Would a Submarine Work as a Spaceship?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- How long could a nuclear submarine last in orbit?
Get a copy of What If? 2 and Randall’s other books at: xkcd.com/books
More serious answers to absurd questions at: what-if.xkcd.com/
Randall Munroe is the author of the New York Times bestsellers What If? 2, How To, What If?, and Thing Explainer; the science question-and-answer blog What If?; and the popular web comic xkcd (xkcd.com). A former NASA roboticist, he left the agency in 2006 to draw comics on the internet full time.
Henry Reich is the creator of MinutePhysics and executive producer of MinuteEarth and MinuteFood and founder of Neptune Studios (the parent company for all three youtube channels).
Credits
Narrated by and based on "What If?" by Randall Munroe
Written & Directed by Henry Reich
Illustration and Video Editing by Lizah van der Aart
Illustration and Animation by Ever Salazar
Music & Sound Effects by Know Art Studios
What If? The Video Series is the official adaptation of the What If? books by Randall Munroe and is produced by Neptune Studios LLC.
©2023 xkcd, inc.
I especially enjoyed the sentence "If the ballistic missiles carried by a nuclear sub were placed in the tubes backward."
DESTIN!
Of course, igniting the rocket engines that close to the hull might SLIGHTLY exacerbate the heat buildup problem. 😂 You probably know this, but even in the cold cold ocean, the missles are launched out of the tubes by steam before the engines kick in.
Which brings up the inevitable followup question, how much bracing would be required to keep the backwards facing rocket designed to go very far up and then sideways from creating a new hole on the other side of the sub or causing a big mess inside.
Thats the important question we need answered.
Loved your “deep dive” into the submarine systems on your channel, Dustin!
@@TsandLman Which would be another way to get some ∆v for the de-orbit (since I'm sure throwing a rocket out the hatch would create some recoil that would normally have been absorbed by the ocean)
Regarding the reverse question, I'll always remember the _Futurama_ line:
"How many atmospheres of pressure can this ship take??"
"Well, it's a spaceship, so between zero and one."
except the show disproves their own joke because they visit that one planet with super gravity, Stumbos 4, to deliver pillows
@@Justcallmekai11ah, but that was still one atmosphere, you see.
I feels like the professor would appreciate this answer.
Though presumably there are safety margins built in, especially if the ship is designed to visit planets with denser atmospheres.
(It's still a good joke though!)
There's no rule that says a planet's atmosphere has a pressure of 1 (earth-)atmosphere.
@BollywoodNewzz I'll buy you one if you delete you channel
"Red Five Standing By"
"Red October Standing By"
Red Foxx standing by.
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 Red Forman standing by
Simply red standing by
Nice
Red Herin standing by
I love that he gives the speed for the wreckage in knots 😂
good thing too i only measure in garlic knots
absolutely delighted about that.
Fun fact: there are more spaceships in the ocean than submarines in space.
not for long
2:56
But with a small monthly donation, we can change that
Whole or in pieces?
Which seems like a huge missed opportunity for the timeshare industry.
Which brings us to my proposal…
I am reminded of the Planet Express Ship's forced deep ocean dive on _Futurama:_
-"Pressure at 20 atmospheres...30 atmospheres!"
-"Professor, how many atmospheres can the ship stand?"
-"Well, it's a _spaceship,_ so I'd wager anywhere between zero and one."
i used that same logic to argue with someone when we were talking about a hypothetical setting of a "sky city" on Neptune.
Since part of the goal was to go deeper into neptune's atmosphere and explore, i argued they'd need more submarine-like equipment, like depressurization chambers.
This other person argued "they have spaceships, they don't need submarine stuff".
@@TamTroll Gotta love Trekkies. Think you can explore the universe in a onesie with a dimensional pocket....
I read that and the voices in my head were just as crisp as those on the TV! ...Should I be worried?
Futurama has the best science jokes of any series I have come across.
Robot Mafia running numbers. Nothing fancy, mostly 0's and 1's
Freezing on Neptune. Bender complains, it's so cold my processor is running at peak efficiency
went on the video just to find this comment lmao.
I really appreciate how you went through all the trouble of explaining how a Submarine would work in space and the logic of how it can return… but never once questioned how it got there 😂.
The Wizard Who Only Knows The Spell “Teleport Submarine” teleported a submarine on top of the head of the last guy who questioned the motives of The Wizard Who Only Knows The Spell “Teleport Submarine”.
@@lamarepository248cringe
Wrong turn at Albuquerque, probably.
@@lamarepository248 🤡
3:15 "now that we are in space, how are we supposed to reenter the earths atmosphere?"
"we are gonna launch a nuclear attack against ourselves!"
Unlikely problems require unlikely solutions.
4:03 "If you ever try this, I have one piece of advice that is absolutely critical..."
LIVESTREAM IT
So disabling the missile's warheads is of course necessary. If you want to survive the reentry, you might also need to eject the submarine's reactor too. It won't explode, but it will crack apart and spew uranium everywhere in the vicinity, so that's kind of bad.
@@JamesGravesJr given there are also a bunch of nukes on board, that might be a pointless endeavor. Even if the missiles were perfectly disarmed so they wouldn't go off on impact, that's still a whole lot of uranium going up in smoke. Plus the fuel lockers for the reactor.
And remember, in space nobody can hear your "one ping only."
@@MonkeyJedi99 🤦♂
@@MonkeyJedi99sure they can, when the MAC round slams into your hull. It should ring very briefly as it rends the metal.
And I was JUST about to launch my nuclear sub to orbit. Thank god you uploaded this video!
Don't forget to disarm the warheads!
A true life saver.
hahaha Randall saved ya!
