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

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#91

Post by DrDroop »

z_ack wrote: post #67

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 nece…

Just the crew to operate the oxygen system 24/7 with burning oxygen candles and co2 scrubbers is going to be intense.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#92

Post by anon-sre-srm »

ok_dad wrote: post #80
z_ack wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following your reasoning an airplane can't be hijacked because it's difficult to operate: in reality you only need a gun to operate anything, in right circumstances.

You misunderstand how many people are necessary to operate a sub at this scale, with all the machinery onboard, for weeks at a time. It’s on the order of a dozen rather than two or three for the current narco boats. Also, it would be way way easier for us to track this sub versus what’s out there today. It’s way louder, I guarantee. I don’t know about airplanes, but I’m a SWO qualified former naval officer that was o…

Yep. It's a giant machine with specialized logistics (supplies and parts) and staff needs, so it has to based somewhere. AI can't miracle away maintenance of such a complex beast, if it were ever built. There's no hiding it under a net in the Bahamas.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#93

Post by anon-sre-srm »

aetherspawn wrote: post #48
sellmesoap wrote: post #40

4 weeks underwater endurance, I wonder what they intend to power this with?

I don’t think it can submerge very far below the surface because in the pictures shown the diesel is still venting to the surface via a pipe.

Diesel subs can also dive because they have batteries and electric motors.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#94

Post by swader999 »

bvanderveen wrote: post #29

It never fails to amaze me how tasteless and unimaginative your run-of-the-mill rich asshole is. Without even getting into housing, education, or whatever other feel-good virtue-signalling—this is seriously the coolest toy you can think to buy with 10e8-9 USD?

Some of them have the right idea. There's one guy who built a ship to launch cars into space. He flung one that went around the sun and it was pretty funny. He likes blowing stuff up too.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#95

Post by petre »

sojournerc wrote: post #63
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.

Except the performance sailing cat is a nicer experience than any sub because you get to stay on deck, even if only for watch and work.

Performance craft = stripped down to weight as little as possible, adjustable bunks, no showers, no kitchen, the toilet is usually a bucket.

https://youtu.be/T7cL3tx1voo

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#96

Post by ryan-allen »

The maintenance costs on this would be enormous! I sail regular old boring wind powered boats, and I have to admit, if I could afford this I'd probably buy it!

Saying that though, I have no idea how it would work legally in ports. I'm guessing you'd have to stay on surface in most territorial waters without some kind of crazy custom private clearance.

I live in Australia and I don't reckon authorities would be very happy if you decided to submerge in the middle of Sydney Harbour!

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#97

Post by zoenolan »

jfoutz wrote: post #77
zoenolan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ussubs.com/ ?

that might be it! same flavor at least.

I remember a paragraph in Wired and an only slightly more extensive website than the current one pager.

ChuckMcM has more on them

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39200231

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#99

Post by iancmceachern »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #89

My favorite in this class was the Phoenix 1000 from US Submarines[1]. As I recall (and someone has worked VERY HARD to scrub nearly every bit of information about US Submarines from the web) they has a really nasty bankruptcy with some very wealthy people upset that they had put down big deposits and ended up with zilch. [1] https://www.2luxury2.com/phoenix-1000-the-largest-private-un... [2] https://web.archive.org/w…

I remember reading about them, they had some crazy features too.

Re: 165 m private submersible superyacht

#100

Post by jabl »

aetherspawn wrote: post #48
sellmesoap wrote: post #40

4 weeks underwater endurance, I wonder what they intend to power this with?

I don’t think it can submerge very far below the surface because in the pictures shown the diesel is still venting to the surface via a pipe.

Military diesel subs have snorkels so they can run their diesels when they are at periscope depth. If they need to go deeper (or don't want a radar-reflecting snorkel sticking up over the surface) they shut down the diesels and rely on batteries. Traditionally huge banks of lead-acid batteries, not sure if newer subs use Li batteries.
Post reply on HN