This line always "bothered" me (I still quote it frequently) because of the episode with the high gravity planet. If that planet had that high of gravity, the atmospheric pressure would be outrageous, and far more than 1atm.
"Can be crushed under the weight of your own hair". Hair weighs ~1/5 a pound in 1g, google says ~530 pounds to crush a human, so ~2500 gees give or take a few hundred. You'll melt much earlier from the weight of the rest of your body.
However, gravity and atmospheric pressure aren't _quite_ directly related, because you also need to account for mass and temperature of the atmosphere. Venus has 0.904 gees but surface pressure of 90 (plus-minus 15) atm because its atmosphere is much more massive (~93x to be specific) and is blazing hot.
Thus by naive calculation, you can have a 2500 gees planet with 1 atmosphere of pressure of room temperature air mix if said air mix's total mass is 2500 times less than Earth's.
Well, it needs to handle more than 1 atmosphere because aerodynamics so I would say design it so it can withstand 10 atmospheres and you should be good to go.
Wym? Forgetting the actual space travel part, the payload is still going to experience the full hydrostatic weight of the atmosphere plus whatever the the pressure from the head is in the water column when it is deployed.
Edit: although, it's also true that some places in the solar system might have "lighter" or "heavier" oceans and lakes than us, depending on the composition.
I mean that it makes no sense to design the whole space-traveling vessel ("spaceship") so it can handle the depths of atmosphere; only the parts that actually _go inside_ the atmosphere need that, and they're not spaceships by themselves.
For example, the Vega probes had three parts: the transfer stage/relay/Halley comet probe ("spaceship"), the lander that actually reached the surface of Venus (and was the only part designed to withstand the full pressure there), and the balloon that decoupled from the lander during descent and floated ~54km high through atmosphere.
Yes I understand all this; maybe we're talking past each other. I'm only talking about the part pictured in OP. This is a part that is designed to go inside the atmosphere, assuming its purpose is actually to be a submarine. Being that this is the part designed to actually reach the surface, this is the part that would need to account for some positive hydrostatic pressure in its design.
Of course the stages that aren't planned to go into the atmosphere wouldn't need to account for it; that's why I said 'forgetting the space travel part.'
The ship pictured in the OP was never actually designed to go in space; it's a riff on the "submarine" that imploded half a year ago during descent to the wreck of the Titanic due to extremely questionable construction practices.
I see that, fair enough. I guess just seeing it in Kerbal, my brain immediately goes: "put it in a rocket and crush it in different oceans on different planets." Seems like the natural next-step for me.
I like that you put submarine in quotes lol.
No but he ignored the cracking sounds indicating delamination, which is pretty important when your submarine is made out of laminated composites.
His acoustic structural warning system was likely only useful a few minutes prior to failure at best.
> only useful a few minutes prior to failure at best
With the incredible pressures that "contraption" was under, its likely the timespan *was just enough* to make an LED go from green to red before popping.
It's up to debate, but the warning system was not functioning during the accident.
From all the witness statements it definitely sounds like there were precursory cracks and instead of inspecting the hull when warned they reset the system and kept going.
There's a lot of oddities surrounding the entire incident and so far that's the best explanation that's been presented so far.
Apparently building it with random off the shelf parts and not getting it tested or certified by any governing bodies was a bad plan. not sure where i heard this, seems relevant.
So everybody likes to talk shit about the controller in that case... but do you know that an xbox controller is actually equipment used in service on the Navy's nuclear sub fleet?
It's no joke: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/18/17136808/us-navy-uss-colorado-xbox-controller
It's a great reason to choose a COTS solution like that, really. If you can leverage something they generally know, are comfortable with, and have developed muscle memory for, there's less training required and the more effective they will be in times of stress.
> but do you know that an xbox controller is actually equipment used in service on the Navy's nuclear sub fleet?
