A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements(atlasobscura.com)
atlasobscura.com
A ship that flips 90 degrees for precise scientific measurements
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/flip-ocean-research-platform-scripps
76 comments
And they'd better flush too!
You're over thinking it. It only needs to move +/-45 in one plane. Weld a hinge to the wall above the sink. Suspend the sink from the hinge. The radius can be determined by how much flex hose you want to purchase for the drain and supply lines.
The same should work for toilets and showers.
Run all your drain piping toward the corner of the ship that's always under water.
Install these on your showers.
http://d2ydh70d4b5xgv.cloudfront.net/images/2/7/shower-head-...
You might want to let things move more than +/-45 or install pins to lock stuff. Taking a crap in rough seas could get weird when you and the toilet can stay level as the ship moves but only in one direction.
It all comes down to weight vs tolerance for squeaks and rattles. Maintenance should be in the same ballpark. Greasing hinges and more flexible plumbing/wiring/infrastructure to worry about is probably not much worse than twice as much everything.
The same should work for toilets and showers.
Run all your drain piping toward the corner of the ship that's always under water.
Install these on your showers.
http://d2ydh70d4b5xgv.cloudfront.net/images/2/7/shower-head-...
You might want to let things move more than +/-45 or install pins to lock stuff. Taking a crap in rough seas could get weird when you and the toilet can stay level as the ship moves but only in one direction.
It all comes down to weight vs tolerance for squeaks and rattles. Maintenance should be in the same ballpark. Greasing hinges and more flexible plumbing/wiring/infrastructure to worry about is probably not much worse than twice as much everything.
> Maintenance should be in the same ballpark
Lots of custom moving parts in salty air should be of similar difficultly to maintain as commonly-made things fixed in place twice?
Lots of custom moving parts in salty air should be of similar difficultly to maintain as commonly-made things fixed in place twice?
Honestly, I would have just towed it out empty, flipped it vertical, then loaded people on. That way, only one orientation needs to be supported at all.
I imagine it might be quite dangerous to transfer people from one ship to the other in heavy seas, and in the article they were talking about seas of 30 feet.
It can be dangerous. If you want to see something cool search for Ampelmann and Billy Pugh. I haven't been on an Ampelmann but I have transferred with the crane-lifted basket and it's really fun.
But they sure as hell are not moving between ships in nasty, dangerous sea conditions. At least not if they can help it.
But they sure as hell are not moving between ships in nasty, dangerous sea conditions. At least not if they can help it.
> I imagine it might be quite dangerous to transfer people from one ship to the other in heavy seas
The article states that daily transfers of people was the M.O. initially and that they only installed sleeping quarters so experiments could be run 24/7.
The article states that daily transfers of people was the M.O. initially and that they only installed sleeping quarters so experiments could be run 24/7.
That's what they wanted to do initially but since everyone wanted to be on the flipped ship when it was flipped they refitted it to house people. At that point you may as well find a way cram them in when it's horizontal rather than incur the cost of bringing them out and back on a separate ship.
FLIP doesn't have engines, so it must be towed into place, so you have to have another ship out there in any case.
There's accommodation for 16 people. I imagine that means something like 4 or 5 showers/toilets/sinks.
Probably more sinks, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers of duplicated fixtures. I didn't find anything with a brief search.
Probably more sinks, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers of duplicated fixtures. I didn't find anything with a brief search.
That means you need an additional ship when towing it into position, and more time is wasted transitioning people to and fro. Here everybody boards in port and they can do on-board setup during towing.
Are you sure J-dawg's the one overthinking this?
I have always enjoyed articles on this research platform. I imagined at one time that it would make for an interesting tourist site if you could put an observation "dome" at what would become the bottom and viewing galleries along the length. Then tow your tour out somewhere, flip, and let people move up and down looking at various levels of sea life.
At the time, an older engineer pointed out that if you didn't fill the bottom with sea water it didn't flip. So really the tourists would all have to wear scuba gear anyway :-). Which crushed my young dreams of a Captain Nemo style encounter in the tidewaters of the great barrier reef.
