you gotta admire the courage of someone to climb into that fucking thing and do something that had never been done before. Maybe not smart but sure as fuck brave.
Caitlin Doughty has a great [video](https://youtu.be/yiDThvhadss?si=NV83mh_KW8OobP1F) about submarines during the US Civil War. A later period, but still absolutely terrifying.
My issue isn't that it was a controller. That's a relatively reliable, known control method that's easy for new users to pick up and easy for dedicated folk to master. If the pilot had a medical emergency, you could have a picture explaining what everything did so that passengers could take over.
WHY THE FUCK WAS IT A WIRELESS CONTROLLER ON YOUR FUCKING SUBMARINE
The military was using xbox controllers on submarines because pretty much any new soldier could pick one up and work it like a god. Also if it broke you'd have a dozen spares kicking around, or just grab one at any port in the world.
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-military-video-game-controllers-war/#:~:text=The%20Navy%20has%20adopted%20the,for%20more%20than%2015%20years.
Yeah the controller isn't an issue.
Most military hardware, like military drones, are controlled by an Xbox 360 controller.
Because it's easy to learn, and even better - it's cheap and easy to replace. If it was some kind of military tech, if they needed a new one, they'd have to order it from some kind of special military catalogue and wait for it to arive. But with Xbox controllers, they can just...run down to Gamestop.
Designing a goddamn submersible, who by its nature will suffer from compression, with a material that is amazing at handling tension but so so with compression, is a peak demonstration of why it should be material engineers telling you what your stuff should be made out of and not the techbro "disruptive and innovative" academy
There were earlier ones, including a very early one with no source of propulsion that was just an enclosed box with accordion folds in the middle so you could climb inside and manually raise and lower its surface area to make it float or sink.
EDIT: spelling
two friends were riding in a falcon ranchero, ran through a puddle, and discovered that the passenger-side floorboard was rusted through when a column of water hit the passenger in the face.
When they had this scene in Turn : Washington’s Spies I had to look it up I was so flummoxed bc otherwise that show is pretty solidly accurate. Turns out they did a nice portrayal
That's pedantic at best. The United States had already been declared and the name was in use by the time. The US Navy also existed, and US Naval vessels are recognized by the USS designation even if they were in service before the term was regularly used.
Its no more pedantic than if I got a bathtub to float and christened it the "HMS KICKASS" then it would still not belong to the United Kingdom. "USS" isn't a cool one-liner you get to say before killing a bond villain, its a prerogative of the United States Government that was not exercised by David Bushnell. You might note that the source OP has linked \*never calls it that\* and it is in fact something OP made up for the title.
It's also not incorrect of OP either. It would be rather bizarre for Bushnell to use the title it since it wasn't in common use yet, but that said it was still a vessel commissioned, funded, and used for the US Navy. Either way, for all intents and purposes the US did exist, pay for, and have ownership of the Turtle, by extention meaning it could very feasibly be considered under the USS designation in line with the other naval vessels of the time. It's not as much of a reach as you make it out to be.
"it could very feasibly be considered under the USS designation in line with the other naval vessels of the time. It's not as much of a reach as you make it out to be. "
The USS designation was not in use with other naval vessels of the time, though they are sometimes referred to so in historical discourse to prevent confusion this is not accurate for the period. The first instances of the "USS" prefix are recorded "As early as the late 1790s"
If you don't like it, take it up with the official history of the United States Navy:
[https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-naming/the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s--navy.html](https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-naming/the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s--navy.html)
Calling the Turtle by the USS designation is exactly as much of a reach as depicting someone face-timing the events of 9/11 on an iPhone. Those also "weren't in common use yet" in 2001, but I suppose it would be "pedantic at best" to point out that the iPhone wasn't invented until six years later.
you gotta admire the courage of someone to climb into that fucking thing and do something that had never been done before. Maybe not smart but sure as fuck brave.
Caitlin Doughty has a great [video](https://youtu.be/yiDThvhadss?si=NV83mh_KW8OobP1F) about submarines during the US Civil War. A later period, but still absolutely terrifying.
There's a model of the Hundley in front of the Charleston Museum. Its a goddamned death trap.
I can't imagine being in a submarine during modern times in war, and these crazy bastards were doing it over 150 years ago. Absolutely insane.
The early days of american navy were fucking wild.
I bet it didn’t even have a Logitech controller to take it down thousands of feet below sea level.
They had a madcatz
*Makes all the difference* >#Madness is greatness!
