you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Beorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Meh, NASA do same. Everyone shit on dead man to better of self.

"Test data since 1977 had revealed a potentially catastrophic flaw in the SRBs' O-rings"

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

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Going into space is a lot more expensive and "harder" to do because of the initial launch. But it seems to me that building a vehicle worthy of space travel would be a lot easier than building a submersible.

Space vehicle needs to be able to withstand a pressure of one atmosphere. (Outward)

Submersible need to be able to handle 300 atmosphere of pressure at 3000 meters or so.

If your spacecraft hull had a flaw explosive decompression is a concern but it happens at only one atmosphere of pressure. That means it might as well be a slow leak that can be identified and fixed. A submarine, once the hull is compromised the force will tear it apart.

I kinda wanna visit the titanic now, but I'd probably build a drone attached to a cable and pilot it remotely from the safety of the ship. No reason to actually head down there these days. It's not like you can leave the submersible and walk around.