It just needs some upgrades. Nobody says you have to de-orbit and return to the surface. Either use a shuttlecraft or have Scotty beam you down. I hear Amazon has some great deals on oxygen generators and thermal radiators this month. That and an Impulse Drive unit and you will be set. Make it so...
Man, I was too late. Currently disabling the detonators on the missiles (thanks XKCD) and grabbing my submarine's mandatory safety parachute.
"If you sit in this spot just right" has the same vibe as "if you jump right before the plane crashes, you'll survive"
Just need to find a parachute on a submarine first.
Im very happy that you mentioned the heat-issue in space, because it feels like every movie and game completely ignores that part and just goes with "yeah its super cold in space" and then you get people that insta-freeze or a space ship that somehow builds ice on the walls because of a hull breach etc.
So now I am confused about why the crew on Apollo 13 got so cold. Were they shielded from the sun and unable to reduce the amount of heat radiated away?
@@JaniceLHz As far as i remember reading, the issue was that the outside of the craft was very well isolated, so while it did heat up significantly on the surface, barely any of the heat made its way inside.
On the other hand, they had no possibility of heating the craft up and no way to really get rid of the moisture that was building up inside. Given that they also spent a significant amount of time outside of the suns reach, they struggled to keep the craft warm as the men alone were not enough to keep it warm.
You also have to keep in mind that there was still a lot of warmth cooled down by the crafts cooling systems, otherwise the electrical devices would have overheated within hours.
So it was an issue of freezing but having the systems to make it home, or being warm but unable to come home.
I might misremember though.
BTW Oxigen not included works in a correct way with vacuum and temperature.
@@Robonator14 What do you mean they spent a significant time outside of the sun's reach? They spend like half an hour in the moon's shadow, out of a flight of over 142 hours.
@@WJS774 As far as i remember reading, the capsule they were in spent quite some time in the shadow of the service module.
Later they did indeed end up in the direct sunlight, but the capsules design prevented the heat of the sun to enter the ship.
Helmsman: "Sir, I think we're off course."
CO: "Why do you say that?"
Helmsman: "Because we're in space."
That was one helluva broach...
Sir I think I accidentally charged the ballast with several hundred thousand tons of helium…
@@Ydrakar Do you realize how much that is? I mean, that's more than a few hundred thousand tons of air. And also, yeah, Helium floats because it's light. And a few hundred thousand tons is not light. It's, well, a few hundred thousand tons. The question is, how much volume will that much helium take, even maximally pressurized (which will technically make it solid).
Dive dive dive
@@CapnBlud The helium doesn't float because it is light, it floats because it is less dense than air. A "few hundred thousand tons" of helium would still float and a gram of metal would not. The problem is the volume, like you said. Besides, if you could potentially float, you wouldn't reach outer space because things float because they are less dense than air. As the air pressure reduces, that effect would reduce as well. In that case you need another external force to give you speed to make you go into orbit. Otherwise you would never leave the atmosphere
i love how this situation is obviously a hilariously bad idea, but it takes a good amount of thinking to figure out *why exactly* it's a bad idea
That's What If? for you. Even if the answer is completely useless for practical reasons, just knowing it is still fun
There is a huge gulf between knowing something and knowing why something.
Welcome to What If? lol
It takes a good amont of thinking to figure out why sending a nuclear submarine into orbit is a bad idea? Speak for yourself.
@@_P2M_So you knew that the reactor would explode before the entire sub gets so hot that it grills the crew?
Former submarine guy reporting. Thanks for the video. I will admit to one thing: the nuclear techs, machinists, and reactormen (at least, the ones on MY boat) have legitimately figured out a workaround for most of these presented problems, including the water and oxygen issue and the heat problem. However, I'm not allowed to explain how they figured out the workaround because it involves some other classified equipment, as well as explaining the positioning and placement of certain internal tanks that you don't need to know about.
However, you've nailed it when it comes to stock submarines. 👍
If you are really a former submarine guy, you are missing an assumption that made your classified technology work in the water but which does not work in space. There is no way to destroy the heat that is being produced by the reactor. Obviously, fridges also don't eliminate heat but radiate it off outside the fridge. Even if pumping cooling water into and out of the sub is not an option, the hull being in water allows to get rid of heat much faster than if the sub is in outer space. The surface area of a sub isn't sufficiently large to radiate all that heat off into a (near-)vacuum. Huge radiators for space stations etc. exist, but subs don't have them and to radiate off anything close to 50MW of heat, these radiators would have to be gigantic.
Ok, I will never enter a submarine without a parachute.
Someone in Hollywood:
"Write that down, WRITE THAT DOWN!!!"
lulz
This feels like a bad hollywood movie plot with like a murderer roaming in there.
Gloryhammer did it!
I wish 😢
@@NachoMountDewCatand to be honest a B movie plot sounds better than whatever the heck Hollywood is doing!
The ending made me feel validated for thinking "Hopefully making sure the missiles doesn't detonate as a result" during the part about using the missile's propulsion to get back.
Whoosh
You cannot easily get fusion weapons to detonate as intended, unintentionally. Er....maybe that's not the best way of saying it, but it's extremely hard to get fusion bombs to work as designed accidentally. You could smash them all into the ground, no problems. Well, not 'fusion bomb explosion' problems.....other problems, yes. But they do tend to pale in comparison.
There might be enough of a heat shield to be initiated as an ODST or helldiver. And your squad has 20 chances to figure it out, and whatever time there is left.
@RNE33_search_TG you are glowie you are glowing in the dark
I could be wrong, but It’s my understanding that non-conventional bombs like that would need to be detonated with a trigger mechanism. Even the old style of “bullet” atomic weapons where the fissile material was essentially encased in an explosive sphere to cause the chain reaction would occasionally be a dud due a slight imbalance in the explosive. The main concern with them falling out of the air is the fissile material would be flung everywhere. This guy sounds like he knows what he’s talking about though.
