Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Toys

Build Your Own Submarine 170

Nerobro writes "There's a group of geeks out there who are bound and determined to build their own submarines. In fact, there's a large group who have been successful. The most interesting is Cartsen Standfuss's CSSX-1. There is a mailing list, owners group and sizeable archive of information at psubs.org."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Build Your Own Submarine

Comments Filter:
  • by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:08AM (#5342405)
    they don't build their own coffins too.

    This is more dangerous than home built aircraft.

    • I'm travelling to the US. This should make me feel 'secure'.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        MS version: Get SubXP from the store. DOWNGRADE (we're talking submarines, remember) it with SP2. BSD : (Berkley Submarine Divn) Assemble the parts under water. Linux version : AskSlashdot.
    • by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:30AM (#5342460) Journal
      This is more dangerous than home built aircraft.

      Seriously, if your life insurance company finds out that you're making and sailing homemade submarines, you're going to get dropped like a hot potato.
    • I don't see how this can be more dangerous than building your own airplane. There seem to be a lot of things that can lead to a disaster in an airplane. If you have a well-tested system on the submarine, that would enable you to float to the surface, you are reasonable safe. You don't have to worry about stall speed, instability recovery from spin, landing behaviour, etc.
      • Well, just remember:

        There are more planes in the sea than subs in the sky.

      • by reality-bytes ( 119275 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:39AM (#5343341) Homepage
        Structural failure leading to implosion!

        Even at just 100 meters depth, you don't get much warning of a hull failure. One buckled plate becomes a total breach in about 1 second.

        Deeper than 100 meters, I'm told that the water entering a breached hull hits you rather like a steam-hammer with most unpleasant results.

        These things are great so long as you keep positive pressure (the difference between tin-can and crushed tin-can). However, keeping that pressure is probably defined as a 'blood-difficult' thing.
        An automatic buyancy system is a great thing to have in an emergency unless the only thing it drags back to the surface is submariner soup

        Fair play to this guy for having a go; he's definately got guts. I seem to remember that Germans used to be rather good at building these things.

        As for homebuilt aircraft, barring structural failure, in an emergency you tend to have one major thing on your side: Time
        • Please note that 100 meters is roughly 300 ft or so. These depths were "challenge" even for WWII submersibles, and those beast were after all advanced.

          If I'm not much mistaken, German type VII (the thing that Joe Sixpack associates with u-boat) u-boats were rated up to 90 meters. After that, it wass "off the warranty".

          I would think twice before going below 10 meters (30 ft), for escape could get very tricky, if not impossible.
          • Please note that 100 meters is roughly 300 ft or so. These depths were "challenge" even for WWII submersibles, and those beast were after all advanced.


            Two points here: 1) the diameter of the cylinder dramatically effects the crush depth. 2) They have been vast improvements in steel working, producing steel that is many many many times strong that steel in 1945.


            I would think twice before going below 10 meters (30 ft), for escape could get very tricky, if not impossible.


            Small subs carry bail out gas, if the people in the sub have to leave the vessel they will pressurize the sub so it the same pressure as the outside water, then they can easily open the hatch and return to the surface. Some submarines allow you to do this and go scuba diving (up to a certain depth) then return to the submarine (of course it's flooded so you've gotta have some way of emptying it, either high pressure air or a pump).

            • "If the people in the sub have to leave the vessel they will pressurize the sub so it the same pressure as the outside water, then they can easily open the hatch and return to the surface."

              The technique for escaping a submarine in an emergency is to flood the compartment you are in so that you can open the hatch and swim out (breathing out to the surface to avoid lung-rupture).

              For safety, submarine hatches (much like ship deck-hatches) are outward openers to avoid accidental flooding (water-pressure holds them shut). Thats why on a military submarine they are so fanatical about torpedo-loading with repeated tube-cock checks etc.
              To pressurize a sub to match water pressure with air would be extremely dangerous if done in a hurry and the air would become poisonous; to breathe under pressure at depth (Deephabs) you have to be slowly pressurised with exotic gases. Note that regular submarines only increase pressure a little when submerged.

              Lets say for the sake of argument that the submarine is pressurised to match outside pressure 1/1 with exotic gases and you and some others open the *bottom* hatch at 200meters to excape....