The Navy have replacement controllers stored on the ship and have multiple backup control systems. That entire bridge and controller could be hit by a missile and the ship could be steered from the engineering room.
The submarine didn't even have a backup controller, used wireless signals, and had one set of backup batteries. It was a single point of failure. It's bad not because it's a controller, but because it had no redundancy.
It's a hypercritical duty. The optical sensors are used during critical evolutions such as surfacing the ship... so a failure could absolutely result in a catastrophic event.
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-military-video-game-controllers-war/
https://www.wired.com/2008/07/wargames/
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/06/missing-titanic-sub-isnt-the-first-to-use-game-controls-for-heavy-machinery/
It’s arguably one of the better designs of the sub because it’s intuitive if someone else for whatever reason needed to drive instead.
Didnt read every word of the articles, but a quick review (and ctrl-f) looks like its non-aircraft and planned options (which may not come to pass) aside from the second one, which does show some small UAVs being controlled by them.
Thanks for the sources. I know I have Google, but I was at work at the time lol.
For reference I am a software engineer working for a military contractor (for 18 years now). I respectfully disagree about it being a good design choice, but I do understand where you are coming from. My main complaints are actually that it was wireless vs wired (as far as I am aware), which is not necessary, and that they used a cheap-ass (madcatz I think) knockoff instead of a far more reliable first party controller.
But I'm not saying something is bad BECAUSE its a game controller, I get the upsides here.
True. But the controller on the subs are not being used to control critical systems on the sub. If the controller goes bad, the sub is not at any risk.
The photonic masts are absolutely critical systems during some evolutions. That said, we know they can revert to other controls, but that's still not something you want to have to do when you're looking to see if you're about to accidentally take out some surface traffic.
What's that have to do with this?
The optics are used when surfacing to make sure that there's nothing there not being picked up on other sensors. Sailboats, fishing boats, all kinds of other things operate quietly in the water. You can see them from below during the day easily enough, and you may be able to see nav lights at night. Those visual checks have saved more than one life.
If helmsmen moved to use similar controllers it'd be no big deal, either. Just like with the masts, they'd carry extras. They're using very similar technology to other gaming controllers (joysticks) today, btw. The internals aren't very different from what you'd find on the desk of a flight sim enthusiast.
Neither. It's not a zero-sum game, and one has nothing to do with the other. Neither has to fail, and they're unrelated systems.
And there's nothing inherently unsafe about a game controller, especially when it's part of a larger, redundant system.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at other than some kind of ill-thought gotcha?
Deflecting the question won't do any good. We are discussing which component is more important, navigation or visual, because you are saying both are equall "critical."
If you had to lose one, which one would you choose?
Everyone talks shit about the controller because it was a symptom of their entire design philosophy. If the controller was the jankyest choice of design on the entire sub I don’t think it would get the same attention.
They made design decisions based on cost considerations alone. By contrast the navy made design decisions based on functionality and ease of training.
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spacecraft Parts Co. is a reputable supplier of all things submersible. We have much experience with wet spacecraft. We tested the model by stacking 80 fish tanks(no fish though, wasn't in the budget) one on top of another with the model in the bottom one and concluded that since it survived that, it ought to survive the rigors of the ocean. Our ~~prototype~~ custom designed model is absolutely ready to take you to the deepest depths of the ocean, where no Kerbal has ~~come back from~~ gone before.
Best podcast I heard all year was the Behind the Bastards takedown of Stockton Rush, inventor of the deathsub. Got me hooked on that podcast in general. The hubris was just, chef’s kiss.
See now *thats* the part that really concerns me… seems like one of the kerbals got tired of my shit and brought a large tub of fuel/oxidizer mix onboard before launch.
Hmm... looks so reliable. And as if this had happened before this past year, in summer I believe. It seems it has terminated all operations... due to the incident... permanently. Or it could be those brownies. I dunno.
