Submarine Yacht Business Politics

We frequently get mail from people that want be part of this in some way. So we need to state what is our opinion on business, competition, and other aspects of developing and business politics.

We see ourself as the motor, inventor, developer, of the concrete submarine movement, and envision a future of multiple appliances, business opportunities, and people having a lot of fun submerged following the visions of Jules Verne.

Problem and Solution

To speak with Gorbatschov there are always things that are "part of the problem" and things that are "part of the solution".

Like for any movement there are things that are part of the movement and things that are part of the resistance.

For us anything that is part of the movement is welcome, and anything that is part of the resistance is "not desireable".

Therefore there are things that we embrace - and other things that we are not so happy with.

1) Competitors

We like competitors - we like them so much that we even are willing to give away trade secrets and cooperate to make their business much easier and sucessful. The more people enter to produce well built concrete hulls the quicker the movement will grow - so for us competitors are "part of the movement" much more than a problem. This is why we would love to help concrete submarine fabricaton projects as advisors. It is not a problem for us if somebody has success building concrete submarine hulls, on contrary the mere existence of successful concrete submarine hulls is a important contribution to the movement. On the other hand poorly built hulls, catastrophic failure is part of the resistance - so we are willing to contribute to the success of our competitors and avoid their failure.

2) Self builders

For the same reasons self builders can convert into part of the movement - as well as part of the problem. A concrete building project that fails converts into part of the problem, a successful project is part of the solution. So what we are interested in is, that self builders mount their project well, design it well, and execute it well. We encourage well mounted projects and give advice how to do so.

3) Selling Plans

Selling Plans for a concrete submarine is a bit like selling plans for appendix surgery - somebody who has the know how and experience to do it - does not need to buy any plan - and someone who needs to buy plans is better adviced "not to do it". Before you start to build a submarine you should have a lot of practical experience and a complete insight into the physics involved. Taking shortcuts by buying plans from someone else is dangerous - and can bring up failure - this is one reason why we are not selling plans.

4) Franchise Sistem

For people interested in private concrete submarines we were thinking in a kind of franchise sistem.The objective is not making money but assuring the quality of privatly built concrete submarines by maintain a flow of advice, craftsmanship, general building criteria, and friendship within the concrete submarine building community. Customers could so purchase their hull from a builder that is building according to proven standards and part of a intenational know how building community.

5) Privacy

Private submarine owners has been described as a "privacy motivated" kind of people. We understand the need for privacy, especially in the luxury yacht segment, but we also understand the need of the authorities to have knowledge about what is going on in this segment. So it is one of our codes of conduct that we do not business, nor cooperate, nor build for, nor share info, with people that are not clearly identified with a personal identification - this includes corporations. We have a clear commitment to the code that anybody who is not willing to show his face - should not be enabled to purchase a sub or get special knowledge by means of our community.

6) Discussion

As a movement that is implementing new things we get a lot of questioning - in some cases we do not enter in endless discussion processes with skeptics.

This is not because we do not have the answers - it is because too much controversial discussion only paints a picture of "problematic" to the public that in itself becomes part of the resistance.

As we are interested in increasing the movement - not the resistance - we sometimes pull out somewhat of discussion and prefer that our submarine yachts do the "talking" in the end.

In general terms we are interested in a productive discussion process. We do not pretend to convince the last hard headed skeptic that concrete submarines are a great idea...



7) Don't talk to the Umpa Lumpa segment politics.

In Science there is never a 100% certainty and prove about anything. The way how science (and with it our modern world ) is progressing is a "smart handling of conflicting theories and opinions"

First, anybody is endorsed to have any kind of theories about a thing. Then the smartest people talk (nicely and without personal attacks) about the matter and put away most of the wild theories as they simply don't make sense.

Finally there are a few "remaining theories" that could make sense. So the smart guys design a experiment to show which of the remaining theories becomes the "all side accepted one".

It happens that in practice the experiment that brings prove can never be perfect and end all discussions.

A typical example is the "theory that man developed from a "ape like ancestor" - nobody has ever run a experiment that converts a ape like ancestor into a human - and obviously nobody ever will do so, due to the difficulty of experimentation.

Also in medicine the prove that medicine X is better than Y is hard to bring as you cannot experiment on identical twins with identical genome and identical disease, in big numbers.

Geologists cannot experiment with continental plates and astronomers cannot experiment with stars.

So the best thing you can get in practice is a experiment that convinces "most of the informed audience" that a theory is right.

There is always as small part of the audience who finally will insist in a "alternative theory" for reasons whatever they might have.

If you think it trough there is not a single thing in the world where the population of the whole planet has a unified opinion about.

Right now the Umpla-Lumpa tribe in the jungle of Africa must be seated around a fire and discuss if the world is flat or square and how the sun circles around it powered by the sweat of god Umpa.

What is a relative modern phenomena is the "conspiracy theory motivated umpa-lumpa" those are people who take "all side accepted scientific theories and facts" and try to discuss it to a point where it becomes "non accepted" again.

A typical example is the anti-evolution movement. But we have also seen it in a movement that brought up the theory that NASA never landed on the moon.

What does science do with the neo umpa-lumpa segment?

You will hardly find a "serious evolution geneticist" having a heated discussion with a "creationist" about the scientific facts and proves of evolution theory.

The geneticist does just not see the necessity to bring further prove for the obvious - he just walks away and leaves the discussion for discussing between umpa-lumpas on the tribal fires because scientific forums do not discuss this anymore - science has come to a widely accepted opinion and moved on.

In the same way you will not see NASA putting a major effort into bringing more prove for the moonlanding on the table.

They just ignore the "umpa-lumpa" segment they have no need and no interest in talking to them.

If you think it trough "talking to them" would just give them "a place on the discussion table" and etiquette in science is, that you give only a "place on the discussion table" if "the argument and the participant deserves it".

This brings us back to the project and its discussion politics.

If we would join discussions of some people who have that dark conspiracy theories that our achievements never happened, that our boats have never been built and sailed. We would "validate the argument of the nut bag" and give the nut bags a "place on the discussion table" - we don't think that they deserve that place.

We have no interest in doing that.

So whenever people come up with neo umpa lumpa questions about our projects - we just move on - "don't talk to the umpa lumpa segment" is a perfect suitable etiquette - we are here to answer serious questions for serious people with a scientific open mind - not fight back conspiracy theories of "neo umpa lumpas".

In my universe, anybody who has not seen sufficient prove for our achievements and claims at ( and insists in further prove - has outed himself as a neo umpa lumpa. We do not expect that the umpa lumpa segment will contribute anything for moving our projects forward, the best umpa lumpa question handling you can bring up is - just ignore them.

What we are interested in, is talking to the non-umpa lumpa segments - people who are impressed by our past and present achievements and want to know more about it, to possibly join us in the future with support and in partnership.