The heat issue is the reason that the original design for Discovery in "2001: A Space Odyssey" had huge triangular wings on both side of the ship. They were heat radiators. Stanley Kubrick decided to delete them, which is why the final design for Discovery is basically a ball on the end of a stick. Kubrick thought the audience would be confused by wings on a spaceship, and he was probably right. But in reality, you would need those big radiator surfaces to get rid of the waste heat from the nuclear reactor.
If you read Arthur C. Clarke's novel version of "2001," you'll see that he describes the original design. In the book, Discovery is shaped like a giant arrowhead.
Hootsforce arise!
I knew that this comment would be somewhere lmao
"In a submarine, beneath the seas
Of Achnasheen, we remain unseen
But now the time, has come to rise
Ascend into the skies!"
YES!!!
I have been wondering about this ever since listening to Hootsforce!
For the eternal glory of Dundee
I would have to wonder just how airtight a sub would be. The seals are designed to have positive (by a large amount) external pressure, and not negative pressure. So to me the seals are "pointing in the wrong direction". It might leak like a sieve in space.
I was waiting for this to be mentioned, but surprisingly it wasn't.
There'd likely be some leakage, but I wouldn't expect it to be huge, primarily because the individual compartments inside a sub are designed to be water-tight both-ways, in case a compartment floods.
Like the doors and bulkheads between the missile deck and the engineering deck will keep the engine room pressurized if the missile deck floods, but will also keep the missile deck pressuized if the engine room floods.
And it's not like the hull requires pressure to be watertight either, else a sub would leak while on the surface.
Plus all the external hatches are redundant, if not actual airlocks; we wouldn't want a single failed hatch to sink a sub.
Yeah, that was my thought as well. You could possibly seal off areas that are particularly bad and save the crew from decompression but the ballast tanks are almost certainly going to leak, likely causing significant spin. I also doubt you can seal off the tertiary coolant feed tank for the reactor.
I think that while seals can be biased in one direction, unless they're deliberately designed to be uni-directional (and there'd be little reason to do that), they'll still have some resistance the other way. And because of the magnitude of difference between the negative pressure of 1 atm > 0 atm and the positive pressure of a couple hundred meters of water, the seal would have to be like 100x worse in one direction than the other for it to be an issue. I think it's more likely that the 'bias' of the seals would be like near 2:1, not 100:1
One of the ways they test the water tight integrity of a submarine before diving is to overpressure the boat and hold that pressure long enough to see if there's any leakage. I'm pretty sure they don't go all the way up to two atmospheres but the principle is the same. The seals might not be able to take as *much* pressure outward instead of in, but they can take at least that much.
1:30 _"Dad, why don't the sparks burn you?"_
*"Well, son, I have a mutation that makes me heal rapidly, and I have an adamantium-reinforced skeleton-"*
_"You're describing Wolverine."_
*"No, I'm pretty sure that's me."*
- the joke used in the original article
Yeah, I don't know why it's not here. That was funny.
@@karenluo795 Likely for copyright reasons. Because we live in the fun part of capitalism, where corporations own or ruin everything. Usually both at the same time.
@@HeroDarkStorn an old joke one particular commenter enjoyed is not in a video about the same topic? Must be communism again.
I meant to say capitalism of course
@@HeroDarkStornWait, was my comment deketed? If not, than just know that if he wanted to include the joke, but ONLY left it out because of copyright, then I'll PUNCH him for supporting *oppression!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
@@HeroDarkStornshut up dude
I work at a shipyard that repairs submarines, and a coworker asked "why haven't we combined a submarine and a spaceship?" I replied "same reason we haven't combined airplanes and snowplows". We ended up having an AI art generator make us pictures of combination Submarine/spaceships. Not gonna lie, they go hard. Funny this video popped into my feed.
Space Battleship Yamato kinda rocks, though :P
Screw the space submarine, I wanna see a snowplow-airplane combo now
Great timing! Thank you! I was planning to try this next week, but I wasn't sure if I should disable the detonators or not!
Space is warm?
Yesn't, but actually yesn'tn't.
It gets easier once you get into deep space where there's generally just not enough matter to really ascribe it any temperature.
It's literally an inconmensurably large insulator. The vacuum is cold, but whatever it surrounds is hot.
No'sen't, it's's yesn'tn'tn't
@moteroargentino7944 That would suggest everything in space is hot, even a submarine
@@phillawrence5148 That's literally why stealth in space doesn't work.
+50 atmospheres implying -1 atmosphere is fine might come down to how seals are enginered. Some might depend on being pressed together from the outside.
One of the ways they test the water tight integrity of a submarine before diving is to overpressure the boat and hold that pressure long enough to see if there's any leakage. I'm pretty sure they don't go all the way up to two atmospheres but the principle is the same. The seals might not be able to take as much pressure outward instead of in, but they can take at least that much.
Ah cool. Thanks for sharing!@@willythemailboy2
In addition to Willy's brilliant reply. Remember that subs are designed to work on the surface of the water too. If they relied on the mountain of outside pressure from the water at 100m depth, they'd leak and thus sink whenever they surfaced.
@@MGSLurmeyThat's not how that works. Many directional Seals are almost like a one way valve. When there is no pressure on them they have a small "spring force" holding them tight against very low pressures. As the pressure increases, it needs to be squeezed against the sealing surface increasingly hard to seal. The increasing pressure is used to provide the sqeezing, so the higher the pressure the better the seal. Put the pressure on the wrong side of the seal however and you lift the seal away from the sealing surface, and let everything through.
subs are also compartmentalized thus if one section floods they need the rest is save from the pressure. Thus it should be both ways.