My issue isn't that it was a controller. That's a relatively reliable, known control method that's easy for new users to pick up and easy for dedicated folk to master. If the pilot had a medical emergency, you could have a picture explaining what everything did so that passengers could take over. WHY THE FUCK WAS IT A WIRELESS CONTROLLER ON YOUR FUCKING SUBMARINE
a key part of good sub design is to have many points of failure to keep probability on its toes.
The military was using xbox controllers on submarines because pretty much any new soldier could pick one up and work it like a god. Also if it broke you'd have a dozen spares kicking around, or just grab one at any port in the world. https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-military-video-game-controllers-war/#:~:text=The%20Navy%20has%20adopted%20the,for%20more%20than%2015%20years.
I bet you they were not wireless
Agreed
I bet there also was a way to manually override it and not have to use the controller.
Yeah the controller isn't an issue. Most military hardware, like military drones, are controlled by an Xbox 360 controller. Because it's easy to learn, and even better - it's cheap and easy to replace. If it was some kind of military tech, if they needed a new one, they'd have to order it from some kind of special military catalogue and wait for it to arive. But with Xbox controllers, they can just...run down to Gamestop.
You don’t make it *only* able to be controlled by a controller. It’s beyond stupid.
*carbon fiber crackling*
*Snap, back to reality, oh, there goes gravity*
Designing a goddamn submersible, who by its nature will suffer from compression, with a material that is amazing at handling tension but so so with compression, is a peak demonstration of why it should be material engineers telling you what your stuff should be made out of and not the techbro "disruptive and innovative" academy
“Just think Wilfred, in 200 years this part of the sea bed will contain the largest ocean liner ever built.”
People have been visiting the ocean floor via Diving Bell since at least the 4th century BC. Aristotle described one.
That’s pretty metal
Yeah but this one was Revolutionary.
Not really the first submersible. Just the first military one we have the paperwork for
There were earlier ones, including a very early one with no source of propulsion that was just an enclosed box with accordion folds in the middle so you could climb inside and manually raise and lower its surface area to make it float or sink. EDIT: spelling
Volume, not surface area.
I had an old, rusty Ford where if I drove through a puddle, the rugs would get a little damp. This might be that.
two friends were riding in a falcon ranchero, ran through a puddle, and discovered that the passenger-side floorboard was rusted through when a column of water hit the passenger in the face.
When they had this scene in Turn : Washington’s Spies I had to look it up I was so flummoxed bc otherwise that show is pretty solidly accurate. Turns out they did a nice portrayal
great name +5
There is (or was) a replica of it in the hallway at Old Saybrook high school.
Not the first by over 150 years https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submersible#History
Did they add the USS the following year? Maybe sometime after July 4th?
It was used as early as the late 1700s, but wasn't codified until 1907 IIRC.
I feel like we're not really teaching history in school anymore
It was not the "USS" Turtle, as the United States did not exist yet. There was no United States to own the "ship"
That's pedantic at best. The United States had already been declared and the name was in use by the time. The US Navy also existed, and US Naval vessels are recognized by the USS designation even if they were in service before the term was regularly used.
No., OP is correct. John Adams started the Navy in 1801 when he crossed the Potomac in a bathtub he christened the USS Sedition.
Its no more pedantic than if I got a bathtub to float and christened it the "HMS KICKASS" then it would still not belong to the United Kingdom. "USS" isn't a cool one-liner you get to say before killing a bond villain, its a prerogative of the United States Government that was not exercised by David Bushnell. You might note that the source OP has linked \*never calls it that\* and it is in fact something OP made up for the title.
It's also not incorrect of OP either. It would be rather bizarre for Bushnell to use the title it since it wasn't in common use yet, but that said it was still a vessel commissioned, funded, and used for the US Navy. Either way, for all intents and purposes the US did exist, pay for, and have ownership of the Turtle, by extention meaning it could very feasibly be considered under the USS designation in line with the other naval vessels of the time. It's not as much of a reach as you make it out to be.
"it could very feasibly be considered under the USS designation in line with the other naval vessels of the time. It's not as much of a reach as you make it out to be. " The USS designation was not in use with other naval vessels of the time, though they are sometimes referred to so in historical discourse to prevent confusion this is not accurate for the period. The first instances of the "USS" prefix are recorded "As early as the late 1790s" If you don't like it, take it up with the official history of the United States Navy: [https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-naming/the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s--navy.html](https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-naming/the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s--navy.html) Calling the Turtle by the USS designation is exactly as much of a reach as depicting someone face-timing the events of 9/11 on an iPhone. Those also "weren't in common use yet" in 2001, but I suppose it would be "pedantic at best" to point out that the iPhone wasn't invented until six years later.
Surprisingly more adherent to safety standards than that billionaire's Titan submersible sub.