A Giant Ball Will Help This Man Survive a Year on an Iceberg
Key topics
As one man prepares to spend a year on an iceberg sheltered in a giant ball, commenters are weighing in on the capsule's promised "uncrushable" design, with some skeptics drawing parallels to the Titanic's ill-fated "unsinkable" claims. While some defend the capsule's sea-worthiness, others point out that the forces involved in icebergs colliding are vastly different from those at sea, and that even the sturdiest materials might not withstand the pressure. The discussion takes a tangent as commenters commiserate about the frustrations of navigating the article's website, which appears to be plagued by annoying design quirks and spammy tactics. Amidst the debate, a few commenters propose practical solutions, such as using carbon fiber to build the capsule.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
4h
Peak period
20
6-12h
Avg / period
6.5
Based on 52 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 13, 2025 at 10:25 AM EST
23 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 13, 2025 at 2:34 PM EST
4h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
20 comments in 6-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 15, 2025 at 3:45 PM EST
21 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
The first part is probably true. The second part is folly. "Remember the Titanic".
Advertising this capsule as uncrushable is a commensurate gamble.
I think it was on the youtubes I was watching a story about how they built that thing and it was <spoiler alert> not really fit for purpose. I mean, no big surprise in hindsight.
That makes it inherently bad at holding pressure from outside in a submarine and good at holding pressure inside a spaceship or airplane.
Still completely wrong about that, obv.
[0] Since so many magazines and newspapers are going out of business and just selling their domains to dogshit spam factories for the incredible Page Rank they have.
It used to be great, then turned into kind of an airport magazine (you know, the kind you'll read on the plane but not subscribe to), and after it got bought out it's garbage now (see above: I mean this literally). Personally, I'm extra miffed that they took Trail Running magazine with them.
Why do I continue to subscribe? Because along with Outside magazine they (I forget who "they" are, exactly) bought the Gaia GPS app which I use extensively. So I'm basically buying the Gaia subscription and get a shitty print magazine thrown in for free (oh, yeah, and access to their online edition, which redefines "garbage". It's awful, I could spend pages on the topic.)
And, overall, it seems incredibly pointless! If you have a survival ball like this, why not just let it float? Why put it on a dangerously unstable surface?
I think that's the whole point? No "normal" person would think doing this is a good idea -- he wants the thrill of the ride with a minimum of recklessness.
You couldn't pay me enough to do this.
My best guess is that it will be integrated in the center tube. Buoyancy ensures the center of the ball is usually above water, and one end of the tube would always be above water.
This sounds like something Jules Verne could have written. In fact I seem to remember this exact plot device in a book a read when I was a teenager, but the name escapes me.
I read that book as well in my early teen years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGSyw2dHhrc
The "nanosensors" doesn't sound likely at all. If I were to tasked to create a "iceberg sudden flip detector" I would break the problem into two parts. Part 1 is monitoring the shape of the iceberg as it is changing. Part 2 is modelling how stable the iceberg is given the measured shape. Both sounds like a wicked hard problem even if you have a large team of engineers.
For the first maybe you could do periodic ultrasounds from the inside out. Embeding an array of accustic transducers and an array of microphones in the ice and then using signal processing black magic to pick out the shape of the echo you get back from the ice-ocean surface. Or just hang around with a ship mounted side scanning sonar and monitor the iceberg from the outside.
The second one should be a "simple" monte carlo simulation. But to validate it you would need data recorded from the evolution of many icebergs. Which I suspect would be expensive and lengthy to obtain.
> In 2017 I crossed the Vatnajokull, the largest glacier in Europe (Iceland) with skis and a sled in 15 days.
Assuming they ever ship any, and to him. This story may just be their marketing to try to get there, anyway.
But I'm also wondering about where fresh water is coming from and where waste products go. It talks about a water storage bladder/tank, but surely that's intended for weeks max, not a year?
[1] https://survival-capsule.com/Products.html
The center of mass of the iceberg is above the center of buoyancy 100% of the time. What prevents the flip is a flat base which hopefully counters the small tilts by moving the center of buoyancy in the same direction as the center of mass.
Bullshit.