Slashdot Mirror


Submarine Tech Reaches For Deep Ocean Record

disco_tracy writes "US Submarines CEO Bruce Jones and his team have just announced that they've developed new technology for a submersible that could take ocean explorers 36,000 feet deep, to the bottom of the Pacific's Mariana Trench."

164 comments

  1. Giant squid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You can hire some giant squid to come over with a sledgehammer and just start bashing away on that glass sphere. And it won't hurt it."
      wait vat?

    1. Re:Giant squid? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You've never been down there? It's amazing!

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Giant squid? by mrjb · · Score: 1

      You can hire a giant squid? AWESOME. The Bart Simpson in me wants to know *where*!

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    3. Re:Giant squid? by mangu · · Score: 2

      "You can hire some giant squid to come over with a sledgehammer and just start bashing away on that glass sphere. And it won't hurt it."

      That's correct. The glass sphere won't hurt a giant squid.

    4. Re:Giant squid? by treeves · · Score: 1

      I don't think there are any giant squid that deep. Just little critters.
      While giant squid are considered deep sea creatures, that means something like 3000 ft., not 36,000 ft.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  2. southern hillarians visited by archaic vessel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another second coming? looks old enough. propellers? right out of the literature. looks like the refugeous move to mebotuh may be before 2025 after all.

  3. 11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's really impressive.

    1. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      i really don't get why this has to be measured in feet. If you must use imperial system, wouldn't 8 furlongs, 5 chains and 10 yards sound nicer? btw, my daily ride to work is 2 735 000 centimetres long.

    2. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      and (of course) by 8, i mean 54 furlongs.

    3. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Cwix · · Score: 2

      Because furlongs, and chains are not in common usage?
      And because if the submitter did put it in furlongs and chains there would be a million assholes (Im gonna guess including you) bitching about slashdot using an anachronistic form of measure.

      Now you can claim that the imperial measurement system itself is by and large outdated, but it is still in use here in the US, and this is a US based webpage. So if you dont mind, we would prefer keeping the words that are in common usage here in the states.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    4. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because Slashdot is an American website, not European.

      --
      Loading...
    5. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      Ah you already made my point, I should have drilled down before saying the same thing...

      --
      Loading...
    6. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, here in Kentucky we use furlongs - at the horse racing track.

      --
      Loading...
    7. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thanks for the information. Slashdot should adopt a policy, like Wikipedia, that all measurement units should be metric with the alternatives in parenthesis. This way, everybody would be happy. Slashdot has editors. Is it so hard for them to fix this?

    8. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 1

      6000 fathoms you insensitive clod!

      --
      Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
    9. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 1

      ....which is a little under 2 leagues

      --
      Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
    10. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by moonbender · · Score: 2

      I think in metric myself, but really, this is very far down the list of things I want the editors to be more diligent about.

      In fact, at this point the entire editing process is far down the list of Slashdot annoyances: the freaking browser window keeps scrolling up several pages to expand the fucking parent post when I just want to middle- or right-click a link, leaving it up to me to find the post and sentence I was just reading. I swear I have never seen a more aggravating non-feature than this.

      (PS: I know I can just disable the new UI to stop Slashdot from messing with mouse clicks. I actually like the new UI, but I might have to do that. I keep hoping they're going to fix it RSN.)

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    11. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by k_187 · · Score: 0

      Probably not, but you also assume that the editors care.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    12. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      And here I thought it was called the WORLD Wide Web...

      Yep, anyone anywhere in the world can access this US-based site and bitch about how hard it is to convert from feet to meters. FYI, one foot is approximately 30.5cm.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    13. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by sirdude · · Score: 1
      Thank you!

      God-damned Troglodytes.

    14. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by jittles · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks for the information. Slashdot should adopt a policy, like Wikipedia, that all measurement units should be metric with the alternatives in parenthesis. This way, everybody would be happy. Slashdot has editors. Is it so hard for them to fix this?

      I'm sorry but that is the most asinine comment I have read all day. All month even. What's the point of using the metric system when we have the Library of Congress system. If you're dealing with something that cannot be converted to the Library of Congress system, then it must not be worth mentioning.

    15. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      In fact, at this point the entire editing process is far down the list of Slashdot annoyances: the freaking browser window keeps scrolling up several pages to expand the fucking parent post when I just want to middle- or right-click a link, leaving it up to me to find the post and sentence I was just reading. I swear I have never seen a more aggravating non-feature than this.

      (PS: I know I can just disable the new UI to stop Slashdot from messing with mouse clicks. I actually like the new UI, but I might have to do that. I keep hoping they're going to fix it RSN.)

      This. A million times this.

    16. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why convert? The sub company is American and the website is American. Perhaps you should do yr own converting, and think a little bit about why you think the world should mold itself to your desires.

    17. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Funny but when I watch Top Gear UK they actually say things like "miles per hour", "miles per gallon", "zero to sixty", and "quarter mile time". When I read the UK magazine Bike I see many of the same measurements but most frustrating is that they give the size of the fuel tank in liters but the fuel economy in MPG! Same thing when I read UK car magazines. When I go to car websites in the UK they also have MPG listed.
      So do the whiners spend as much time on the Top Gear website and sending letters to the editors, letters to the BBC, and complaining to the car companies about them using miles, gallons and so on as they do when a US based website does?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      think a little bit about why you think the world should mold itself to your desires.

      Dear gods, the irony lobe in my brain is fit to burst.. America's whole international policy seems to be to mold the rest of the world to its desires..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    19. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by mangu · · Score: 1

      Wait, the Library of Congress is only one of the dimensions. The others are the Volkswagen Beetle and the Football Field.

    20. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      How many Libraries of Congress is that?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    21. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/search?q=36000+feet+in+meters

      Not trying to be snarky... I work in the US for Denmark-based company so I have found Google a great tool for unit conversion, currency conversion, and basic translation. I even receive emails written in Danish periodically, which I find humorously more ethnocentric than my fellow Americans because only 6-ish million people in the world speak Danish :-)

      Also, its really hard to have that inane but universal conversation about the weather if you don't have temp conversions memorized (F =~ 32 + 2C roughly for conversation sake)

    22. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot doesn't have real editors anymore. Just people with the title of editor.

    23. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      So do the whiners spend as much time on the Top Gear website and sending letters to the editors, letters to the BBC, and complaining to the car companies about them using miles, gallons and so on as they do when a US based website does?

      I have no idea, I don't live in the UK. Last time I was there, they were using the metric system in a half-assed way. They half-ass many things, like their membership in the EU, for instance.

      You realise that this website, although US-based, is used by people all around the world, don't you?

    24. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets better, any road signs for long distances over here are in miles, but for short distances, some will measure the distance in yards, and others in metres.
      Basically the UK has been converting from imperial to metric measurements for about the last 60 years.
      I recon we'll be most of the way there in another 60...

      Australia are doing a better job, they use km and kW when talking about cars.

    25. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by pahles · · Score: 1

      You saw me bitching about converting feet to meters? Strange, I thought I was talking about people thinking there are borders on the internet...

      --
      Sig?
    26. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by durrr · · Score: 1

      Being tech news, for nerds and all that stuff one would naturally expect the SI system to be in use. Then again as you say the site is US-based and the united states is famously known for it's often self-contradictory retard rollercoaster way of doing things no one should be all that suprised.

    27. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by anegg · · Score: 1

      i really don't get why this has to be measured in feet. If you must use imperial system, wouldn't 8 furlongs, 5 chains and 10 yards sound nicer? btw, my daily ride to work is 2 735 000 centimetres long.

      In the United States, we eschewed the "imperial" system of measurement (look up the American Revolution), and kept just the bits that we liked (in some cases, we kept the name but changed how much it represented from the imperial measures - quantities like "gallons", "pints", and "fluid ounces;" confusion to the enemy, sir!). So we use feet and miles, not furlongs and chains. What I thought was wrong with the description was the lack of a comparison to the height of the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower, or even Mt. McKinley. You know, something that the average US citizen can relate to in terms of magnitude.

    28. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You do realize that it is a US based website in english don't you? Sure people come from around the world but it is a US based site and will be from a US point of view. To complain about that is as rude as someone from the US going to a French site written in French and then complaining that they didn't put measurements in feet and inches as well as metric! How closed minded and rude to come to a US website and not embrace the cultural differences!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    29. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      For those playing the home game, 36000 ft is 120 Football Fields

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    30. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter to me. I can do most conversions in my head I just find that giving fuel economy in imperial and tank size in metric to be the height of annoying when I want to see what the range on a bike is. When I was a kid back in the 70s there was a big push to go metric. Hey soda is sold in two liter bottles and 12 oz cans just for fun. Most items in the US have both units on them. And we still use really annoying really old measurements for wood here. The US has the same problem that the UK does. We have lots of old stuff and regulations for building and so on and there is no real benefit for the US to change our common measurements. Sure for things like electronics, aircraft, and cars we have gone metric or mostly metric for the new ones but for some things that isn't an option. Take light aircraft for example. Piper aircraft has been building the PA-28 line since the early 1960s. They got certified back then and if Piper was to change all metric then they would have redesign the aircraft or have one that was weaker or heavier then the current plane. They would also have to rectify it which would be too expensive. Then you have things like home construction. All the rules and permitting are for US measurements. Sure it may not be terrible for new construction but what about a home additions? I am sure that skyscrapers and big buildings like that have their structures in metric so like the UK we are moving a bit at a time.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    31. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Then people from all over the world can learn a little about United States customary units.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

    32. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      You do realize that it is a US based website in english don't you?

      What has language got to do with it?

      Sure people come from around the world but it is a US based site and will be from a US point of view. To complain about that is as rude as someone from the US going to a French site written in French and then complaining that they didn't put measurements in feet and inches as well as metric!

      The vast majority of the population of the world doesn't have an idea what an inch is. The metric system is the standard measurement system, in a French website or other.

      How closed minded and rude to come to a US website and not embrace the cultural differences!

      Many Americans complain about the absurd measurement system that only you use, in this very website. I just agree with them.

    33. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Just remember, 3 feet in a yard, 1 yard + 3 inches in a meter. Perhaps we should ease the transition and start using the 13 inch "metric foot" analogous to the 2200 pound/1000 Kg "metric ton"

    34. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that American football field of 100 yards or British football field of 105 meters?

    35. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ironic that the the Imperial unit system is primarily last used by a rebel colony that gained it's independence over 200 years ago :)

      Even the UK has switched over to metric with very few exceptions. The only one I think of off the top of my head is that beer is sold in pints. Which does make some sense.

      I am seriously, which sounds cooler?

      "Give me a fucking pint right now!" or "Give me fucking .47 liters!"