At the time, an older engineer pointed out that if you didn't fill the bottom with sea water it didn't flip. So really the tourists would all have to wear scuba gear anyway :-). Which crushed my young dreams of a Captain Nemo style encounter in the tidewaters of the great barrier reef.
You don't have to fill the entire bottom with sea water - you could leave a (presumably pressurized, which is a bummer) empty bubble at the bottom.
>As research budgets shrink, and fewer people go into oceanographic research, it’s hard to say what is on the horizon for FLIP.
Why is it that budgets everywhere from businesses public/private to government to scientific research are always shrinking?
It's like it's the invariant of our age: well you know, budgets are shrinking...
Why is it that budgets everywhere from businesses public/private to government to scientific research are always shrinking?
It's like it's the invariant of our age: well you know, budgets are shrinking...
Maybe growing budgets don't make the headlines, or newly created budgets don't enter in the "growing" category.
I learned recently that often when it is said that "budgets are shrinking" it actually means the purposed year over year increase has been cut and in terms of total dollars it continues to increase or stay the same. Not sure if this is the case here but something to look out for.
But due to inflation if it didn't increase the budget would have less value.
At least this is the understanding I have usually been given.
At least this is the understanding I have usually been given.
A budget can still be "cut" while growing against inflation though. They also refer to a cut compared to projections, and the projections are usually to increase the budget faster than inflation.
While I am sure that dishonest reporting does go on in some cases, a possible explanation for that phenomenon is that many services have to scale the budget not only by inflation but also by population. For example, the health service might have a fixed cost per person and so their overall budget growth could be inflation+population growth
But we say wages are "stagnant" when really "wages continue to shrink" would be more accurate.
Mostly because when inflation ajusted they are in fact stagnant[1]
That is to say, all of the profits from technology and automation in the last 40 years or so have gone to the owners of capital. How you interpret this or propose to 'solve' I won't comment on.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages
That is to say, all of the profits from technology and automation in the last 40 years or so have gone to the owners of capital. How you interpret this or propose to 'solve' I won't comment on.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages
It's closer to 50 years than 40--since about 1970.
I'd say it's the capital-owners' problem to solve, since everyone else can still afford to buy/build weapons. They may sometimes forget that the veneer of civilization is paper thin, when their veneer has gold leaf on top of it.
I'd say it's the capital-owners' problem to solve, since everyone else can still afford to buy/build weapons. They may sometimes forget that the veneer of civilization is paper thin, when their veneer has gold leaf on top of it.
Because budgets elsewhere are expanding. Interest in science has waned and research in tech has increased.
My own field of civil engineering has seen much better days in terms of research and innovation. The field is now seen as ancient and specs are top heavy. Well, the brighter minds have turned to other areas and our field has flatlined.
My own field of civil engineering has seen much better days in terms of research and innovation. The field is now seen as ancient and specs are top heavy. Well, the brighter minds have turned to other areas and our field has flatlined.
It's not necessarily about interest. US policy for the past few decades has been to reduce taxes (in 1945 we took 94% from the highest income tax bracket!) and let the private sector decide how to allocate money. Since people spend a lot of money on tech, that's where the money ends up.
Regardless of tax policy having been reformed several times, tax revenue relative to GDP has steadily increased. The problem is that the money is spent on other things, not that it's not being collected.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
The increase is due to social security revenue, which goes into a trust fund and can't be invested directly into research. If you leave out social security, the graphs on that site show the remaining federal revenue steadily decreasing relative to GDP.
I've heard about shrinking budgets for so long if the statements were true I'd expect all the budgets to be $0 by now.
The slope is down just not steep. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP;.jpg
Basically, we are down ~45% relative to GDP since 1980 but there are years with minor increases.
Basically, we are down ~45% relative to GDP since 1980 but there are years with minor increases.
But that's just for Federal R&D spending.
