Dockside Application: Fill & Download for Free

I almost answered this with a dismissive “that's as funny as a screen door in a submarine” -- a 4th grade- level joke. The short answer is that, although there are no stupid questions, I should be down-voting yours. But I’ll answer it because there are important misconceptions (or more properly put, failures-to-conceive of the forces involved) behind your asking it.First of all, military subs are designed to operate in extreme environments, where the water pressure of the sea water above the sub alone could crush a normally-constructed submersible from 70 years ago, say, a diesel-electric sub. They are designed not only to operate at depth, but to do so while carrying a crew of, in the case of the Ohio-class nuclear missile subs, upwards of 150 crewmen and officers. Thus, any openings in the hull, like torpedo tube doors, ballistic missile launch tube doors, or conning tower “sail” apertures, must be solidly reinforced and fitted to extremely close tolerances, in order to prevent a breach at crush depth, the depth beyond which a submarine is not certified to operate.Ohio-class submarine - WikipediaSubmarine depth ratings - WikipediaThe US Navy found out the hard way in 1963 that a visit to test depth can soon become a visit to crush depth when, during sea trials, the USS Thresher suffered a leak subsequent to a failure of brazings in its reactor’s auxiliary seawater cooling system. According to Wikipedia,“In a dockside simulation of flooding in the engine room, held before Thresher sailed, it took the watch in charge 20 minutes to isolate a simulated leak in the auxiliary seawater system. At test depth with the reactor shut down, Thresher would not have had 20 minutes to recover. Even after isolating a short-circuit in the reactor controls, it would have taken nearly 10 minutes to restart the plant.”Thresher likely imploded at a depth of 1,300–2,000 ft (400–610 m).Now try to imagine a seam along the hull where transparent bulletproof Lexan meets steel. Lexan is hard to penetrate, but one of its less-than-desirable properties is that it *can* buckle. What you want is a hull whose crush depth is the same along its length, breadth and height. This precludes the use of windows.Second, subs are instruments of war. The before-mentioned concerns about a window buckling at its side seams at depth take on even more urgency when any enemy who detects your intrusion into its waters might be lobbing depth charges at you.Depth charge - WikipediaThirdly, (and applicable mostly in Arctic or Antarctic waters) there is the very real concern about needing to surface under, or even in many cases, through, the ice. You need a strong hull, of unvarying compressibility, to do this, as the crew of the USS Nautilus first discovered, when they were the first to complete a transit under the North Pole in 1958, including many successful surfacings through polynyas --- breaks in the surface ice.USS Nautilus (SSN-571) - WikipediaSo, someone will ask (I know I would,) “didn't Titanic director James Cameron, in association with billionaire Paul Allen, reach the uttermost deepest part of the ocean, Challenger Deep, in a specially-built one man submersible whose pilot module incorporated a small window? Well, yes, yes he did. And it was a triumph of bathyscaphic engineering. But A) it was a one-man submersible, and Mr. Cameron took his life in his hands. Military sub captains prefer a guarantee that, barring combat or unforeseen hull failure, they will be able to return their crew safely to port. B) Cameron and Allen spent a reported $ 5 — 10 million dollars protecting one man, a ratio of expense per man that no navy in the world would consider acceptable. And C) while technology from Deepsea Challenger may eventually find its way into the submarines operated by the navies of the world, it not only hasn't yet, but all of the above points against the logic of it would still apply, even if it did.Deepsea Challenger - Wikipedia

Like so much else in a corporate / consumer world, they would be exploited. They would be captured & used for theme parks, placed on tables & dissected for possible applications in analyzing measures & means of their biological components usable for anything from cosmetics to pharmaceutical industry sales. Added with military factions of the government wanting to weaponize them - they would be bred for weaponized usage.Basically, these beautiful creatures would be abused and mutilated, tortured & made for harvesting or aid in mankind’s preoccupation for death. They would be capable of delivering magnetic limpet mines onto enemy ship hulls, dockside explosives, & even delivery of nuclear weaponry to assigned destinations.Engineering of coastal & deep sea habitat building, besides factory processing plants below the waves.Used & abused, Mermaids would be victims of inhumane humanity.Better they remain in their own watery reams of silent deeps and sunlight speckled sea bottoms, to range reefs unseen, and kelp forests concealed.-_END_Note: Image = Mermaid - Mermaid Melissa - by cosmopolitan.comm-

Applications include food and beverage machinery, shipboard and dockside, caustic waste handling, power generating plants, pulp and paper, welding, automotive machine tools and conveyors.