      I would say just round it off to a half liter, but even that does not sound as good as pint. That and I don't think we need those soccer hooligans over there even 6% more drunk :)

    36. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Remember those are units of measurement for weight, but not really for volume.

      If you need a volume comparison, use Fizzle Sticks.

    37. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      So they can look it up in Wikipedia. The vast majority of people have no idea what the Arc de Triomphe is or Trafalgar Square is or if you want to uses units of measurements a pascal, newton, or tor. A few Americans may take issue with standard measurements but most like myself can convert between them with ease. Now if you want to talk about absurd measurement systems Celsius wins in my book. WHY THE HECK DID THEY PUT 100 degrees between freezing and the boiling point of water! I am fine with them using the freezing point as zero but the boing point should be 180.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    38. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      184.6 LoC's deep, for your convenience :)

      Doesn't sound like much really.

    39. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by waddgodd · · Score: 1

      It's an ocean depth, it should properly be in fathoms. SI doesn't apply to nautical charts, they're still in NMi and fathoms (it's 6033 fathoms, BTW)

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    40. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feet and yards is relative to the highest achieving lord who has been allevated by divine order into a king; and depending whomever that is, their foot is always 12-inches by principal, and thus a king with a big 12-inch foot compares his prominence of the society's charity and ration if not the general marketplace. For instance, my foot compared to Stanley(R) and Sears Craftsman(R) is 13-inches on their scale, yet they are not king like me so they can go f*ck theirselves as I will build my house in Order of my dimensions patent. On the other hand, rather than footen, Metric system is some religion about how measurements should be relative to the hosting planetary axes-alignment.

      Why do you measure football fields in meters when that kind of field is meant to be tread upon by actually runners a'foot, rather than hands? Get your priorities right, Brit'tards, football fiels are supposed to be measured by FOOTS not METERS!

    41. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Archwyrm · · Score: 1

      And we shall do it with our mighty US military (which uses the metric system).

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    42. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia, the contents of the Library of Congress occupy 745 miles (1,198 kilometers) of shelves. So this depth would be approximately 0.009 LoC.

    43. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the boing point should be 180"

      Coz when it goes 'boing' it goes in the other direction?

    44. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want to learn that?

    45. Re:11000m for the other 95% of the world. by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that the moron who invented the Celsius scale wanted to put 100 as freezing and 0 as boiling, don't you?

  4. Seems totally safe! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    FTA: "They call it the pressure boundary," said Raggio. "It's the boundary between you and instant death."

    Okay then, where do I sign up...?

    --
    No sig today...
  5. Re:Fascinating. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That'll teach you for clicking on a [blogspot|reddit|gawker|tumblr|go.gl|bit.ly|tinyurl|tiny.cc|is.gd|ow.ly|kxk.me|tr.im] link. You know they hurt.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  6. Transparent Aluminum by broggyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am surprised no one said "Transparent Aluminum" yet. "How do we know he didn't invent the thing?!"

    --
    Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
    1. Re:Transparent Aluminum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transparent Aluminium is otherwise known as Saphire. So it is actually not a joke.

    2. Re:Transparent Aluminum by somersault · · Score: 1

      Because it's just glass, not transpartent Aluminum (which has been around for quite a while now too).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Transparent Aluminum by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more like a General Products Hull.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    4. Re:Transparent Aluminum by treeves · · Score: 1

      Of course sapphire is aluminum OXIDE, so calling it transparent aluminum would be like calling a pile of rust "iron".
      Ha. Just noticed GP's sig!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  7. 36,000 feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's almost 11 kilometres for the rest of the world, about 95% of it.

    1. Re:36,000 feet by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 0, Troll

      Again, this is an American website. Host your own Slashdot.eu.

      --
      Loading...
    2. Re:36,000 feet by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sea depth have its own units? If you're going to use archaic units you could at least use the right ones....

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:36,000 feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You're a cock.

    4. Re:36,000 feet by sirdude · · Score: 1

      If it was an American site, wouldn't it be slashdot.us? Or is that an invitation for mischief?

    5. Re:36,000 feet by Camshaft_90 · · Score: 1

      Hard to Fathom, EH? Sorry. Can't help myself.

      --
      JH
    6. Re:36,000 feet by treeves · · Score: 1

      When I was a submariner, we would use feet and fathoms in different cases, e.g. the 100 fathom point, before which we would not dive, and test depth, which we referred to in feet (it would have been a non-integer number of fathoms anyway).

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:36,000 feet by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Why are you guys so hung up on this sort of thing? 95% of the world's population is idiots, too. Should we emulate that as well?

  8. Where? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    Where is this "Mariana Trench"? Is it deep?

    1. Re:Where? by Flipstylee · · Score: 1

      http://www.marianatrench.com/ - Deepest spot on the planet...

    2. Re:Where? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Well, deepest spot on the planet's surface. Once we have a submersible that can navigate down starting at the mouth of an active volcano, we should be able to go further.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Where? by dwye · · Score: 1

      And you can read about it. Jules Verne had an entire book published documenting an expedition by some of his acquaintances, which always gets mislabeled as Young-Adult Fiction. At least if you can believe the Steampunk books :-)

    4. Re:Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, like the fat folds on your mom.

  9. TFSoQ by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 0

    That's not an article, that's a series of quotes.

  10. record ? by Eivind · · Score: 0

    The Trieste visited the bottom of the Mariana Trench in 1960. It even says so right in the article: "return to..." i.e. we where there before, now we're going back.

    What exactly is the record here ?

    Or is it just another case of the editors not bothering to read the article OR research the basic facts ?

