
Richard Branson Announces Virgin Oceanic Submarine  - bakbak
http://www.dailytech.com/Richard+Branson+Announces+Virgin+Oceanic+Submarine+/article21307.htm
======
podperson
I'm amazed the basic underlying idea (which I believe the designer has been
working on for some time) has taken so long to get real traction. In essence,
the submarine is an underwater "airplane" that uses the principle of "lift" to
go down (so if its engine fails it "falls" to the surface). This means no
ballast tanks and a very simple, robust design (mechanical stuff outside the
bubble; life support and people inside).

Oddly enough the only reason I know anything about this subject is that back
in 1997 I was working as a game designer working on a "Tomb Raider"-like game
but with the emphasis on the underwater gameplay (I thought Tomb Raider's
underwater stuff was a huge missed opportunity, since I found the few
underwater bits the most scary and tense).

Researching the back story I looked into what was happening in submarine
design (a field that doesn't get a huge amount of coverage, even among geeks)
and found out about these underwater "planes" and some stuff the US Navy was
experimenting with (i.e. a modified Los Angeles class submarine that could
launch armed drone subs, which is a brilliant idea since the most dangerous
thing an attack sub can do in combat is launch a torpedo).

Again -- funny how slow progress seems to be in subs compared to everything
else.

~~~
krschultz
Actually, that idea is employed by every single US Navy (and I assume their
foreign counterpart) submarine. The bow & stern planes combined with forward
motion do almost all of the up and down depth control after you are under
water. The ballast tanks are only really for changing whether you are a
surface ship or a submerged ship.

The main disadvantage of not having ballast tanks is that on the surface, you
won't float that high (I assume you will be slightly positively buoyant,
because requiring power to get back to the surface is crazy, and perfectly
neutral buoyancy is nearly impossible to achieve). This doesn't matter for a
little thing with a tender, but for anything on its own, I'd rather float a
little higher. Also, you have to keep moving to keep lift up. That just
doesn't make sense for a boat that you spend a lot of time stalking around
with as much stealth as possible.

As for "the most dangerous thing an attack sub can do in combat is launch a
torpedo", that's just not true. The majority of the missiles launched against
Libya this month came from US subs (SSGN). And there are a lot of capabilities
that are secret or borderline secret. Check out "Dark Waters" and "Blind Man's
Bluff". Also <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dds.htm>

~~~
podperson
You're wrong on both counts.

The sub design in question has no ballast tanks. It literally "flies" downward
and "sinks" to the surface. No navy subs (at least non-classified subs) do
this. Not having ballast tanks is a huge design advantage.

Firing missiles from a Sub against a low tech country with no navy to speak of
is hardly a combat situation. In naval combat the only thing subs are really
afraid of is other subs and aircraft, and the best way to give up your
position is to fire a torpedo.

~~~
krschultz
Not having a ballast tank is decidedly NOT a huge design advantage for a
military sub, because to stay under the surface you have to keep moving at a
certain rate of speed. That is not a desirable trait when your primary goal is
to be stealthy.

It IS a great design advantage for non-military subs when your primary goal is
to be safe.

The concept is not exactly earth shatteringly new, I've seen concepts of it
from navy contractors for decades, the Navy just has no use for one.

For surviving, yes, the only thing can kill a sub is a ship or airplane. How
for succesfully completing a mission usually the goal is to remain undetected.
That is certainly harder to do.

------
keiferski
This is why you should aspire to make it big. Not so you can buy a jet and
fancy cars, but to go on awesome adventures and push the definition of "what's
possible."

Or maybe I just admire Richard Branson _a little too much_.

~~~
akozak
This is the frustrating thing about most modern billionaires. They're so...
boring and conventional.

I'd much rather Zuckerberg took those millions he dumped into New Jersey
public schools and built a spaceship that billions of kids around the world
could watch fly into space.

I mean, yea Bill Gates malaria is important to solve, but can't you do that
AND build a totally sweet space station?

~~~
oldstrangers
Another Microsoft billionaire, Paul Allen, has done some pretty cool space
related things like SpaceShipOne.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne>

------
storborg
The first and only two humans to visit the Challenger Deep did so in 1960, and
in recent years not a single submersible has existed that's rated for that
depth. We, as a species, have not gone back since. In contrast, twelve humans
have walked on the surface of the moon.

Now we're finally going back! This is so cool!

------
fryguy
I've always wondered why they continue building submarines instead of ROVs.
I'm a little bit biased as I work for an ROV company, but it seems silly that
you'd go down so deep (somewhat "dangerously" as well) for the experience of
breathing bad air in a cramped smelly place to look out of a tiny window
(since glass/plastic has to be ridiculously thick to have 1 atmosphere at
those extreme depths) or video cameras, when you could do the same thing from
the surface on a boat. Perhaps this technology is significantly better than
the manned vessels they used during the Titanic recovery (where these stories
of the manned exploration that deep come from), but it doesn't make sense to
me. I suppose there's the whole "I got to experience it" thing, like people
that want to go to space have, but it's not quite the same thing.

~~~
bradleyjoyce
the human desire to explore and "be there" is very powerful and in most cases
of pushing the envelop of exploration, wins out over logic.

------
RyanMcGreal
Richard Branson reminds me of a robber-baron hero from a Robert A. Heinlein
novel.

~~~
jerf
I am also thinking Captain Nemo from Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, or
his updated compatriot Hagbard Celine from the Illuminatus! trilogy.

Somewhat more seriously, this is an interesting turn in events when compared
to space policy too. We have conquered the land of Earth. The remaining
frontiers are the sea, and space. In both cases our governments appear to have
spent themselves, but private investment in space is becoming a serious force
to be reckoned with, and now we get this article about a serious foray into
the ocean by a private company. It makes me seriously wonder if a new Age of
Exploration isn't about to open up again.

~~~
wtracy
We've had plenty of forays into the ocean by private oil companies:
[http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/11/mile-and-half-
deep-...](http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/11/mile-and-half-deep-
submersible.html)

This is much more inspiring, though.

------
leif
Still waiting for Virgin Historic.

~~~
mkramlich
That would require him to fund the development of a time machine.

Or perhaps it has already happened.

------
ChuckMcM
Surprised nobody has yet to mention US Submarines[1] their Phoenix 1000 design
[2] would be (if anyone ever bought one) the largest personally owned undersea
craft, and a helluva an RV. There was a BBC documentary on a guy who built a
nominal atmosphere submarine that could go down 1000' (300 meters).

[1] <http://www.ussubmarines.com/submarines/luxury.php3> [2]
<http://www.ussubmarines.com/submarines/phoenix_1000.php3>

------
ck2
_"The Virgin Oceanic sub has the ability to 'fly' underwater for 10 km at
depth on each of the five dives and to fully explore this unknown
environment."_

Sounds like something out of Seaquest (anyone remember that show, lol)

<http://google.com/images?q=seaquest+stinger>

------
riffraff
before reading I thought this was some new virgin-branded enterprise. As in, I
already had the wallet in my hands to book a trip.

------
epynonymous
not a huge fan of richard branson, but i think what he's doing is pretty cool
even though this won't be affordable anytime soon for the layman. think about
it, the earth is 75% water and most of that has been unexplored (except for
deep sea drilling), and here we are exploring space when so much under our
nose is unexplored.

------
karanr
I <3 Branson!