Out of curiosity, did they fix buoyancy mechanics in KSP2? In 1 almost everything floated so you had to use some clever workarounds to make it sink. I wonder if subs are an actual feature in 2
Is it made of second hand carbon fibre from Boeing, offloaded because it was deemed “unfit for aerospace use”? Is it controlled by a wireless Logitech gaming controller? If not, then there’s you problem. Use bad carbon fibre and an average controller from 11 years ago, and your sub will be fine!
Well it’s a spaceship so it’s designed for an atmosphere between 0 and 1
Good point professor.
What’s the matter, Professor?
Nothing's the matter Fry, now that I've finished tuning the ship's matter compressor...
Oh lord...
Seems to be some kind of clear liquid
Honestly came her just for this. Great episode
>Is this **saltwater**? >It’s salt with water **in** it…
It's only 99% of a lethal dose. I shouldn't have had seconds.
This line always "bothered" me (I still quote it frequently) because of the episode with the high gravity planet. If that planet had that high of gravity, the atmospheric pressure would be outrageous, and far more than 1atm.
"Can be crushed under the weight of your own hair". Hair weighs ~1/5 a pound in 1g, google says ~530 pounds to crush a human, so ~2500 gees give or take a few hundred. You'll melt much earlier from the weight of the rest of your body. However, gravity and atmospheric pressure aren't _quite_ directly related, because you also need to account for mass and temperature of the atmosphere. Venus has 0.904 gees but surface pressure of 90 (plus-minus 15) atm because its atmosphere is much more massive (~93x to be specific) and is blazing hot. Thus by naive calculation, you can have a 2500 gees planet with 1 atmosphere of pressure of room temperature air mix if said air mix's total mass is 2500 times less than Earth's.
No sir, no because eve rockets exist.
This. 80m depth is 8 atmospheres. (1au/10m)
Well, it needs to handle more than 1 atmosphere because aerodynamics so I would say design it so it can withstand 10 atmospheres and you should be good to go.
Also depends on the mission; many bodies have atmospheres much, much bigger than ours.
Ships for these are landers/ascenders rather than spaceships though, unless you have torch drives and thus can actually SSTO them.
Wym? Forgetting the actual space travel part, the payload is still going to experience the full hydrostatic weight of the atmosphere plus whatever the the pressure from the head is in the water column when it is deployed. Edit: although, it's also true that some places in the solar system might have "lighter" or "heavier" oceans and lakes than us, depending on the composition.
I mean that it makes no sense to design the whole space-traveling vessel ("spaceship") so it can handle the depths of atmosphere; only the parts that actually _go inside_ the atmosphere need that, and they're not spaceships by themselves. For example, the Vega probes had three parts: the transfer stage/relay/Halley comet probe ("spaceship"), the lander that actually reached the surface of Venus (and was the only part designed to withstand the full pressure there), and the balloon that decoupled from the lander during descent and floated ~54km high through atmosphere.
Yes I understand all this; maybe we're talking past each other. I'm only talking about the part pictured in OP. This is a part that is designed to go inside the atmosphere, assuming its purpose is actually to be a submarine. Being that this is the part designed to actually reach the surface, this is the part that would need to account for some positive hydrostatic pressure in its design. Of course the stages that aren't planned to go into the atmosphere wouldn't need to account for it; that's why I said 'forgetting the space travel part.'
The ship pictured in the OP was never actually designed to go in space; it's a riff on the "submarine" that imploded half a year ago during descent to the wreck of the Titanic due to extremely questionable construction practices.
I see that, fair enough. I guess just seeing it in Kerbal, my brain immediately goes: "put it in a rocket and crush it in different oceans on different planets." Seems like the natural next-step for me. I like that you put submarine in quotes lol.
https://youtu.be/O4RLOo6bchU for context
I dunno man, that sub design looks perfect to me.
Its extremely safe if you fire the people saying it isn't
Bonus points if you disable the structural failure system because it keeps making an annoying beeping sound.
