I took a brief excursion on a private submarine once and the list of things that could go wrong that they asked to you explicitly release them from liability for was frankly rather frightening. It really put a damper on my desire for a 'casual' submarine from US Subs.
Given the description that the seas are quite rough I hope it is a simple matter of them losing a communications mast or something along those lines.
Submariners are a glimpse of what humans will become in space.
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love
If you watched Elon's BFR Mars presentation, you'll notice that a lot of it depends on fully automated docking and piloting of all spacecraft. Manual control is just too dangerous and screw ups are catastrophically expensive in those situations.
It seems like an area where automated systems should be really good. We already have automated systems that an land planes without human intervention and that's a far more difficult problem.
And yet we don't because humans are immeasurably better at dealing with edge cases than any automated system. That being said, I do expect those systems developed by SpaceX to be automated. But I'd hesitate to call it "an area where automated systems should be really good."
ISS hookups are still done by hand? Otherwise there aren't a lot of opportunities currently to do in-space docking. The lack of a solution could just be due to a lack of demand currently.
Absolutely. Which is why I'd never trust my car to drive itself -- not for years anyway. Most testing and training I've seen from companies has been done in ideal conditions with "non-ideal" conditions being considered some sort of edge case? Maybe it's because all the self driving startups are operating in sunny California. What a nightmare a self driving car would be on uneven, icy, dark roads. I'm certain it would turn itself off and ask a human to drive then. And that'll be the case for a while. Or in cities in asia where rules of the road are more like suggestions, and driving is completely reactionary.
No, driverless cars today aren't ready for reality.
I think it will be a gradual change, both to gradually improve the technology and to get users used to it.
I drove the new Volvo V90 for a couple of weeks a while ago and it of course have the adaptive cruise control and those things you are used to these days but it also can drive itself similar to a Tesla autopilot.
At first it was a pretty weird feeling that the car controlled the steering wheel (you still need to hold it otherwise it will beep at you) but gradually I got used to it and started to trust it more and more. At least when driving on the highway and after a while it became a really nice feature to have.
Truly autonomous cars are of course far away and the problems with snow storms etc. also needs to be solved but I do think more and more car manufacturers will keep adding one feature after another until we suddenly are there. And at that point it won't be that big of a leap for us mentally.
I wonder what calculus decided automated systems built by humans are going to be better than humans themselves.
Obviously computers have a lot of advantages, and machines can be precise. But that only applies to certain domains, and I can't imagine anything that provides certainty about which.
The same calculus that lets me deploy thousands of servers with terraform and puppet without a mistake. Sure there are problems, but you fix them once (in dev hopefully) and never have to worry about them again. Humans otoh have the potential to make the same mistakes over and over.
Computers can integrate data from numerous sources and sensors and respond very rapidly. Humans are optimised for a limited set of sensory inputs. When those senses can be utilized a person can be ridiculously effective. But space ships do not readily conform to this.
I'd imagine computers are more consistent. If the situation is one the automation can handle, it will handle it pretty much every time, assuming it's in good maintenance. Whereas a human's capability varies widely based on a multitude of factors from fatigue to distractions to medical issues to plain old overconfidence.
Ultimately, it's probably easier to quantify the likelihood of an failure in automation than it is to quantify the likelihood of a human error.
It wouldn't surprise me if the sub community's saying came from a Heinlein reader somewhere in its past, similar to his popularizing TANSTAAFL ('There ain't no such thing as a free lunch') from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.'
The causality arrow might go the other way. Heinlein was a naval officer before he was discharged on a medical. He never served on a sub, but he did serve on a destroyer, so he would have been familiar with their weaknesses.
There's surely an obvious answer to this, but assuming the goof doesn't cripple the submarine's ability to move, and ignoring issues of secrecy, is there a reason it can't just head for the surface and be there in a few hours? There's nothing like the bends here for the passengers, right?
