0
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

Aren't all of those things safer than your average amerikkka car?

[-] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Transportation safety comparison. Private vs commercial airplanes. I'm not really sure what to conclude from these stats besides "don't go in a space shuttle."

[-] ssjmarx@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

don't go in a space shuttle

As awesome as it was in concept, that thing was a safety nightmare from the very beginning. With every other manned spacecraft if something goes wrong during launch you can blast off and land the capsule safely in the ocean, but with the shuttle there were large portions of the ascent and descent profiles where, if something went wrong, you were going too fast to turn around but too slow to make it to space so you were just hosed.

[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

beyond a certain depth, if a submersible fails, you just die
it's like a space ship in that regard
worse than a helicopter imo
at least there's a tiny chance you land on something soft and don't get bisected by debris
but if your sub goes bad, you are definitely getting the bends if you don't just get crushed/drown

[-] Mardoniush@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

It's way, way worse than a spaceship. On a spaceship you've generally got enough water and oxygen via the fuel cells to last a week or two, you'll probably die of overheating or CO2 (CO2 is also the issue with a large sub disaster like the Kursk). On a sub like this...you'll freeze or die of lack of O2.

Also, loss of pressure on a spaceship is bad but survivable. 1 atm to zero. The Byford Dolphin was 450 meters down and that was 9 atm to zero. The Titanic is 3800 meters down (0 to 380 atm, the other way round, explosive compression.).

If Apollo 13 had happened on a sub it's arguable there'd not be enough left of the craft to show up on sonar.

[-] commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

Wait what difference are you trying to describe between lack of O2 and overabundance of CO2? Both of these go hand in hand in these situations right? There isn't a CO2 scrubber on a submarine that doesn't work either. That seems like a terrible way to go because CO2 hurts when it's built up in your blood

[-] Mardoniush@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

There are chemical CO2 scrubbers that don't need electricity, so in principle you can die from lack of O2 while having livable CO2 levels. (though now you mention it I feel that the sub that failed it's depth rating test due to hull fatigue and then posted an FAQ about how it didn't need a rating because "disruption" does not have emergency CO2 scrubbers)

this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

chapotraphouse

13920 readers
835 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS