pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >
> >David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
> >
> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
> normal.
> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.

A space-submarine is going to need a considerable water tank -- for cooling, and as a source for O2 and H2O for the crew, perhaps less so as a dumping ground for H2, CO2, and sewage, but you might not want to throw anything away. If the whole sub is not submersed in it, it is at least covering the seawater inlets around the side; we could throw a couple of loops over the top to cover the personnel hatches and make a two-stage airlock and waterlock.

--
-Jack

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>-0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>
>>> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
>>> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
>>> plot" dictates.
>>>
>>> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
>>> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
>>> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
>>> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
>>> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
>>> the longest is the last few meters to docking."
>>
>>David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>
> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.

I wonder how Gerry Anderson designed his Sky One interceptors? IIRC,
they worked underwater, in atmosphere and in vacuum.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> Yes, for the most part, and it is very convenient to be able to use
> 0x00 as a stopping-point to prevent overruns.

And here I thought that C strings were the primary *cause* of all the
buffer overflow vulnerabilities that we encounter in software.

If, instead, strings are Pascal strings, or FORTRAN character variables,
it's simply not permitted, ever, to access locations past the end of a
string.

With a C string, though, just accidentally overwrite that 0x00 at the
end, and pass the string to a subroutine, and it could keep going
past the end to almost anywhere! (Of course, programmers coming
from Pascal and FORTRAN who don't realize how careful they must
be in C also help matters.)

John Savard

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 7:43:57 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:

> >Our software routinely deals with cryogenic mixtures such as liquid
> >helium or LNG (liquefied natural gas). And we started writing the
> >software in 1965 so R was chosen for the default temperature unit.
> >Nowadays, I would choose K.

> Weren't you four years old in 1965?

Even if that were the case, it would not stop him from joining a firm
which assigned him to maintain software originally written at that time.

John Savard

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 8:19:42 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> writes:

> > One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
> >to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
> >water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.

> I wonder how Gerry Anderson designed his Sky One interceptors? IIRC,
> they worked underwater, in atmosphere and in vacuum.

Gerry Anderson didn't have to face that problem; only his _characters_
did. So we can write off UFO as _hard_ science fiction.

Or do we need to do so? While the hatches can only open in _one_
direction, they would normally only be opened when the craft were
in an environment in which the crew would survive; these
*interceptors* performed the function of fighter aircraft, so we're
not talking about a lot of EVAs.

Thus, all that's needed is for the hatch _locking mechanism_ to
be robust, in order to make up for the fact that the natural
obstruction of the... doorframe... would only obstruct the door
popping open in one of the two possible cases of pressure
differential the door might encounter.

I mean, think of a jimmy-proof or vertical deadbolt on an ordinary
door; that resists both pushing and pulling the door.

John Savard

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 05:25:52 -0800
(PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:54:26 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/15/2022 10:27 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> > sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:31:05 GMT
>> > typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>> >> David Brown <davidn...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip long physics lesson>
>> >>
>> >>>>> crew many times over. What am I missing here???
>> >>>> yes. You accel at, say, 1 gee, and you get to anywhere in the system in under
>> >>>> a month and a half. One gee. You're mixing up velocity and acceleration.=20
>> >>>>
>> >>>> May I suggest a basic course on statics and dynamics?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> David N. Brown
>> >>>>> Mesa, Arizona
>> >>> I have ridiculously detailed and probably incoherent specs for the ship in =
>> >>> chapters posted on my blog. It's called the Janus, and my head description =
>> >>> is Tinker Toy ship. My specs have been 360 m long (cut down from my very fi=
>> >>> rst ideas) and 40-60 meters wide at one or two places including a Von Braun=
>> >>> style ring for artificial gravity.
>> >>
>> >> So many 'spaceship' designs follow terrestrial characteristics (i.e. typically
>> >> cylindrical, or in the case of Star Wars, et. al., space-born aircraft carriers).
>> >>
>> >> For spaceships that never intend to fly -in- atmosphere, it would seem that the sphere
>> >> is the optimal form factor (given structural loading from internal atomspheric pressure),
>> >> and the movie form (e.g. star wars) would be far from optimal.
>> >>
>> >> The enterprise is pretty, but not particularly optimal, particularly the
>> >> saucer section.
>> >
>> > Movie sets are dictated by "Needs of the Plot." as well as "What
>> > looks cool." The physics are explained by liberal use of handwavium
>> > and unobtainium.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking of the scene in 2001, where the Pan Am space plane is
>> > making approach to the station. The docking bay is dead center in the
>> > middle, and rotating. Okay, lining up the rotation is "trivial", but
>> > there's not enough room to "go around", generate a miss. Once
>> > committed, you have to "stick the landing".
>> >
>> > I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
>> > ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
>> > plot" dictates.
>> >
>> > In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
>> > We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
>> > the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
>> > Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
>> > space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
>> > the longest is the last few meters to docking."
>> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>>
>Is that Weber?
>I think Ringo does in the Vorpal Blade series but I don't recall Weber doing it

And we have a winner!

_Vorpal Blade_ is Ringo. I have to look at the books to be sure
myself.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:51:08 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Yes, for the most part, and it is very convenient to be able to use
>> 0x00 as a stopping-point to prevent overruns.
>
>And here I thought that C strings were the primary *cause* of all the
>buffer overflow vulnerabilities that we encounter in software.
>
>If, instead, strings are Pascal strings, or FORTRAN character variables,
>it's simply not permitted, ever, to access locations past the end of a
>string.
>
>With a C string, though, just accidentally overwrite that 0x00 at the
>end, and pass the string to a subroutine, and it could keep going
>past the end to almost anywhere! (Of course, programmers coming
>from Pascal and FORTRAN who don't realize how careful they must
>be in C also help matters.)

I said it was a convenience.

I never said it was perfectly safe.

My last buffer overrun was caused by taking it for granted that
certain buffers were null-terminated when, in fact, they were not.
Replacing while() with for() and using the known length of the text
fixed that right up.

C is just one step up from assembler. FORTRAN and PASCAL (and C++ and
others) are much more abstract. This limits what you can do in some
situations. It also provides additional security to avoid some
problems.

But a really inventive programmer can muck things up in /any/
language.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 11/17/2022 10:13 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 05:25:52 -0800
> (PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:54:26 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2022 10:27 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:31:05 GMT
>>>> typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>> David Brown <davidn...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip long physics lesson>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> crew many times over. What am I missing here???
>>>>>>> yes. You accel at, say, 1 gee, and you get to anywhere in the system in under
>>>>>>> a month and a half. One gee. You're mixing up velocity and acceleration.=20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> May I suggest a basic course on statics and dynamics?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David N. Brown
>>>>>>>> Mesa, Arizona
>>>>>> I have ridiculously detailed and probably incoherent specs for the ship in =
>>>>>> chapters posted on my blog. It's called the Janus, and my head description =
>>>>>> is Tinker Toy ship. My specs have been 360 m long (cut down from my very fi=
>>>>>> rst ideas) and 40-60 meters wide at one or two places including a Von Braun=
>>>>>> style ring for artificial gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> So many 'spaceship' designs follow terrestrial characteristics (i.e. typically
>>>>> cylindrical, or in the case of Star Wars, et. al., space-born aircraft carriers).
>>>>>
>>>>> For spaceships that never intend to fly -in- atmosphere, it would seem that the sphere
>>>>> is the optimal form factor (given structural loading from internal atomspheric pressure),
>>>>> and the movie form (e.g. star wars) would be far from optimal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The enterprise is pretty, but not particularly optimal, particularly the
>>>>> saucer section.
>>>>
>>>> Movie sets are dictated by "Needs of the Plot." as well as "What
>>>> looks cool." The physics are explained by liberal use of handwavium
>>>> and unobtainium.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of the scene in 2001, where the Pan Am space plane is
>>>> making approach to the station. The docking bay is dead center in the
>>>> middle, and rotating. Okay, lining up the rotation is "trivial", but
>>>> there's not enough room to "go around", generate a miss. Once
>>>> committed, you have to "stick the landing".
>>>>
>>>> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
>>>> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
>>>> plot" dictates.
>>>>
>>>> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
>>>> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
>>>> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
>>>> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
>>>> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
>>>> the longest is the last few meters to docking."
>>> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>>>
>> Is that Weber?
>> I think Ringo does in the Vorpal Blade series but I don't recall Weber doing it
>
> And we have a winner!
>
> _Vorpal Blade_ is Ringo. I have to look at the books to be sure
> myself.

