Talk:Trieste (bathyscaphe)

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

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

DSRV-1 Mystic DSRV-2 Avalon

NR-1 Nerwin - nuclear powered research DSV sub

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

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

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

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

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

Descent longer than ascent
How is it that the descent to Mariana Trench took 5 hours and the ascent only 3 hrs 15 mins ? Jay 12:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In descent, you fight the bouyancy of the gasoline. In ascent, you drop the iron weights and rise to the surface. The rate of descent would depend on how much counteracting iron is placed aboard. The rate of ascent would depend on the general bouancy of the craft. It's not the same 132.205.15.43 00:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Think of it like an airplane. How long does it take to get up to 30,000 ft in a 767? What if I then suddenly chopped off the wings, how long would it take you to make a fair sized crater in the ground? You fall faster than you rise.
 * That is an interesting way of putting it, but not necessarily related here, since there are very different forces at work. A plane works on lift, not buoyancy. Plus it is backwards, since it took longer to get down than up. Not to slam you, just pointing out that it doesn't really apply. --Fitzhugh 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dub thee: the polite pwnmaster.
 * I assume the ballast shot was dropped down at the bottom and left there. I suppose that future missions will have ecological worries and find a way of recovering the ballast - perhaps descening a line with the vessel just for the ballast recovey, and the set the vessel free for the ascent? This isn't as dumb an ideia. Think of how unique this particular place on Earth is!... I give you an example: earliest Everest explorers left behind some junk; now, there has been recent expeditions with the goal of cleaning up the camp sites after them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.177.161 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The iron pellets used as ballast may not be an ecological disaster at all, in fact, quite the opposite. They may have provided another source of "food" for rust eating bacteria that live at these depths. These bacteria are essentially eating away all the iron and steel on the titanic leaving behind something called Rusticles. Here is an external link to a web page - http://news.discovery.com/history/titanic-bacteria-rust-wreck.htm - Titanic Being Eaten by Destructive Bacteria. I'd say the mountains of garbage all those yuppie (I've heard stories of fights breaking out up the mountain as they all queue up to climb) Everest mountaineers leave behind in Nepal is far more of an ecological disaster than the iron pellets Treiste left at the bottom of Challenger Deep! Ironmungy (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Name
What is the relation to the city of Trieste?


