Build your very own submarine starting from $50,000 | Hacker News Reader

Build your very own submarine starting from $50,000

ivccorp.com

39 pointssparknlaunch32 comments

Note that this sub is open to the water in the bottom which means that the air pressure is the same as the water pressure. That means you have to take all the same precautions as divers in terms of depths, ascent rates and making sure you don't get the bends.

Interesting, that is a great point - doesn't this make it a diving bell technically then?

Yes, their web site specifically mentions that. There is no hatch on the top - you have to enter from underneath. They point out that a good hatch would cost almost as much as the whole "submarine".

if it ever turns over, does all the air bubble out of it?

Yes. That's certainly something that would need to be taken into account when in use.

Reading through the specs, it seems that it's designed with that in mind - the center of mass is much lower than the center of buoyancy.

One of Copenhagen Suborbitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Suborbitals) co-founders first build this submarine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC3_Nautilus

Pretty cool guys too.

This submarine was Peter Madsen's third submarine design and is the largest privately built submarine in the world. - Wikipedia

False. This article from 2007 [1] discusses the highly secretive company where billionaires go to buy their luxury submaries, which apparently run up to 65 meters [2].The Nautilus goes only to 17.76, if its wikipedia article is to be believed.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/02/lifestyle/luxury_submarines/... (incidentally, one of the most instantly fascinating things I've ever read in my life)

[2] http://www.ussubmarines.com/submarines/luxury.php3

I would guess that the story was pr spin, and since they or any owner has provided proof of a craft larger than 18 meters, that it's all theoretical. Would be amazing if there are private craft out there like they describe, but I'd need more than some renders and there word to believe it.

Well it was published by CNN, which is one of the largest media organizations and generally considered reliable.

I've gotten 3 responses trying to throw cold water on my post, which was just me sharing something that I thought was exciting. I don't get it.

> Well it was published by CNN, which is one of the largest media organizations

true

> and generally considered reliable.

CNN may be considered "reliable", but it isn't.

FIne, but claiming the story I linked to about a company that sells private submarines is false, without any evidence, is just an arbitrary assertion, and should be dismissed. As should all arbitrary assertions. I guess I should have just said that.

I'm confused - why is it wrong to make an arbitrary assertion in response to an arbitrary assertion?

Are you suggesting that we should take a link to a CNN story as something more credible than an arbitrary assertion?

Are you suggesting that we should take a link to a CNN story as something more credible than an arbitrary assertion?

Yes, absolutely. If you think CNN just goes around making up stories, you are wrong. Snarky comments aside, CNN is a reputable news organization. To claim that a completely plausible CNN story is wrong, evidence is needed.

> If you think CNN just goes around making up stories, you are wrong.

It's interesting that you assume that that claim needs no supporting evidence.

Are you really sure that CNN doesn't "go around making up stories"?

> CNN is a reputable news organization.

That may be, but reputable news organizations do make up stories.

> To claim that a completely plausible CNN story is wrong, evidence is needed.

Or what?

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but it's not nearly a strong as you think that it is.

privately built /= commercially built

I disagree.

Eh no it's not false. You are missing the point.

He built it himself with help. He didn't just pay someone to do it. Just like he is now building (and have launched) his own rockets.

How do i know? Because he build it where I used to live and I know them.

Well, I gave a citation for a larger privately-built submarine, so the sentence in the wikipeida aritlce I quoted is false.

I don't see how you could possibly think that I've missed some point here. Me pointing out a problem with a wikipedia article and sharing something that excites me should not have wounded your pride.

Great, this is just what I needed to transport a bunch of coke from my hookups south of the border. (google: cocaine submarine)

Narco-subs are designed more for stealth than recreational diving (poor viewports, lots of cargo, old narco subs were just semi-submersible). Anyways, they cost about $2 million to build according to wiki, so they are sort of out of our price range. But you might be able to get a used one on the cheap from your coke dealer...

For recreation, I think this wouldn't really beat just plain old snorkeling, or even scuba for the more involved. Its more like a rich-guy toy.

For recreation, I think this wouldn't really beat just plain old snorkeling, or even scuba for the more involved.

No. Though it does enable you to say things like "So I went out in my submarine last weekend" and "I have a submarine" and "Hey, want to see my submarine?" And if that's not worth fifty thousand dollars I don't know what is.

>And if that's not worth fifty thousand dollars I don't know what is.

Half a year's work output from a skilled engineer?

Yeah, this would not have the stamina to be a narco-sub. As in, it goes too slowly and runs out of air too quickly. (I say this based on its apparent similarity to scuba technology, not out of narco experience.)

In fact, if it works like I think it does, you should be able to go down farther for longer periods of time with scuba equipment (esp. if you use something like nitrox). I could be wrong though... this is out of my 20,000 leagues. (oh ho!)

"you should be able to go down farther for longer periods of time with scuba equipment (esp. if you use something like nitrox)."

This is wrong - nitrox doesn't let you go down farther for longer periods [1]; in fact, oxygen toxicity happens at a shallower depth on nitrox than on regular air.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrox#Oxygen_toxicity

Good to know. I am a recreational diver but obviously not nitrox certified. :D

> this is out of my 20,000 leagues.

20 000 leagues is not a reference to depth ;)

That's irrelevant to the pun, which was referencing the common expression "that's out of my league" as well as the famous novel about a submarine, "20,000 leagues under the sea."

Ah, my bad. I thought it was a play on "out of my depth". Apparently I need to work on my reading comprehension.

I was looking for a submarine kit for recreational purposes however clearly missed the massive drug smuggling opportunity.

Wiki: "A narco-submarine (also called narco-sub, drug sub and Bigfoot submarine) is a type of custom-made ocean-going self-propelled submersible vessel built by drug traffickers to smuggle drugs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine

I prefer these: http://tritonsubs.com

I'd have thought that the underwater "plane" designs would be cheaper, more fun, and safer than this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com