Why have large passenger carrying submarines (the size of the QE 2) not been developed and built?

Answer 1

ill tell you why,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no body can think out of the BOX...1 who said they have to stay under all the time?,, how fast ,,,wake up the new subs can do up to 45 knots or better,,,not building for war? so how wide could it really be?,,how long? look at super tankers,, boring i thing not when was the last time you saw ..ships ,reefs, fish and two 3 of the rest of the world we live on. no sub build for passenger carrying would be without all the things on passenger ship an the one thing i see as a great thing is on a rough day at sea you just dive under the weather,, i beat you could book every room at lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Answer 2

US Subs is one of the few manufacturers of non-military subs. http://www.ussubs.com/ There are subs out there for pleasure. My guess as to your QE-2 size would be simply expense. Personally..if they had huge viewports and you could watch whales and schools of tuna and so on..I think it would make a great trip. Bottomline..I'd say it's just cost prohibitive at this time.

Skip the QE-2 size and shrink it down to holding 50 passengers or so..and they'd probably fill it up every trip. We have people paying 20 mil to go to outer space...why not pay 5-10 grand to go to inner space. As for those above who poo-poo it as boring, what's the point, etc., etc. They've obviously never gone diving OR rode out a mother storm in the North Atlantic. A transatlantic crossing traveling at 10 knots submerged and 15-18 on the surface would take 10-14 days depending on varying conditions. Well within the realm of being doable. Here's a quote from US Subs regarding the current state of undersea travel "Proven profitability and market differentiation. These are the results of tourist submarine operations across the globe. Last year this industry carried over 2 million passengers and enjoyed $150 million in revenue; and the story has just begun...." So..for the naysayers..and non-dreamers....once again the parade has passed you by.
As for health and safety regs...ya..ok. I remember last time I took a cruise we spent a week going over those. Anything on the water has one enemy ......water. It gets in.....you sink. Oh ya..and air travel...lordy, lordy..the time we spent rehearsing safety and covering the regs there. Wow!

Answer 3

Cost prohibitive. Special steel (HY-80 or HY-100), specialized construction techniques, indepth safety testing, redundant systems, increased electronics suites, waste and supply storage, limited operating areas and depths and on and on and on.

Salt water (generally speaking....salinity varies with temperature and location) imposes 44 psig of pressure for every 100 feet of depth above the keel. 100 = 44; 200 = 88; 300 = 132 psig, and so on. Glass makes no sense. It is not strong enough nor is it a proper structural material for ship building. In most of the world's oceans, by the time you are 100 feet deep and deeper, the sunlight is lost and there is nothing to see....just blackness.

The US Navy has it's Trident (or Ohio class) submarines:


Length 560 feet
Beam 42 feet
Displacement, submerged 18,750 tons
Displacement, surfaced 16,600 tons

Project 941 (Akula) Typhoon class (Russian)
PLARB - Nuclear Powered Ballistic Missile Submarine:


Displacement: (tons): 24,500 (surfaced)/33,800 (submerged)
Speed (kts): 16/27
Dimensions (m): 175,0 x 22,8 x 11,5

Queen Elizabeth 2:

Gross Tonnage - 70,327 tons
Dimensions - 293.53 x 32.06m (963 x 105.3ft)

Answer 4

In terms of space and payload submarines are very expensive compared to surface going vessels and can travel at only a fraction of the speed.

More likely, would be a cruise ship with the ability to deploy a small observation sub, as an alternative (for a select few) to taking a zodiac ashore.

Answer 5

Presumably your intention would be to travel great distances, as apposed to down for a couple of hours and back up again. So, the passengers would be on holiday confined below decks with limited space - even allowing for recreational activities, I'm sure that you would end up with a lot of grouchy people, the novelty would quickly wear off.
I'm pretty sure that the cost to build it would be exorbitant, and possibly, the technology to cater to the necessary demands (air supply, safety and probably other problems that you don't realise exist) would need work.

Answer 6

Because submarines are mainly stealth weapons used solely for the purpose of deterrence of war. Besides people do not do well submerged for long periods of time with nothing to do, since you cannot go outside and play etc. Technology just is not there yet, maybe in another 25 to 50 years.

Answer 7

Health and safety regs, you could never train all the passengers how to do things under water. Besides I doubt there would be many takers for the service, so it would be uneconomical. Who would want a holiday were all you saw was the inside of a sub? Not me thats for sure.

Answer 8

What would be the point? Large passenger ships get around faster and offer a view.

Answer 9

I dont think noone would like to that because of money problems. Also who would ever want to use that kind of machine besides the military. I dont even think that would be use full to the military. Also even if you wanted to build a machine like that then if would be highly impossible due to certain types of pressure problems.

Answer 10

good question. first, engines. normal ships suck fuel. the only source of fuel that is economically sound Is a nuclear power and that is run by trained personal. second, the air. air in subs gets bad fast and it needs to be replaced. the only way to replenish the air quickly is using nuclear power to splint water to make oxygen.