3 ms·

If we consider that the deepest submersibles in the US Navy "only" went 1.5 km deep (not talking about experimental craft, only deployed, actively deployed equi

If we consider that the deepest submersibles in the US Navy "only" went 1.5 km deep (not talking about experimental craft, only deployed, actively deployed equipment), I'd be really cautious before embarking on this ship. This was a guy in a Marina nonchalantly going where the fucking US Navy, the most powerful navy in the whole history of the world doesn't dare to tread.

oh_sigh 3y ago
The US Navy has no need or desire to go deep like that. I'm sure they would figure out how to do it if they needed to, but it probably would be a ROV and not a little capsule you stuff some humans into.
JimmyAustin 3y ago
I'd say it's more "doesn't bother to tread" rather than "doesn't dare to tread". There probably is not a lot below 1.5km that would be of much interest to the US Navy.
progbits 3y ago
There is a big difference between "doesn't dare to" and "it's not practical/useful for warfare". There have been plenty of submersibles that went much deeper. People went down 10km in the 1960s. There is no excuse for the incompetence and stupidity of this titanic crew.
mrguyorama 3y ago
The US navy is not attempting to solve the problem space of "Tourist trip to deep ocean locations". Privately owned submersibles have long out-depthed US navy crafts, because US navy doesn't need a small craft to go that deep.
ak_111 3y ago
What is extraordinary is the marketing line "You will go where the US navy dare not tread" will draw in some customers
kens 3y ago
The Navy's Trieste II went to 20,000 feet (6.1 km) in the 1960s. It dove to the wreckage of the Thresher, among other things and was in service until 1980. It was replaced by Alvin-class of deep-submergence vehicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste_II_(Bathyscaphe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste_II_(Bathyscaphe)
sho_hn 3y ago
So was this dude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger
mandevil 3y ago
Okay, so I'm confused. The bathyscape Trieste, paid for by the USN, went to the deepest spot in the entire ocean- the Challengers Deep of the Mariana's Trench- back in 1960 (it is on display at the US Navy Museum in Washington DC). The DSV Alvin, also paid for by the USN, visited the Titanic back in the 1980's (it is still operational, operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Research Institute under contract for the USN). So what kind of distinction are you trying to make with "deployed, actively deployed equipment"? 1.5km far exceeds any realistic estimate of crush depth for a USN warship submarine- generally open source estimates are around 600m for them, so I am really not sure where you got your number from. It is much deeper than the typical big nuclear submarine would be able to do, but not nearly as deep as the research vehicles the Navy has.
nostromo 3y ago
Good point, but keep in mind the DoD by default does not disclose its capabilities.
elzbardico 3y ago
That's why I put the bar on "not experimental craft", which includes research vessels like the Trieste.

oh_sigh 3y ago

The US Navy has no need or desire to go deep like that. I'm sure they would figure out how to do it if they needed to, but it probably would be a ROV and not a little capsule you stuff some humans into.

JimmyAustin 3y ago

I'd say it's more "doesn't bother to tread" rather than "doesn't dare to tread". There probably is not a lot below 1.5km that would be of much interest to the US Navy.

progbits 3y ago

There is a big difference between "doesn't dare to" and "it's not practical/useful for warfare". There have been plenty of submersibles that went much deeper. People went down 10km in the 1960s. There is no excuse for the incompetence and stupidity of this titanic crew.

mrguyorama 3y ago

The US navy is not attempting to solve the problem space of "Tourist trip to deep ocean locations". Privately owned submersibles have long out-depthed US navy crafts, because US navy doesn't need a small craft to go that deep.

ak_111 3y ago

What is extraordinary is the marketing line "You will go where the US navy dare not tread" will draw in some customers

kens 3y ago

The Navy's Trieste II went to 20,000 feet (6.1 km) in the 1960s. It dove to the wreckage of the Thresher, among other things and was in service until 1980. It was replaced by Alvin-class of deep-submergence vehicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste_II_(Bathyscaphe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste_II_(Bathyscaphe)

sho_hn 3y ago

So was this dude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger

mandevil 3y ago

Okay, so I'm confused. The bathyscape Trieste, paid for by the USN, went to the deepest spot in the entire ocean- the Challengers Deep of the Mariana's Trench- back in 1960 (it is on display at the US Navy Museum in Washington DC). The DSV Alvin, also paid for by the USN, visited the Titanic back in the 1980's (it is still operational, operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Research Institute under contract for the USN). So what kind of distinction are you trying to make with "deployed, actively deployed equipment"? 1.5km far exceeds any realistic estimate of crush depth for a USN warship submarine- generally open source estimates are around 600m for them, so I am really not sure where you got your number from. It is much deeper than the typical big nuclear submarine would be able to do, but not nearly as deep as the research vehicles the Navy has.

nostromo 3y ago

Good point, but keep in mind the DoD by default does not disclose its capabilities.

elzbardico 3y ago

That's why I put the bar on "not experimental craft", which includes research vessels like the Trieste.