              Immediately you let go of the sub you find yourself ascending at an incredible rate, gas rushing from your mouth, nose ears and eye sockets and your lungs searing. Finally you arrive at the surface travelling at such a rate that you are thrown several feet in the air. Somehow your lungs/arteries didn't rupture during the ascent but you now die in 20-30seconds from the massive nitrogen boil-off in your veins as you suffer from an incredible case of 'bends'

              No two ways about it, submarines are still extremely dangerous.
              • I agree with most of what you say, but you seem to imply that I am wrong about the bail out h.p. air. In subs you always need more than one way of doing things, and if you are a safe subman, you will have bail out air on your boat.

                Read The American Bureau of Shipping's: Rules for building and classiing underwater vehicles, systems and hyperbaric facilities. OR Busby's Manned Submersibles for more information.

                To pressurize a sub to match water pressure with air would be extremely dangerous if done in a hurry and the air would become poisonous; to breathe under pressure at depth (Deephabs) you have to be slowly pressurised with exotic gases. Note that regular submarines only increase pressure a little when submerged.

                There is no way you are going to beable to open the hatch if the outside pressure is greater than the internal pressure. Flooding the sub is diffinately an option, but depending on the sub, this can take time (most people put large enough bailout valves to do this in a reasonable amount of time), also if you sub is damaged or disabled you might not beable to flood it. Even with the sub flooded, you still want a small bubble of air to work in while you release the hatch (although you can use scuba gear, but the bends might be more of an issue).

                Some psubs allow you to flood them so you can go for a swim and then return.

                Immediately you let go of the sub you find yourself ascending at an incredible rate, gas rushing from your mouth, nose ears and eye sockets and your lungs searing. Finally you arrive at the surface travelling at such a rate that you are thrown several feet in the air. Somehow your lungs/arteries didn't rupture during the ascent but you now die in 20-30seconds from the massive nitrogen boil-off in your veins as you suffer from an incredible case of 'bends'

                Yell all the way up. The bends won't normally be a problem since you are not spending enough time under pressure to become saturated (of course, if you had to spend a lot of time trapped in you sub while under pressure this would be an issue).

                No two ways about it, submarines are still extremely dangerous.

                Hehe, agreed, but everything is dangerous if you are stupid enough.

            • They also have a process where the pressuruise the WHOLE sub (or sections of it) then open a hatch on the bottom. Since the pressure is the same and the air won't go down, the water won't flood in. I know movies are usually "bad science' but they used something like this in "The Abyss" and "Deep Blue Sea". It's also done in real life.
        • Structural failure leading to implosion! Even at just 100 meters depth, you don't get much warning of a hull failure. One buckled plate becomes a total breach in about 1 second.

          That is why all submarines are designed with large safety factors. A submarine with an operational limit of 100 meters will be tested to 300 meter and have calculated crush depth of ~600meters or more.

          Viewports are normally the weakest part of a submarines pressure barrier. But they just burst open, they will turn a milky color, the start to star crack, then after about six hour they will burst. OF course you notice the viewport (window) turning a milky color and return to the surface ASAP.

    • by donscarletti ( 569232 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @07:09AM (#5342569)
      When I was 8 or so I had this great idea to build a submarine out of oil drums. I obsessed over it and spent Way more time than is healthy drawing up plans in coloured pencils... A cute little stick figure inside two oil-drums welded together and two little drums on the side of it which were ballast tanks. It even had a modified toster underneath it to work as a steam jet (like the one on slashdot a couple of weeks ago but wouldn't have worked, however it was Australian designed).

      I can't help thinking that if I was one of those "active kids" you know the ones... the ones that leave the house more than just to go to primary school, I would have either electrocuted myself with a toaster or drowned....

      Basically I owe my life to my lazyness... sitting around karma whoring and trolling is the least thing I can do to repay my sense of idolness, god bless slashdot!

      • Back in the day, the kid across the street from me tried to build a sub out of 2 55 gallon drums as well. He got them joined (he didn't weld so he crimped the metal at the joint) and cut a hole for a conning tower. At that point he quit. His work was not for naught, though, as we used to crawl inside and take turns rolling each other down the street. I have never been so dizzy in my life...
    • I saw on a documentary show called Wings Over Canada a plane that was made from a kit from Murphy Air [murphyair.com]. It took them a long time to build (I think 3 years) and several thousand hours. But I don't think it was any less safe than a factory built airplane. Many of the key components, engine, wings, prop are usually pre-made, so it's not like your making it truly from scratch. Besides, who's better at making something? Yourself? or some guys at a factory? I think you'd do a more careful job at making a homemade submarine or airplane because if you're going to use it, you'll probably make damn sure it's safe. But some guys in a factory, what do they care, really?
  • old-hat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:13AM (#5342414) Homepage
    The back of Popular Science has had Advertisments for plans for your own submarine,helicopter,airplane,etc... for decades. My neighbor growing up made the mini-sub in his garage.