Just came across this channel for the first time. I’ve now watched every video. Love the graphics, the explanation, and the crazy ideas. Looking forward to a new video hopefully soon
have you read the original cartoons?
"For a brick, he flew pretty good!"
That comparison to sparks when grinding got me to understand what you meant.
I really appreciate comparisons/metaphors that fit that well, makes things way easier for us dummies out there
I think you mean 'us dummies out here', I mean, if you are meaning to include yourself.
@@DontEatTheAnimals Overly pedantic comments like yours should be downvoted, but then again
Don't go insulting yourself, internet buddy. You got what was being communicated by the video and that's what matters.
Love all the random sound effects you add in.
*wooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhh
Now we need a video on "Would a spaceship Work as a Submarine?"
Up to 3m probably yes I would not trust it further
Things not mentioned in video about subject. Color plays a huge role in heat dispersants the outside of the ship would need to be painted a white or gray color. Which would help with heat dispersants having the ballast tanks filled with water and having the reactor pull from that reservoir would fix the overheating issue. then having piping along the fins of the ship to act like a giant radiator which would also help with heat dispersion. A fully enclosed system is possible on a reactor this small.
I love that you give the ground impact speed in knots
🌥️🎺1 Thessalonians 4 KJV ✝️🩸
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
Romans 3 KJV 🩸
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
@@AlexanderBrown77 ok but whats 9 + 10
@@slavsit7600 ♥️
Revelation 19 KJV
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
@@slavsit7600 John 19 KJV
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
@@AlexanderBrown77damn, he actually told him
Former Naval ETN, and can confirm; you'd survive longer on the backup battery (with no propulsion required) than on the nuclear reactor. Good luck you space submariners.
How long for reactor decay heat to drop low enough?
Unlike star trek, I don't think these things can "eject the core".
@@aaroncosier735older models could but they couldnt be refueled
Thats why they ejected the ENTIRE REACTOR
@@xxizcrilexlxx1505
Which models could eject the reactor? Surely that would require incredible design provisions for the pressure hull.
@@aaroncosier735 well It was supposed to be done in the surface and with a crane
So i guess It was Just a really big waterproof hatch for the máx pressure
So no shiny tech on those early subs because It was done like that because It was easier
But later they made the New reactors refuelable because It was way too ineficient
Btw i cant recall the modelos from the back of my Head but i know they where the first nuclear subs
So that May help you find them
@@xxizcrilexlxx1505
So, not an ejection at all.
In fact, to get the reactor out was practically a factory rebuild. Takes years.
Hulls had greater structural limitations back then. It would have been even harder than it is now to accommodate such a feature.
Really, if you think this was ever real, give an example.
I loved this one. I also loved that Randal did the narration. :-)
I absolutely love your books and am stoked that you've made a youtube channel. Thank you so much!
Ex US Navy nuclear plant operator here, first thing I though of was "Well, not very long without water for the turbine condensers". It would probably (horrifically) more likely be that the condenser rupture disks fail and the engine room is filled with superheated steam killing everyone inside in a mater of minutes, after a few seconds the electrical turbines trip causing critical loads to move onto the motor generators and quickly chew through the batteries until a loss of all power scram occurs. Depending on how high reactor power was at the time of the scram the pressure relief valves will probably not pop for a few minutes to hours. It wont be until the pressurizer tank goes empty (Oops, we're in space! PWR reactors won't like that, nobody tell them they're in micro gravity!). Not that maters since now everyone outside of engineering is in a pitch black tube relying on flashlights to see and the ventilation systems have failed along with the potable water pumps that pump water from the storage tanks located in engineering. . . . Being insta killed by steam seems like a kinder fate that dying of dehydration and slowly suffocating. I only have one question; how did that submarine get up in space in the first place? 🤣
I would like to think that someone would raise the question, "is this really a good idea?" before it got to that point, though.
Easy, if this is turned into a Hollywood movie. Maybe the most powerful ever registered F10 Tornado pulls the submarine from sea to orbit!
Spin launch lol.
@@CaseyGray58 Oh, well in that case everyone is already dead and a fine paste
@@marcopederzoli4939 Are you implying that a tornado would pull a Star Trek? 🤔
I love that you don't ask how it got there, but makes sure to answer how it would survive reentry
Someone wanted to see space titanic
navigational error
it wouldn't in one piece
@@JoducusKwak how bad would the driver have to mess up for this to happen?
@@thetiredladdy training mess-up
Fight for the king, For the hammer and the ring, Fight for the ancient story!
_"If you ever try this, I have one piece of advice that is absolutely critical: remember to disable the detonators on the missiles."_
and I would add:
_"...and to film it, otherwise no one is going to believe you !"_
Refuting the whole "Space is cold, duh!" trope is a battle I have far more often than I would have guessed.
ye, when ever I enter that debate I need to explain what hot and cold even means, and how it doesn't matter in a vacuum without stuff to be hot or cold.
It doesn't matter in the same way at least.
Well, Earth IS in space, so... It CAN at least be warm.
The worst is when being in space is depicted as somehow causing frost to form on someone. As if space is not only cold in a conventional sense, but also somehow has sufficient humidity for ice deposition.
@@williamscott2580 This is something I realized about space vampires: without ozone in the way, the sun is a deadly laser even for humans.
@@Thesaurus_Rexfrost was a significant challenge for the Apollo 13 crew, humans provide their own humidity.
Best part? "I didn't know submarines had these." Reminds me of "Why do we even HAVE that lever?" from The Emperor's New Groove.
😂😂😂😂
3:52
That movie was funny!
Yzma: Looking for this?
