Tjyylli

How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?

Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?

Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?

How do I create uniquely male characters?

Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?

Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?

Why do falling prices hurt debtors?

What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?

Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?

Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?

Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?

Test whether all array elements are factors of a number

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?

Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?

Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)

Adding span tags within wp_list_pages list items

How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?

Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?

Can divisibility rules for digits be generalized to sum of digits

Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?

Mage Armor with Defense fighting style (for Adventurers League bladeslinger)

What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'?

Python: next in for loop

Submarine propulsion using evaporation

How could a simple submarine be built using 100 BC technology?Would future combat submarines come with jet propulsion thruster?Gravity PropulsionHow do I track someone who wants to disappear using a submarine?Two-stage fusion propulsionViability of a Space SubmarineAirship Propulsion SystemPropulsion SystemsLow-efficiency fusion propulsion?Biological Blimps: Propulsion

5

$begingroup$

In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.

Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?

edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!

science-based engineering underwater

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Eth

asked yesterday

EthEth

2,7491721

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
  $endgroup$
  – Elmy
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
  $endgroup$
  – L.Dutch♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
  $endgroup$
  – Elmy
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
  $endgroup$
  – AlexP
  yesterday
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

5

$begingroup$

In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.

Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?

edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!

science-based engineering underwater

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Eth

asked yesterday

EthEth

2,7491721

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
  $endgroup$
  – Elmy
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
  $endgroup$
  – L.Dutch♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
  $endgroup$
  – Elmy
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
  $endgroup$
  – AlexP
  yesterday
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

$begingroup$

In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.

Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?

edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!

science-based engineering underwater

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Eth

asked yesterday

EthEth

2,7491721

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Eth

asked yesterday

EthEth

2,7491721

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Eth

asked yesterday

EthEth

2,7491721

asked yesterday

EthEth

2,7491721

asked yesterday

EthEth

2,7491721

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

7

$begingroup$

the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.

If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.

If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.

A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

L.Dutch♦L.Dutch

90.4k29209437

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
  $endgroup$
  – Nathaniel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
  $endgroup$
  – Alexander
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

ChronocidalChronocidal

6,6181833

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
  $endgroup$
  – Chronocidal
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
  $endgroup$
  – Chronocidal
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.

Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

RenanRenan

52.6k15120261

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143305%2fsubmarine-propulsion-using-evaporation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

7

$begingroup$

the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.

If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.

If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.

A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

L.Dutch♦L.Dutch

90.4k29209437

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
  $endgroup$
  – Nathaniel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
  $endgroup$
  – Alexander
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

7

$begingroup$

the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.

If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.

If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.

A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

L.Dutch♦L.Dutch

90.4k29209437

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
  $endgroup$
  – Nathaniel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
  $endgroup$
  – Alexander
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.

If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.

If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.

A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

L.Dutch♦L.Dutch

90.4k29209437

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

L.Dutch♦L.Dutch

90.4k29209437

answered yesterday

L.Dutch♦L.Dutch

90.4k29209437

answered yesterday

L.Dutch♦L.Dutch

90.4k29209437

3

$begingroup$

This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

ChronocidalChronocidal

6,6181833

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
  $endgroup$
  – Chronocidal
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
  $endgroup$
  – Chronocidal
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

ChronocidalChronocidal

6,6181833

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
  $endgroup$
  – Chronocidal
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
  $endgroup$
  – Chronocidal
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
  $endgroup$
  – Eth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

ChronocidalChronocidal

6,6181833

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

ChronocidalChronocidal

6,6181833

answered yesterday

ChronocidalChronocidal

6,6181833

answered yesterday

ChronocidalChronocidal

6,6181833

1

$begingroup$

Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.

Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

RenanRenan

52.6k15120261

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.

Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

RenanRenan

52.6k15120261

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.

Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

RenanRenan

52.6k15120261

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

RenanRenan

52.6k15120261

answered yesterday

RenanRenan

52.6k15120261

answered yesterday

RenanRenan

52.6k15120261