I don’t believe anyone provided a link to a site with detailed information on how subs are disposed of. I didn’t see anyone comment on why there were so many more Soviet accidents than American. I didn’t notice anyone make the point that Cecil may have been thinking of a Soviet sub that was scuttled 2 years before the article was written. Yes, I rehashed a few points that were already made. Excuse the fuck out me for providing a little context since my post had absolutely nothing to do with what was said in the previous post. Besides, if jerks like me didn’t recapitulate what’s been said before then the poor saps who DON’T read the previous posts would have no clue. Next time I’ll be sure to research the copyright restrictions…sheesh.
All of the above is true, however, as I had pointed out earlier, those specified locations in Wash. state are not the ONLY sites for sub decom and disposal. And yes, the reactor compartments are buried, but not all in the same place. I do not wish to risk disclosure of anything confidential, but I can assure you that the Atlantic coast has its share. There just happens to be a great number that are dismantled by Puget Sound. The Navy USED to designate certain shipyards for certain jobs, thereby in effect creating a monopoly without recourse for cost overruns. Budget reduction efforts now require competitive bidding for all military work, even between government entities. Many times, the bidding process is just a formality and the contract still goes to the intended Shipyard or Activity.
I DID bring up the fact that more Soviet subs have sunk, however, I doubt that anyone really could pinpoint any ONE cause. Certainly, poor quality of material and construction is a factor. Lack of funds can be cited as well. But I tend to be of the :dubious: opinion that the attitude of a sailor being forced to serve mucho months underwater so that their family can stand in line for toilet paper or else be banned to a lonely existence in Siberia is more likely to spawn complacency in strict adherence to official procedure, and therefore, the probability of operational error is vastly greater than for those sailors who volunteered for the honor of protecting and preserving the freedom of their loved ones.
God Bless America! 
p.s. The onboard Smirnoff stores probably have nothing to do with it either. :wally
doesn’t the enterprise have 8?
I don’t think so. Maybe the Starship Enterprise…:rolleyes:
I checked the navy’s web site http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html
and they seem to feel that it does
:smack: I STAND CORRECTED!!! :eek:
I prefer my crow medium-rare, 
thank you. :rolleyes:
p.s. The website that you so graciously offered confirms that the Enterprise IS the only one like that…without any other conventional power plants. All of the other NUCLEAR Carriers have 2 Reactors and 4 shafts.
:smack: I STAND CORRECTED!!! :eek:
I prefer my crow medium-rare, thank you. :rolleyes:
p.s. The website that you so graciously offered confirms that the Enterprise IS the only one like that…without any other conventional power plants. All of the other NUCLEAR Carriers have 2 Reactors and 4 shafts.
i’m not one whos in the navy but my brother was and i get the impression that the 8 reactors are a source of pride for the sailors on the enterprise like as i understand it the sailors on the carl vincen do because it is slightly longer then the others (i think there is a flag pole on the front end)
As a former carrier and submarine designer, I’ll suggest that the main thing the Enterprise sailors should be proud of is that the doggone thing still runs after 40+ years. The 8 reactor design is something of a nightmare and was implemented only for expedience due to limitations at the time.
When the carrier was designed, the only proven naval nuclear power plant was the Nautilus submarine plant. However, it is very small and, it turned out, to exceed the performance of existing oil powered carriers, about 8 of these little reactors were needed. Conveniently, the old carrier being used as the design basis for the Enterprise (the Forrestal, I think) had 8 boilers, each pair feeding a turbine to turn the 4 screws, therefore giving redundancy without cross connecting boilers. It was easy to preserve this basic layout with the 8 reactor design.
When the Nimitz class was designed, larger reactors were developed to allow a much more efficient design with two reactors. A single large reactor could be designed, but two are preferred to minimize the loss of power potential.
In land reactors, one fail-safe feature is that the control rods will drop into the core by gravity. If disaster strikes and a sub or ship sinks, you can’t be sure it will settle in the normal position, so gravity can’t be used. So how is a runaway reaction prevented? Are springs used to return the rods to the core?
The basis for the Enterprise reactor plant was not the Nautilus reactor plant, but a new design.
The United States did use a liquid metal reator plant on USS Seawolf. Supposedly, ADM Rickover never slept a night until USS Seawolf was converted to the S2W (Nautilus) PWR plant.
On land reactors, some designs (GE Boiling Water Reactors) insert the control rods from the bottom and rely on hydraulic pressure or mechanical means. All reactors have the optional capability to shut down the reaction by chemical (i.e. boron or other neutron absorber) injection.
It was used in a submarine wasn’t it? My recollection was the core was essentially identical to a submarine core, but it may have been S5W or something.
Ken,
A2W (Enterprise) was not used in a submarine. Some of the design experience was used in the design of S5W. S5W was the plant for the 605/637 SSN’s and the 641 SSBN’s. Some of the A2W deisgn experience was used in A4W (Nimitz-class), as well. Nice rejoinder on the BWR plant. Since the steam lines sit at the top of the vessel on a BWR plant, you have to put the rods in from a different direction.
Rowrrbazzle,
Regarding the fail-safe protection and manipulation of the control rods in a plant failure scenario, just know that the plant designs support containment and shut-down. How that happens isn’t appropriately discussed on a message board.
BTN
In Eastern Canada, into the late 1960s there was a brewery that was very popular with working folks. The brewing company was called Dow (no relation to the chemical company or the glass-makers). Their ad slogan was “Wouldn’t a Dow go good now?” There was a group of men who were heavy drinkers of the product, and they all died of a cancer. The medical researchers noticed this, and did further analysis. It turned out that Dow (presumeably along with other brewers) was adding Cobalt to the beer - it helped to create and keep a good head, or so it was said. <rhyme intentional -grin>.
The resultant scandal and lawsuits closed down the company.
A news item a year or so ago, said that the hulls of Russian subs were made of titanium, and there was a US salvage firm (Tillamuck Oregon location?) that was salvaging the metal. The main use - golf clubs!
Some CERTAIN boats did have titanium hulls. The Russians had the resources to afford it. Problem with titanium (besides cost) is it gets brittle over time from being compressed at depths.