    1. Re:record ? by Cwix · · Score: 0

      Perhaps its because no one has been there since 1960.
      Perhaps its because the submarine is apparently a glass sphere.
      Perhaps they plan to go deeper.
      Perhaps the article they linked to used the word "record"

      Did you read the article or research any basic facts? Naw I guess not. You just wanted to bitch.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:record ? by rumith · · Score: 1

      Or is it just another case of the editors not bothering to read the article OR research the basic facts ?

      You must be new he...errr, nevermind.

    3. Re:record ? by sverdlichenko · · Score: 1

      How exactly can they plan to go deeper: go down and then dig?

    4. Re:record ? by Eivind · · Score: 2

      The article indeed uses the word, twice even. Once in the title, and once in stating that submarines have a "good safety record" which is a different kind of record.

      i.e. the article doesn't even hint at what kind of record is intended.

      Going deeper than to the bottom of the worlds deepest trench, would be quite a trick. Do you suppose this new sub can submerge in geology ?

    5. Re:record ? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      In 2003 scientists in Hawaii found other places in the Mariana Trench that are as deep as the Challenger Deep. Perhaps they could go there?

      Its called the HMRG Deep
      Link:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3071749.stm

      There is another place called the Tonga Trench that has some pretty low spots also. There is a good chance the the challenger deep isnt the deepest place in the ocean, in fact its depth has had to be adjusted numerous times. It has been measured at 35,760 ft, 36,201 ft , 35,840 ft. Its hard to measure something that deep, in that kind of environment, and be 100% the numbers aren't off even as much as 0.25%.
      The Tonga Trench has been measured at 35,702.
      The HMRG Deep has been measured at 35,209.
      Either of those two spots can actually be lower then the Challenger Deep if there was the slightest error in the measurement.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:record ? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I can debate the fact that there may be deeper places in the ocean, in fact I think its likely.

      Yes, but it was used in the article and in the title of the linked article. In fact the slashdot title, IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TITLE IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.

      You were being a pedant, and an asshole. I called you on it. I call you on it again. You do not have a leg to stand on for bitching at slashdot for the title. You are acting like a whiny known it all 12 year old. If you have an issue with the wording in the title then you should complain about the editors at the linked page, not slashdot.

      That and you never countered my other two points, that perhaps its because no one has been there in 50 years, or the fact its a glass submarine.

      I eagerly await your reply.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    7. Re:record ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bathysphere Trieste reached an estimated depth of 10,911 meters (35,797 ft) in early 1960. I believe they were within 30 feet of the bottom but my memory is cloudy on that part.

      I also seem to recall that someone else visited that depth much later ('80s or '90s?) but deliberately did not go deeper and thus let the current record stand out of respect. Wood's hole oceanographic institute comes to mind but I don't have the time right now to research it.

    8. Re:record ? by mangu · · Score: 1

      Perhaps its because no one has been there since 1960.

      So, doing something no one has done since 1960 is now a record?

    9. Re:record ? by deepseadawn · · Score: 0

      I am a seafloor mapping scientist, who has also collaborated in the past with HMRG, and can assure you that according to the measurements of the seafloor mapping community, Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench is still the deepest. I was involved in mapping Horizon Deep in the Tonga Trench and our measurment was 10,633 m +/- 27 m. By the way, that is millions of feet, not thousands (34,885,171). Our work is published in the peer-reviewed journal, Marine Geophysical Researches (http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/tonga/ ).

    10. Re:record ? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      "According to the measurments"

      So your telling me that all of the trenches have been mapped with the latest gear? The most accurate gear? If thats so, how come they are still finding ultra deep holes as recently as 2003.

      I question the comparison of the numbers, multiple different types of equipment have been used to map underwater. Frankly I think it would be rather difficult to take the numbers found by one study, and compare them to another without adjustments for the accuracy of the different types of devices that have been used to gage depth.

      Ohh and millions? WTF that makes no sense... everything Ive seen says thousands. in fact 34885171 = 6607.039 mi. Your telling me the trench is over 6000 MILES deep? Pass the blunt this way dog.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    11. Re:record ? by deepseadawn · · Score: 0

      My mistake on the meters to feet - conversion error. Going to sea takes thousands of dollars per day (estimate is around $25,000 to $35,000 per day to operate a modern oceanographic research vessel), so we don't have the frequency of repeat measurements for all areas of the world's oceans that we would like. And it takes going to sea in order to get the most accurate measurements because satellites cannot see through the water in order to give us the accuracy that we need (hence we use acoustics at sea). We only have about 5-10% of the global seafloor mapped to the highest resolutions that we'd like so, yes, new "holes" can indeed be found. New discoveries are still being made. We do have standards in terms of how these measurements are made as related to the speed of sound in water according to its salinity and temperature. So we should be able to map the same areas with different devices and get close to the same measurements of depth. For a nice overview of basic principles, you might enjoy http://1.usa.gov/jtUT7v or http://ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/1998/3/sager-1.html

    12. Re:record ? by treeves · · Score: 1

      "By the way, that is millions of feet, not thousands (34,885,171)."

      Huh? That would be over 6000 miles, which would be roughly 50% greater than the radius of the earth.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    13. Re:record ? by deepseadawn · · Score: 0

      My apologies again for the conversion error. Popped things into my dashboard too quickly. It is indeed thousands of feet.

    14. Re:record ? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Ahh ok, I was about to completely discount your post due to that.

      The only point I'm trying to make is that we are not 100% certain thats the lowest point. It is recognized as the lowest point but there are other points that are awfully close, and vast swaths of ocean not fully mapped.

      Ill refer to your sites later (at work), thank you for the links.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    15. Re:record ? by deepseadawn · · Score: 0

      As a good friend once told me, "never do math in public!"

    16. Re:record ? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I hope you dont mind if I steal that. :-)

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    17. Re:record ? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      it's not a good excuse for a journalist or an editor that "someone else said so first".

      When publishing a story about a "new record" it's not a stretch to *read* the source to figure out which record is meant. And if the source actually completely fails to even make a *claim* of any record. (it does not, infact, include any information whatsoever on which record is claimed) then yes, you're doing a sucky job as an editor if you just repeat "record!", not even knowing yourself what record is meant.

      "Some guy on the internet claims that something he plans to do in the future will break some record or other. He also talks about diving!"

      isn't a good story.

    18. Re:record ? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Frankly your stretching.

      This is a news aggregator, no one here (as a general rule of thumb) actually writes the news. The purpose of this site is so we can gather and have a place to discuss the news. Which frankly as far as I'm concerned has one of the best commenting systems Ive ever seen.

      If Slashdot had writers in their employ you would have a point. You rail against the editors here, but from what Ive seen the editors job is more of a super mod or something. They have never actually edited submissions unless it was an extremely glaring error.

      You and everyone else that comes here and bitches about the editors whenever you can find the slightest problem don't seem to realize that the editors don't care about your whining. Do you and everyone else actually expect the editors to comb through each and every submission making sure that every word used is the 100% correct word, so that 100% of the users will be happy? Because that apparently is what you want. (Yes, I started a sentence with "because", you'll live.) You're a pedant with words so everyone else has to be? Sounds like know it all 12 year old mode again.

      If Slashdot went through that much effort, then front page news would slow to a crawl, and people like you would STILL find something to bitch about in the summary. You can't make everyone happy all the time.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  11. WOW! by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So I'm astonished that (they claim) they'll be able to make a FULL SPHERE of glass as opposed to some puny porthole.

    Some questions:
    A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?

    I assume there will have to be holes to allow power, cooling/heating, communications right? Another point of failure?
    (Actually I read a story where some grad student had figured out a way of transmitting powe/communications THROUGH a submarine's metal hull using sonic waves.)

    Where in the world will they test this thing to one and a quarter times the max. pressure? (And I thought engineering standards were to one and a half max.)

    1. Re:WOW! by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      So I'm astonished that (they claim) they'll be able to make a FULL SPHERE of glass as opposed to some puny porthole.

      Some questions: A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?

      I assume there will have to be holes to allow power, cooling/heating, communications right? Another point of failure? (Actually I read a story where some grad student had figured out a way of transmitting powe/communications THROUGH a submarine's metal hull using sonic waves.)

      Where in the world will they test this thing to one and a quarter times the max. pressure? (And I thought engineering standards were to one and a half max.)

      Agreed on the entry, one would assume a perfect half sphere(oid). You could easily contain power and air inside the sphere for controls and control the engines and accessories wirelessly. Transmitting power through the sphere using magnetic inductance would be simple as well, you don't have to resort to sonic/micro waves which could damage the glass. You would have a CO2 scrubber and oxygen like on a space station.

      It's so exciting, Corporations now have the unrestricted ability to rape vast and uncharted regions of the earth, completely hidden away from watchful eyes while we sleep peacefully in our beds.

    2. Re:WOW! by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?

      I would expect that with the proper "gasket" between the two halves, the outside pressure would seal it even more than you could otherwise expect.

      Keep in mind that it'll have something like a thousand atmospheres of pressure holding the two parts connected, provided the sphere and gasket can hold up to the pressure.

    3. Re:WOW! by vlm · · Score: 2

      When I was a kid, I wanted to make one of these to dive to the bottom of the 60 foot lake in our backyard, sorta...

      So I'm astonished that (they claim) they'll be able to make a FULL SPHERE of glass as opposed to some puny porthole.

      Probably Plexiglass. Plexiglass is a trademarked brand name. Everyone else calls it acrylic or PMMA. My grandfather's B-17 had a hemisphere of plexiglass for the "ball turret". Lexan (tm) aka polycarbonate would have been a heck of a lot more bullet proof, other than it was invented by the Germans, and in 1953, a bit late for the war. Anyway, two acrylic hemispheres is a traditional design technique for "diving bell" style / non-propulsion submersibles, for many decades. The gasket in between tends to be compressed tighter, which is great on the descent, maybe a bit worrisome on the ascent. In other words, other than utter failure scenarios, if its gonna leak, its gonna leak on ascent, and the leak is gonna get worse as pressure decreases, which is a bummer.

      I assume there will have to be holes to allow power, cooling/heating, communications right? Another point of failure?

      Wedge shaped plugs. No stress concentrations. The other trick is only passing communications signals thru the acrylic... I suppose a modern system would use bluetooth. The outside electrical gear is flooded in mineral oil at full sea pressure just like a (real not toy) radio controlled submarine. Its not hard to design a system that literally has no holes, just two clear hemispheres, a gasket, and some manner of radio or lightwave comms to control the outside gear. Traditionally, however, they always seem to install a way overengineered hatch and some mechanical gadget inside the sub to release both the tow cable and the heavy keel (worst case, if the winch on top jams or the tow cable breaks, they can rocket up to the surface like a cork.)

