4 ms·
I'm no physicist or engineer but isn't it easier to deal with the absence of pressure (a vacuum) than with lots and lots of pressure?
by davman 8y ago
I'm no physicist or engineer but isn't it easier to deal with the absence of pressure (a vacuum) than with lots and lots of pressure?
- JshWright 8y agoIt's not so much the "direction" of the pressure as it is simply the scale of the pressure you have to deal with. ~15psi (space) vs ~15,000psi (ocean).
- davman 8y agoSorry, yes, this is what I meant. There is less "difference" of pressure in vacuum vs. depths of the sea.
- lb1lf 8y ago-That it is, but the upside to oceanographic research vs space is at least two-fold, IMHO: a) You don't strap yourself into a seat on top of a few hundred tons of high explosives prior to getting started. Major plus in my book. b) Barring catastrophic failure of the pressure vessel, all you need to do to get to a safe-ish state is to jettison enough weight to become positively buoyant - and off to the surface you go.
- mstade 8y agoWouldn't you also have to make sure you don't rise too quickly to the surface, or you'll suffer possibly fatal decompression complications?
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoYes but the engineering tradeoffs for space are harder. You have to get the vessel into space in the first place. The pressure hull of a sub can be stupidly heavy because it needs to sink. (Yes I know this is a gross over simplification).
- mikeash 8y agoIt’s also a lot easier to contain pressure than to resist it. If you had to build something that would hold 15,000psi internally for some reason, it would be much simpler.
- pasta 8y agoYes, also because there is no direction of pressure in a vacuum. In the ocean pressure comes in the form of current. I guess it can be very tricky to navigate in a high pressure fast or turbulent current.