Submarine Project

Wellmer,

Your submersible already has a fatal flaw...your belief in your own skills. After having spent the last 20 years designing, testing, and maintaining submarines, submersibles, and deep submergence systems for the US Navy, I KNOW that there are fatal flaws in all vehicles that just haven't been exposed yet. Until you experience the accident, you never even imagine that it could happen (and I've seen some pretty strange ones), so you don't plan for it. When once asked if after a 2 year design review if the team had accounted for all single point failures in a system, I repiled "No, I know there could be something that we haven't thought of yet". No single designer can ever hope to pick up every single error that creeps in to such complex systems, a team of "greybeards" will always find something. And in the end you have to have the wisdom to know when it is no longer practical to keep chasing the "small but real risk" of failure. People get into cars, into airplanes, into submarines......but that doesn't mean they are safe.

You should read both the Challanger and Columbia accident reports. In both cases engineers knew that a risk existed, and reported it up the chain, but they were rejected because the failure hadn't occured before.

In these days of cost cutting, COTS, and LEAN design-build; it is imparative that the designer fight every attempt to remove margin and resist every temptation to believe non-service demonstrated analysis. A "fully optimized design" is by nature not conserative, and therefore not as safe. In the final analysis, the entire crew of the USS San Francisco have no right to be alive. They were saved only by the "hip-pocket" safety margin of the NAVSEA engineers that designed the hull and the grace of God that they didn't strike more perpendicular.

As I have said before, a submersible is a vehicle where the selection of a cotter pin material can kill you. If you can say that you don't question your choice, you may need to step back and re-evaluate your objectivity.

 

you are completly right - that is the general problem of design teams and government projects - so many opinions and processes that finally a simple faulty o ring application is "discussed to launch safe by too many people" and **** happens - a first semester student could say "sirs that is not safe" but not get heard. Too many chefs will mess up the meal (german saying)...as a manager in big companies i have to say - avoiding that kind of process is mayor benefit of lean structures - private business got it - government is still behind in application...i do not trust any discussing engineering team - i trust personal resposibility - and i trust a good designed and systematic test series...so if my sub has a flaw - i will be the one to find out.

Cheers Wil

 

I completely disagree with some of the points you raise above. I has been my experience that government only projects are mostly successes and teamed projects are mostly failures. This is because in the teaming process there is no accountability of the contractor work and full accountability of the government work. In government only work, someone's signature is on every document from when the ore is dug to the last cotter pin. Expensive, yes, but the product is delivered without failures and works right out of the box. In contractor work, you often have no traceability of material or work, leaving many defective parts installed which are only discovered during unit testing. This concept of minimial testing and 1% "acceptable failures" works when you producing 1,000,000 widgets, it does not work when you are producing 1 or 2 submarines. If fact it guarantees a failure.

I was in one project where I could not figure out one contractor rep until I realised that his entire job was to minimize his companies work and maximize thier profit and the way to do this was to stretch the project out to the maximum extent he could. The project came in 3 years late and close to a 1 Bn over budget because of his company and his Senator's influence. I don't know the exact amout of his bonus, but he bought an airplane.

No, government accounability is far greater than the "beltway bandits" who deliperatly mis-represent costs and schedule to get a project started in Congress, then when the government is into them for a billion or two, they milk it. Upper level government project management (non-partisan SESers) cannot control contractor spending because to delay or cancel the project is to invite a Congressional investigation, a finding of poor management not contracturial fraud, and dismissal, i.e. those that were forced by Congress to take the project cannot control the project without risk of losing thier jobs. The US Coast Guard was smart, and brave, to stand up and take the hits when it canceled Deepwater rather than let it run to it's foregone conclusion. It is becoming rather obvious that the warning Eisenhower gave, and which was ignored by MacNamarra, is comming true, and I expect the pendulm to start swinging back. Wether I will see it before I retire is another thing.

BTW, the reason teaming works between companies is that each is armed with a bevy of Lawyers ready to sally forth and do battle. In government teaming, the conditions of the contract are set by Congressional mandate. It's a fixed game because the contractor knows exactly how much money is on the table and does his best to pick it all up. I.e. if Congress earmarks 1 billion for a project, then I can guarantee that total cost's will be 1.2 billion and the governemt project manager will get a stern talking to. The only cases I've ever seen where the government saves money by using contractors is in the use of very small contractors for piece work. I've seen some very good machine work come out of tiny shops. This frees up the shipyard machine shops to do things on toolings that even mid-sized companies cannot afford.

Which brings up the final point, public yards are expensive because a good amount of unique tooling is standing around idle much of the time. I always irks me to see companies place bids based upon the assumption that the governemt will supply for free drydocks, cranes, tooling, etc. that we have to include in our overhead costs for the same bid.

I think I'm done ranting now.

 

jehardiman -
"I has been my experience that government only projects are mostly successes and teamed projects are mostly failures"

This kind of generalisation doesnt build my confidence in your opinions. I have been involved in both types of projects and can quote notable exceptions to your hypothesis. You cant assume that govenment represenatives are so stupid that they are not aware of the 'rorts' that can occur. For a start, there are so few 'fully" government projects (ie no external non-military provisioning) that it largely makes a nonsense of that opinion.

Modern military equipment also often comes with punitive maintenance conditions where the supplier and/or maintainer is liable to heavy fines if the item doesnt perform to a predefined level of operational 'up-time'. So, there is little incentive to 'cut corners' on production if it will result in serious costs in operation. (Shame my motor vehicle doesnt come with the same type of deal.)

re -
W.Ellmer
(www.concretesubmarine.com)

As regards private submarines, this project is doomed to failure from the most obvious quarter - no-one is going to insure an underwater vehicle designed and built by an enthusiatic amatuer - either for loss of the craft, or legal costs of killing other people.

As for this 'concrete 'submarine' - quotes from the web site indicate a com[lete lack of any seagoing experience eg.

"the (normal) yacht is full of bird **** so the sailor starts with cleaning his deck - the deck of the subber is clean as the waves do this job. "

Oh yeah! - I bet I clean less bird **** off 20 yachts than he will be cleaning barnacles off the almost totally submerged hull in a week ... *and* I wont be doing it with airbottles!!

and

"After trip the clear up the ship is much easier on a sub- just close hatch drop anchor "

No discussion here about actually retrieving the anchor in the first place standing on a smooth slippery surface with no handrails!!

or even

"or lay the sub on sea floor during a quiet night sleep"
Yes, of course he will be able to see exactly where there is soft sand with no rocks or sunken iron, and there will be no strong underwater currents to drag him into a rocky outcrop

and the man is using *concrete* for goodness sake!!!

To think I used to subscirbe to a comedy web-site - this is the *best* fun I have ever had!!!!

 

Not saying that government proyects never have success, not saying that people working for government are stupid - just the processes involved tend to be unefficient sometimes NOT bring up the best of the best in engineering...frequently bring up overcost...not the best way to do things...not seeking "insurance" no rewrite ABS...not amateur - have a lot more experience in building concrete submarines than anybody else i have talked to so far (how many years of concrete submarine yachting have you to know it all so much better?)...no lack of seagoing experience...well etc.etc...
Cheers, Wil

 

Wil -
So how does one retrieve an anchor on one of this slippery hulled concrete yachts - especially if there is a bit of a bad sea???

How often have you had to do it??

 

Design Responce

Hi,

I just came across this thread and read several of the messages. I think anyone who has ever dreamed big has gone through this. I imagine the Wright brothers were thought of as a bit off their rocker. Well, I'm an architect and I also design boats and most of my life people have been saying I'm off my rocker too. So, to the person building their own submarine, if you need an architect who is a bit "conventionally challenged", let me know. I could help you lay out the interior. This kind of project is exciting.

Oh, for the nay sayers, (movie crap aside) there are actually people designing their own rockets to get into space. I know of a guy in England who is currently building one. He may kill himself in the process, but it is just a matter of time with the technology and information available before someone actually does it.

Mark G.

 

Jehardiman --

I completely disagree with some of the points you raise above. I has been my experience that government only projects are mostly successes and teamed projects are mostly failures. This is because in the teaming process there is no accountability of the contractor work and full accountability of the government work.

Methinks you've spent a bit too much time as a public servant. I thank you for that, and think the opinion should end with that.

A government contract is so convoluted and ripe for fraud that it should *never* be used as a baseline for efficiency, because the independent is encouraged to play by their rules. The government as a player should likewise not be interpreted in any free market sense.

The rule here is that you should never ask your barber if you need a haircut, your stockbroker if you're properly positioned, a government employee if their service is valuable, or an engineer if they're right. You'll never learn anything.

 

a subs deck is not designed for sailors to work on it in heavy weather and bring anchors out... this is why you will not see anchor winches on decks of nuke boats built after ww2. My prototype had its mooring or used an anchor to deploy from sail - without balancing on slippery foredeck...

 

so your quote form your website
"After trip the clear up the ship is much easier on a sub- just close hatch drop anchor "

is just like the rest of the concrete submarine concept - pure fantasy!!!!!

You dont have the foggiest idea.