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

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

http://sid-hill.com/write/trieste.htm

Air filled ballast tanks, as stated in text, or water filled ballast tanks, as indicated in diagram?
I've edited the article according to the following thinking; please consider my change and correct if necessary since it is based on logic, not knowledge. The article presently reads (3rd paragraph under "Design" section: "... Trieste was over 15 m (50 feet) long, but the majority of this was the series of floats filled with 85 m³ (22,500 US gallons) of gasoline, and air-filled ballast tanks at either end of the vessel." However, I have two questions about the accuracy of this statement. First, the diagram shows what are labeled "Water Ballast Tanks" at each end. I would think that air would not be a great choice since it is so highly compressible and the structure would have to be that much stronger - hence the definitely air-filled crew chamber being the sphere at the bottom, and I assume this is why gasoline was chosen for the buoyancy fluid. While I have no reason to know, my gut sense it gasoline is much more difficult to compress than air (think bleeding your brake lines when replacing the fluid to get out any air - a small amount can make your brakes fade since it is compressible, while brake fluid is not, or not nearly as much so). Secondly, if there were air tanks, they would be buoyancy tanks, not ballast tanks, right? Therefor, based primarily on the evidence of the diagram, I'm changing the article to match the diagram more closely so "air-filled ballast tanks" will become "water-filled ballast tanks". Thanks for your review. --Fitzhugh 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The end ballast tanks are filled with air before a dive, then flooded to dive. This act uses water as "ballast". At the bottom, the tanks can't be re-filled with air, so they are left full of water, and the ship rises by dropping metal ballast shot. Anyway, by definition, "ballast" must be a heavy material used to stabalize a ship for some purpose, so air itself can never be a ballast material. If a ballast tank is full of air, it's not full of ballast. Thus, the tanks, while sometimes filled with air, are never filled with air ballast. When they are filled with ballast, it is always with water. Thus, both water-filled ballast tanks and air-filled ballast tanks are correct. But only in water-filled tanks are the tanks full of ballast! S  B Harris 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be better to consider the tanks as 'flotation tanks' rather than 'ballast tanks'. They exist only alow the boat to float prior to a dive not to pull it down. Ex nihil (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is it now?
there is nothing in the article to show where the Trieste resides now. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * come closer... and read the info box: "Preserved as an exhibit in the U.S. Navy Museum" --80.187.112.26 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is wrong. The US Navy has numerous museums. This particular Museum does not yet have a wikipedia page. I just saw it and photo'ed it in November. Fixing the link. 66.122.34.11 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The vessel at Keyport, WA is the DSV1 Trieste II, not the original Trieste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.120.183 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Early career
The early career flag has been changed from French to Italian. It was Swiss designed, Italian built but I understood that it was operated by the French Navy until it was sold on to the USA. Is this incorrect? If so what was the Italian body that owned and operated it until it was sold? Ex nihil (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thresher or Scorpion?
In the "Other Deep Sea Dives" section of the article, it is stated that "In April 1963, Trieste was modified and used in the Atlantic Ocean to search for the missing submarine USS Thresher (SSN-593)." No other dives are listed, but on the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) page there is an image of the sunken submarine with an image said to be taken from the Trieste. Is this a mistake on that page, or is this page missing information on a dive for the Scorpion's wreckage? Blurgit (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In over my head?
Where was the 1953 dive (3170m, IIRC) made? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  07:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the original Time Magazine article, published 12 October 1953 - "On a rough and rainy night last week, this odd craft was towed to a point 18 miles south of the island of Ponza where the Tyrrhenian Trench is 10,000 ft. deep". Hope that answers your question, albeit years later! Here is the link to the original article, which I have used as a new reference #3 in the Design section - http://www.machine-history.com/Trieste%20Bathyscaphe. Ironmungy (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That'll do it. Thx a bunch for finding that.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why was the Trieste's voyage not repeated?
While the Trieste had some problems during its dive, there have been a lot of advances in technology in the 47 years since it made its historic trip. Why was this effort never repeated with a better vessel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.247.210 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Chiefly because even with advances in technology it still costs an absolute fortune, and no government or corporation has since been willing to bear the cost. Manning (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Should this be added?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/mariana-trench-dive/ I'm talking about the video. Should it be linked to as a reference/further info? 66.166.42.211 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious chocolate claim
I've been investigating the chocolate claim&mdash;that Piccard consumed chocolate during his journey to the bottom of the Trench. I've traced it back to this diff. The only antedating evidence I cna find is this Portuguese (?) article (first result on page), which appears to be authored by a contributor to the forum. Can anyone else offer evidence for this claim? Cheers, Scientific29 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bathyscaphe Trieste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906084947/http://www.machine-history.com/Trieste%20Bathyscaphe to http://www.machine-history.com/Trieste%20Bathyscaphe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bathyscaphe Trieste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202144233/http://bjsonline.com/watches/articles/0022_3.shtml to http://bjsonline.com/watches/articles/0022_3.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trieste2.JPG

Pressure sphere history
A verbal briefing I received from Navy Electronics Laboratory personnel in the 1960s included the following information: The original 2-piece sphere built by Terni was not designed for Challenger Deep pressures, so the United States Navy approached Terni about building a stronger sphere after they purchased Trieste. Terni alleged they had not yet been appropriately compensated for the sphere built for Trieste's original owners, and wanted that amount in addition to the cost of the new sphere. The Navy was unwilling to pay for what they felt was a responsibility of the original owners, and looked elsewhere for a stronger sphere. They found only Terni was able to fabricate a hemisphere of the correct diameter, so Krupp built the stronger sphere from three segments. After the leakage issues encountered during Project Nekton, the Navy was less confident of their mathematical modelling of the three-segment sphere's behavior under pressure. That might be useful information for this article if it can be documented. Has anyone encountered such documentation? Thewellman (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns
Both 'it' and 'she' are used to refer to the vessel in this article. Not sure which is best practice for referring to submersibles, but we should probably make it consistent. Rhi43 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong location
The location chosen for the ship seems to be that of her famous dive, not where she is now in the Washington Navy Yards Vicarage (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I changed the coordinates.Yeti-Hunter (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)