Worldbank and the OECD paint a much less bleak picture:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locati...
https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm
These data sets include all forms of R&D spending, not just federally funded ones:
"Gross domestic spending on R&D is defined as the total expenditure (current and capital) on R&D carried out by all resident companies, research institutes, university and government laboratories, etc., in a country"
Worldbank and the OECD paint a much less bleak picture:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locati...
https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm
These data sets include all forms of R&D spending, not just federally funded ones:
"Gross domestic spending on R&D is defined as the total expenditure (current and capital) on R&D carried out by all resident companies, research institutes, university and government laboratories, etc., in a country"
R&D is misleading in this context. McDonalds's does R&D when it's designing it's new menu, but that's does not result in long term economic gain like say transistor research does. Generally, what matters is fundamental research not development as building ever better vacuum tubes ended up being mostly pointless.
Either we count R&D or we don't. There are mountains of articles written on wasteful government R&D.
Why are you using RD-to-GDP ratios?
In 1980, US nominal GDP was USD 2.863 trillion. Today it is USD 18.625, which gives out an average growth rate of 5.34% and thus an 650% increase over 36 years. Real growth over the same period is around 2.69%, which gives out a 259% increase in real GDP, which is still way above a 45% decrease. In real terms, research budgets are actually 42.45% higher than what they were in 1980.
Which says nothing about how much they should be. But still, parent went on about sinking budgets, not budget-to-GDP ratios.
GDP figures: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
In 1980, US nominal GDP was USD 2.863 trillion. Today it is USD 18.625, which gives out an average growth rate of 5.34% and thus an 650% increase over 36 years. Real growth over the same period is around 2.69%, which gives out a 259% increase in real GDP, which is still way above a 45% decrease. In real terms, research budgets are actually 42.45% higher than what they were in 1980.
Which says nothing about how much they should be. But still, parent went on about sinking budgets, not budget-to-GDP ratios.
GDP figures: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Nominal dollars are a meaningless yardstick. Inflation is only slightly better, GDP on the other hand tends to compare better across time periods.
There are 100 million more people in the US now vs 1980. Yet, we have fewer people doing fundamental research. Just because some numbers look better does not mean we are somehow actually doing more research.
PS: GDP growth is also inflated when the same physical house is suddenly worth more, that's not progress.
There are 100 million more people in the US now vs 1980. Yet, we have fewer people doing fundamental research. Just because some numbers look better does not mean we are somehow actually doing more research.
PS: GDP growth is also inflated when the same physical house is suddenly worth more, that's not progress.
Please do not focus on partitions the message, specially if there are readings which also address your concern: the real GDP figures were there from the beginning.
Now, do you mean that there are fewer researchers or that there are fewer researchers per unit of total population? Either way, you're wrong (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?locati...).
Your postscript is also just wrong. Notice that GDP might be estimated by three different accounting approaches, all of which are mutually consistent. One of them is the net product approach, which takes the value produced by all economic activities/sectors liquid of their expenditures and sums all those up to get the GDP. So two things: first, if something isn't sold in a year, it isn't accounted for in the GDP for that year; second, activities which have no net product have zero impact on GDP. Trade is defined as having zero net product for national accounts purposes, so any sort of capital gains of the sort you're describing has no impact on GDP. It merely shuffles money and assets between hands.
Now, do you mean that there are fewer researchers or that there are fewer researchers per unit of total population? Either way, you're wrong (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?locati...).
Your postscript is also just wrong. Notice that GDP might be estimated by three different accounting approaches, all of which are mutually consistent. One of them is the net product approach, which takes the value produced by all economic activities/sectors liquid of their expenditures and sums all those up to get the GDP. So two things: first, if something isn't sold in a year, it isn't accounted for in the GDP for that year; second, activities which have no net product have zero impact on GDP. Trade is defined as having zero net product for national accounts purposes, so any sort of capital gains of the sort you're describing has no impact on GDP. It merely shuffles money and assets between hands.
If you produced an identical house in Arlington VA in 1950 vs 2016 the 2016 version would be worth more above the inflation rate. It's still a new thing so it counts for GDP it also adds more to GDP without somehow actually being better.
And yes new housing is a significant share of US GDP.
PS: I specially said fundamental research as government funding covers a wide range of R&D.
And yes new housing is a significant share of US GDP.
PS: I specially said fundamental research as government funding covers a wide range of R&D.
[deleted]
Entropy? Inflation?
Similar approach, but private sector and far bigger. 911 operators get calls whenever these ships operate in view of the public.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/10583550/Ho...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/10583550/Ho...
I saw the FLIP when I was sailing one time. If I hadn't previously read about it I probably would have called the coast guard because it looked like a ship going down.
Also the sea king helos. When they do water landings everyone panics.
The name of the ship is FLIP: FLoating Instrument Platform.
Nice acronym work is done there.
The article didn't address it so I'll just ask: why?
Why do you need to build a flipping (no pun intended) ship?
Couldn't they have just as easily built a tall floating rig that could be dragged by the same tugboat? Why do they even need to change to boat form? Can't they tug it when it's vertical?
Drilling platforms are stable floating structures aren't they? They consist of a stable floating upper platform.
Why do you need to build a flipping (no pun intended) ship?
Couldn't they have just as easily built a tall floating rig that could be dragged by the same tugboat? Why do they even need to change to boat form? Can't they tug it when it's vertical?
Drilling platforms are stable floating structures aren't they? They consist of a stable floating upper platform.
I'll take a guess:
300 feet is awfully deep. If you believe that 300 feet of draft is needed to get the stability they need, then this seems like the only way to get it. There are no ports, or even semi-protected waters, where you could build, launch, or dock something like that without it running aground.
Some quick research shows that the deepest draft on oil platforms is in the range of 25m (1/4 of the FLIP ship), and further that this ship was built a decade before the development of floating oil platforms.
300 feet is awfully deep. If you believe that 300 feet of draft is needed to get the stability they need, then this seems like the only way to get it. There are no ports, or even semi-protected waters, where you could build, launch, or dock something like that without it running aground.
Some quick research shows that the deepest draft on oil platforms is in the range of 25m (1/4 of the FLIP ship), and further that this ship was built a decade before the development of floating oil platforms.
Because the oil industry was already having these built. It was probably just easier and cheaper to buy one "off the shelf" so to speak rather than have a custom ship designed for this purpose.
Drilling platforms are large and not designed to regularly circumnavigate the oceans. They float but they're shitty boats.
Drilling platforms are large and not designed to regularly circumnavigate the oceans. They float but they're shitty boats.
It's a one off designed to measure sound waves and bearing at the same time.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/ships/flip/history
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/ships/flip/history
Not in the 60s, as far as I'm aware. Same principles but widespread use of spars and semi-subs came later.
You can tow a ship a lot faster than you can move a drilling platform. But, basically this is a drilling platform. Going horizontal vastly reduces drag, but it's not really designed to be used as a ship.
> Couldn't they have just as easily built a tall floating rig that could be dragged by the same tugboat? Why do they even need to change to boat form? Can't they tug it when it's vertical?
Gigantic drag, low stability, and inability to enter ports and harbours when you have a 100ft draft.
> Drilling platforms are stable floating structures aren't they? They consist of a stable floating upper platform.
"Truss and spars" platforms usually have the truss floated on its side and the modules mounted on top of it once it's been floated and ballasted in place. Semi-subs can be tugged into place but that requires big tugs (multiple ~20khp units) and is very, very slow, to attain the speeds at which you can tow RP FLIP (7~10kt) you need a heavy lift ship.
These are not the kind of expenses oceanography can usually afford. Not to mention the semi-sub itself would be significantly more expensive than RP FLIP was, a semi-sub is more than half a billion, FLIP's original cost was about half a million.
Gigantic drag, low stability, and inability to enter ports and harbours when you have a 100ft draft.
