What impressed me most when sailing the prototype in the mid nineties was the direct comparation with similar sized sailing and motor yachts in daily use. It was anchored as “just one more boat in a mooring field” this allowed a long term concept check under realistic conditions with existing boating solutions. In a nutshell it compared extremly favorable in living space quality, maintenance cost, storm safety, burglar safety, sun and wether damages, building cost, engine cost …
It also compared extremly favorable in loading and tank capacity which is key for long range and long term autonomy.
In fact the idea to use something like that not only as a weekend yacht but for a permanent living solutions came up almost by accident when we found how well tempered, condensation free, well lighted the interior of the boat finally turned out.
Yachts normally stay 99% of the time in the harbor because living is not so pleasent in open sea. This is VERY different in a submarine yacht .
In other threads it was also discussed that a “stay at sea concept” must have a economic base. Submarine yachts could be a base for ROV recovery operations, for open ocean fish farming, tuna rearing, and other economic activities that are done by surface crafts and are highly suceptible for “show stopping” by bad weather.
Self propelled submarine habitats could expand such operations for months – to grow finally to a permanently ocean based activity.
My mail is (firstname.lastname@example.org) or (email@example.com)
The fully submersible submarine concept is interesting for a type of self sufficient habitat, but does it necessitate functioning as a full submarine, capable of diving to great depths? To escape a storm, wouldn’t a less pressure oriented craft, say a large bathysphere (my hope for personal seasteading), that is capable of diving say 20 to 50 feet, yet maintains the buoyancy to remain a floating craft. Or perhaps even a subsurface floater, with only the very top of the craft above the surface.
Bathios, sure you can have a ballasted ball habitat that floats just hanging below surface – the point is, make it mobile and make it submergable to some depth, costs you almost nothing – for safety reasons a certain thickness of the hull is necessary – a thick hull is automaticly pressure resistent. Locomotion below the waves is a factor 5 more energy efficient than on surface. So a very small engine – will give you full mobility. Most people have a mental block when it comes to “submarines” – but at the end a submarine is just a airbubble contained by a pressure resistant shell below the surface. The border between habitat, submarine, floating home, is kind of unsharp just check on BEN FRANKLIN – it was a floating home, a habitat, and a submarine, depends on the point of view…
No country i have knowledge of prohibits to own a “naval artefact” of any kind or design. Most countries expect you to register (get a number) when you build, or operate, or own one – no matter what design it might be.
United States is an exception in the following sense:
Operating a deeploaded boat, a camuflaged boat, a submersible, a semisubmersible, a submarine, (naval artefact of any rare kind), on a international voyage when it is unregistered and unflagged, and built secretly, is considered “smuggling in progress”.
So if you naval artefact is “rare” in any sense, anounce it well, register, flagg, paint yellow, hot exhaust, loud engine – to let no doubt when on international voyage aproaching US waters.