      Where in the world will they test this thing to one and a quarter times the max. pressure? (And I thought engineering standards were to one and a half max.)

      Well lets use some "engineering estimating". An atmospheric water column is about thirty-something feet. So thirty-something thousand feet divided by thirty-something feet is about one thousand atmospheres pressure. One atmosphere pressure is about fifteen PSI. Fifteen PSI per atmosphere times about a thousand atmospheres equals about fifteen thousand PSI. Personally I'd test it to double, so we'll call that thirty thousand PSI.

      "Off the shelf at autozone" err maybe off the shelf at TSC, you can buy a couple thousand psi rated hydraulic hose. Just giving an idea of what you're in for, its about ten times that pressure. Its gonna take more than a ginned-up log splitter and a big tank. Supposedly Buffalo Hydraulic sells off the shelf 40 ksi systems, i donno about that being true or false. Anyway the general idea involves "supertanker size" hydraulic cylinder (or equivalent) with the sub inside it floating in oil or water, and then pump in a small amount of air until you get to 30 ksi. For obvious reasons you fill the vessel almost completely with liquid rather than just using air.

      Frankly the simplest way to "prove" it is to make about three of them, massively overengineer them, and set off depth charges around an unmanned one on the bottom. Of course that is a bit hard on the exotic sea life you're trying to investigate.... You could sink an unmanned one, with a giant hydraulic "nut splitter" around it, and see what it takes to crack it, hopefully a heck of lot.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: Probably Plexi: RTFA A.

    5. Re:WOW! by vlm · · Score: 1

      micro waves which could damage the glass

      Relatively few plastics adsorb microwave radiation, and your comm signals are probably at wifi or lower levels. Ask some ham radio guys about radar domes and antenna insulators. Plexi is actually tolerably useful for antenna insulators, long term outdoor survivability is not good but it has the virtue of not creeping much and is cheap.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:WOW! by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      micro waves which could damage the glass

      Relatively few plastics adsorb microwave radiation, and your comm signals are probably at wifi or lower levels. Ask some ham radio guys about radar domes and antenna insulators. Plexi is actually tolerably useful for antenna insulators, long term outdoor survivability is not good but it has the virtue of not creeping much and is cheap.

      You obviously didn't read the article.

    7. Re:WOW! by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      > It's so exciting, Corporations now have the unrestricted ability to rape vast and uncharted regions of the earth, completely hidden away from watchful eyes while we sleep peacefully in our beds.

      You may remember BP didn't need a submarine to pretty much destroy the bottom of the sea.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    8. Re:WOW! by vlm · · Score: 1

      micro waves which could damage the glass

      Relatively few plastics adsorb microwave radiation, and your comm signals are probably at wifi or lower levels. Ask some ham radio guys about radar domes and antenna insulators. Plexi is actually tolerably useful for antenna insulators, long term outdoor survivability is not good but it has the virtue of not creeping much and is cheap.

      You obviously didn't read the article.

      Right. "Instead of using acrylic for the passenger compartment, they plan to use thick common glass shaped into a sphere.". An incredibly dumb idea due to brittleness, but, its their lives... Total brain freeze while posting because I had acrylic on my mind. Anyway glass insulators are traditional on ham radio antennas. Outdoor survivability is poor because they're brittle, but they are RF transparent and non RF reactive (think of how many ultra high power transmitter glass vacuum tubes have been used over the decades)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:WOW! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Probably Plexiglass.

      You know how I know you didn't read the article...?

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:WOW! by fnj · · Score: 0

      A's hardly ever RTFA. If they did, they would be less likely to be A's.

    11. Re:WOW! by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Right. "Instead of using acrylic for the passenger compartment, they plan to use thick common glass shaped into a sphere.". An incredibly dumb idea due to brittleness, but, its their lives... Total brain freeze while posting because I had acrylic on my mind. Anyway glass insulators are traditional on ham radio antennas. Outdoor survivability is poor because they're brittle, but they are RF transparent and non RF reactive (think of how many ultra high power transmitter glass vacuum tubes have been used over the decades)

      It was the crystalline structure of the glass I was thinking of, there is a quote form some (I assume) non scientist at the end saying that these properties of glass are not well understood. I wouldn't want to be the one testing it either.

    12. Re:WOW! by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      > It's so exciting, Corporations now have the unrestricted ability to rape vast and uncharted regions of the earth, completely hidden away from watchful eyes while we sleep peacefully in our beds.

      You may remember BP didn't need a submarine to pretty much destroy the bottom of the sea.

      Yes, now they can go right to the bottom of the greatest depths and fuck the rest of it up. And I'm sure they will, they destroy with impunity.

    13. Re:WOW! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:WOW! by PPH · · Score: 1

      Outdoor survivability is poor because they're brittle,

      Not really (for high quality glass). High voltage transmission lines have used glass cap and pin insulators for years. They stand up to abuse quite well but are more expensive than porcelain insulators.

      TFA stated that glass tends to get stronger under compression and cited that as one reason to select glass over an acrylic.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope you dont need any holes. Other than if you want to exchange gas with the outside. Everything else can be transmitted through the hull, including power, not that you actually need much power inside the sphere.

