|
Marc, One instance comes to mind when a sub yacht would come in quite handy...If confronted by modern day pirates when well offshore and away from friendly law enforcement! Many areas of the worlds oceans are not safe. It's just so hard to steal from someone you can't find! David Bartsch > Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:02:36 +0800 > From: piolenc@archivale.com > To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org; international_psubs_minisubs@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Luxury submarine yacht - how would it shape up if experts were involved > > A lot of derision was recently heaped on a submersible luxury yacht > concept bruited by an Italian shipyard and reported by CNN. But > something in the article struck me as a challenge to those "in the > know." A spokesman for the shipyard said that they were looking for > consultants. > > What if one or more of the leading lights of the personal submarines > networks were tapped to advise these builders? What would he/they tell > the yacht designers about the concept they have now, and what > modifications would he/they recommend, and why? > > Although I am NOT a leading light in the field of personal submarines, I > have fantasized for decades about a personal submarine large and > comfortable enough for cruising, or even living aboard, and even done > some calculations and formed some opinions. I would like to try > launching the discussion, which I hope will be fruitful. Referring to > the CNN report: > > http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/07/01/concept.yacht.designs/index.html?fbid=owi0rlu2C1- > > It's fairly clear from the graphics that the outer hull of this thing is > the pressure hull (portholes visible), not a "soft" external casing, > which means that ballast provisions must necessarily be "hard" and > located inside the pressure hull. That, and the sheer size of the round > wiewports located just aft of amidships tell us that this beast, as > conceived, is meant only for shallow submergence. The absence of > internal stiffeners and bulkheads in the interior drawings reinforces > this, and also dictates the use of an inherently stiff, thick hull > shell, possibly of sandwich construction. > > That said, what advantages would the ability to submerge to a modest > depth give the submarine yacht that might justify the vast additional > cost of building a huge submersible? The most obvious is the ability to > sightsee, to view the wonders of the shallows: reefs, lagoons... But > this could probably be adequately provided by a glass-bottomed surface > vessel. Handling rough weather is another advantage - one that > absolutely requires the ability to submerge. Equipped with a snorkel, > the yacht could use the full power of its diesels to make a rapid > passage through even the roughest weather. Even though, snorkeling, it > could not submerge below the convection zone of large surface waves, the > power of its propulsion system, allied with powerful hydrovanes and an > automatic stabilization system, would iron out most of the bumps and > allow a fair body like the sub to power through a storm at over thirty > knots. If the hull shape were optimized to minimize wave-making near the > surface, it might do better still. > > There are disadvantages, of course, besides the greater expense of > building the beast. Like water ballast, all fuel tankage must be > internal, which makes venting, and protecting the passengers and crew > against fuel fumes and spills, a major design task. At snorkel depth > there's no problem because there is a continual influx of fresh air and > aspiration of interior air into the engines and expulsion out the > exhaust. With the boat completely buttoned up and on electric > propulsion, the problem gets more complicated. > > The big viewports will have to be altered - I don't know of any outfit > that could mold a one-piece acrylic port that large. The result would be > mullioned, and might resemble a rose window more than a porthole. > > Best, > Marc > > > > > ************************************************************************ > ************************************************************************ > ************************************************************************ > The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal > CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our database > because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages > from our organization. > > If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the > link below or send a blank email message to: > removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org > > Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an > automated process and should be complete within five minutes of > our server receiving your request. > > PSUBS.ORG > PO Box 53 > Weare, NH 03281 > 603-529-1100 > ************************************************************************ > ************************************************************************ > ************************************************************************ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. |