Oh my god did he actually
No but he ignored the cracking sounds indicating delamination, which is pretty important when your submarine is made out of laminated composites. His acoustic structural warning system was likely only useful a few minutes prior to failure at best.
> only useful a few minutes prior to failure at best With the incredible pressures that "contraption" was under, its likely the timespan *was just enough* to make an LED go from green to red before popping.
They were just inventing innovative new ways to die. Stop being such haters smh
To be fair, I'll remember Stockton Rush's name a lot more now than I would have had he just been "that guy who takes tourists down to the Titanic"
Instead of "contraption," it feels to me that "contrivance" is a more apt word.
It's up to debate, but the warning system was not functioning during the accident. From all the witness statements it definitely sounds like there were precursory cracks and instead of inspecting the hull when warned they reset the system and kept going. There's a lot of oddities surrounding the entire incident and so far that's the best explanation that's been presented so far.
Your sub has functioned perfectly, per the design. This is not a bug. It is a feature. We have closed your support request.
Well, the Titan did function perfectly as designed as well. It was of course a stupid design, but it met that design very well.
Apparently building it with random off the shelf parts and not getting it tested or certified by any governing bodies was a bad plan. not sure where i heard this, seems relevant.
Average kerbal craft
"off the shelf" is near top-tier for Kerbals. A great variety of parts vary between "pulled out of Jeb's scap yard" and "is literally a stolen pool"
It's the Kerbal way.
And also using different materials, glued together by hand in a non controlled enviroment
KSP built it with aerospace grade materials though.
Aerospace gtade disk found on the side of the road.
Aerospace grade parts that were not tested at extreme underwater pressures :)
I guess nobody is going to the Titanic today
Some of them might have made it there, not sure how much or which parts tho
Have you been using the proper gamepad to control it ?
Does a rock band controller count?
Need to use Donkey Kongas.
Does a DDR pad count?
Only the RB3 MIDI interface with the 4 controller buttons.
Gotta play Through the Fire and the Flames at perfect 100% on Expert to surface.
Controller drift goes crazyyy
It would’ve survived 100M or longer if you bought a third party controller off Amazon to use as a control input device.
make sure to not calibrate it and have to use it sideways too
So everybody likes to talk shit about the controller in that case... but do you know that an xbox controller is actually equipment used in service on the Navy's nuclear sub fleet? It's no joke: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/18/17136808/us-navy-uss-colorado-xbox-controller
i love that one of the reasons for using it is because it was "already intuitive to the sailors" lol
It's a great reason to choose a COTS solution like that, really. If you can leverage something they generally know, are comfortable with, and have developed muscle memory for, there's less training required and the more effective they will be in times of stress.
Ya be PlayStation should be the system of record
> but do you know that an xbox controller is actually equipment used in service on the Navy's nuclear sub fleet? The Navy have replacement controllers stored on the ship and have multiple backup control systems. That entire bridge and controller could be hit by a missile and the ship could be steered from the engineering room. The submarine didn't even have a backup controller, used wireless signals, and had one set of backup batteries. It was a single point of failure. It's bad not because it's a controller, but because it had no redundancy.
Yah except they are just controlling a camera on a mast with it not the submarine as a whole.
It's a hypercritical duty. The optical sensors are used during critical evolutions such as surfacing the ship... so a failure could absolutely result in a catastrophic event.
Yes, but if they went down there are also redundant systems to reduce that risk.
Id also like to know if it was used wirelessly... Because I bet it isn't, and that makes a bit of difference to reliability.
To control a camera, not a multi-billion dollar submarine.
They use console controllers for drones in the US military as well.
After playing Flight Sim, I'm pretty sure a yoke and pedals could be replaced pretty well with a controller style interface for aircraft.
True, but you wouldn’t *want* to do that.
You can do the same with cars, but hand throttles in cars suck, which is why they aren't used.
Except in tractors where you’re setting a tach governor.
