Remix.run Logo
lazide 2 hours ago

Even without that, the material is just wrong. It’s strong in tension, not so much compression. Tends towards sudden brittle fractures. Doesn’t like impacts, as it tends to have issues with delaminating.

It’s just not what you ever want as a sub hull. It’s dumb.

And weight is not even a huge issue for a sub!

bambax 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, using carbon fiber was also a very bad decision; it was known for a very long time that it was only good for single-use sub, because after the first dive it was too damaged to continue. In 2014, Virgin Oceanic, which had similar plans with similar technology, closed shop because it didn't make economic sense to build a new sub for each dive.

But weight is absolutely an issue; the basic and tried-and-true metal sphere design allows for only three people. Since size and thickness grow exponentially, making a sphere for more than three people becomes more and more difficult. And it should also be possible to lift the vehicle with a crane.

But if you want to carry paying passengers (like Oceangate did), having only two per dive is very limiting. That's why they went with a tube design, and carbon fiber to limit weight. But it couldn't work, and it didn't.

schiffern an hour ago | parent [-]

  >size and thickness grow exponentially
It's a [reverse] pressure vessel, so it follows pressure vessel scaling. Mass scaling is linear with internal volume.
FabHK 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

It’s funny how “literally” often means “figuratively” now, and “exponentially” means “polynomially”.