If you want to build curvaceous concrete tanks - just say so - just dont ******** everyone about being a submarine captain!

 

Applauding him for the fact of having the courage to bring his ideas to reality, I'm going to question out Wellmer's submarine-yacht idea:



Why submarine yachting makes sense


* save harbor beneath the waves
* no hurricane season wandering
* marina and harbor free operation
* closed burglar and pirate safe
* quiet living space at sea
* drift dive operation
* economic cruising
* small engine
* enormous range
* lower slip and maintainance cost
* lower hull building and engine cost


save harbor beneath the waves

A surface yacht, needs to be designed to have the means to withstand adverse weather conditions or to reach a safe harbor before such conditions come up.

For a submarine yacht a save harbor is always near - just a few meters below. This has a mayor impact in the way how you operate a submarine yacht vs a surface yacht and in its cost o operation. First of all your tour plan is not limited by weather forecast and by harbors available along your route.

I'm not so sure. Just beneath the surface there is some wave dampening, of course, but it is not a 100%; for an small sub this can still be a nasty and seasickening place to be depending on local conditions. And sometimes you'll inevitably will find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time, when globetrotting.

no hurricane season wandering

A submarine yacht as suggested at (www.concretesubmarine.com) exposes almost no surface of its hull to weather except a small sail (tower). So you can get the nose into the wind with a very small engine under any condition. On anchor place this means that the bow area is not lifted in any wave as it is the case in a surface ship which tends to bring tremendous forces to the anchor rig, which is the cause of anchor break out in severe conditions. A submarine yacht as my tested prototype brings very little force to the anchor rig - even in storm conditions.

For surface yacht you need to find a hurricane save place during hurricane season so yacht owners frequently move their ships. A submarine yacht you can be left on anchor place in a open bay during that time - no weather condition will damage or affect it - this is a mayor cost benefit.

To lay at anchor in a submarine you'll need to find a safe spot too. As said before, I think it can become very unpleasnt and even dangerous if waves are big enough to their effect be significant in the first underwater meters. Have you performed a calculation on what the movements will be?

Just to visualize the problem, imagine you are in an open bay, anchored in 15 m depth, 5 m under surface, repairing your engine, when an storm builds up, bringing in waves that reach 5 m high in a couple of hours. Such waves will induce velocities there of 0,99 and 1.11 m/s in horizontal and vertical axis, and accelerations of 1.35 m/s2 and -0.5 m/s2, also in those axis, when θ = 60º, i.e.

The only way to ride bad weather would be to deep submerge, further down than snorkel depth, in my opinion.

marina and harbor free operation

A surface yacht must stay in marinas due to its vulnerability to weather - a submarine yacht allows true marina free operation any place is ok to stay during your trip you can have a nice meal and a fine night sleep in open sea.

Because of the above and because probably you'll have a bigger needing of streching your legs over firm land, I think an small submarine will have to stay also in marinas or well protected waters, for the sake of its crew. Also, to enjoy your meal in a no movements environment when at open sea, you'll have to deep submerge, if weather is not good, in my opinion.

closed burglar and pirate safe

A burglar can break into a surface yacht of any kind using a light hand tool - this is not the case for a submarine yacht. A hatch can be made with security features of a bank safe - break in with tools you can deploy on an anchor place is impossible. A act of piracy is also impossible a pirate can get on deck - but never into the hull.

I think there is no such thing as a burglar free artifact. It only dpends on the interest of burglars in getting into. And maybe because it's a so different vessel, thay can be more interested in having a look....

quiet living space at sea

The main reason why yachts stay a lot in marinas and very little time at sea is wave action. A submarine yacht can go to snorkel depth and is perfectly quiet in a minute without relaying on breakwaters. You can have a nice meal and go to sleep with no ship movement and security concern at all. Sub surface living space is the only quiet and safe living space available at open sea.

As said, for an small sub that's like that only if deep submerged or weather is fine, in my opinion. But I may be wrong. Have you already made offshore trips with your submarine, in wavy conditions?

drift dive operation

In July 1996 Ben Franklin a 130 ton research submarine made a drift dive of 30 days over a distance of 2700km in Golf Stream. This dive compared with a submarine balloon trip was performed without any engine use. Submarines that have a non-compressible buoyancy regulation can stay stable at certain depth to do that kind of voyage.

Do you mean slope drifting, this is, always submerged? Because surface drifting can be also done by a conventional vessel. If you throw a bottle (with a message, of course!) in the Canaries, it will drift all the way to the windward Antilles. Not to talk if the surface vesel is a sailboat. It can even perform wind-drifting for free...!

economic cruising

No long distance surface swimming animal exists because this is not energy efficient. On contrary moving heavy streamlined bodies under water is VERY engergy efficient as the whale enegy model shows - those giants can swim 6 months with no refueling (feeding) and make distances of 10.000 miles per year. The power required to do so is about 20-40HP for a 200 ton body. See more about this in section energy economic submarine cruising ...