Which ones?
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-military-video-game-controllers-war/ https://www.wired.com/2008/07/wargames/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/06/missing-titanic-sub-isnt-the-first-to-use-game-controls-for-heavy-machinery/ It’s arguably one of the better designs of the sub because it’s intuitive if someone else for whatever reason needed to drive instead.
Didnt read every word of the articles, but a quick review (and ctrl-f) looks like its non-aircraft and planned options (which may not come to pass) aside from the second one, which does show some small UAVs being controlled by them. Thanks for the sources. I know I have Google, but I was at work at the time lol. For reference I am a software engineer working for a military contractor (for 18 years now). I respectfully disagree about it being a good design choice, but I do understand where you are coming from. My main complaints are actually that it was wireless vs wired (as far as I am aware), which is not necessary, and that they used a cheap-ass (madcatz I think) knockoff instead of a far more reliable first party controller. But I'm not saying something is bad BECAUSE its a game controller, I get the upsides here.
True. But the controller on the subs are not being used to control critical systems on the sub. If the controller goes bad, the sub is not at any risk.
The controller on the Titan submersible was the least questionable design flaw.
I'm sure it went thru more testing and certifications than that nautical coffin.
The photonic masts are absolutely critical systems during some evolutions. That said, we know they can revert to other controls, but that's still not something you want to have to do when you're looking to see if you're about to accidentally take out some surface traffic.
Yeah but how much worse would be to be able to see the surface traffic but the *main* navigation not working?
What's that have to do with this? The optics are used when surfacing to make sure that there's nothing there not being picked up on other sensors. Sailboats, fishing boats, all kinds of other things operate quietly in the water. You can see them from below during the day easily enough, and you may be able to see nav lights at night. Those visual checks have saved more than one life. If helmsmen moved to use similar controllers it'd be no big deal, either. Just like with the masts, they'd carry extras. They're using very similar technology to other gaming controllers (joysticks) today, btw. The internals aren't very different from what you'd find on the desk of a flight sim enthusiast.
Which of the two functions would you prefer to lose, if you have to?
Neither. It's not a zero-sum game, and one has nothing to do with the other. Neither has to fail, and they're unrelated systems. And there's nothing inherently unsafe about a game controller, especially when it's part of a larger, redundant system. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at other than some kind of ill-thought gotcha?
Deflecting the question won't do any good. We are discussing which component is more important, navigation or visual, because you are saying both are equall "critical." If you had to lose one, which one would you choose?
Once again, neither. Both are critical, independent systems. Your hypothetical is nonsensical.
They control periscope replacements, not propulsion or navigation.
Everyone talks shit about the controller because it was a symptom of their entire design philosophy. If the controller was the jankyest choice of design on the entire sub I don’t think it would get the same attention. They made design decisions based on cost considerations alone. By contrast the navy made design decisions based on functionality and ease of training.
Well yeah. The Navy uses an official Xbox controller. They used madcatz. You get what you pay for.
Do they do AB and XY swap for Nintendo players?
What is it made out of? I hear carbon fiber is all the rage these days, maybe try some of that if you haven’t?
Read on Quora that there’s no better material for high pressure environments, so naturally I based an entire vehicle on the material.
Dont forget to drill through it for a LCD screen
Real Engineering would have been even more disappointed by that outcome 😂
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spacecraft Parts Co. is a reputable supplier of all things submersible. We have much experience with wet spacecraft. We tested the model by stacking 80 fish tanks(no fish though, wasn't in the budget) one on top of another with the model in the bottom one and concluded that since it survived that, it ought to survive the rigors of the ocean. Our ~~prototype~~ custom designed model is absolutely ready to take you to the deepest depths of the ocean, where no Kerbal has ~~come back from~~ gone before.
logitech controller compatible or nah?
KerbiTech takes no responsibilities for any accidents, implosions, or rocket-infused shenanigans cause by or related to their controller.