Aggh ! Thank you for looking that up and fixing it for me. I looked
through David Weber's book list three times and could not figure out
which one had the submarine in space book(s).
https://www.amazon.com/Vorpal-Blade-Looking-Glass-Book/dp/1416521291/

Lynn

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:29:40 PM UTC-6, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >
> >> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
> >> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
> >> plot" dictates.
> >>
> >> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
> >> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
> >> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
> >> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
> >> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
> >> the longest is the last few meters to docking."
> >
> >David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design an exterior hatch
> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
> normal.

Hatches in pressure hulls can and do hold pressure in both directions.
In submarines it is routine to pressurize the interior to check for leaks
before every dive. A leak would probably be caused by one of the many
penetrations in the hull not being properly closed. The exact depth
capability of modern submarines is classified, but the Los Angeles
class is said to be able to dive to 1,500 feet. That would be about
650 pounds per square inch pressure, or 40 atmospheres, compared
with the 15 psi. that is the maximum cabin pressure used in any
spacecraft. When the handwheel on a hatch is spun to secure it,
a set of bolts spaced around the perimeter of the hatch extend
into matching sockets in the surrounding structure, giving
tremendous strength to resist any force pushing on the hatch.

It is helpful when the pressure in service is pushing the hatch
closed but not essential and not necessarily the dominant
consideration. The doors on the first pressurized airliners
opened outward because the interior space required for
them to open inward would reduce the number of passenger
seats by six. It was not until the 707 jetliner that Boeing
engineer Milt Heinemann invented a mechanism where the
door would first swing inward enough to clear the seal, then
rotate slightly so that the door could fit through its doorway,
and then swing outside the cabin. There are also doors that
move inward and then slide upward into the space above the
cabin.

Most jet fighter planes have pressurized cockpits covered
by a canopy that opens outward. The nose loading door on
some models of the Boeing 747 also opens outward:

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-cargo-nose/

An extreme example of a pressure vessel that opens outward
is a bolt action rifle, where the bolt opens outward, to the rear,
and contains a working pressure of perhaps 60,000 psi.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 11/17/2022 2:20 PM, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:29:40 PM UTC-6, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>
>>>> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
>>>> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
>>>> plot" dictates.
>>>>
>>>> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
>>>> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
>>>> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
>>>> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
>>>> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
>>>> the longest is the last few meters to docking."
>>>
>>> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
>> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
>> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design an exterior hatch
>> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
>> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
>> normal.
>
> Hatches in pressure hulls can and do hold pressure in both directions.
> In submarines it is routine to pressurize the interior to check for leaks
> before every dive. A leak would probably be caused by one of the many
> penetrations in the hull not being properly closed. The exact depth
> capability of modern submarines is classified, but the Los Angeles
> class is said to be able to dive to 1,500 feet. That would be about
> 650 pounds per square inch pressure, or 40 atmospheres, compared
> with the 15 psi. that is the maximum cabin pressure used in any
> spacecraft. When the handwheel on a hatch is spun to secure it,
> a set of bolts spaced around the perimeter of the hatch extend
> into matching sockets in the surrounding structure, giving
> tremendous strength to resist any force pushing on the hatch.
>
> It is helpful when the pressure in service is pushing the hatch
> closed but not essential and not necessarily the dominant
> consideration. The doors on the first pressurized airliners
> opened outward because the interior space required for
> them to open inward would reduce the number of passenger
> seats by six. It was not until the 707 jetliner that Boeing
> engineer Milt Heinemann invented a mechanism where the
> door would first swing inward enough to clear the seal, then
> rotate slightly so that the door could fit through its doorway,
> and then swing outside the cabin. There are also doors that
> move inward and then slide upward into the space above the
> cabin.
>
> Most jet fighter planes have pressurized cockpits covered
> by a canopy that opens outward. The nose loading door on
> some models of the Boeing 747 also opens outward:
>
> https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-cargo-nose/
>
> An extreme example of a pressure vessel that opens outward
> is a bolt action rifle, where the bolt opens outward, to the rear,
> and contains a working pressure of perhaps 60,000 psi.
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist

It is standard design to design the pressure containment ability of a
vessel to 1.5 times the maximum working pressure. I doubt that the
maximum working pressure for a submarine is just 15 psia. You have to
take catastrophic events into account such as a high pressure vessel
inside the submarine suddenly venting. Or a steam line failure, etc. I
would expect the maximum working pressure to be much more like 40 psia
or 50 psia for this type of event.

I was 20 feet away from a main steam line failure in 1986. It vented
1,000 F steam at 3600 psia inside of our pump building. The 1,200 feet
by 60 feet by 120 feet building pressurized and superheated within 30
seconds. I made it out the closest door at about 15 seconds. I have no
idea what pressure the building hit but it was venting steam all over
the place.

However, the fact that current submarines can experience an exterior
pressure of 40 atmospheres (600 psia - sounds low) will probably drive
the vessel design but, designing for exterior pressure is very different
for designing for interior pressure. Exterior pressure design routinely
requires stiffeners in addition to increasing the wall thickness of the
vessel. In this case, the bulkheads inside the submarine can and do
count as stiffeners.

Plus there is the case where a compartment of a submarine is flooded and
pressurized by the water depth. That could cause serious issues in
containment by the bulkheads. All submarines designed after the
Thresher loss were totally designed for the absolute worst case in hull
penetrations, propulsion at maximum depth, and ballast tank blowdown.
Very sobering concepts as the Thresher probably experienced failures in
all three.

Thanks,
Lynn

On 2022-11-09 2:00 p.m., James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <6b70c77f-74e0-4315-9fb2-db8bbb37205cn@googlegroups.com>,
> David Brown <davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for this. For further context, my core parameters are a
>> ship that could make a trip from Mars to Neptune in 20 months,
>> assuming the former to be partly colonized by the late 20th/
>> early 21st century.
>
> These target dates are very ambitious.

Or very retro.

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 10:35:27 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-11-09 2:00 p.m., James Nicoll wrote:
> > In article <6b70c77f-74e0-4315...@googlegroups.com>,
> > David Brown <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for this. For further context, my core parameters are a
> >> ship that could make a trip from Mars to Neptune in 20 months,
> >> assuming the former to be partly colonized by the late 20th/
> >> early 21st century.
> >
> > These target dates are very ambitious.
>
> Or very retro.
>
One way they could be feasible, then, is if the planned work
of fiction was set in an alternative history.

John Savard

On 11/14/2022 9:57 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 12:47:42 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> And of course, people outside the USA are using
>> Unicode in their file names and file paths now.
>
> And so IBM, on their zSystem computers, have actually added special
> character string instructions that work on character strings in
> UTF-8 code!
>
> John Savard

It is doing that or either adding a UTF-8 character code page like
Microsoft did.

Lynn

On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 3:59:18 AM UTC+11, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> C is just one step up from assembler. FORTRAN and PASCAL (and C++ and
> others) are much more abstract. This limits what you can do in some
> situations. It also provides additional security to avoid some
> problems.

C++ isn't necessarily any more abstract than C
My recollection is that Bjarne's goal was that any legal C is legal C++, I'm not sure he quite got there but he got incredibly close

You can make C++ more abstract than C by choosing how you code in it but it's not automatic and still has all the possible ways C has of shooting yourself in the foot.

>
> But a really inventive programmer can muck things up in /any/
> language.

No arguments there

Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:05:36 -0800
(PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>> >
>> >David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>> >
>> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
>> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
>> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
>> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
>> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
>> normal.
>> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
>
>A space-submarine is going to need a considerable water tank -- for cooling, and as a source for O2 and H2O for the crew, perhaps less so as a dumping ground for H2, CO2, and sewage, but you might not want to throw anything away. If the whole sub is not submersed in it, it is at least covering the seawater inlets around the side; we could throw a couple of loops over the top to cover the personnel hatches and make a two-stage airlock and waterlock.

Yep.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:14:27 -0800 (PST)
typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>
>This is where "as useful as a screen door on a submarine" comes in.
>Of course, your "screen" is going to have to be one of those energy-eating

Which is why you want either fusion or anti-matter reactors, or
zero-space energy taps.

>"shields" strong enough to retain atmosphere and deflect space debris,
>whatever vehicles The Other Side or the aliens use and asteroids. Good
>luck with that.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:05:36 -0800
>(PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>> >
>>> >David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>>> >
>>> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>>> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>>> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>>> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
>>> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
>>> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
>>> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
>>> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
>>> normal.
>>> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
>>
>>A space-submarine is going to need a considerable water tank -- for cooling, and as a source for O2 and H2O for the crew, perhaps less so as a dumping ground for H2, CO2, and sewage, but you might not want to throw anything away. If the whole sub is not submersed in it, it is at least covering the seawater inlets around the side; we could throw a couple of loops over the top to cover the personnel hatches and make a two-stage airlock and waterlock.
>
> Yep.

With a double-hull sub, storing the H20 between the hulls provides additional
protection from cosmic radiation as an added benefit.

On 11/18/2022 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:05:36 -0800
>> (PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>> pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>>>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>>>>>
>>>> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>>>> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>>>> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>>>> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
>>>> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
>>>> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
>>>> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
>>>> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
>>>> normal.
>>>> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
>>>
>>> A space-submarine is going to need a considerable water tank -- for cooling, and as a source for O2 and H2O for the crew, perhaps less so as a dumping ground for H2, CO2, and sewage, but you might not want to throw anything away. If the whole sub is not submersed in it, it is at least covering the seawater inlets around the side; we could throw a couple of loops over the top to cover the personnel hatches and make a two-stage airlock and waterlock.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> With a double-hull sub, storing the H20 between the hulls provides additional
> protection from cosmic radiation as an added benefit.

+1

Lynn

On 11/18/2022 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:05:36 -0800
>> (PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>> pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>>>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>>>>>
>>>> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>>>> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>>>> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>>>> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
>>>> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
>>>> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
>>>> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
>>>> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
>>>> normal.
>>>> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
>>>
>>> A space-submarine is going to need a considerable water tank -- for cooling, and as a source for O2 and H2O for the crew, perhaps less so as a dumping ground for H2, CO2, and sewage, but you might not want to throw anything away. If the whole sub is not submersed in it, it is at least covering the seawater inlets around the side; we could throw a couple of loops over the top to cover the personnel hatches and make a two-stage airlock and waterlock.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> With a double-hull sub, storing the H20 between the hulls provides additional
> protection from cosmic radiation as an added benefit.

I wonder if heating that water to keep it from freezing would be enough
heat loss for the submarine in space ?

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 11/18/2022 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
>>> Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:05:36 -0800
>>> (PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>> pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>>>>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>>>>>>
>>>>> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>>>>> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>>>>> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>>>>> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
>>>>> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
>>>>> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
>>>>> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
>>>>> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
>>>>> normal.
>>>>> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
>>>>
>>>> A space-submarine is going to need a considerable water tank -- for cooling, and as a source for O2 and H2O for the crew, perhaps less so as a dumping ground for H2, CO2, and sewage, but you might not want to throw anything away. If the whole sub is not submersed in it, it is at least covering the seawater inlets around the side; we could throw a couple of loops over the top to cover the personnel hatches and make a two-stage airlock and waterlock.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> With a double-hull sub, storing the H20 between the hulls provides additional
>> protection from cosmic radiation as an added benefit.
>
>I wonder if heating that water to keep it from freezing would be enough
>heat loss for the submarine in space ?
>

You'd want to keep it frozen so it doesn' slosh around.