Yzma: [holds up the vial of human extract]
[Kuzco and Pacha gasp]
Kuzco: No! It can't be! How did you get back here before us?
Yzma: Uh...
[pauses]
Yzma: ...how *did* we, Kronk?
Kronk: Well, ya got me. By all accounts, it doesn't make sense.
[Kronk holds up a map of the two parties' trails, showing Yzma's and Kronk's falling down a canyon halfway through]
Yzma: Oh, well. Back to business
@@spaceflight1019I LOVE that one!
"Why do we even have that lever?"
@@pieterboelen2862 Did you ever watch the Babylon 5 episode titled "A View from the Gallery"? It's a typical day, as seen through the eyes of two of the maintenance guys that keep the station running.
One of the guys asks the other guy what they machine he's running does. After a short back-and-forth the other guy admits that he has no idea. It's probably on here under "Bo and Mac B5".
0:41 In the "Smarter Every7 Day" episodes where he stayed on a nuclear sub for a few days he mentioned that they do NOT use electrolysis to break water into H2 and O2 because they're surrounded by seawater which is salty. The sodium chloride would break down into chlorine gas and kill the crew. They actually "Light a candle" which is a special chemical reaction which releases O2 into the submarine.
I love that the question of "how did it get there" is too trivial to even be adressed.
Someone obviously just punched "Y up" coordinates into the "Z up" navigation system without properly converting.
I'm more surprised by the severe LACK of submarines in space by how often that stuff happens in any 3D workflow tbh.
This is also a very specific question I had to think about. I ran a fantasy/sci-fi campaign in D&D and players had access to a submarine, and a girl who could teleport and take large objects with her. They needed to go into space. I didn't consider the reactor immediately blowing up, but I did crack the hull a bit from the sudden change in pressure and the fact that one side was in the hot sun and the other side in freezing darkness. Players founds the leaks via incense and followed the smoke trails, which made me very proud. Also instead of maneuvering using missiles, one of them put on a space suit, stood on the sub's hull and fired guns. For hours. Not a great change in velocity, but they didn't need much. The initial teleport had, fortunately, brought them pretty close and over the course of days they drifted close enough.
I was wondering just how a bunch of fantasy folks got a hold of a submarine but the fact that someone propelled it with shooting firearms for hours sounds so very American :D
to both of you guns wont work in space as the no air so no ars brs snipers etc shotguns have oxidizer agents that allow them to fire in space rpgs im not sure about
@@thetiredladdy
I think there was something about how they could work in space but they'd not work very well as they'd jam up or something after a few shots.
As in FIrefly thought they were doing the right thing by putting the gun in a spacesuit but it turns out you don't need to do that?
@@thetiredladdy almost all modern ammunition contains all the fuel and oxidizer it needs to function, except things like cruise missiles which are propelled by air-breathing jet engines.
That sounds like a very interesting DnD world you guys were playing with 🧐😄
Having "what if" as UA-cam clips is one of the best things ever. Thanks to all involved making these possible! ❤
0:12 this is the opposite of that Futurama joke
I think a follow up to this video should be "How long could a space ship last in the ocean"
"I have an idea. How many parachutes does this submarine have?"
Or need to land safely 😂😂
Indy made do with an inflatable raft. The sub probably has those.
.....and how do they manage to flip the icbm's inside their tubes?!
As a submariner I saw this and just HAD to click on this video.
Thanks for the insightful scenario! Now I have a one-up on my shipmates if we ever get into a conversation of the environments our sub could survive in.
(I must admit, temperature is never something I’d have considered)
pretty much what I was going to say. Although i don't remeber those rockets on my LA :p
Nice Cayde pfp you have there.
The rumor is the US in the 60’s rigged subs with anti-gravity they replicated from German tech via Operation Paperclip
If you didn't consider temperature you must have been a Coner.... lol.
Brilliant, insightful video, for sure!
I finally watched your video and can sum up:
No one used the power of the hootsforce.
The pressure in the ocean is not a vacuum like in space.
The pressure in the ocean is inwards, while the pressure in space is outwards
4:08 "Wait a minute. I just lit a rocket. Rockets explo-!"
ICBM warheads are armed manually during their descent. I'm assuming the same goes for SLBMs.
@@CasabaHowitzer Ah, but thankfully Sid Phillips didn't have access to ICBMs. (Well, at least as far as we know, anyway.)
It's not the sudden acceleration from the rocket that kills you, it's the nuclear detonation at the end.
@@CCNYMacGuy "Extremely dangerous. Keep out of reach of children" indeed!
@@CasabaHowitzer Man, I'd hate to have that job. Do I at least get whole life in the benefits package? (Would probably make more sense if they armed it remotely on the descent, but I guess a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.)
The research is good but the sound effects are even better lmao
😸
@BollywoodNewzz
1 sounds fishy.
2 what vid?
whooshhhhh
@@bjb7587It's a bot. It spammed that everywhere.
@@Merennulli yeah. Found it two other places, so I reported them. Will do same here. Strange post, considering no reference to a vid means no obvious gain.
It's a bit of an oversimplification to say that just because a submarine can withstand incredible external pressure, that it would be totally fine maintaining an internal pressure in space.
The mechanics of withstanding the depths of the ocean, and holding an atmosphere in space are entirely different, and it's completely plausible, and even possible, that under an internal load, the airtight seal of the submarine would form small gaps and leak.
This is because the sealing of the submarine relies on compression from the ocean to be so effective. Without that compression, and in fact replacing that compression with tension, could be catastrophic for the structural integrity of the hull.
Subs have ballast tanks, you could kind of jerry rig the reactor to use that to dissipate the heat to keep it in liquid form and pull oxygen from it as well. Might not last forever but it should sustain life for a bit longer.
