"Mount Everest" of scuba diving

[djtimmy77]

To climb a big mountain like Everest, you need to have a huge support crew and spend a lot of time at the different base camps acclimating, etc. IMO the Everest of diving is more akin to those deep saturation divers that have to spend weeks in a little chamber before, during, and after their dives.

 

[coglesby]

Oddball ignorant question:

What's the functional limit for atmospheric diving? Is it conceivable, for example, to use one to dive Britannic's sister (at what, 12500')? Or is that just beyond the technology (and if so, why)?

12,500' = 379.8 ATA

From what I have read, 700 meters is today's limit for atmospheric diving suits. That equates to roughly 65 ATA.

 

[Blackwood]

12,500' = 379.8 ATA

From what I have read, 700 meters is today's limit for atmospheric diving suits. That equates to roughly 65 ATA.

Yah, I saw roughly the same figures after posting (ADS 2000 suit).

I wonder what the functional limit is. Is it a strength thing (keeping the suit from crushing under the pressure)?

 

[DCBC]

Speaking of which, some of the San Diego crew recently located what they think is a battleship at about 450'. Some of the rebreather guys are doing some workup dives in preparation.

Very cool. Another one to consider (I'd love to dive her).

Oddball ignorant question:

What's the functional limit for atmospheric diving? Is it conceivable, for example, to use one to dive Britannic's sister (at what, 12500')? Or is that just beyond the technology (and if so, why)?

Not ignorant at all. I think the maximum depth for the JIM IV is 2300 feet. I'm afraid we're stuck using either the MIR I & II for the Titanic. I don't think there's anthing else in the civilian inventory that can duplicate their operational depth.

 

[coglesby]

Yah, I saw roughly the same figures after posting (ADS 2000 suit).

I wonder what the functional limit is. Is it a strength thing (keeping the suit from crushing under the pressure)?

I would say so, since US nuclear subs, Seawolf Class, has a crush depth of 730 meters. However, I am certainly no authority on this type of diving and am probably making someone, with knowledge on this, roll their eyes. :cool2:

Nevertheless, it appears we have now discussed our way into realizing a parameter....we can now narrow the list of "Mount Everest of Diving" candidates down to wrecks shallower than 700 meters

 

[ianr33]

To climb a big mountain like Everest, you need to have a huge support crew and spend a lot of time at the different base camps acclimating, etc.

Goran Kropp cycled over to Everest (from Germany) and did it on his own. Amazing story.

Göran Kropp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blackwood]

Not ignorant at all. I think the maximum depth for the JIM IV is 2300 feet. I'm afraid we're stuck using either the MIR I & II for the Titanic.

Ah, that's too bad

I would say so, since US nuclear subs, Seawolf Class, has a crush depth of 730 meters.

haha okay. So I was a little off.

 

[Guy Alcala]

My popcorn is running low....gotta reload....was hoping to hear more about diving and less about climbing.....

Are you suggesting that topic drift isn't a factor on SB? But enough of this, let's define what the requirements are for a wreck to become the _new_ Mt. Everest of diving. Does the wreck have to be deep? Big? Hard to get to? Historic (a disaster)? Difficult conditions? Other?

Guy

 

[DCBC]

Are you suggesting that topic drift isn't a factor on SB? But enough of this, let's define what the requirements are for a wreck to become the _new_ Mt. Everest of diving. Does the wreck have to be deep? Big? Hard to get to? Historic (a disaster)? Difficult conditions? Other?

I don't know Guy. Deep on its side (inverted works for me as well as long as there is a way in) and current is an extra (it adds a little bit of zip if you have to hold on to the line like hell during decompression or you will be swept away). If you are going to call the wreck the "Mount Everest of Wreck Diving," it should be challenging. The Doria was at the depth limit for air penetration (for most of us at least) and the entanglements were an added hazard. I guess that's why it qualified in its time. What do you think?

Wayne

 

[Guy Alcala]

I don't know Guy. Deep on its side (inverted works for me as well as long as there is a way in) and current is an extra (it adds a little bit of zip if you have to hold on to the line like hell during decompression or you will be swept away). If you are going to call the wreck the "Mount Everest of Wreck Diving," it should be challenging. The Doria was at the depth limit for air penetration (for most of us at least) and the entanglements were an added hazard. I guess that's why it qualified in its time. What do you think?

Wayne

In the US, or at least North America, I'd suggest that the Edmund Fitzgerald (560 ffw) might qualify. It's pretty much got to be a rebreather dive, the water's cold, it's historic (or at least fairly well known, owing purely to the song), etc. Penetrations obviously not as convoluted as the Doria (the wreck's in two pieces), and I've never dived the Great Lakes so can't speak to conditions other than cold.

What was the name of the Strength through Joy cruise ship that was torpedoed in the Baltic while evacuating civilians out of the Courland pocket near the end of WW2? ISTR that's the single largest maritime loss of life yet. I don't know how deep or cold the Baltic is.

[Edit: Wilhelm Gustloff is the ship I was thinking of, with a loss of between 5,700-7,000 lives. Either it or the Goya (~7,000 dead) lost while on the same task and in the same general area, qualify as the worst maritime losses of life to date. Gustloff is lying at a depth of 50m/164', and looks to be in pretty good condition judging by the photos. Goya is deeper at 76m/250 ft., and I haven't found any pictures yet.] Britannic makes the list for its size, depth and reflected fame from the Titanic.

Guy