Subs control their depth by flooding internal tanks with water (more water = sub goes deeper). They can surface very quickly (seconds to a few minutes, depending on the depth) by blowing all the water out of those tanks with compressed air.
That's assuming something hasn't gone wrong that has caused the sub to take on water somewhere other than those ballast tanks. If a portion of the sub fills with water, the empty ballast tanks may not provide enough buoyant force to lift the sub.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a neutrally buoyant, or even (a little?) negatively buoyant sub can adjust depth, perhaps even surface?, under its own power.
It can, but there are actually very few of those types of subs around and they tend to be limited to research and recreation. Keeping several hundred tons neurally buoyant is kinda hard and if the sub has positive buoyancy then it requires propulsion to stay down or else an elevator ride to the surface is a one-way trip. Needing constant propulsion is bad for a military sub, and being stranded on the surface after any sort of emergency surface action (even a test) would also be a bad thing.
I don't know about Argentina's submarines, but the diesel submarines in WWII could get down to around 1000 feet. I wouldn't consider that to be "near" the surface.
Most diesel submarines are actually electric submarines, with a diesel generator to provide the electricity for the electric motors and to charge batteries that can be used when the submarine is too deep to run the diesel generator.
What the parent is saying is that diesel subs don't get to stay down like nuke subs. Nuke subs regularly stay underwater for the duration of their deployments, which last months. Diesel subs cannot stay underwater for very long at all. We're talking on the order of hours.
Dismemberment alive and other unspeakable torture is what it looks like by now. This story is a running nightmare in my head. Not least because I've met the perp on several occasions, and he did not come across in any way as the sick monstrosity we now know him to have been for many years.
Ars Technica ran an article [0] yesterday that had more info and details on the sub, as well as some info about NASA's involvement (P-3 aircraft participating in the search).
Tyler Rogoway's article mentions the US Navy is on standby with their Submarine Rescue Diving Recompression System[1] in case their help is requested. But hopefully it's on the surface but disabled and will be located soon.
Sort of a weird article, talking about the disappearance and the hunt and the worry without actually talking about what the boat is or what its crew does: this is a diesel-electric attack submarine, designed deliberately to evade detection and sink other ships with torpedoes.
They routinely operate without contact for days at a time, and have limited means of signaling a mayday situation. Pretty much everyone recognizes that when these things run into trouble, they may very well simply disappear.
So, it's a tragedy. But, not really an unforseen one.
>According to Minister of Defense Agustin Rossi, the MLU cost some 100 million Argentine Pesos (12.4 million dollars) and comprised more than 500,000 work hours in which the boat was cut in half and had its four MTU engines and batteries replaced. The MLU was under way at CINAR since August 2007. He blamed the delay on the lack of funds and qualified labor.
> Rossi called the re-delivery an important milestone for Argentina, as the state had lost its ability to repair submarines following the previous Domecq Garcia shipyards being disbanded.[1]
Distinct lack of details; though the article says crew of 37 when every current article about it missing states 44.
edit: The lack of maintenance facilities is worrying, though it sounds like the overhaul has created a grannies broom; there's not much of the original sub left.
A few of my software products have gone through multiple frameworks and rewrites, but from the user's point of view they appear to have remained one evolving entity. My phone/personal-digital-assistant also has kept its name for 21 years, but has gone through a series of reincarnations.
Vanguard and Victorious were laid down in '86 and '87 and launched in '92 and '93 respectively [1], the first two of the Upholder-class subs were launched in '86 and '89 [2] and are currently with the Canadians in "active" service.
As you say, first two weren’t launched in the 1980s and the second two aren’t part of the UK fleet, so that’s still just one. Can’t really call that a majority even if you were contradicting me.
San Juan was laid down in early 1982 and launched in 1983 then underwent a mid-life upgrade in 2008-2013, Vanguard was laid down in 1986 and (being significantly more complicated) launched in 1992. The point stands (as a counter to the idea that Argentina's fleet is somehow ancient) that they're of a pretty similar age and era, even if it's not true that the majority of the RN's fleet is.