> Drilling platforms are stable floating structures aren't they? They consist of a stable floating upper platform.
"Truss and spars" platforms usually have the truss floated on its side and the modules mounted on top of it once it's been floated and ballasted in place. Semi-subs can be tugged into place but that requires big tugs (multiple ~20khp units) and is very, very slow, to attain the speeds at which you can tow RP FLIP (7~10kt) you need a heavy lift ship.
These are not the kind of expenses oceanography can usually afford. Not to mention the semi-sub itself would be significantly more expensive than RP FLIP was, a semi-sub is more than half a billion, FLIP's original cost was about half a million.
(or about 5 million current adjusted for inflation, 2 orders of magnitude below a semi-submersible platform)
The stresses on that hull when it is at the 45 degree point during a flip must be immense.
Hmmm...I'm not so sure they are exceptional. The upper section is rather light; no heavy machinery like an engine, no heavy tanks like fuel oil. They'd likely only flip during favorable sea conditions so the accelerations are kept to a minimum. And once the spar bit is submerged some meters the influence of surface waves will be reduced.
Edit: the bending stresses when its being towed horizontally could be quite large too...in long-wavelength swell you'd have either the center more bouyant than the ends or the ends more buoyant than the center. Once you flip it it's supported by bouyancy and filled ballast water.
Edit: the bending stresses when its being towed horizontally could be quite large too...in long-wavelength swell you'd have either the center more bouyant than the ends or the ends more buoyant than the center. Once you flip it it's supported by bouyancy and filled ballast water.
I linked the Scripps website in a couple other comments, the technical diagrams of the ship show "concrete ballast" in the upper section.
I would guess to reduce roll when it is horizontal.
I would guess to reduce roll when it is horizontal.
Hmm
Makes me think like why would they design a hovering rocket crane to lower a Rover autonomously on another planet. There is a reason/it worked, and with this ship hmm, like is that the only solution?
You could have floating bouys that have either neumatic or electromagnetic suspension stabilized... But then again the scale/weight of this thing... I guess the design makes sense as far as being able to operate in shallow waters then go out and do it's thing.
Makes me think like why would they design a hovering rocket crane to lower a Rover autonomously on another planet. There is a reason/it worked, and with this ship hmm, like is that the only solution?
You could have floating bouys that have either neumatic or electromagnetic suspension stabilized... But then again the scale/weight of this thing... I guess the design makes sense as far as being able to operate in shallow waters then go out and do it's thing.
They say this thing is stable in 30 foot seas. 300 feet of the ship is underwater. I don't think you could match that with buoys.
In the vertical configuration it is described as a buoy:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/ships/flip
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/ships/flip
Technically it becomes a type of buoy known as a spar buoy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar_buoy
The surface wave motion decreases with depth, so having so much mass deep under water makes for a very stable platform.
The surface wave motion decreases with depth, so having so much mass deep under water makes for a very stable platform.
Likely because it can't move under its own power. It's akin to a barge when horizontal and akin to a buoy when vertical.
Yeah 300 feet is a lot of ballast I imagine.
At this scale it'd be hard to have a system that was as quiet as this passive stabilization. It's stable up to 30 foot seas according to the article, it's no easy feat to create a system that can stabilize seas that large for any size platform.
FLIP is the most Kerbal ship we have right now.
I wonder how many times someone called the coast guard when the ship starts flipping.
Why can't they just use a probe of some kind? Or a small submarine released from the ship?
A small submarine wouldn't fit as many scientists or experiments or sensors, and a probe from a traditional ship wouldn't be stable.
Because the instability of a submarine is precisely why this ship was conceived in the first place. From the wiki:
"Development started in January 1960 after a conversation between MPL researcher Frederick H. Fisher and MPL Director Fred N. Spiess regarding stability problems that Fisher was encountering when using the submarine USS Baya (SS-318) as a research platform."
I'm not clear however why a submarine was too unstable for the research they were doing.