    No not a wear a wetsuit and you get an air-bubble type a full dry submarine capable of diving I believe he took it down to 60 feet... didn't have the guts to go lower than what you can safely escape from..

    Nothing new here.
  • by adamofgreyskull ( 640712 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:17AM (#5342429)
    ..as long as it's yellow
  • by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:17AM (#5342430) Homepage Journal
    Nerds should have this thing flying, uhh I mean floatin, errr boyancy? through the water.

    http://www.hispanicvista.com/html/000908am.html
  • the joke... (Score:5, Funny)

    by riotstarter ( 650328 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:18AM (#5342432)
    so they can say what's long, hard, and full of nerd seamen? our submarine.
  • by The_Mutato ( 631710 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:23AM (#5342442)
    I dream of making a miniature remote controlled submarine. I have dreamed of putting torpedoes on it, too. It's a whole new way of fishing! Torpedo-Fried Algae/Fish/Dirt/Water/etc!
  • by panurge ( 573432 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:23AM (#5342443)
    Let's hope the controls on the German thing don't come up with annoying dropdown ads every time they are accessed

    Surface, surface!

    Sorry, Captain, the trim panel is trying to lend me money and the buoyancy controls are telling me where to buy a firewall.....thunk

  • by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:26AM (#5342448)
    Nice project. I'd like to see more of the Deep Flight [deepflight.com] type submersibles though, rather than these ballast-based beasts.

  • by infolib ( 618234 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:29AM (#5342458)
    Peter Madsen successfully operated his homegrown 1-man submarine [psubs.org] in the harbour of Copenhagen last fall. It has been submerged for 1½ hour, and gone to a depth of 10 m.

    That came on the heels of an accident where his submarine was heavily damaged by crashing into a bridge. Don't blame Peter though - it was carried on a truck! [www.ing.dk] (danish)

    During the test this fall the only problem was paranoid police boarding the sub [www.ing.dk] (danish) to assure that Peter was not an activist intending to disrupt the EU summit.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I can go sit at 10 meters for 1 1/2 hours naked with a hose and an air compressor. What's the big deal about doing it in a tin can?
  • purchasing one (Score:2, Interesting)

    by solidox ( 650158 )
    you can purchase your very own working second-hand submarine for a mere £40,000. aphex twin (music artist) has one.
    "1,000 miles on the clock. only one careful owner, an old ladie who used it to pop down to the shops to pick up her groceries"
  • German site (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zayin ( 91850 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:35AM (#5342478)

    The most interesting is Cartsen Standfuss's CSSX-1.

    Translation from Babelfish:

    Hello of people, we look forward much you to our homepage to welcome to be allowed. Since, as can see it, our project takes slowly forms, we did not want to withhold it from anybody and you here on these sides from now on up to date will hold. Much fun... the Euronauten

    The small cruiser is awake sank 1901 due to a Kollison during a fleet maneuver. Those is awake on request national office for soil care of monuments of the Mecklenburg Vorpommern only once with the data base was theoretically determined. Then regained by that private Wracksuchkutter Viney Peglar 1996 by means of Sidescan sonar before ruegen in the Baltic Sea only few hundred meters apart from the calculated position. The trunk of the Wrackes is not still very well received - superstructures. (source of photo: Kroschel Evers the German fleet 1848-1945)

    Yes, hello of people. We also try to keep our data base theoretically determined. And we really appreciate that you look forward to welcome to allow us to your homepage. Much fun!


    • Yes, hello of people. We also try to keep our data base theoretically determined. And we really appreciate that you look forward to welcome to allow us to your homepage. Much fun!

      I am disrespectful to dirt! Do you see that I am serious??
  • Am I the only one here who is reminded of Hagbard Celine's Leif Eriksson submarine from Robert Anton Wilson's novels? :)

    Now if those guys could build that...
  • After all, we can't have that information falling into the wrong hands [slashdot.org]...
  • by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:40AM (#5342487)
    The jocks will be building ASDIC and depth charges. Prepare to experience the true meaning of "ping".
    • Come now. Jocks designing ASDIC? Two tin cans on the ends of a piece of string, possibly.

      But then, as our English teacher remarked on seeing the football coach wearing an academic gown, "You don't often see a chimpanzee in a black nightshirt"

  • Håkan Lans the swedish inventor, built together with a friend and some advice from different people his own submarine "Doppingen" in High School.

    Håkan Lans standing in front of his submarine, that is now placed in Swedens Technical Museum [passagen.se]

  • Yay (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @06:45AM (#5342503) Homepage
    Looks like the next round of Darwin Awards should be intetresting.
  • first test (Score:1, Funny)

    by lposeidon ( 455264 )
    can't wait to see the first test. it will go down, but will it come back up??
  • by Anonymous Coward
    There are two basic design approaches to submarines. Ambient pressure designs and 1 atmosphere designs. They both have advantages and disadvantages and selecting the proper type depends on your criteria. Primarily the deciding criteria is cost and depth:

    Ambient
    Cost: $1,000 - $20,000
    Max Depth: 0-160 feet

    1 Atmosphere
    Cost: $10,000 - $500,000
    Max Depth: 0-1000+ feet

    http://www.psubs.org/faq.html
  • Why do I have such a sinking feeling about their endeavour?
  • by shird ( 566377 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @07:00AM (#5342545) Homepage Journal
    Theres a niche, but probably lucrative market for these things if they know where to look [bbc.co.uk].
  • by eurostar ( 608330 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @07:06AM (#5342565)
    This has to be stopped !
    terrorists could capture one and...and...

    think of the children !
  • by AftanGustur ( 7715 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @07:07AM (#5342566) Homepage


    Should we nominate [darwinawards.com] them as a group or each individual independently?

  • by oever ( 233119 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @07:09AM (#5342573) Homepage
    Without being disrespectful to the Free Submarines Foundation, I would like to mention the existence of this Open Source Submarines [psubs.org] webpage.

    Apparently, the Open Source developmentmodel is very suitable for building submarines. I cheer at this development. However, I still prefer free as in Willy submarines.
  • Okay, it was just a small one. And it didn't go very deep. And it wasn't supposed to sink. YES, OKAY, DAMNIT I built a ROWING BOAT and it SANK on its MAIDEN VOYAGE!!!! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW!!???

  • Um, can we have some warning when a link is posted to a non-english site? It might sound annoyingly american or whatever but I'm sure it catches Koreans, etc. by surprise and annoys them to....

    Just a "(German site)" is all I'm asking for next to the link.
  • Jules Verne (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @07:37AM (#5342641) Homepage Journal
    Impressive as the linked submarine is, it's just like a military boat: a steel cylinder. As useful as such a thing may be as a weapons platform, I can't imagine anybody riding in the thing for pleasure.

    My own fantasy of a personal submarine comes from the Nautilus in 20000 Leagues Under the Sea. The most important feature: a glassed in drawing room, furnished with overstuffed chairs and oriental rugs, from which I can survey the unfolding panorama of the sea as I smoke seaweed cigars and sup on lobster tails whilst I plot my revenge on humanity.
    • OK, so we need another pointer to http://www.ussubs.com/lead.html if you want to see a "plush sub". Plus they even offer underwater habitats, and cite a submarine as the safest place to be in these days of international terrorism. But I can't see much evidence of their actually having sold any of these neat selling points.
    • If you built it with an ambient-pressure based life support system (that is, air pressure in the cabin increases to match pressure outside the hull), that might work- the glass wouldn't have to withstand a pressure differential. You'd be limited to a bit over a hundred feet dive, though, and just as with SCUBA, you'd have to be careful coming up. See the Psubs site for more info.
      • Why would they use glass instead of something like "lexan." Lexan is somewhat of a clear plastic-type material, often used as "bulletproof glass." I've heard that local lumber yards also use them as shields, since a 2-3" piece can stop a speeding log from caving in one's head. Should be able to survive water pressure,etc as well?
  • Two Words: Chris Elliot [chud.com]
  • by Gryftir ( 161058 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @07:45AM (#5342663) Homepage
    In other news today, Microsoft has already announced an ultra realistic sim version of building your own submarine, which allows you to actually take your craft into the water and suffocate OR drown to death.

    Gryftir
  • by AppyPappy ( 64817 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @08:02AM (#5342726)
    Universities like Virginia Tech [vt.edu] have been building these things for years.
  • With that many people working on submarine projects, two things come to mind immediately: how many of these guys really understand what they're doing? And... where on god's green earth do they get their money???

    I can easily understand building a better bicycle frame, but a pressure hull? I don't *think* so...

  • Geeks already built a submarine, the dot com business model. Oh yeah, it wouldn't resurface.
  • Fear.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:39AM (#5343340) Homepage Journal

    If the Germans figure out how to attach their potato bazookas [slashdot.org] to their home made subs we're all screwed.
  • by bubblegoose ( 473320 ) <bubblegooseNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:39AM (#5343343) Homepage Journal
    I spent 6 years on or working on fast attack subs. We had controls called Subsafe [navy.mil]. This meant every part contributing to water tight integrity was tracked from the start of manufacture to installation.

    Subsafe parts were quite expensive...but you were 100% pretty confident you weren't getting some cheap Taiwanese knockoff parts.

    Where are these guys getting their stuff, the hardware store down the street? Enough said. Would I even think of going down in one of these boats? No...not ever.

    Look at the lessons the Navy learned, Scorpion [lostsubs.com], Thresher [lostsubs.com]. How are these things powered...batteries? Have you ever heard of the Bonefish [lostsubs.com]
    • The idea is that you buy parts that are designed to handle the pressure. This isn't difficult and it is quite easy to find good industrial compoinents in germany (may be expensive though). Although sub engineering sounds difficult, remember, in reality we are talking about pressure vessels and their associated bits - not much different to the chemical industry.

      Also remember that Germans built rather a lot of diesel-electric subs over the years. Probably more than anyone else, so there is a lot of knowhow around. So what if they use lead-acid battries, many hundreds have done so before.

      I guess the constructors know a lot about subs. Having hand-built the thing, they probably have a better idea than most about the construction quality. It is one thing to depend on a weld that the lowest bidder did, it is another to depend on one that you did yourself.

      • > Also remember that Germans built rather a lot
        > of diesel-electric subs over the years

        True, but Germans, like most other humans, aren't a hive collective. Which means that the knowledge and skills accumulated by members of a defense contractor don't automatically transfer to the population at large. This is not to say that these guys aren't skilled, because judging from the construction details it certainly seems they know what they're doing. They also have a fair share of engineers amongst themselves.

        > It is one thing to depend on a weld that the
        > lowest bidder did, it is another to depend on
        > one that you did yourself.

        They had the pressure hull robot welded and X-ray inspected, resulting in perfect welds, according to their construction info. That's probably better that most homegrown sub efforts. I do wonder just how much money these guys have, though, and whether there's more where that came from.
        • You are right in that it isn't a hive collective, but you would be suprised how much knowhow spreads around a large industy. Ok, U-boats haven't been made in bulk in 50 years, but pressure vessels are - Germany still has a reputation for chemical engineering, which means designing for huge pressures. If you are in the right place, picking up knowhow is relatively easy (it isn't as though this is secret stuff).

          They have also been very conservative with their design (almost dissappointly so). I didn't catch the bit about the robot welder, but the tubular constrction would make this easier.

          Yes, I agree with you about the resources. These guys must have access to a lot of cash and/or equipment.

          • > They have also been very conservative with their design (almost dissappointly so).

            Well, their goal seems to be to create a wreck diving platform, not to break new records in sub design. If you have a clearly defined and reachable goal, you tend to go about reaching it by the most conservative and reliable means possible in order to minimize financial and safety risks and maximize chances of success. If you want to see a counter-example to conservative design, check out CargoLifter. I used to follow their progress religiously until they went under. Theirs is a case study of heaping speculation and untested technology upon all other kinds of money squandering.
            • Actually, I know Cargolifter very well. They may end up with their assets being taken over by someone else so the project may not totally die.

              Their idea wasn't so revolutionary but they seemed to be doiing somethings in a very interesting way. The company was split into two, one half for finance and one for production. When the company listed, it went onto the "Geregelt Markt", which is technically an exchange based OTC with minimal listing requirements. If they had gone to the "Neuer Markt", they would have had to produce US-GAAP or IAS accounts. As their producion facility sat in the fomer East-Germany, they had a lot of state help. Unfortunately the old skills were on the Boden See (Lake Constance) where the Zeppelins were built (and some newer blimps in recent times).

              I understand through my own connections that there was some wauestionable goings on in Cargo-Lifter Finance AG, so only part of the money ended up in Cargo Lifter AG's production facility. They did lead their shareholders on somewhat, but they could have had production by next year and profitability a couple of years after that. Their product was unique and absolutely ideal for some specific purposes where there is little or no infrastructure (I suppose thats why a US company is interested in picking up the pieces).

              Mind you all of this was gleaned after some beers with various market people (and one of their senior management) so is probably totally unreliable. The take-over isn't and was reported in the German edition of the financial times this week.

    • Where are these guys getting their stuff, the hardware store down the street? Enough said. Would I even think of going down in one of these boats? No...not ever.

      Good parts are nice to have. When you can't afford them, it IS possible to inspect and prove the parts yourself and make them redundant. The lessons you cite are useful to anyone that wants to look. One of those lessons might be that procedures and regulations are no substitute for free enterprise and competition. If that were true, there would have been no Soviet accidents, but it's not and their service was more dangerous than ours.

      It bothers me to see Americans with a "no can do" attitude. This country was founded by people who needed little more than an axe and a rifle. Taken to it's extreem, this attitude would lead to stringent requirements for everything that only one or two companies could meet. The result would look more like the former Soviet Union than the USA.

      People out there building their own submarines and other stuff for themselves are the people that make this country work. They consider the problem and build experience to solve other problems that come up. We should be ashamed an worried when these nuts quit what they do.

      Do you drive to work? It might just kill you.

  • If you've got $78 million, you can get this fancy number [ussubs.com].

    If you only have a measly $682,000 [nauticalniche.com], then maybe this guy [ussubs.com] is more your speed...and you can attach him to your yacht for greater range from shore to explore!

    And for you Geo Metro fans, there's the el cheapo compacto [ussubs.com].

    • It appears that nauticalniche.com are selling underwater Gulfstream IV aircraft!

      I looked at the interior [nauticalniche.com] shots of the integrity60 submarine and thought to myslef "Gosh, this submarine interior looks just like a Gulfstream business jet!" Not to mention the "Exit" sign above the near left window :p

      Here are some more Gulfstream links for comparison :)

      Gulfstream IV [bizjetphotos.com]
      Gulfstream IVSP [skybirdaviation.com]

      Notice the location of the interior fittings such as lights/window surrounds.

      Another thing with small-submarines is that as you descend, vast ammounts of condensation form inside the hull as underwater air-conditioners/scrubbers are a little too large for something this size. Wouldn't this make the nice shag-pile carpet a little soggy?

      I wonder if the rest of the sub is for real or just a ruse?
      • If you look at the Integrity's exterior, this would make sense. It looks like a plane cabin with all the sub necessities above and behind it.

        I'd imagine there's no reason not to do this to a plane body to build a sub. The plane is already going to be constructed for high pressure differential and circulating air systems. I guess they've figured out how to handicap the scrubbers/AC to fit the size though...or they recommend you always wear flippers when you walk on your shag underwater. :)
        • Granted its the same size/shape but what I was actually getting at is that the pictures really are of a Gulfstream interior (I recognised them because I must have cleaned/vacuumed a good 100 to date) :)

          Just a point: Aircraft hulls are designed to resist pressure from within and sub hulls are designed to resist pressure from outside.

          If they really were to start building subs with gulfstream hulls, they may want to remove the emergency escape hatches from the 7-8 bulkhead windows (wouldn't do to have a nervous passenger try to get out).
  • by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:27AM (#5343709) Homepage
    ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!

    Das unterseeboat ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
  • this isnt so crazy. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Suppafly ( 179830 ) <slashdot@@@suppafly...net> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:18AM (#5344186)
    This isn't so crazy, on the discovery channel or tlc a while back they had a special about a group of people who were recreating one of the early wooden subs that managed to stay submerged for several hours and sink some other ships or something.

    IIRC, the group managed to get the thing built right at the deadline, the were racing against the clock for some reason such as the weather or because of their permit or something like that. And they got all the leaks fixed at the last minute or so, but then they discovered that the amount of carbon dioxide from exhaling quickly poisened the air in the ship for the one guy that was rowing.
  • 1. Make sure you're one of those people who seem to have just a little _too_ much spare time on your hands.
    2. Call up the bank just to say "Hi" and ask them if there's a few million bucks to spare on your savings account.
    3. Did you write your will yet?
    4. Get "Submarines for Dummies" and the highly acclaimed SAMS "Build your own submarine in 24 hours".
    5. Buy a nice tube and tons of electronics which you may get a need for.
    6. Start building!
  • It had a viewing port in the side and everything.

    'Course it was only big enough to carry one passenger.

    I don't think the hamster even bothered to look out.

    And, yes, he was nice and dry when the sub resurfaced. Probably didn't even notice what was going on. He did poop in it, though.

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Working...