The other two subs were UK built and are still serving, even if not with the UK.
As another data point, HMS Illustrious launched in the '70s, participated in the Falklands War in the '80s and was only decommissioned 3 years ago (admittedly as the oldest ship in the fleet and decidedly showing its age).
Edit: If you widen the criteria to the entire fleet, there's also 14 Archer-class patrol ships that were commissioned in the 80s (plus one that's with the Royal Oman Police) [1] and eight of the Hunt-class minesweepers [2], of which one was commissioned in the 70s.
Might as well desperately throw HMS Victory into that mix of random things and really get the average age up! But none of this is relevant to the launch dates of submarines in the UK fleet, which is what was claimed.
I get the underlying point about the age of naval platforms, yeah. I was just correcting the incorrect and misleading claim about the age of the UK's submarines, because a clearly incorrect claim doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
Not related to this article but, I had the pleasure of visiting the muesum at Hartlepool that was responsible for repairing the the HMS Warrior. Unfortunately for I, I had not yet been brought into the world but the museum there at Hartlepool is exceptional.
The expertise of the men involved in the restoration of the Warrior (and the HMS Trincomalee which is still birthed at Hartlepool currently) was fascinating to me growing up. There's nothing of interest in Hartlepool with the exception of the towns ship building legacy. The restoration of those two ships are one of the few bright points in an otherwise awful 4 decades of austerity for my old home town.
"[HMS Trincomalee]... is the oldest warship afloat anywhere in Europe, berthed at Jackson Dock, within The National Museum of the Royal Navy Hartlepool."
I seem to recall the intent was to originally have the HMS Warrior made sea worthy but during the repair work it was deemed too risky or expensive? This was done shortly before it was sent back to Portsmouth back in 87. I believe the intent is to sail the HMS Trincomalee down to Portsmouth in the future too. That'd be a sight to behold.
> The point stands (as a counter to the idea that Argentina's fleet is somehow ancient) that they're of a pretty similar age and era
Somehow you've missed the fact that ARA San Juan is 9 years older by your own account, and even older if you consider the fact that HMS Vanguard was only comissioned in 1993 and entered service in 1994.
Considering also that the typical design life of a navy ship is somewhere between 30 and 40 years, perhaps we can agree that a 10-year difference is highly relevant and significant.
Moreover, fatigue life is an unforgiving master and can't simply be fixed by mid-life updates.
This is a huge difference. Argentine submarines reportedly average 10 hours per year submerged. Hours. The UK’s Vanguard-class boats remain submerged for entire 10-week patrols.
At one time, Argentina had the most extensive navy in South America. That time was not in the last two decades. Much of their current capability could be best described as left-over.
> What age does the US start decommissioning subs?
The US has no diesel-electric subs, the much more expensive (and not just in power plant) nuclear boats the US fields have a longer design life, IIRC.
The oldest few still in service are some Los Angeles class boats that entered service from 1981 and will be decommissioned in the next couple of years, but most that entered service around that time were retired earlier (between 20-25 years.)
Which is to say, 30 years is, by any measure, old for a sub.
The Ohio-class submarines of the US Navy date back to 1981, and their replacement isn't due until 2029 (and probably won't happen until later than that).
The Taiwanese are still operating a submarine which was launched in 1944.
This is similar to people being surprised by the typical age of civilian general aviation aircraft. Dozens of types from the 40s, 50s, and 60s are still flying great, which is what meticulous maintenance and logging gets you. Visit Alaska and you’ll spot loads of Cubs from the early 1940s. It’s not uncommon to train in an aircraft like a Cessna 150 or 152, and a lot of those predate the Moon landing. You can buy a nice aircraft from that era, one which will last you a long time with (expensive) care, for about the same cost as a Prius.
One can get a lot of mileage out of something designed to be airworthy and reliable and maintained by a careful lineage of owners.
