would it be economical to turn decommissioned subs into

>>8389713
No

>>8389721
why not? wouldn't making a whole new rocket frame cost more than just dissecting a submarine? i mean it's already designed to handle a shitload of stress.

no because subs undergo cycle treatments which effectively renders the metal useless for anything other than subs. they're a complete waste

>>8389737
what do you mean useless? is it that they're too hard to tool?

>>8389725
because putting a kilogram into space is so expensive it is almost always worth designing vessels for the express purpose of being light and strong rather than repurposing scrap

>>8389749
>making a whole new frame where parts have to be forged from scratch is cheaper because using said frame to send things into space is expensive

what

File: barack-obama-puzzled.jpg (196KB, 619x434px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 619x434px

would it be economical to turn decommissioned submarines into submarines?

>>8389713
Rockets need to be as light as possible, submarines aren't that at all.

>>8389755
why not use a 1000 cars to make a space shuttle... it's basically the same thing r-right?

>>8389725
do you understand that rockets are just thin tubes of alluminium filled with 95% by weight fuel?

>>8389755
Forging metal to some giant dildo isn't exactly the expensive part of building rockets. They don't just put some explosives in a tube and hope for the best, you know.

fullretard.jpg

>>8389713
it would be a really dumb idea.

>>8389770
>They don't just put some explosives in a tube and hope for the best

do they hope for the worst?

>>8389786
I know I do

But can it be made into a giant bomb?

File: 20150808_113421-1024x576.jpg (129KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1024x576px

>>8389713
No, just no. You'd be better off using a giant propane tank.

You would have to rip out so much stuff it wouldn't even be worth it.

A big part of the problem is that many of the components of submarines are designed to be corrosion resistant. Being corrosion resistant does not mean light.

We could land our rockets in the ocean, but we don't because of the weight penalty imposed by making everything corrosion resistant

>>8389755
It's cheaper to make what is essentially a giant aluminum can than to dry dock a sub, rip almost everything out, inspect everything, and design a rocket around it

>>8389767
or 1000 yellow school buses

What

>>8389725
one is built to fly as high as it can.

one is built to sink.

you can figure out the rest

>>8389767
>>8389770
top gear almost did it we cant we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM