can an old sub be turned into a orbital launch vehicle? i figure

>>8945473
no
submarines and rockets are significantly different, so different that you really might as well just rebuild the whole thing because it'd cost less to do

submarines have to withstand pressure from the outside while space shuttles have to contain pressure on the inside

>>8945862
Just fold it inside out.

>>8945473
>can an old sub be turned into a orbital launch vehicle?
>muh SS Botany Bay
No.
Subs don't have any propulsion or maneuvering thrusters in space, propeller is worthless.

Subs don't have anyway to radiate internal heat from the crew and fission reactor, it will overhead and kill everyone without seawater

Subs have no way to shield the crew from cosmic rays, it'll be a cancer fest

Subs are too heavy to be launched practically from Earth

Subs have interior design architecture designed for humans to interact with things in an environment with gravity--the kitchen especially will be a fucking nightmare, same for bathrooms.

>>8945473
Fuck no. To make anything like a rocket you'd have to scrap the whole sub. This wouldn't work very well, because it is far more important that the alloys in subs be corrosion resistant than light. Now the nuke that's something right there, but unfortunately, we can't guarantee it will work in microgravity

>>8945473
This is the quality treads i expect here in /sci/

>>8945473
>scrap the metal from the sub
>use profits to build premium space shuttle
>????
>profit

>>8945862
Stupid argument

>>8946760
not really
the pressure a sub needs to withstand is enormous, around 30 atm.
while the pressure a space ship needs is only 1 atm.

>>8947249
and as such submarines are extrememly heavy while space ships aren't,
as internal pressure adds rigidity to a space ship or aeroplane for that matter. the same isn't true for a sub as the external pressure is greater than the internal.