"Development started in January 1960 after a conversation between MPL researcher Frederick H. Fisher and MPL Director Fred N. Spiess regarding stability problems that Fisher was encountering when using the submarine USS Baya (SS-318) as a research platform."
I'm not clear however why a submarine was too unstable for the research they were doing.
When I watch things floating in water, objects below the water seem to move back and forth with the movement of the water, as if the object and the water were the same, but things that are partially in the water, they seem to "ride" the water and shift much more slowly.
Based on that, my guess is either surface tension, or the fact that an object that floats on top of a medium is much less dense than one that floats within it. It would probably be a pretty easy to quantify if you had several liquids with known surface tension, so I'm guessing the information is out there already.
Based on that, my guess is either surface tension, or the fact that an object that floats on top of a medium is much less dense than one that floats within it. It would probably be a pretty easy to quantify if you had several liquids with known surface tension, so I'm guessing the information is out there already.
Here's a gif of water particle movement that's happening in an ocean wave (in deep water; it gets weirder if it's shallow).
http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/gm309/images/Owave.gif
Essentially, motion starts with wind. Energy propagates downwards into the water column resulting in the circular orbitals (you see this if you float in the (deep) ocean and you bob up and down in a circle but you don't really go anywhere). But at a certain point, no more energy propagates downward; so your submarine if its deep enough (tens of meters) will not feel a thing from what's happening on the surface.
This is also what the FLIP takes advantage of; the base of its deep spar hull lies so far below the surface that it has nothing forcing it to move up and down. This is why it's stable in big waves, and why I'm confused how a submarine is too unstable.
http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/gm309/images/Owave.gif
Essentially, motion starts with wind. Energy propagates downwards into the water column resulting in the circular orbitals (you see this if you float in the (deep) ocean and you bob up and down in a circle but you don't really go anywhere). But at a certain point, no more energy propagates downward; so your submarine if its deep enough (tens of meters) will not feel a thing from what's happening on the surface.
This is also what the FLIP takes advantage of; the base of its deep spar hull lies so far below the surface that it has nothing forcing it to move up and down. This is why it's stable in big waves, and why I'm confused how a submarine is too unstable.
I'd expect a stationary submarine to be much more suceptible to rolling? A raised tower or other non-symmetrical features might also cause a bobbing motion in the roll.
I'd also expect the submarine to have to adjust its ballast tanks in order to maintain a level buoyancy.
When a submarine is moving at cruise speed these things can easily be compensated for by the fins and rudders, but the motors will neccesarily make noise. Heck, even moving through the water (instead of floating with the current) may create undesirable artifacts.
When a submarine is moving at cruise speed these things can easily be compensated for by the fins and rudders, but the motors will neccesarily make noise. Heck, even moving through the water (instead of floating with the current) may create undesirable artifacts.
Yeah could be prone to high roll motion depending on the heading relative to the predominant waves. I'm guessing though that for whatever scientific purposes it would be submerged and not rolling/pitching at all.
In that case wouldn't a set of gyroscopes and/or gimbal solve the problem in a cheaper way?
Solve what problem?
If you make something gimbaled on a ship (pool table, for instance) you can prevent rotation, but not translation...at least not without some complicated active motion compensation system.
If you make something gimbaled on a ship (pool table, for instance) you can prevent rotation, but not translation...at least not without some complicated active motion compensation system.
Strange that they don't flip the small boat that's hanging to the side: outboard engines (especially if they are 4 stroke) don't like being not upright. Seems it would be fairly easy to hang it so it could swing?
Every once in a while you see footage of technology that really amazes you, this is one of them.
I would have designed the crew quarters on a kind of gimbal so that they are always upright. Make better use of the space and no need to put everything away (thinking of the soap dispenser on the basin) when changing orientation.
Like the central bureaucracy in Futurama?
Someone must have looked at installing a gimballed basin, realised how complicated the custom-made gimbal and plumbing would have to be, and thought "screw it, let's just order a second basin".
Also, someone really needs to put a lid on that soap container!