Sailing is also very fuel efficient, don't you think so?

small engine

So the recommendation for a engine in a submarine yacht must be between 2HP/ ton which is emergency power for a blue whale. This is already considerably less than you would have in a surface yacht but you should be aware that in a surface yacht you need a engine surplus to fight against a storm that could smash you against a reef. For a submarine yacht you could get away with a even smaller engine that would take you just to efficient cruising speed which is the range of 0.2 HP / ton of displacement. You may have a engine that is 5-10 times smaller than a similar sized surface yacht which means a mayor reducction in building and maintainance cost.

A power/displacement ratio of 2 HP/ton is already quite good for an all around motorsailer. An auxiliary yacht may mount even less than 1.5 HP/ton.

enormous range

In a yacht submarine you have about half of the displacement as ballast weight. If you push it to the extreme you could replace all your ballast with diesel tanks. This would give you a tank reserve of 100.000 liter in a 200 ton submarine yacht. Which can take you 10.000 cruising hours at 3 miles/hour - So without taking the possible tank volume to the limits - you can have a tank size for oceancrossings in a submarine yacht.

In a proper motorsailer you can take advantage of wind and engine to always cruise at over 4 knots.

lower slip and maintainance cost

The concrete submarine hulls of our concepts are built according to the same rules that apply to submarine tunnels and bridge foundations - in the same way the only surface that is exposed to saltwater environment is a rounded concrete surface - therefore the maintainance needed is similar to a bridge foundation or tunnel - it stays in water for liftime - no dry dock, no painting, no sandblasting, - this is a mayor maintainance cost reduction compared to a normal yacht.

Well, if you don't paint it with a good protection, I'm afraid you'll get a miriad of living friends happily fixing and growing all around the surface of the hull. Perhaps they can be convinced to sing you a permanent lullabie to keep you slept not to become too bored when snaling at 1.0 knots or the like!


lower hull building and engine cost

The hull building cost of our concrete hulls is less than 1/3 of building a comparable steel hull. The engine size you will build in is less than half of the horsepower you would have on a surface yacht of similar size. This is a mayor building cost reduction compared to a surface yacht.

Low hull building cost is probably right comparing with an steel submarine, but have you compared it with a same capacity normal motor or sailboat building hull cost? And anyhow this cost is only a 25% (more or less) in the cost of an usual yacht, so not that big deal. And we've seen your proposed engine is not so small. And now, what about the complexity of oxigen and air-purifying installation, diving system, propulsion batteries system, etc, etc?

Sorry if I sound sceptic and even ironic (just trying to be humorous), but I think small recreational submarines, being a nice concept, are only really good for short inshore trips, not for all round cruisers.

Cheers.

 

Guillermo has presented even more of the blatently obvious deficiencies in the concept of a "simpler submarine".

I am not an automatic denigrater of new ideas and strange concepts per se, but submarines are not a *new* concept. They have been around for a long time, changed the shape of civilisation, moved the balance of world power and formed an immensely important strategic asset for the countries that run them.

The thing that irritates me in this instance is the naive and poorly researched claims to be able to build a better sub, without being able to come to grips with existing documented reality.

The reason submarines are not intrinsically simple is because they perform very difficult tasks in extremely hostile environments. The reason they are owned and used by organisations with lots of money (governments, big corporations etc) is because the complexity comes with great costs, including very skilfull human operation.

Promoting a concrete submarine as more pleasant, less expensive and more comfortable to travel in , shows a naive and demonstrably untrue hypothesis formed by inexpert and flawed reasoning.

Currently, you would not even be able to legally leave harbour for open sea voyages in a concrete submarine because they dont and cant even utilise an anchor effectively, and are uninsurable.

For someone to try and promote a product he is offering to sell, for a purpose it is blatently unfit for, is fraud.

 

Hello, that is nice, when arguments fail - insults come up ... very human...

This is one of the reasons why i stopped discussing too much with people that unite 2 things - no experience in the field combined with a rigid and fixed opinion about it.

You say X is a BIG problem - i say it is not - the difference is - i did it in practice - you not. (If i explain why - you insult me) So everybody may choose who is the expert to trust...and make his own mind up...

What concerns the general appearance of "deadly engineering problems" in theorical discussions. All this is human.

