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

165 m private submersible superyacht

migaloo-submarines.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#61

Post by primitivesuave »

propmaster wrote: post #30
primitivesuave wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out narco submarines - they have people in the jungles of Columbia building submarines that they pack with tons of cocaine (literally), which are discarded after a single ocean crossing. In general, it seems to be more economical to ship illicit materials with cheap/disposable vessels and vulnerable/impoverished people, rather than risking an expensive yacht to government seizure.

In fact, the point I was trying to illustrate is that if they steal your fancy luxury submarine is even less expensive, it's free, gratis, 100% discount. Do you really want a ship that it's seen as disposable delivery system by every single organised crime entity on the globe ?

That's true, but also consider how the entire world paid attention to the whereabouts of a missing submersible when there were a couple billionaires on board (OceanGate). I doubt the traffickers would want to risk that kind of exposure ;)

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#62

Post by lp4vn »

ok_dad wrote: post #41
lp4vn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the ocean is dull and there is no much of a point in partying in the darkness of the oceanic waters. I read that a typical load in a narcosub was worth about 100 million dollars and a narcosub itself costs 2 million dollars. Two narcotrips will not only pay for the submarine but also make a huge profit, your idea that smuggling is for those low on the totem pole and that it has to be dangerous is something th…

The boats they use for this smuggling are the least seaworthy vessels I think I’ve had the pleasure to experience. We caught one go-fast because all four engines died and it was sinking, so they radioed for our help since we were already chasing them. These were very unsafe boats. The dudes onboard are not very important, their qualifications were they had been fishermen before and had families to hold over them to e…

Do you work in the Coast Guard?

I think that the future for the drug smuggling is computer controlled submarines, and I'm not even talking about AI. I think drug producers will pre-program a route for a submarine that will autonomously navigate until the destination where it will be picked by a receptor.

I read that it's extremely hard to spot submarines, I can only imagine the kind of things that will be smuggled once there are functional submarines of the size of a big fish.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#63

Post by sojournerc »

pge wrote: post #32

The funny about this is that despite all the beautiful pictures, it would probably be a very unpleasant boat to ride in. Submarines by design are not very stable on the surface (think of a cylinder that rolls vs the v-shape of a surface ship that keeps it upright). But underwater, it only does 12 knots. So you have to choose between going really slow or having a smooth ride.

12 knots is in the ballpark of what a performance sailing catamaran can achieve on a crossing, so it's not exactly slow.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#64

Post by zoenolan »

jfoutz wrote: post #57

I would swear there was a company in the late 90's that sold luxury submarines. Not submersible super-yachts. I thought it was the neatest thing till I realized you needed like 20 close friends to crew the thing. And far more dollars than I had. But that was like a real diesel electric that could dive to avoid storms and cruise fast on the surface. Definitely smaller than this. Toys are neat. I dunno, if that's what…

https://ussubs.com/ ?

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#65

Post by wsh »

The website claims “Design, Construction and Operation according to US SUBSAFE.” I’d want that for my submarine, of course, but I wonder if it’s realistic.

I’d understood that SUBSAFE was a comprehensive program applied to U.S. Navy submarines by the Naval Sea Systems Command, not merely a published standard with which one could comply without extensive, ongoing involvement by NAVSEA, which presumably has no mandate to support foreign yacht builders.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#66

Post by MilStdJunkie »

defrost wrote: post #54
Aeolun wrote: post #47

I don’t get the idea of having a separate pressure hull for your helicopter hangar. Surely if your submarine is compromised to the point of needing the pressure hull you are long past the point where your helicopter is going to save you.

Helicopter hanger has the largest door into a pressure hull area, it's the largest point of failure - if it fails, it's isolated from the living space (and other sub areas). It's smart safety design.

Yup, yup, yup. Everything human-usable is going to be in a pressure hull, because a hundred meters of depth is going to absolutely wreck more or less everything. Especially seals. Hangar doors give me nightmares.

They might pressurize the crew spaces, a little, but it's really not possible to crank up the air pressure meaningfully for any duration, too hard on the body, and totally lethal if they come up too fast. On that subject google up "saturation diving" for some frickin' horrors. Those dudes make bank, but whew, talk about earning it.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#67

Post by z_ack »

It's a bad idea for many reasons: - you are spending hundreds of millions for a prototype, on paper all works but in reality to build a reliable submarine you need peoples, experience, tests etc, to avoid something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_submersible_implosion

this sub "only" reach -250m , but that it's anyway mattern of concerns;

- there are serious possibilities they don't delivery, not necessarily because it's a scam, but fore the same reasons of the previous point: technical problems requiring re-designing and re-engineering inflating the costs, burning budgets;

- the success in rescuing people trapped in a submarine is very low, because the environment, because the lack of related technology, experience, etc, see here for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine_and_submersi...

Onestly ? If I have all that money I go "classic" : tropical island.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#70

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

stevenAthompson wrote: post #15
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #5

This is when you know the wealthy are too wealthy.

It's beautiful engineering (if real), but all I can think about is the number of people that could be fed, housed, and educated for that amount of money. The world could be made a permanently (slightly) better place instead of building this.

Money flows, it doesn't disappear, and if it isn't spent it might as well not exist -- but the spending affects the allocation of real resources, like steel, batteries, and shipbuilders' time.

It's ok if there's an excess of materials and the shipbuilders have nothing better to do.

More likely it will slightly drive up the prices of batteries, etc. And maybe the yacht builders would have otherwise gone to work making sailboats for normal-rich people, or gone into defense, driving down the price of labor there, and allowing taxpayers to get their next destroyer for a hair cheaper.

Or, worst case, there'd be no demand for these shipbuilders, and they'd have to reskill as something else. Maybe they know how to do fiberglass layups and would try making surfboards, I don't know.

In short, I don't worry so much about wasting money per-se, as about luring people and resources away from better uses.

Kind of like VC's role for the last 20 years. "Greatest minds of my generation", etc.

Post reply on HN