one
compartment with people inside (there are actually 2 but the door is usually
open). The pressure will be felt throughout the ship at the same time and
therefore the fire will happen ship-wide as well."<p><a
href="http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/2561929069"
rel="nofollow">http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776...</a>

------
ChuckMcM
Very cool. I particularly like technologists which don't 'buy' the party line
when it comes to how things are done. The foam story is a good one.

------
leeoniya
i think it's interesting to see how the latest fad of successful public
figures is it to take on pushing human exploration / travel. John Carmack has
his Armadillo Aerospace...

~~~
sp332
And also has the initials J.C. hm...

~~~
romland
Pfft, downvoted? Cruel. It wasn't just your average meme. I giggled :)

------
sargun
What's great is how much of this tech is going to the open market. The foam
that's being used for this is already on the open market. It's really an ideal
model of how private research can help our society as a whole.

------
arjn
This is good but IMHO he would be much safer in a spherical sub. I suppose the
problem may be with having large enough viewports in a spherical vehicle.

~~~
learc83
The pilot does sit in a sphere. It's just like the _Trieste_ ; it's not
possible to make a sphere that is strong enough to withstand the pressure and
light enough to remain buoyant. To solve this they attach the sphere to a
larger buoyant vessel.

The non-spherical part of the _Trieste_ was filled with gasoline for buoyancy,
this submersible uses some kind of high density foam.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Hm. I would imagine the foam is high strength, but low density.

High density would kind of defeat the purpose.

~~~
learc83
The foam can be high density and still be less dense than water. They would
have to use foam that wasn't easily compressed or the structure would collapse
from the pressure.

edit--I just checked, the type of foam used ranges from about 20 to 45
lbs/ft³. That qualifies as high density.

~~~
jholman
Since I was curious about the relative densities, I looked it up and asked
Google to convert to your archaic units. Water, at -30C, is around 60 lbs/ft³,
so indeed the foam is denser.

I was _going_ to claim that water is denser still, way down deep in the ocean.
But I thought I'd check it out first, and although I'm not well-educated
enough to understand the important parts of phrases like "At 0 °C, at the
limit of zero pressure, the compressibility is 5.1×10−10 Pa−1", I can
understand this phrase: "The low compressibility of water means that even in
the deep oceans at 4 km depth, where pressures are 40 MPa, there is only a
1.8% decrease in volume."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_water_and_ice)

~~~
prewett
Why -30C? I'd be really surprised if the bottom of the ocean were much below
4C, since that's the greatest density (62.4 lbs/ft^3), see [1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water> (see sidebar)

~~~
jholman
Oh, my bad. I misrecalled a detail from the featured article, thinking it had
claimed that temperatures were very very low, so I picked the lowest
temperature in that sidebar as a rough approximation. Actually, TFA says "near
freezing", which certainly much closer to 4C than to -30C.

Silly me.

------
eps
The project's website - <http://deepseachallenge.com> \- truly fascinating
stuff

------
funthree
I bet he'll do some great filming down there. He might make an awesome deep
sea documentary

~~~
Devilboy
I'd pay to see that

------
indubitably
"He is to cram his 6-foot-2 frame into a personnel sphere just 43 inches wide,
forcing him to keep his knees bent and his body largely immobile. The dive
plan calls for him to remain in that position for up to nine hours."

Thanks no.

