Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#41

Post by tpeo »

Retric wrote: post #31
ryanmarsh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard about shrinking budgets for so long if the statements were true I'd expect all the budgets to be $0 by now.

The slope is down just not steep. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP;.jpg Basically, we are down ~45% relative to GDP since 1980 but there are years with minor increases.

Why are you using RD-to-GDP ratios?

In 1980, US nominal GDP was USD 2.863 trillion. Today it is USD 18.625, which gives out an average growth rate of 5.34% and thus an 650% increase over 36 years. Real growth over the same period is around 2.69%, which gives out a 259% increase in real GDP, which is still way above a 45% decrease. In real terms, research budgets are actually 42.45% higher than what they were in 1980.

Which says nothing about how much they should be. But still, parent went on about sinking budgets, not budget-to-GDP ratios.

GDP figures: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#42

Post by THE_PUN_STOPS »

gerbilly wrote: post #6

>As research budgets shrink, and fewer people go into oceanographic research, it’s hard to say what is on the horizon for FLIP. Why is it that budgets everywhere from businesses public/private to government to scientific research are always shrinking? It's like it's the invariant of our age: well you know, budgets are shrinking...

Entropy? Inflation?

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#43

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #16
J-dawg wrote: post #13

I thought the photo of the two basins at 90 degrees to each other was a nice example that it sometimes makes sense to violate the DRY principle. Someone must have looked at installing a gimballed basin, realised how complicated the custom-made gimbal and plumbing would have to be, and thought "screw it, let's just order a second basin". Also, someone really needs to put a lid on that soap container!

You're over thinking it. It only needs to move +/-45 in one plane. Weld a hinge to the wall above the sink. Suspend the sink from the hinge. The radius can be determined by how much flex hose you want to purchase for the drain and supply lines. The same should work for toilets and showers. Run all your drain piping toward the corner of the ship that's always under water. Install these on your showers. http://d2ydh70d…

> Maintenance should be in the same ballpark

Lots of custom moving parts in salty air should be of similar difficultly to maintain as commonly-made things fixed in place twice?

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#44

Post by Retric »

strictnein wrote: post #40
Retric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slope is down just not steep. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP;.jpg Basically, we are down ~45% relative to GDP since 1980 but there are years with minor increases.

But that's just for Federal R&D spending. Worldbank and the OECD paint a much less bleak picture: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locati... https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm These data sets include all forms of R&D spending, not just federally funded ones: "Gross domestic spending on R&D is defined as the total expenditure (current and capital) on R&D carried out by all…

R&D is misleading in this context. McDonalds's does R&D when it's designing it's new menu, but that's does not result in long term economic gain like say transistor research does. Generally, what matters is fundamental research not development as building ever better vacuum tubes ended up being mostly pointless.

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#45

Post by Retric »

tpeo wrote: post #41
Retric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slope is down just not steep. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP;.jpg Basically, we are down ~45% relative to GDP since 1980 but there are years with minor increases.

Why are you using RD-to-GDP ratios? In 1980, US nominal GDP was USD 2.863 trillion. Today it is USD 18.625, which gives out an average growth rate of 5.34% and thus an 650% increase over 36 years. Real growth over the same period is around 2.69%, which gives out a 259% increase in real GDP, which is still way above a 45% decrease. In real terms, research budgets are actually 42.45% higher than what they were in 1980.…

Nominal dollars are a meaningless yardstick. Inflation is only slightly better, GDP on the other hand tends to compare better across time periods.

There are 100 million more people in the US now vs 1980. Yet, we have fewer people doing fundamental research. Just because some numbers look better does not mean we are somehow actually doing more research.

PS: GDP growth is also inflated when the same physical house is suddenly worth more, that's not progress.

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#46

Post by RugnirViking »

bluGill wrote: post #34
RugnirViking wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But due to inflation if it didn't increase the budget would have less value. At least this is the understanding I have usually been given.

A budget can still be "cut" while growing against inflation though. They also refer to a cut compared to projections, and the projections are usually to increase the budget faster than inflation.

While I am sure that dishonest reporting does go on in some cases, a possible explanation for that phenomenon is that many services have to scale the budget not only by inflation but also by population. For example, the health service might have a fixed cost per person and so their overall budget growth could be inflation+population growth

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#47

Post by RugnirViking »

jonathantm wrote: post #39
RugnirViking wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But due to inflation if it didn't increase the budget would have less value. At least this is the understanding I have usually been given.

But we say wages are "stagnant" when really "wages continue to shrink" would be more accurate.

Mostly because when inflation ajusted they are in fact stagnant[1]

That is to say, all of the profits from technology and automation in the last 40 years or so have gone to the owners of capital. How you interpret this or propose to 'solve' I won't comment on.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#48

Post by cr1895 »

Declanomous wrote: post #36
cr1895 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the instability of a submarine is precisely why this ship was conceived in the first place. From the wiki: "Development started in January 1960 after a conversation between MPL researcher Frederick H. Fisher and MPL Director Fred N. Spiess regarding stability problems that Fisher was encountering when using the submarine USS Baya (SS-318) as a research platform." I'm not clear however why a submarine was too…

When I watch things floating in water, objects below the water seem to move back and forth with the movement of the water, as if the object and the water were the same, but things that are partially in the water, they seem to "ride" the water and shift much more slowly. Based on that, my guess is either surface tension, or the fact that an object that floats on top of a medium is much less dense than one that floats…

Here's a gif of water particle movement that's happening in an ocean wave (in deep water; it gets weirder if it's shallow).

http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/gm309/images/Owave.gif

Essentially, motion starts with wind. Energy propagates downwards into the water column resulting in the circular orbitals (you see this if you float in the (deep) ocean and you bob up and down in a circle but you don't really go anywhere). But at a certain point, no more energy propagates downward; so your submarine if its deep enough (tens of meters) will not feel a thing from what's happening on the surface.

This is also what the FLIP takes advantage of; the base of its deep spar hull lies so far below the surface that it has nothing forcing it to move up and down. This is why it's stable in big waves, and why I'm confused how a submarine is too unstable.

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#49

Post by cr1895 »

fcbrooklyn wrote: post #37
jdmichal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I would have just towed it out empty, flipped it vertical, then loaded people on. That way, only one orientation needs to be supported at all.

I imagine it might be quite dangerous to transfer people from one ship to the other in heavy seas, and in the article they were talking about seas of 30 feet.

It can be dangerous. If you want to see something cool search for Ampelmann and Billy Pugh. I haven't been on an Ampelmann but I have transferred with the crane-lifted basket and it's really fun.

But they sure as hell are not moving between ships in nasty, dangerous sea conditions. At least not if they can help it.

Re: A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements

#50

Post by cr1895 »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #27
amingilani wrote: post #26

The article didn't address it so I'll just ask: why? Why do you need to build a flipping (no pun intended) ship? Couldn't they have just as easily built a tall floating rig that could be dragged by the same tugboat? Why do they even need to change to boat form? Can't they tug it when it's vertical? Drilling platforms are stable floating structures aren't they? They consist of a stable floating upper platform.

Because the oil industry was already having these built. It was probably just easier and cheaper to buy one "off the shelf" so to speak rather than have a custom ship designed for this purpose. Drilling platforms are large and not designed to regularly circumnavigate the oceans. They float but they're shitty boats.

Not in the 60s, as far as I'm aware. Same principles but widespread use of spars and semi-subs came later.
Post reply on HN