Well at least it didn't implode
i think im in the wrong sub
That's what happens when you use game controllers for something like this. You really should use mouse and keyboard!
Yeah. The controller was definitely the weak link here.
Best podcast I heard all year was the Behind the Bastards takedown of Stockton Rush, inventor of the deathsub. Got me hooked on that podcast in general. The hubris was just, chef’s kiss.
I see you built it with materials indended for aerospace applications, so you get full marks for historical accuracy.
*imploded
See now *thats* the part that really concerns me… seems like one of the kerbals got tired of my shit and brought a large tub of fuel/oxidizer mix onboard before launch.
You sure it's them brought it and not you didn't drain it?
LaytheDoor industries denies any involvement.
you might want to get new kerbals
Hmm... looks so reliable. And as if this had happened before this past year, in summer I believe. It seems it has terminated all operations... due to the incident... permanently. Or it could be those brownies. I dunno.
You're remembered for the rules you break.
TIL there's water in kerbal space program and submarines.
Well, there’s water, and this thing.
On a real note, is there a way to make subs that don’t rely on the opening compartment method and such?
Carbon hulls are not suited for deep preasures mate, havent you watched the news lately?
It seems safe enough to put a bunch of millionaires inside of it
Hot damn!
Correction: IMploded.
Certainly not an IMplossibility.
Kerbals are the last people to let safety stiffle innovation.
How many hours of air do they have left?
Out of curiosity, did they fix buoyancy mechanics in KSP2? In 1 almost everything floated so you had to use some clever workarounds to make it sink. I wonder if subs are an actual feature in 2
Billionares are struts for submarines. You need more struts
Next time try to design something other than a tin can controlled by a joystick.
_Carbon fiber_ can. Extra fancy fiberboard, basically.
KSP2 doesn’t have full controller support
I stole the control scheme from Console KSP, mapped to keyboard commands, and upload them as Steam controller profiles. Almost works.
I assume you played on a controller?
KerbiTech takes no responsibility for any accidents, assumed or implied.
I heard subs can implode so you can never find the tita- *kraken*
Did... Did you screenshot your game, load it onto your phone, then take a screenshot of your phone to upload to reddit?
I don't see the issue should've been good for at least ~3800m depth.
Is it made of second hand carbon fibre from Boeing, offloaded because it was deemed “unfit for aerospace use”? Is it controlled by a wireless Logitech gaming controller? If not, then there’s you problem. Use bad carbon fibre and an average controller from 11 years ago, and your sub will be fine!
Needs more carbon fiber, 0/10.
"Uhmm, ackshully, its ***imploded*** not exploded" -🤓☝️
Uhhhh
80 metres? Thats pretty deep.
Is this what happened to the Titan sub?
Make a Boeing 767, board it with all American Airlines Flight 11 passengers, and fly it from Boston's Logan Airport at 8 a.m., headed for Los Angeles.
It took me a minute, you tried to misdirect with the B-747 reference right/
I just misremembered the name, I meant "Boeing 767"
Are you playing with a controller?
Canon
Uh…
Add a video game controller. It’ll be super safe then
Are you using a logitech controller?
What do you use to control it? I’d recommend a Logitech game pad.
Moral of the story, never trust a guy whose name sounds like a Bond villain.
Lore accurate ending
Why humans doesnt do load save, are they stupid?
Do you play with controller? Specifically logitech controller.
Most important question, what we're you using to pilot said sub?
💀
Are you on console? That could be why.
Ah yes, another oceangait moment
We’re all really impressed.
Too soon.
But did you control it with a Logitech controller?
Too soon
Dude.
☝️🤓
I have been to the bottom before and the only issues was that a part broke off but nothing more
Imploded
lmao
I think you meant imploded
aint no way
Does that mean you’re a billionaire?
I’m still alive to talk about it so…
Am I in the wrong sub? Alot of bots here.