> According to the BBC, the entire sub is bolted shut from the outside, so even if the vessel surfaces, the occupants cannot escape without outside assistance and could suffocate within the capsule.
Why is the submarine bolted shut from the outside?
Assuming, quite reasonably, that there has to some kind of rationale for this -- I would guess it's because there's some significant structural complexity (and hence risk) involved in having it be open-able both ways.
The location of the door really doesn't allow it to be opened while its in the water. I would guess, as I have no evidence other than an untrained eye, that the window would either be fully underwater or at least partially underwater. It would sink if it was opened. Not to mention that they would need to equalize the pressure inside the sub to even push it open.
Bit of a tangent maybe, but according to some expert I heard on the radio this morning, it's a submersible and not a submarine precisely because the vehicle is so totally dependant on the support ship. That includes everything from communication to getting in and out.
Naval submarine hatches rely on the pressure to keep the hatch shut. The water pressure outside is greater than the air pressure inside. The hatch locks around a sealing o-ring. Escape trunks are sealed off from the rest of the ship and work like an airlock. Deepsea Challenger's outward-opening hatch/egress trunk worked the same way; indeed, its view window was on the hatch.
But, as with airplane doors (but in the opposite direction), if the door was designed to open outwards then you couldn't open it under pressure no matter how hard you pushed
An emergency release implies explosive bolts that could fail catastrophically at depth.
... which would be a risk that I might recommend for another application and manufacturer, but not for this firm, apparently. For this firm, I think I'd recommend "Don't do what you're doing, but if you must, keep it as simple as possible."
lisasays|2 years ago
sschueller|2 years ago
croes|2 years ago
bambax|2 years ago
vicktour|2 years ago
ploika|2 years ago
SoftTalker|2 years ago
Strom|2 years ago
starkparker|2 years ago
andrewmunsell|2 years ago
shadowgovt|2 years ago
... which would be a risk that I might recommend for another application and manufacturer, but not for this firm, apparently. For this firm, I think I'd recommend "Don't do what you're doing, but if you must, keep it as simple as possible."
tedunangst|2 years ago
kumarvvr|2 years ago
croes|2 years ago
dist-epoch|2 years ago
gs17|2 years ago