6 ms·

Submarines are just about the worst when it comes to the duration from the second someone goofs up and the second where everyone's doomed. And also the worst w

Submarines are just about the worst when it comes to the duration from the second someone goofs up and the second where everyone's doomed. And also the worst when it comes to the duration from the instant everyone's doomed to the instant everyone's dead. TSorry, but that's a "no" from me, dawg.

ves 9y ago
I assume you mean "really short" and "really long," respectively.
pjmorris 9y ago
An ex-submariner had a blog named after a saying from the community: "The stupid shall be punished."
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Submariners are a glimpse of what humans will become in space. Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love Alternative: https://m.warhistoryonline.com/featured/u-1206-sub-sunk-dump-on-toilet.html https://m.warhistoryonline.com/featured/u-1206-sub-sunk-dump...
  - pjmorris 9y ago
    It wouldn't surprise me if the sub community's saying came from a Heinlein reader somewhere in its past, similar to his popularizing TANSTAAFL ('There ain't no such thing as a free lunch') from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.'
    - gozur88 9y ago
      The causality arrow might go the other way. Heinlein was a naval officer before he was discharged on a medical. He never served on a sub, but he did serve on a destroyer, so he would have been familiar with their weaknesses.
  - narrator 9y ago
    If you watched Elon's BFR Mars presentation, you'll notice that a lot of it depends on fully automated docking and piloting of all spacecraft. Manual control is just too dangerous and screw ups are catastrophically expensive in those situations.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      It seems like an area where automated systems should be really good. We already have automated systems that an land planes without human intervention and that's a far more difficult problem.
      - lwansbrough 9y ago
        And yet we don't because humans are immeasurably better at dealing with edge cases than any automated system. That being said, I do expect those systems developed by SpaceX to be automated. But I'd hesitate to call it "an area where automated systems should be really good."
        thelittleone 9y ago
        Would there not be an equal or a greater number of edge cases for self driving cars?
        lwansbrough 9y ago
        Absolutely. Which is why I'd never trust my car to drive itself -- not for years anyway. Most testing and training I've seen from companies has been done in ideal conditions with "non-ideal" conditions being considered some sort of edge case? Maybe it's because all the self driving startups are operating in sunny California. What a nightmare a self driving car would be on uneven, icy, dark roads. I'm certain it would turn itself off and ask a human to drive then. And that'll be the case for a while. Or in cities in asia where rules of the road are more like suggestions, and driving is completely reactionary. No, driverless cars today aren't ready for reality.
  - greggman 9y ago
    My step father was on sub duty for 25 years. He said he signed up because it was the closest thing to being on a space ship.
majos 9y ago
There's surely an obvious answer to this, but assuming the goof doesn't cripple the submarine's ability to move, and ignoring issues of secrecy, is there a reason it can't just head for the surface and be there in a few hours? There's nothing like the bends here for the passengers, right?
- Spooky23 9y ago
  No, there isn’t. Diesel subs always operate near the surface, they are basically floating mines.
  - tzs 9y ago
    I don't know about Argentina's submarines, but the diesel submarines in WWII could get down to around 1000 feet. I wouldn't consider that to be "near" the surface. Most diesel submarines are actually electric submarines, with a diesel generator to provide the electricity for the electric motors and to charge batteries that can be used when the submarine is too deep to run the diesel generator.
    - fapjacks 9y ago
      What the parent is saying is that diesel subs don't get to stay down like nuke subs. Nuke subs regularly stay underwater for the duration of their deployments, which last months. Diesel subs cannot stay underwater for very long at all. We're talking on the order of hours.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      In WW2, they could do that for like 60-90 minutes. Most time was spent on the surface. Today, a diesel sub snorkels near periscope depth.
- JshWright 9y ago
  Subs control their depth by flooding internal tanks with water (more water = sub goes deeper). They can surface very quickly (seconds to a few minutes, depending on the depth) by blowing all the water out of those tanks with compressed air. That's assuming something hasn't gone wrong that has caused the sub to take on water somewhere other than those ballast tanks. If a portion of the sub fills with water, the empty ballast tanks may not provide enough buoyant force to lift the sub.
sjg007 9y ago
Same with space flight I'd imagine...

ves 9y ago

I assume you mean "really short" and "really long," respectively.

pjmorris 9y ago

An ex-submariner had a blog named after a saying from the community: "The stupid shall be punished."

QAPereo 9y ago
Submariners are a glimpse of what humans will become in space. Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love Alternative: https://m.warhistoryonline.com/featured/u-1206-sub-sunk-dump-on-toilet.html https://m.warhistoryonline.com/featured/u-1206-sub-sunk-dump...
- pjmorris 9y ago
  It wouldn't surprise me if the sub community's saying came from a Heinlein reader somewhere in its past, similar to his popularizing TANSTAAFL ('There ain't no such thing as a free lunch') from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.'
  - gozur88 9y ago
    The causality arrow might go the other way. Heinlein was a naval officer before he was discharged on a medical. He never served on a sub, but he did serve on a destroyer, so he would have been familiar with their weaknesses.
- narrator 9y ago
  If you watched Elon's BFR Mars presentation, you'll notice that a lot of it depends on fully automated docking and piloting of all spacecraft. Manual control is just too dangerous and screw ups are catastrophically expensive in those situations.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    It seems like an area where automated systems should be really good. We already have automated systems that an land planes without human intervention and that's a far more difficult problem.
    - lwansbrough 9y ago
      And yet we don't because humans are immeasurably better at dealing with edge cases than any automated system. That being said, I do expect those systems developed by SpaceX to be automated. But I'd hesitate to call it "an area where automated systems should be really good."
      - thelittleone 9y ago
        Would there not be an equal or a greater number of edge cases for self driving cars?
        lwansbrough 9y ago
        Absolutely. Which is why I'd never trust my car to drive itself -- not for years anyway. Most testing and training I've seen from companies has been done in ideal conditions with "non-ideal" conditions being considered some sort of edge case? Maybe it's because all the self driving startups are operating in sunny California. What a nightmare a self driving car would be on uneven, icy, dark roads. I'm certain it would turn itself off and ask a human to drive then. And that'll be the case for a while. Or in cities in asia where rules of the road are more like suggestions, and driving is completely reactionary. No, driverless cars today aren't ready for reality.
- greggman 9y ago
  My step father was on sub duty for 25 years. He said he signed up because it was the closest thing to being on a space ship.

majos 9y ago

There's surely an obvious answer to this, but assuming the goof doesn't cripple the submarine's ability to move, and ignoring issues of secrecy, is there a reason it can't just head for the surface and be there in a few hours? There's nothing like the bends here for the passengers, right?

Spooky23 9y ago
No, there isn’t. Diesel subs always operate near the surface, they are basically floating mines.
- tzs 9y ago
  I don't know about Argentina's submarines, but the diesel submarines in WWII could get down to around 1000 feet. I wouldn't consider that to be "near" the surface. Most diesel submarines are actually electric submarines, with a diesel generator to provide the electricity for the electric motors and to charge batteries that can be used when the submarine is too deep to run the diesel generator.
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    What the parent is saying is that diesel subs don't get to stay down like nuke subs. Nuke subs regularly stay underwater for the duration of their deployments, which last months. Diesel subs cannot stay underwater for very long at all. We're talking on the order of hours.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    In WW2, they could do that for like 60-90 minutes. Most time was spent on the surface. Today, a diesel sub snorkels near periscope depth.
JshWright 9y ago
Subs control their depth by flooding internal tanks with water (more water = sub goes deeper). They can surface very quickly (seconds to a few minutes, depending on the depth) by blowing all the water out of those tanks with compressed air. That's assuming something hasn't gone wrong that has caused the sub to take on water somewhere other than those ballast tanks. If a portion of the sub fills with water, the empty ballast tanks may not provide enough buoyant force to lift the sub.

sjg007 9y ago

Same with space flight I'd imagine...