On 11/18/2022 2:36 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 11/18/2022 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
>>>> Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:05:36 -0800
>>>> (PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>> pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
>>>>>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
>>>>>> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
>>>>>> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>>>>>> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
>>>>>> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
>>>>>> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
>>>>>> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
>>>>>> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
>>>>>> normal.
>>>>>> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
>>>>>
>>>>> A space-submarine is going to need a considerable water tank -- for cooling, and as a source for O2 and H2O for the crew, perhaps less so as a dumping ground for H2, CO2, and sewage, but you might not want to throw anything away. If the whole sub is not submersed in it, it is at least covering the seawater inlets around the side; we could throw a couple of loops over the top to cover the personnel hatches and make a two-stage airlock and waterlock.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> With a double-hull sub, storing the H20 between the hulls provides additional
>>> protection from cosmic radiation as an added benefit.
>>
>> I wonder if heating that water to keep it from freezing would be enough
>> heat loss for the submarine in space ?
>>
>
> You'd want to keep it frozen so it doesn' slosh around.

Proper baffling would take care of that. As for freezing it in the
first place, yes, that would extend its usefulness as a heat sink. I
suspect it would still fully melt and possibly boil eventually, so long
voyages might involve water stops to expel the steam and replace it with
fresh ice.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, 16 November 2022 at 15:19:42 UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
> >-0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >>
> >>> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
> >>> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
> >>> plot" dictates.
> >>>
> >>> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
> >>> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
> >>> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
> >>> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper immu
> >>> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
> >>> the longest is the last few meters to docking."
> >>
> >>David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
> >
> > One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
> >to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
> >water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
>
> I wonder how Gerry Anderson designed his Sky One interceptors? IIRC,
> they worked underwater, in atmosphere and in vacuum.

If this is in _UFO_, I think the "Sky One" component
of the "Skydiver One" submarine was "only" an aircraft.
There were at least four subs - to start with.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skydiver_(submarine)>

If we haven't said, Harry Harrison's _The Daleth Effect_
aka _In Our Hands, The Stars_ has "modern" invention
of anti-gravity used to turn a submarine into a spaceship,
but other work may also have been involved.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 9:29:40 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.

> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.

Upon reflection, there is a simple enough solution to this.

Simply replace the exterior hatches with pairs of hatches; an outer one that
opens outwards, and an inner one that opens inwards. Whatever the direction
of the pressure differential, _one_ of them will be self-sealing.

John Savard

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 23:48:52 -0800
(PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 3:59:18 AM UTC+11, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> C is just one step up from assembler. FORTRAN and PASCAL (and C++ and
>> others) are much more abstract. This limits what you can do in some
>> situations. It also provides additional security to avoid some
>> problems.
>
>C++ isn't necessarily any more abstract than C
>My recollection is that Bjarne's goal was that any legal C is legal C++, I'm not sure he quite got there but he got incredibly close
>
>You can make C++ more abstract than C by choosing how you code in it but it's not automatic and still has all the possible ways C has of shooting yourself in the foot.

At which point it takes your whole leg off.
>
>>
>> But a really inventive programmer can muck things up in /any/
>> language.
>
>No arguments there
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On 11/17/2022 10:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:51:08 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, for the most part, and it is very convenient to be able to use
>>> 0x00 as a stopping-point to prevent overruns.
>>
>> And here I thought that C strings were the primary *cause* of all the
>> buffer overflow vulnerabilities that we encounter in software.
>>
>> If, instead, strings are Pascal strings, or FORTRAN character variables,
>> it's simply not permitted, ever, to access locations past the end of a
>> string.
>>
>> With a C string, though, just accidentally overwrite that 0x00 at the
>> end, and pass the string to a subroutine, and it could keep going
>> past the end to almost anywhere! (Of course, programmers coming
>>from Pascal and FORTRAN who don't realize how careful they must
>> be in C also help matters.)
>
> I said it was a convenience.
>
> I never said it was perfectly safe.
>
> My last buffer overrun was caused by taking it for granted that
> certain buffers were null-terminated when, in fact, they were not.
> Replacing while() with for() and using the known length of the text
> fixed that right up.
>
> C is just one step up from assembler. FORTRAN and PASCAL (and C++ and
> others) are much more abstract. This limits what you can do in some
> situations. It also provides additional security to avoid some
> problems.
>
> But a really inventive programmer can muck things up in /any/
> language.

My C++ code is probably more like C with Classes than real C++ nowadays.
And yes, a real programmer can write Fortran in any language.

Lynn