Argentina has 2 distinct effects. The first is that after the dictatorship in the 70's, the military has been systematically defunded. Any politician that needs a buck, and they all do, will always put the military last. Its a front-pager for the government to buy a new military plane: it costs votes and money.
And second, we have a level of systematic corruption that has eroded many institutions, including the military. Noticeable so, the state of military aircraft is in shambles and many army people died because the funds for maintenance where stolen. A famous documentary by a former pilot details these issues.
These submarines are weapons of war, for defence and offence. It is interesting how rival countries are willing to help out in these situations.
If this submarine had got lost when the Falklands war was a hot war, would the British lend them a helicopter or two to help them look? Particularly if it was a day or two after the Argentine Air Force had taken out a ship or two of the Task Force.
'Here you go guys, if you need help with salvage...' would not have happened then or in the post-war aftermath. Instead the Royal Navy would have denied the Argentine armed forces access to the area and the depth charges would have been deployed, the submarine gone for good like the General Belgrano. The victory would be selling newspapers. Only a few left wing anti-war moaners would be grumbling.
But today obviously there is 'peace' and as much help as much as possible is coming from the British establishment with no hesitation.
If the North Koreans lost a submarine would other countries such as the UK/USA offer them help to find it, particularly if it could one day point missiles at the USA? Maybe there should be an on-going 'lost-submarine test' where world tensions and hostilities are gauged by how many countries participate in military search and rescue operations.
As Lord Palmerston said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."
Argentina's politics are certainly... interesting... but there's no question that Argentina is a strategically important country for major powers to court. Major military powers have little to fear from the San Juan in a hypothetical conflict, but much to gain from friendly relations with Argentina.
Also, what a great chance to have a sanctioned hunt of an Argentinian sub/vessel.
Nothing breeds experience at hunting subs like going sub hunting -- and now several navies get to, in an area they know one exists, without it offending anyone.
Quite irrelevant as the question explicitly stated the time as "[during] the Falklands war", and the answer is of course no, Tatcher certainly wouldn't have helped the Argentinians during the war.
> These submarines are weapons of war, for defence and offence. It is interesting how rival countries are willing to help out in these situations.
Rival countries? What an odd way to look at the world.
Imho this being a military submarine is of little consequence considering Argentina isn't at war with any country right now, at least to my knowledge.
I think what rather applies here is sailor tradition of offering help when fellow sailors are in distress, which is (as I understand it) a rather old and respected tradition.
Btw: It's also not that unthinkable that British military intelligence might want to use this opportunity to collect some information on the sub.
> If the North Koreans lost a submarine would other countries such as the UK/USA offer them help to find it, particularly if it could one day point missiles at the USA?
Lucky us that it wasn't a North Korean submarine... I guess? I'm not even sure what that comparison is supposed to illustrate.
I think the answer to the NK scenario is yes. The point being, if they don't find it, and we don't find it, it's still possible some entity even more nefarious will. Or worst case, we say we'll help but won't admit to finding it even if we do.
Well, if the Korans ask for help it would be such an unusual move that the U[KS] would very probably help out. Unless Trumps prevents it with a tweet for course.
More likely scenario is that China helps out though, what with being and actual neighbor and not a nation from a distant continent...
If the North Koreans lost a submarine would other countries such as the UK/USA offer them help to find it, particularly if it could one day point missiles at the USA? Maybe there should be an on-going 'lost-submarine test' where world tensions and hostilities are gauged by how many countries participate in military search and rescue operations.
A North Korean Navy sub did sink in 2016 but North Korea did not admit nor request any assistance.
I think it's a weird comparison. The Falklands war was 35 years ago, would anyone wonder if the UK helped the German locate a sub in 1980? That's 35 years after the end of WW2.
>But a storm pitching powerful winds and waves more than 6 meters (20 feet)
Isn't that normal? The Atlantic off south east Canada 5m (15 feet) waves are a normal everyday thing. The coast off Argentina seems like it would be similar in climate.
”It was not immediately clear what type of calls the vessel may have tried to make but submarines that are stricken underwater can float a location beacon known as an EPIRB to the surface that can then emit emergency signals via satellite.”
Makes me only very slightly more optimistic w.r.t. the chances of finding the crew alive. Being military, their normal objectives would include “don’t let anybody see you”, so they wouldn’t use such a device unless they were in truly dire trouble.
As for the failed satellite calls, my guess would be that communication was initiated, but that all of the handshakes required to actually place a call were not completed successfully.
Typical cause: you are equipped with a gain antenna which requires stabilisation to point at the relevant patch of sky - and the stabilisation isn't working. You can aim for the general area and sometimes, you get close enough to start the connection process. (Or any other number of reasons - the above I have experienced myself. Luckily, we had the option to switch to a lower-gain antenna and connect anyway (at a higher rate.)
What a terrible headline, and the article isn't any better.
"Argentine military submarine with crew of 44 lost at sea" is perfectly sufficient. Writing standards have really taken a dive since news went digital, which is the opposite of the world I'd hoped for when I was evangelizing the internet back in the 90s :-(
I'm not optimistic for the poor sailors. If a modern submarine is genuinely missing it's usually because it was on some sort of covert mission when it got into difficulties.
Even worse is the computer-generated "related" links that are inserted inline with the article. We're talking about peoples' lives and you're trying to bait me with a headline about cocaine and hookers? This is why human editors are necessary for journalism.
>This is why human editors are necessary for journalism.
What difference would a human editor make? There is an exorbitant amount of news people on social media trying to convince everyone that they are needed.
I would assume an editor would have chosen more tasteful articles to link to. Or at least something that bears more of a similarity to this story than just having the word "submarine" in the headline.
Think of it more like what we used to see was only the best writers, now we see far more writes, and hopefully their average quality has gone up - which is almost a certainty given they used to not write at all.
I don't care about the average quality of writers, I care about the average quality of what I read, which has sunk. I could just stop reading news about current affairs but I like knowing what's going on in the world.
> Writing standards have really taken a dive since news went digital, which is the opposite of the world I'd hoped for when I was evangelizing the internet back in the 90s :-(
Writing standards haven't declined or increased. It was always terrible at news organizations. The difference now is that we are consuming more of it so we notice it more.
They all timing ticking bomb, since most (all by now) are nuclear reactor propelled.
As we all know, if something can break, it will break eventually. Its only a matter of time when one of these creatures sink to the bottom and pressure will take care of the rest, causing world panic due to nuclear material getting released into the ocean.
There hasn't been any world panic. There's lots of reasons to dislike the war-machine. (I myself am a former nuclear naval officer turned conscientious objector/pacifist.) But FUD does not help the case against militarism.
I have another rifle and 4 swords that I want to do something similar with as well. I don't think I could do a very good job with them though. (TBH, I'm a bit disappointed with how the ak-47/ladle turned out.) So I've been looking to find a good artist to donate them to.
> They all timing ticking bomb, since most (all by now) are nuclear reactor propelled.
When, after posting your comment, you then go to read the article, you will discover that the ARA San Juan is a diesel-electric submarine.
It's in the second paragraph.
Relatedly, modern diesel submarines that use air-independent propulsion are significantly quieter than nuclear submarines while being cheaper to field, which fills a strategic role more effectively than the nuclear submarines would in replacing them. That the United States fields an all-nuclear submarine fleet does not suggest that the rest of the world does or is going in that direction.
(edit: and, further, something like eight or nine nuclear submarines have already sunk and while not trivial problems, they are not the gasping danger you imply.)
A diesel sub could carry nuclear warheads, but Argentina acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995 as a non-nuclear weapon state, so this one probably does not.
Given the description that the seas are quite rough I hope it is a simple matter of them losing a communications mast or something along those lines.