Humans always imagined monsters lurking in the dark, in the fog.... In modern ingineering this means people pushed out of comfort zone see PROBLEMS and deadly failure everywhere. I call this "engineering GHOSTS".

Best way to deal with this is to build it and show it - all engineering ghosts disapear.

So you will go on to discuss and argue the seaworthyness of my concept for the next 3 decades unless i invite you to take a trip in a finished boat - ( in just the same way a kid will insist in monsters in the dark until you switch on the light.)

This is why i focused on building and testing a 20 ton concept submarine yacht decades ago - so i can see clearly in a field which is dark dangerous and unproven ground for you.

Knowing exactly what that kind of sub can do i have no problem to build one on larger scale and ship it from colombia to california on its own keel - which is sheduled for october 2008. see (concretesubmarine.com).

I invite you to just relax and see if this crazy submarine madman gets drowned - so you can harvest the benefit of " i always knew it better" .

If this crazy guy can really perform that trip just consider the concept proven which gives you the benefit to have learned something new and the posibility to join the new submarine yacht building business as naval outfitting expert making a business of purchasing that kind of hulls and fit them out - do we have a deal ?

I am still willing to discuss engineering details like o rings, what is the best diesel, which kind of pump is most efficient etc... in this i accept you as equal expert as "concrete submarine yachting experience or not" does not matter in this case.

You see i am a business development manager - i get a clear picture how to do and move things - and do it. Discussion is part of the opinion set up process but we managers do not discuss endless we move ahead...let the dogs bark the caravane moves...

most of the things discussed here are already expained in my website (concretesubmarine.com) - if a question is left - let me know - but please stop barking...insulting...etc...

By the way the movements in a sub of our configuration do NOT get you seasick - tested it. (i know there is seasickness on military subs...) not on mine.

Cheers,
Wil

 

Wil,
I think I'm not insulting you, I'm just asking and doubting about the concept of an small go anywhere submarine yacht for extended cruising.
But you do not answer my questions an doubts. Not here, not in your web pages, which I've read thoroughly.
I'd appreciate your answers, please, not just an 'offended attitude' post.
Here some other questions:
Have you gone subsurface motoring (snorkel depth) in a a storm? what wind force? what waves height? for how long? what the recorded accelerations were? can you post specific data?
Have you performed oceanic crossings or at least long-range non-stops cruising? For how long?
As said, I'd appreciate answers to these and my previous post's questions and doubts.
Thanks in advance.

Cheers.

 

Hello Guillermo,

Yes i have performed many many hours of motoring in storm conditions, even more - i found myself in situations where i was at snorkel depth and busy working when i found that light conditions had changed - so i opened my hatch and found that a storm had come up meanwhile, sailing yachts of similar size as my boat got riped their sails in pieces, sending distress signals, trees fallen down, i did not even notice it ... i did not measure exact acceleration nor wave height so i can not give you an exact answer - but i can give you the unexact answer that for me this kind of trip was not even bumpy nor sea sikening and i can bet my money that i would have been able to have a nice meal while others where in distress situation - this kind of situation was the reason i started thinking of open ocean living concepts as outlined in my website in first place.

So i am aware that we can start here to discuss wave length and height questions and acceleration questions and movement questions and inner ear sensing questions etc.etc... - and all i have to say is: i am malpelo diver (shark island in open pacific galapagos area see: http://imulead.com/tolimared/malpelo/) so i have a good idea of waves in open pacific ocean, also in tropical storms, can compare such conditions with storm conditions on my test site and have a a good idea how my vessel will behave in such conditions. I also can speak first hand about the difference above and beneath the waves - i have experienced it with and without submarine. Unfortunatly i am also quite suceptible to sea sickness and have experienced it quite often so if i say in my sub NOT. It is because i know what i am talking about.

I would not shedule a trip of thousands of miles in open ocean my life depending on this vessel if i where not sure about it. Nor would i risk life nor reputation if i had any doubth on the concept. - And like you i had a lot of doubth BEFORE i tested - so i do not blame you for having doubt or questioning concept - i just say this is a consequence of having (not yet) first hand experience with this kind of vessels and it is a inherent uselessness in "discussing concepts" with people that can not speak from first hand experience - no offence this is only a way to move things efficiently forward nothing personal...

Test goes above opinion - this is how science moves forward. If you are really interested in acceleration measurments i invite you to come on board to have a trip and make good science. A scientific paper on this is just what i will need when the concept goes public with ians boat.

Any question left? - think other questions are answered on website - let me know...

Wil
(concretesubmarine.com)

Ah forgot the barny songs - i suggest you get a dive mask and a pressure washer and you will be fine ... although this is a part i did not test in all world oceans - but i will in caribbean...