    16. Re:WOW! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?

      Benthos already makes glass floatation spheres (they provide buoyancy for deep-water submersibles and platforms). They're cut so the two halves fit perfectly (or as near to perfect as mechanically possible with current technology). It's precise enough that even though the cut appears flat to the eye, the two halves are keyed - you can't offset the angle at which they mate or there will be microscopic gaps/ridges. Also in their tests, they found that a glass-on-glass mating worked best. Rubber or a gasket is useless because under extreme pressure it gets deformed and squeezed out. If it doesn't deform uniformly (maybe one section of the rubber is harder), it's actually worse than not having a gasket.

      The hard part is keeping the two halves mated at 1 atmosphere (which is why you see tape on the middle in the picture). Underwater, and especially at depth, the water pressure alone is enough to hold the two halves tightly together. Friction increases with the normal force, so at depth there's a helluva lot of friction preventing the halves from sliding relative to each other. The glass would probably shatter before any impact would cause the two halves to slide apart.

    17. Re:WOW! by owlstead · · Score: 1

      "A part (half?) of the sphere will have to be removed to allow people/things in and out (unlike "ecospheres") it can't be seamlessly sealed. Isn't that the most likely place of failure?"

      Well, *technically* you could make the person part of a mould and then seal them in, breaking the glass when the adventurer returns (or keep them as a souvenir), but I presume they've thought of another solution.

  12. Crib notes by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We're going to repeat something that was already done 50 years ago, except we're be filing patents to stop anyone else doing it again. Click here to invest."

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Crib notes by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      already done 50 years ago, except we're be filing patents to stop anyone else doing it for 17 years.

      FTFY.

    2. Re:Crib notes by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      [[Citation needed]]
       
      Seriously, who built a man sized glass sphere fifty years ago that could take the pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?

    3. Re:Crib notes by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Do pay attention - I asked: "who built a man sized glass sphere fifty years ago that could take the pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?". Trieste's sphere isn't glass.

    4. Re:Crib notes by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Bloody submarine patents.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Crib notes by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, pardon me.

      Yes, the construction is novel.

  13. the insidious angel of debt was lashed onto them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's like a subordinate of the angel of death (where it gets it's money) but quite dreadful on it's own merits, which is usury for all of the unchosen, & their excess number of spawn. endless suffering, 'til debt do us part. as it was written, about several of the sacraments.

  14. Re:Fascinating. by lul_wat · · Score: 0

    Yes my error. This isn't my grandfathers internet any more.

    --
    Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
  15. Title needs work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bad title considering that (as the article states in the first paragraph) Trieste made it to the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean (Challenger Deep in Mariana Trench) in 1960 with a crew of two. I'd say they have the record and since you can't go deeper...not sure it can be broken unless the ocean changes depth there.

    Trieste info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

    If you're in the DC area the Washington Navy Yard museum (open to the public) has Trieste hanging in the back (right next to Alvin -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin which was used to explore the Titanic). It's worth the trip if you're local or you've been to DC enough that you're not interested in going to the Air and Space museum again.

    Museum visit info:

    http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org8_Visit.htm

    1. Re:Title needs work by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      It may be an accurate title but in a nit picking sort of way. The Trieste was not a submarine but was a bathyscaphe. I believe that it used a guide line and was not freely maneuverable. But in general I would agree with you that it was the first and so far only.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Title needs work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also the article says that borosilicate is another name for soda-lime glass, which it isn't. Borosilicate is the good, strong, high temperature glass. Soda lime is the cheap, easy melting bulk glass.

    3. Re:Title needs work by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And the Trieste's sister, Trieste II ), is on display (along with a bunch of other cool stuff) at the Naval Undersea Museum at Keyport, WA.
       
        Google Maps link.
       
      You're wrong about Alvin though, she's still in operation. The DSV exhibited at the Navy Yard Museum is either DSV-3 Turtle or DSV 4 Sea Cliff . They do both look like Alvin and were built using spare spheres originally ordered for Alvin though.

    4. Re:Title needs work by sjames · · Score: 1

      A bathysphere is tethered, a bathyscaphe DOES free dive, but has severely limited maneuverability compared to a submarine.

    5. Re:Title needs work by mijelh · · Score: 1

      ...since you can't go deeper...

      Maybe you can. There can be caves going deeper which went unnoticed to sonar.

  16. they didnt develop shi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    However
    http://www.rayotek.com/
    are the ones who actually "developed" the tech, these guys are just (potential) customers of Rayotek (seeing as this craft hasn't been built yet)

    props for making subs out of plastic that goto 3,000ft and managing to sell them, but all credit for the tech that goes to 36,000 ft should go to Rayotek

    now build it :)

  17. Hasn't Richard Branson already announced this by gnalre · · Score: 1

    Didn't Richard Branson already announce plans to visit the deepest point of all the oceans, so I presume he already has the technology to do this?

    --
    Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    1. Re:Hasn't Richard Branson already announced this by thecatt · · Score: 1

      Yes, he did.

      And his is better since it goes down 37,000 ft, even if there's no place to go that's 37,000 ft down.

  18. This May not be a Good Idea by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

    BLUE HADES is not going to be happy about this.

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  19. I wish that they had not announced by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It would have been better had the simply built a drone craft, sent it to the bottom and THEN ANNOUNCED IT. That would have a dramatic impact. More importantly, it would enable a major push for them on new crafts.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:I wish that they had not announced by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Disagree, if you want media attention you need to get them in before it happens. Trying to get attention for something that already happened is difficult at best unless it is basically unignorable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I wish that they had not announced by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I would not be surprised, personally, if this announcement was actually just a means of generating additional funding needed to complete the development of the project.