"Plowing into the ground at several hundred knots" isn't something I thought I'd ever hear but I'm so glad I did 😂
Under Project Orion, the proposal to have spacecraft propel themselves via a sequence of nuclear bomb detonations (Yes!) it was suggested that spacecraft could be built in naval yards, on the grounds that it didn't much matter how heavy a spaceship is if it's propelled by exploding nukes.
My favorite propulsion tech in Terra Invicta. Naked apes almost nuking their own asses just to fuck some invading aliens up.
The novel King David's Spaceship features such a spacecraft. I find it a quite entertaining read.
I love how you could make a disaster movie out of literally all of these.
This all sounds like a very dumb but also kinda awesome movie:
"Mr President, we've found the missing nuclear submarine, but... now we have another problem."
Then the NASA guy on the radio is like: "We've figured out a way to get you back to Earth, but you're going to have to turn all your missiles upside down."
I have a story called The Water Thieves where massive (500 km dia) spaceships come and lower into the seas and steal water. They capture a nuclear submarine by accident and the story follows the sub, encased in ice, as it travels to an alien planet. This video was very informative. I got most of the tech description correct in the novel.
When and where will the book be available?
Not knowing of their motivation. There are several moons in the solar system with more water and no one there to defend it. Did they already take it?
I doub tit would freeze that fast if they had this kind of volume. With radiatin only, a sphere of 100km in diameter of sea (salted) water would stay liquid for months\years, surface will freeze, but that would reduce radiation.
As other commenters already posted, go and watch Futurama. Spaceships dont belong underwater. They are built for the athmosperic pressure of space, so virtually 0. To build a spaceship that can withstand the pressure of oceans you would have to use way more energy than efficient. Simply to speak, you would build a spaceship that carries some type of submarine. Or you would just evaporate the water, collect the steam and clean it from air. Or giant tube that suck the water into the spaceship. But please dont let them dive ;)
A spaceship that big would also create problems on earth. Its smaller than the moon but the moon is not very dense and theremore not much mass. So the spaceship could be easily half of the mass of the moon (without any calculations). A landing on earth would create massive disasters around the world. Just a quick visit with such a giant ship would kill millions of people. Just sayin' ^^
@sleepingcity85 are you sure?
0:07 my initial thought was "That nuclear reactor is going to get extra spicy, fast".
I appreciate that the speed of the submarine plummeting to the earth is being expressed in knots, as appropriate
Sounds like you need yourself a Hammer of Glory to fly a submarine to space.
-Is space hot?
-Of course it is, where do you think we get pineapples from!?
Under the sea. Sometimes sponges maker their way inside before the pineapple is harvested.
Dave's Syndrome 🤣
Interesting side note, in order to deorbit, you'd want to burn your -engines- missiles in the opposite direction of travel, not down towards the Earth. It's your speed around the planet that is keeping you in orbit. So in order to deorbit, you reduce your speed and let gravity do this rest.
I mean, you CAN do it by pointing straight down. The spacecraft will in fact not be orbiting anymore if you do that.
@@sultanofsickHm? I mean, if you apply *enough* force for a long enough time, sure, but isn’t the point of the top level comment that you need substantially less delta v to deorbit if you apply it in the direction opposite your current motion, than you would need if you apply your delta v in a downwards direction?
Hm, I wonder, if you apply a rather small downward force for arbitrarily long times, does that guarantee eventually de-orbiting?
I think, perhaps not, if the force is small enough.
Like, if based on your current position and momentum, you would be in a perfectly circular orbit if the body you are orbiting were a bit more massive, then if the additional downward force is the difference between what the gravity would be if the bode were that slightly larger mass, and what it is in reality, then you would continue on that circular orbit. And, if you take a perfectly circular orbit, but reduce the mass of the body being orbited slightly, that won’t cause the orbiting body to no longer be in orbit.
So, for some possible initial orbits, there is some amount of force downward which if it starts getting consistently applied downward, will not cause the orbiting body to ever deorbit.
On the other hand, if you apply a force in the opposite direction of motion, you *will* decrease the velocity, and eventually deorbit, even if, if the force is very small, it might take a long time.
This is solved by lighting the one farthest from the sub's center of mass first, very briefly, which will cause the sub to rotate. Per the drawing, the missile closest to the aft may or may not be on the other side of the center of mass, depending on whether or not the power source is disassembled and chucked out due to being a hazard, and how heavy the missiles themselves are. If it IS on the otherside of the center of gravity, then lighting it for awhile (probably longer since it appears closer to the center) would allow the sub's facing to change such that lighting all the missiles simultaneously would create the exact course correction you're mentioning.
Otherwise, you could just time the ignition for very short intervals to occur as the sub is rotating through space, and only ignite when the engines are facing the otherway.
This all assumes the missiles *can* be turned off and back on. If they can't, then if you just start the one furthest from the center of gravity first, and then light the others at the right time, the sub will start flying in a circle, where the center of the circle is still mostly going in the original direction the sub was, but also, doing so much slower than originally. Because gravity follows an inverse cube, the sub will always need more energy to get farther away from the Earth than closer to it, so as it flies in this circle, the circle will accelerate toward's the Earth's surface. It won't be an ideal re-entry, and will cause the sub to absolutely be tumbling when it hits the atmosphere, causing it to break apart much more rapidly than it would otherwise, and be a generally much more difficult to survive situation. Cons: This is less survivable for the crew than most of the other scenarios. Pros: This will result it less debris actually striking land, since it'll break up into smaller pieces earlier during re-entry. Also, it is still more survivable than if the warheads are detonated.
@drdca8263 I think that small consistent downwards force would effectively end up making your orbit projections look like they are hoola hooping around the planet.
Maybe this concept would be useful if geostationary gets extremely full, you could effectively get multiple layers with active support geostationary
Orbital mechanics are pretty unintuitive to me. Would thrusting towards the planet just make you go faster? Assuming no atmosphere. Would thrusting outwards make you go slower?
The idea of a nuclear submarine floating through space is just so insanely cool
I can't wait for the "can you use gun recoil for propulsion" video.
I truely love having a thought (like "what about reentry?" ) and then you read my mind an answer that exact sub-question.
(*SUB*-question)😀
XKCD?!? On UA-cam?!? With fun explainer videos?! Yes!!!!
i absolutely LOVE that you used the unit 'knots' to describe the speed of the crashed submarines debris
when I was a teenager, xkcd comics blew my mind. Now I'm an adult, and xkcd videos are blowing my mind.
You are wrong in some ideas
1. Submarines are anything, but airtight. In fact, it is that massive pressure while underwater which makes them waterproof. When they are on surface, they leak regularly and water pumps are usually running to keep their bottom dry. Modern submarines are not leaking like those from WW2, but still, there are thousands of bolts, welds and joints in modern nuclear submarine. If few of them are leaking, it does not mean, that submarine would be dismantled and those faulty connections repaired.
They are built in such way, that external pressure would keep them together, even if all connections would fail. But this exact design feature revert to design flaw, when there is not external, but internal overpressure. So submarine would lose livable air pressure pretty quickly, in matter of hours or even minutes.
2. CO2 scrubbers on submarines would not work in microgravity. First, they need water (cooling) for their function, second submarines rely on gravity for airflow into these scrubbers. But there is almost no gravity in microgravity so they would not work. But truth is, that air would be out much faster, than CO2 buildup itself to dangerous concentrations.
3. Temperature in space, especially on Earth orbit is mainly about massive solar power at Earth orbit. It is 1366W/m2. So if submarine, which is also black, would face sun by one of its side, power recieved would be in megawatts. And temperature of sun facing hull would quickly rise to 120°C! And because submarines has metallic interior and little to no heat insulation (especially american ones), this temperature would be on internal walls in submarine. This is why it is problem to keep spacecrafts cool and why they have silver or gold coating. And on dark side of Earth it is not so cold, because Earth itself radiate like 460W/m2, so this significantly reduces cooling ability of radiation cooling.
4. Naval nuclear reactors are nowhere near 50% efficiency you suggested, In fact, it is 15-25% and its inefficiency in comparison with civilian reactors (30-43%) is due necessity to quickly changing power output.
5. 200MW nuclear reactor would heat interier of submarine much faster. Let say, that submarine weights 8000 tons of steel, steel has heat capacity 420J/kg, so you need just 3,36GJ to increase temperature of all submarine mass by 1 degree. 200MW reactor would accumulate that energy every 17 seconds and do not forget about suns addition. In less than 10 minutes temperature of mass of submarine would be over 60°C, which would be deadly.
6. Your calculation of Trident missile push to Ohio class submarine is slightly off, accoridng my calculation knowing specific impulse and mass of propellant in that missile and dry weight of Ohio class, it is 8m/s per missile. But in the end, it combined push from all missiles is enough to reentry in both values.
7. I am pretty sure, that submarine would survive reentry pretty intact. First thing it will semistabilise in backward direction (propeller in front of flight) because of its shape. Second thing, it is massive steel construction and many of them protected by echelon tiles coating. So many things for ablative cooling. And last thing, when massive human objects are falling from orbit, they survive surprisingly intact and they are constructed from thin aluminium and/or lithium sheets. So 5cm thick steel hull should survive pretty easily. But this leads to conseqeunt problem - terminal velocity of such submarine would be too high for jumping of it. Accordion my "calculation" for Ohio class it would be at 4000 meters at least 1200 m/s, so basically borderline hypersonic. Even at supersonic speed is impossible to jump out of flying object without protective suit and rocket chair.
Love the indepth explanation. Thank you!
This was great! You and the video only left out the part where launching an entire nuclear submarine into space would be ASTRONOMICAL. Even if they took the propulsion unit out and added wings to land or whatever
@@NM-yu3fc Not only astronomical price, but also technically not possible. Not on chemical rocket engines. To get Virginia class submarine into space, which weights "only" 6500 tons, you would need to attach to her 40-50 SHS (Superheavy and Starship in expendable version). Something like that is "Kerbal space program" wizardy definitely not possible with out technology and probably impossible due physical limitations of real world.
In my opinion, if we will ever build such massive (in terms of weight) spaceships, it will be in space and they will be using fusion power for energy and propulsion. So basically "Expanse series" level technology and definitely not in this century.
@@tomascernak6112 it's a completely unreal scenario, agreed. I just liked your points on it, and noticed nobody pointed out that you couldn't launch something that heavy at one time in the first place 👍
@@NM-yu3fc Yes, your point is correct. First thing is to get that submarine in orbit :-D
I assume, that narrator in video is thinking about scenario, where some magical being teleports that submarine in space instantly.
Yes it is a joke question, but surprisingly good for mental exercise too. i like scenarios and questions, which will torment our brain a little ;-)
"It's hard to get good numbers on the efficiency of nuclear reactors in military submarines."
And you don't have to! All of the reactor energy will turn to heat and have to be radiated from the sub.
good to know, next time i'm on a submarine i'll bring my parachute
This is like asking the professor how hard you would have to slap a chicken, a duck and a turkey to cook them instantly.
Gotcha, our Sub Space Marine is to remove the Torpedo detonators & add air conditioners
In the Looking Glass series by John Ringo and Travis Taylor, humanity finds a warp drive from an extinct race, and uses it to build our first interstellar ship, by converting a submarine. They discuss the cooling issue, and deal with it by storing heat in solid glass bars attached to the underside of the ship, and they periodically have to stop and "chill" bu extending thr glass rods to let them radiate in space for a few hours.
Good book series. Highly recommend it to any sci fi readers
In Gilpin's Space by Reginald Bretnor, a new kind of space drive is invented and it is made clear that *only* submarines or similar vessels are suitable for installation. This is more of a "shift into a quasi-dimension" thing (it's revealed later that every ship transitions into its own independent space) so we can handwave away the heat dissipation problem :)
I was digging through the comments before I wrote basically what you did. Glad that I am not the only one who saw this and thought of that series.
Somebody NEEDS to make a movie about this, just, trust me.
fun fact, according to the logs the seamoth and prawn suit in subnautica are also used in space
3:17, ah, I see where we are taking things off the rails, popcorn time.
Whoosh
Remember Up Goer Five: "If it starts pointing towards space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today."
@BollywoodNewzz Bot
As a tax paying american citizen i demand that nasa focuses all its resources on this project. Im starting a petition.
Now I want a game where you're in a submarine that suddenly gets teleported to space somehow, and you have to use the techniques in this video to get it back to earth before the reactor roasts you.
Hootsforce moment
In space, no one can hear your propellers turn.
Unless they're Romulans.
In space, no one can hear you scream "WHY/HOW IS THERE A TRITON-CLASS SUBMARINE HERE"
In Space, no one can hear you fart.
You could have stopped at 2:57, but everything after that point is why I love these
Surpringly entertaining channel which UA-cam’s algorithm has only just decided to show me. Fascinating. I subscribed.
The total thermal output (or close to it) of the nuclear reactor would need to be radiated out of the submarine, no matter how efficiently the reactor converts it to electricity, since the electrical power will itself eventually be converted to heat mostly if not entirely within the confines of the sub. Exceptions might be things like radio broadcasts. Point being that the efficiency aside isn't important.
Also the lack of cooling water would cause the reactor to cease functioning properly in short order. Still a fun thought experiment though!
The question isn't whether the heat would _eventually_ radiate away, it's whether the heat would radiate away _faster than it built up._ If a hundred megawatts of heat are generated, radiating a dozen doesn't do much to help.
Of course, radiant heat dissipation increases with temperature, but A. that's only true of the hull temperature and B. that doesn't affect the calculations much until the crew has been cooked.
wouldnt it be a closed system and recycle the water.
Funny, only after I wrote pretty much the same thing as you did I see your comment and youtube actually shows me mine immediately above yours.
Efficiency does matter. Work is being done by the electricity so.not all of the energy results in waste heat.
@@vanguard9067 No, that's not how thermodynamics works. Sooner or later, all the work-energy will also become heat.
Something to remember, submarines have ballast tanks in any basic design. They're already designed to hold water, water is also good for blocking that pesky radiation.
The massive metal hull of a submarine is already pretty good at blocking radiation.
@@feuerling you make 3.3" more intimidating than most, papi 🥰
Water could not only mitigate radiation but also the temperature between the sun exposed side and the one in the shadow.
Of course, if the sub moves away from the sun it may freeze and likely damage the tanks.
@@roccosfondo8748 Yeah, but unlike in the ocean there is nowhere for the submarine to get more water. Once the water in the tanks is heated up by the reactor which inevitably would happen, the water would be unless at cooling anything, and would only to continue to heat up with the rest of the sub.
@@horationelson1840 agreed with that. Probably some massive radiator would be necessary in order to dissipate the heat as radiating energy. I believe that they have radiators in the ISS. Now, I don't know what is their efficiency ratio therefore I have no clue about how much surface it may be needed for a nuclear reactor.
The irony being that the pressure vessel for the nuclear reactor is probably the most robust object, and therefore the "safest" part of the submarine on re-entry.
This reminds me of the Futurama episode where they took the spaceship underwater. Someone asked how many atmospheres the ship could handle and the professor said, one since its a spaceship. I imagine it's the same issue in reverse.
3:46 I like how its speed is measured in knots because it's a ship, completely disregarding that it's a) in space, b) falling (or would it be sinking?), and c) no longer a cohesive vessel but rather a scattered collection of former submarine parts.
(Note: I tried to find out what unit is used to measure the speed at which submarines dive by looking up "submarine dive speed", but I couldn't find a single helpful result)
A submarine crew usually just uses feet per second (or meters per second) to describe a submarine's decent rate.
It's not a ship, it's a boat.
I appreciate the very necessary thoroughness of this. Especially the part about turning off the detenators on the nuclear armed missles.
Firing ballistic missiles backwards to get a nuclear submarine out of orbit is one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard.
I kind of want this idea to be turned into a movie.
Belgians who brought parachutes into subs: My time has come
Are you sure a submarine hull would be good? Ships are designed to have the pleasure of the ocean pressing on them. Ships that are left out of the water for an extended amount of time collapse on themselves.
Outer space and under the sea are two different kinds of pressure. Under the sea the water wants to get in to fill the space that the sub is occupying which would cause an implosion, while in outer space the air inside wants to get out of the shuttle which would cause an explosion just minus the fire.
3:40 "because it's not aerodynamically stable at hypersonic velocities" [citation needed]
honestly, ive never heared or seen a submarine being tested in windtunnels.......i think he made that part up!
"There are more planes in the ocean than there are submarines in the sky" - Einstein
Nice.
Also, most sailors can swim, but not a single pilot can fly.
"Don't trust everything you read online" - Abraham Lincoln
“You can't see your ears without mirror.” - Churchill
@@paulmakinson1965actually a surprising number of people in the Navy can't swim