Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's Deepest-Diving Unmanned Submarine Lost

Posted by timothy on from the helios-and-then-this dept.

XenonOfArcticus writes "Kaiko, the world's deepest-diving submarine was lost in in late May off Japan, after it snapped its tether as a typhoon approached. Kaiko entered the record books in 1995 by diving 36,008 feet to the bottom of the Challenger Deep - the ocean's deepest point."

48 comments

  1. Wow by tha_mink · · Score: -1, Redundant

    "Kaiko entered the record books in 1995 by diving 36,008 feet to the bottom of the Challenger Deep - the ocean's deepest point."

    That's deep.

    --
    You'll have that sometimes...
  2. No remote control? by Sherloqq · · Score: -1, Troll

    I don't know anything about this submarine (though I did RTFA), so I'm puzzled by its design. You mean to tell me that these things aren't made to be radio-controlled? That once the cable connecting it to the mother ship is cut, it's bye-bye Charlie? That's silly for a multi-million dollar piece of equipment. These folks should learn from NASA about redundant control / communication systems.

    --
    Have EVDO, will travel.
    1. Re:No remote control? by srn_test · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

      Either that, or you need to think about how well radio works in water (think ELF, for example).

    2. Re:No remote control? by arcadum · · Score: 0

      Why would they not design the sub to return to the surface and broadcast with a trasponder if it's tether is severed?

    3. Re:No remote control? by WhiteBandit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Taken directly from the article:

      Kaiko is designed to float to the surface and emit a tracking signal if its tether is broken. Although searchers briefly detected the beacon, they were unable to locate the probe and suspected it has either drifted off site or sunk to the bottom.

    4. Re:No remote control? by Sherloqq · · Score: 0

      Oh sure, mod me all the way down to Challenger Deep, so I can share the fate of that submarine... :)

      Allright, I guess I forgot about issues with radio wave propagation in water. I hang my head in shame instead.

      --
      Have EVDO, will travel.
  3. Recent events by s0rbix · · Score: 0

    I am concerned about the recent setbacks in many scientific fields. With the loss of the Challenger, the crash of the Helios, and now this, it makes me wonder what next.

    1. Re:Recent events by ChadN · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah. Without the Challenger, who knows when we can launch the Hubble telescope?

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    2. Re:Recent events by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Funny

      "With the loss of the Challenger, the crash of the Helios, and now this, it makes me wonder what next."

      Tragic demise of Bill Gates, I fear.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    3. Re:Recent events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helios was ultra experimental. Stuff like that is expected to crash.

    4. Re:Recent events by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      Next is learning from these mistakes. Like we have done throughout history.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    5. Re:Recent events by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I am concerned about the recent setbacks in many scientific fields. With the loss of the Challenger, the crash of the Helios, and now this, it makes me wonder what next.
      Hang on there cowboy. This probably just needs to be filed under the "Shit Happens" category. Spacecraft have always been blowing up because it is mighty difficult to build something that reliable goes through all that punishment. Experimental aircraft have always crashed, because they're experimental. You do experiments, and when something crashes you know what not to do. This sub was lost because it ended up in an extreme environment.

      What's next? More spacecraft exploding, more experimental aircraft crashing, and engineers and scientists learning a lot from it. This isn't a fairy-tale world; pushing the boundaries of known science and engineering is bound to have some hic-ups and failures. Think of all the test pilots who have died, the scores rockets that blew up in the 50's and 60's, and the ships lost at sea hundreds of years ago. When the cabin of Apollo 1 burst into flames and killed three people, we didn't abandon the program, we just figured out what went wrong, fixed it, and moved on and landed on the moon what, seven times? That progress at the cost of a failure invigorated at least one nation and led to greater public interest in aerospace, without which Helios wouldn't even have a chance to fail.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    6. Re:Recent events by OctaneZ · · Score: 1

      Science is all about failure, hell even the way we look at experimentation is ALL about failure. You never prove that something worked, you only prove that it didn't catachimically explode in your face, forcing your funding agency to bludgen you to death.

      Admittedly that is no the kind of thing you are talking about, but when you are doing somethign "experimental," you know going to space, trying to keep somethign at 1 bar pressure over a trench that extends 7 miles down; in an oncoming typhoon no less, failure is going to happen. It just adds to the list of thigns that you have to address when you rethink and revisit the problem.

  4. hmmm by phantomlord · · Score: -1, Redundant

    I'm no naval engineer, but wouldn't it make sense for the onboard computer to surface the sub if communication to the ship above is lost? Then, once it surfaces, have it emit a distress signal that the master ship can hone in on. Given that the sub is sealed, blowing the ballast tanks should make it float indefinitely, barring it hitting something and rupturing the hull

    --
    Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    1. Re:hmmm by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm no naval engineer, but wouldn't it make sense for the onboard computer to surface the sub if communication to the ship above is lost? Then, once it surfaces, have it emit a distress signal that the master ship can hone in on

      READ THE [CENSORED] ARTICLE

      Kaiko is designed to float to the surface and emit a tracking signal if its tether is broken. Although searchers briefly detected the beacon, they were unable to locate the probe and suspected it has either drifted off site or sunk to the bottom.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    2. Re:hmmm by phantomlord · · Score: 1

      yep... I'm an idiot. I was distracted when I RTFA and I missed that paragraph.

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    3. Re:hmmm by anubi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I just read the article.. and it sure looks like there is a bug in there somewhere. The article claimed exactly the design you describe.
      "Kaiko is designed to float to the surface and emit a tracking signal if its tether is broken. Although searchers briefly detected the beacon, they were unable to locate the probe and suspected it has either drifted off site or sunk to the bottom."
      I would assume the sub has local batteries, albeit rechargeable via the tether, for cacheing energy. As you noted, in the event the sub detected its tether being broken ( I would probably try to sense a loss of power feed ), use the cached energy in the battery to blow the ballast tanks.. or maybe have some sort of fire extinguishing system using liquid CO2 that could be routed into the ballast tanks to insure floatation in failsafe mode.

      I am not privy to the design plans, but somehow this whole episode reeks of a malfunction of some failsafe system. I find it difficult to conceive of some design engineer not hedging his bets against something as inevitable as a severed tether.

      Another poster noted RF being lossy underwater. My guess would been to place piezoelectric sonar transducers on the hull and ping them in the event the sub considered itself lost. It wouldn't take that much energy, but if you knew what kind of racket you were listening for, it would stand out from the normal oceanic noises.. kinda like those old war sub stories of marooned submariners taking a wrench and tapping out the morse code for SOS on the steel hull of the submarine.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    4. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you miss a paragraph??? Seriously, it's not like it was hiding or something.

    5. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called my dad (who had a stroke a couple years ago) called me downstairs since he needed me. When I came back to my computer, I started reading at the wrong paragraph. It was a two sentence paragraph, not exactly a paragraph that extended for 53 pages

    6. Re:hmmm by Almost-Retired · · Score: 2, Informative

      'scuse me, but how are you going to blow the tanks when the exterior pressure is sufficient to keep your liquid CO2 liquid by a factor of 20+. CO2 can be kept liquid at a pressure of a few hundred psi at room temps, somewhat less at the somewhat lower water temp. In the bottom of the Challenger Deep, the external pressure is in the range of 15,500 psi. Your liquid CO2 may even be a solid.

      What you do is drop (release) the ballast weight that made it heavier than water and become lighter, in the case of the Trieste, something like 9 tons of ballast was released when it was time to come back up.

      --
      Cheers, Gene, who knows a wee bit about the Trieste since it was wearing tv cameras I helped build when it made that dive. I was working as an ET at Oceanographic Engineering in San Diego at the time.

  5. Thanks by flikx · · Score: 3, Funny

    On behalf of all naval engineers, I would like to thank you. You see, with all the design tradeoffs involved in engineering a submarine, we completely forgot to add any useful safety features or redundancy of any kind. Thank you very much for you excellent insight, we will incorporate these obvious, yet overlooked features into the next generaion of unmanned submersibles.

    --
    One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
    1. Re:Thanks by zangdesign · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, remember to put some screen doors in the submarine so it's easy to tell if you're underwater or not. And so you can step outside for a whizz and a smoke.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    2. Re:Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Attach a miniature bathiosphere to the submersable. Have it large enough to contain a homing pigeon. Teach it how to drive the sub but don't let it actually control it unless the cable breaks.

      Or alternatively, you could devise a small capsule that would fire a smoke canister and signal flares upon surfacing.

  6. It's not lost... by breon.halling · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... it's hanging out with James Cameron. ;)

    --
    "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
    1. Re:It's not lost... by Gorny · · Score: 1

      I'm the King of the Deep Sea!

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
  7. Nitpick by crashnbur · · Score: 4, Informative
    I know this is a tedious point, but there are four oceans, and not everyone knows where Challenger Deep is. Also, it wouldn't hurt to let everyone know that Challenger Deep is allowed to be confused with the Marianas Trench, since Challenger Deep is the distinct section of the trench that reaches the deepest below the surface, almost seven miles.

    An interesting article about how to calculate the ocean's depth was put together by Nathan Becker, a student at the University of Hawaii when the report was written in 2001.

    1. Re:Nitpick by whm · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know this is a tedious point, but there are four oceans, and not everyone knows where Challenger Deep is.

      This may even be more tedious ... but how can you write a comment like that, and still not tell us proles where the hell it's at? :)

    2. Re:Nitpick by crashnbur · · Score: 1

      I was actually expecting a reply like this, but the reason is simple: I don't know where it's at. That was the point of my comment... I just know it's a part of the trench.

    3. Re:Nitpick by shthd · · Score: 1

      Just an interesting article. A manned mission went almost as deep. http://popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machin es/2003/5/submarine/index2.phtml

      --
      brrrrrrrrrppp 'Ey Homer...Why don't girls like me?
    4. Re:Nitpick by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      Continuing on the tedious nitpick theme...

      What the hell is "where it's at "?

      A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with. ;]

      Ya'll ain't gots no good English or ya jist wanna sound uneduhkated?

      "Where is it?"

      Now that would be English.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    5. Re:Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you don't know where it is, your comment is hardly a "nitpick". Its a fucking question. Why didn't you just simply say: "Where is the Challenger deep?"

    6. Re:Nitpick by t0qer · · Score: 1

      What the hell is "where it's at "?

      Don't you listen to Beck? The song goes..

      Where it's at, I got 2 turntables and a microphone,
      Where it's at, I got 2 turntables and a microphone,

      Where is it, I got 2 turntables just doesn't sound right.

  8. Probably destroyed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Given that the sub hasn't returned to the surface, my (mostly uneducated) guess is that it's been destroyed. How? Probably an implosion of equipment.

    Due to the extreme pressure at depth, failure of a seal on anything waterproof could set off a dangerous pressure wave capable of severly damaging the craft - it would be like a depth charge. Heck, even a *light* for the camera system imploding at depth could do this (which is why they're so heavily armored in the first place).

    I wonder what the end of the teather looks like?

    I'm just glad the sub wasn't manned.

    1. Re:Probably destroyed. by OctaneZ · · Score: 1

      The article states that the beacon (only emitted at the surface) was briefly heard, this means that it at least *hit* the surface after the tether broke, thougth I agree, it most likely sank, and implosion of the sort you predict is unlikely.

    2. Re:Probably destroyed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Knowing nothing about this, I'd like to voice my ignorant opinion for millions to see.

    3. Re:Probably destroyed. by ivanmarsh · · Score: 1

      It just set a new depth record. 8^>

  9. unmanned by smg_mrBlonde · · Score: 0

    Doesent this sound like a Steven Spielberg movie?
    Im certian the "World's Deepest-Diving Unmanned Submarine" is now in the World's Deepest ocean bottom.
    Good thing its unmanned.

  10. Our entire world[view] by cathouse · · Score: 1

    is and is based on only the tiny [linear] fraction of the range of actual physical conditions which exist on just this one [3rd] rock from the [G3] sun.
    Simple concept such as 'blow ballast' have NO relation at all to the conditions that exist just 7 miles from home, when that 7 miles is DOWN and there's WATER ALL THE WAY. IIRC the closest thing to Fail-Safe under such conditions is [was] a flotation envelope filled with gasoline and ballasted to negative with iron 'scrap' held in place by electro-magnets.
    This [/.] collection of the brightest and best the species has produced overwhelmingly FAILS TO COMPREHEND the most basic natural laws when the subject is any farther from home than thumb+mouth=suck.

    --
    Thelma, I'm not making ANY deals.
  11. Location of The Deep by OctaneZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Map" of location of Marianas Trench
    Wikipedia entry for Challenger Deep
    The Trench is located east of the Matianas Islands

    Hope this helps you find it.

  12. The ocean in question would be the by DoraLives · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pacific.

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
    1. Re:The ocean in question would be the by TwP · · Score: 1

      Off of the coast of Japan and heading roughly South-Southwest down towards Malyasia. The trench is formed where the Pacific continential plate dives underneath the Asian continential plate.

    2. Re:The ocean in question would be the by flewp · · Score: 1

      Off of the coast of Japan and heading roughly South-Southwest down towards Malyasia.

      YOU MEAN IT'S MOVING?!?! This can only be one thing, a WMD made by the Japanese. They better be prepared to be liberated.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  13. Nitpicking nitpick by barakn · · Score: 1

    There are actually 5 oceans. In 2000, the International Hydrographic Organization defined the Southern Ocean, all water below 60 degrees south.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  14. My geography teacher always liked to use this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the screen-door submarine joke, he would throw in "Hey, don't laugh, it kept the fish out."

  15. What I think happened... by Rocky · · Score: 1

    "Release the Kraken!"

    --
    "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
  16. How Deep Does a US Submarine Go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer I always give is "All the way to the bottom." It's a flip answer that submariners give that underscores the seriousness of the environment and the price of failure. It also underscores the flippancy of sub sailors. :)

    Remember that the US lost the Thresher and the Scorpion in the late unpleasantness of the so-called cold war. Read "Blind Man's Bluff" if you want to know just how much stranger truth can be than fiction.

    Hide with Pride,
    MM1/SS

  17. More than that has been lost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've lost more than that in your mom's hole.

  18. We all lived in a yellow submarine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they checked Pepperland? Maybe, one of the Blue Meanies got it.