Talk:Bathyscaphe Trieste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bathyscaphe Trieste article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article lacks a ship infobox. You can help WikiProject Ships by copying the source code into the attached article, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box.

Contents

[edit] DSVs

http://users.skynet.be/RonSubCovers/DSRV/USA%20DSRV%20Index.htm http://ussubvetsofworldwarii.org/ss_submarines/submarinelist.html

"DSV-0" Trieste - the bathyscaphe that reached Challenger Deep, retired 1966, also called X1 DSV-1 Trieste II - an updated bathyscathe (or bathyscaph) design, retired 1984, also called X2 DSV-2 Alvin - a deep diving sub, reaching only half as deep as the two Triestes DSV-3 Turtle - Alvin's identical sibling, retired 1998, USN DSV-4 Sea Cliff - another Alvin class DSV sub, retired 1998, USN DSV-5 Nemo - another Alvin class DSV sub, retired 1998, USN

DSRV-1 Mystic DSRV-2 Avalon

NR-1 Nerwin - nuclear powered research DSV sub

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t8/trieste.htm http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t8/trieste_ii.htm

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/c_DSV.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/details/DSV1.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/details/DSV2.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/details/DSV3.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/details/DSV4.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/details/DSV5.htm

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/c_DSRV.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/details/DSRV1.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrservicecraft/details/DSRV2.htm http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-dsrv.html

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-nr1.html

[edit] Aluminaut

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126821&cid=10609804 http://www.smv.org/info/aluminautEX.htm

[edit] Descent longer than ascent

How is it that the descent to Mariana Trench took 5 hours and the ascent only 3 hrs 15 mins ? Jay 12:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • In descent, you fight the bouyancy of the gasoline. In ascent, you drop the iron weights and rise to the surface. The rate of descent would depend on how much counteracting iron is placed aboard. The rate of ascent would depend on the general bouancy of the craft. It's not the same 132.205.15.43 00:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Think of it like an airplane. How long does it take to get up to 30,000 ft in a 767? What if I then suddenly chopped off the wings, how long would it take you to make a fair sized crater in the ground? You fall faster than you rise.
      • That is an interesting way of putting it, but not necessarily related here, since there are very different forces at work. A plane works on lift, not buoyancy. Plus it is backwards, since it took longer to get down than up. Not to slam you, just pointing out that it doesn't really apply. --Fitzhugh 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I assume the ballast shot was dropped down at the bottom and left there. I suppose that future missions will have ecological worries and find a way of recovering the ballast - perhaps descening a line with the vessel just for the ballast recovey, and the set the vessel free for the ascent? This isn't as dumb an ideia. Think of how unique this particular place on Earth is!... I give you an example: earliest Everest explorers left behind some junk; now, there has been recent expeditions with the goal of cleaning up the camp sites after them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.177.161 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bathyscaphe or Bathyscaph?

The badge in the image spells it "Bathyscaph". If this is the spelling officially used by the US Navy, shouldn't we spell it this way? 143.252.80.110 12:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

What is the relation to the city of Trieste?

The city has always been a border city (at times even a free territory) with a heavily international, cooperative, and multi-participatory feeling associated with it for many centuries. Reportadly, Auguste Piccard wanted to honor the idea and international free-feeling of the place by naming the boat in its honor. He would have preferred the boat to be an international project, but only the U.S. Navy had the money to really fund it. As it was, the thing narrowly escaped being renamed and making its most famous deep dive with TWO U.S. Naval officers, instead of just one plus Piccard's son. SBHarris 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Rechnitzer

Should there be some mention of him? Basically ran the Trieste once in US hands. Pivitol in the purchase, "scientist in charge" of the Trieste as well as project Nekton. Even unfairly ousted as the Pilot on the "deepest dive" by Jacques Piccard as seen on the History Channel's, The Deepest Dive. There are plenty of other articles, but this is just one I found.
http://sid-hill.com/write/trieste.htm

[edit] Air filled ballast tanks, as stated in text, or water filled ballast tanks, as indicated in diagram?

I've edited the article according to the following thinking; please consider my change and correct if necessary since it is based on logic, not knowledge. The article presently reads (3rd paragraph under "Design" section: "... Trieste was over 15 m (50 feet) long, but the majority of this was the series of floats filled with 85 m³ (22,500 US gallons) of gasoline, and air-filled ballast tanks at either end of the vessel." However, I have two questions about the accuracy of this statement. First, the diagram shows what are labeled "Water Ballast Tanks" at each end. I would think that air would not be a great choice since it is so highly compressible and the structure would have to be that much stronger - hence the definitely air-filled crew chamber being the sphere at the bottom, and I assume this is why gasoline was chosen for the buoyancy fluid. While I have no reason to know, my gut sense it gasoline is much more difficult to compress than air (think bleeding your brake lines when replacing the fluid to get out any air - a small amount can make your brakes fade since it is compressible, while brake fluid is not, or not nearly as much so). Secondly, if there were air tanks, they would be buoyancy tanks, not ballast tanks, right? Therefor, based primarily on the evidence of the diagram, I'm changing the article to match the diagram more closely so "air-filled ballast tanks" will become "water-filled ballast tanks". Thanks for your review. --Fitzhugh 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The end ballast tanks are filled with air before a dive, then flooded to dive. This act uses water as "ballast". At the bottom, the tanks can't be re-filled with air, so they are left full of water, and the ship rises by dropping metal ballast shot. Anyway, by definition, "ballast" must be a heavy material used to stabalize a ship for some purpose, so air itself can never be a ballast material. If a ballast tank is full of air, it's not full of ballast. Thus, the tanks, while sometimes filled with air, are never filled with air ballast. When they are filled with ballast, it is always with water. Thus, both water-filled ballast tanks and air-filled ballast tanks are correct. But only in water-filled tanks are the tanks full of ballast! SBHarris 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)