    3. Re:I wish that they had not announced by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And what would be so remarkable about a drone craft going to the ocean's floor? That wouldn't even be news. This project isn't very groundbreaking either. Humans have already been to the bottom of the Challenger Deep, 50 years ago, in the Trieste. Who cares if it wasn't technically a "submarine", it was a craft which carried humans and let them look around at the ocean floor firsthand and brought them back alive. That's close enough for me.

  20. Yes, he uses one of his balloons.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    .. filled with lead.

    Branson announcing plans and finding ways to execute them are two separate things. I'm sure he'll look at this too, but might be too expensive.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  21. factual errors in article or laziness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Borosilicate glass, also known as soda-lime glass, has advantages over synthetics. "

    Hmm, borosilicate isn't soda lime glass. The former, best known under the trade name Pyrex, is quite different than regular old soda-lime glass. Different melting points, very difference coefficient of thermal expansion, etc.

  22. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking back over the course of your lives, how many of those goldfish bowls you encountered were actually deep atmosphere exploratory craft sent out by piscene overlords?

    You see one sitting on a shelf or counter somewhere and you just assume it's someone's pet and the owner put it there but unless you actually asked who it belonged to, can you be sure?

    1. Re:Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Humans may only be the objects of their research. But yet again, my cat shows who is actually in charge in this universe.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  23. A glass by any other name ... by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 4, Informative

    TFA: "Borosilicate glass, also known as soda-lime glass..." That's like saying "Bronze, also known as brass..." The two are compositionally quite different.

    Pyrex (R) is Corning's trademark for the borosilicate type and it is commonly used for laboratory ware, oven windows and such. It was also used for the big 200 inch (a bit under 5 meters) mirror at Mt Palomar.

    Soda lime glass is the more common type used for windows and beer bottles. You can quickly tell the two apart by looking edge-on into the piece, soda lime glass has a greenish cast.

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    1. Re:A glass by any other name ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pyrex (R) was Corning's trademark for the borosilicate type

      Now things are messier :(

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex

  24. Re:The most Brutal part by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

    I was going to say pshaw, *I* can provide "technology for a submersible that could take ocean explorers 36,000 feet deep".

    It's called a rock, a big honking rock.

    But metal will work too. Kudos to you sir!

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  25. Re:right-click Mod Up~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, at this point the entire editing process is far down the list of Slashdot annoyances: the freaking browser window keeps scrolling up several pages to expand the fucking parent post when I just want to middle- or right-click a link, leaving it up to me to find the post and sentence I was just reading. I swear I have never seen a more aggravating non-feature than this.

  26. I'm not impressed only 36,000 ft by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    I mean come on it's 2011 for cripes sake. We went nearly that deep back in the 60's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  27. Details of Trieste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, there was no cable. If you look at pictures of it, the submarine shaped structure was a buoyancy device similar to hot air balloons. They had ballast of iron pellets to go down. To ascend, they released the ballast. (The ballast was held by electromagnets which would drop the ballast in case of a power failure.) At the same there were no maneuvering motors so they were limited to going either up or down.

    1. Re:Details of Trieste by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      If you look you will see that there is a tube with a guide rope going through it. It was not suspended but looks as if it was guided along an cable that was anchored to the sea floor and probably a buoy on the surface.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  28. International System of Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, start thinking in meters

  29. bring a shovel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad title considering that (as the article states in the first paragraph) Trieste made it to the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean (Challenger Deep in Mariana Trench) in 1960 with a crew of two. I'd say they have the record and since you can't go deeper...not sure it can be broken unless the ocean changes depth there.

    Well, if you bring a shovel you can dig a hole at the bottom of the trench, and then park there. This way your depth gauge read /just/ a little deeper, and one can claim a new record.

  30. Re:chosen ones 'cruise to hormuz' getting flak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5/21/2011, be there or burn with the rats.
    Holding at a record high rating of 184 since 4/18/2011. (Note that's higher than the 182 on 9/24/2001)

  31. Re:Fascinating. by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

    You need some eye bleach (NSFW)

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  32. Another sub with balls... by anegg · · Score: 1

    The hybrid autonomous underwater vehicle "Nereus" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nereus_(underwater_vehicle) and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=10076 uses ceramic ball technology for buoyancy, and it's been down in the Challenger Deep, so the idea of a ceramic ball withstanding the pressure is credible. However, Nereus uses a large number of little ceramic balls, not one large (people-holding) ceramic ball, so there is some testing to be done, I think!

    1. Re:Another sub with balls... by x6060 · · Score: 1

      so there is some testing to be done

      I really hate to say this, but Ive been playing portal 2 and I just read that line in GLadOSs voice.

  33. Quote from the article by vmxeo · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    Rayotek CEO Bill Raggio: "You can hire some giant squid to come over with a sledgehammer and just start bashing away on that glass sphere. And it won't hurt it."

    I'm sold. If there's anything I fear more while in my personal sub than sharks with head-mounted-lasers, it's hired squids wielding sledgehammers.

    Also those homeless sperms whales that approach your sub at the intersection and want to squeegee your front porthole for spare change are annoying too.

  34. I bet this submarine tech... by iampiti · · Score: 1

    has some submarine patents related to it. Thank you, thank you!

  35. Re:The most Brutal part by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It's gettin' nice and heavy...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  36. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I expect it'll be exciting to someone. Personally, I'm betting they'll find either 'sand' or 'mud' at the bottom.

  37. That's really awesome by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1

    It'd be terrifying to go that deep but it's amazing that it might be possible.

    --
    "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson