Well here is the owner’s manual for your brand new WWII American Fleet type submarine
Thanks, Rick!
I’m reading through the distilling plant section, now.
The calculations for water use are such that each crew member should be able to have a shower twice a week.
There were two distillers on Razorback. The guy giving the tour said 900 gallons per tank; usually one was on the fritz and indeed the batteries got their share first. Two cooks and the baker were guaranteed water to wash in.
As I said, John Wayne would have trouble, but at 5’ 3" my only difficulty was reaching over the hatch to the rungs on the outside of the hull. I’d sure hate to do it if someone were shooting at me. That would probably be ample encouragement however.
What’s SL-1? sounds like an interesting story
Short answer: It was a catastrophic failure of a military reactor, which killed the crew working on it, and made for a huge, and hugely contaminated, mess.
For a longer explanation, check out the Wikipedia article.
If a torpedo is going to go off, I’d rather be sleeping on it and get blown up instantly than face then chance of being crushed to death or drowned.
The USS Croaker (WWII diesel) and the USS Nautilus (first Nuclear sub) were tour-able museums next to my hometown in CT (there were also a bunch of display model of earlier boats on the grounds). Every couple of years a school trip would head thataway, though I think the Croaker has since moved to Buffalo.
Our next door neighbor was C.O.B. on the USS Ohio (Ohio/Trident class) and took us on a tour of it.
What an amazing world of difference in space and livability! Though the Ohio was still cramped by any standard, it was palacial compared to the Croaker.
I took a tour through the USS Pampanito in SF (Balao-class, so the same as the Razorback, Lionfish, Bowfin and Ling mentioned previously). It was small, obviously, but I didn’t think it to be particularly cramped or claustrophobic. Not like I was in Das Boot or anything but it was a challenge going between compartments with a full backpack on the shoulder, a camera in one hand and the hand-held audio tour in the other.
I visited the HMS Tabard about 1963. So cramped- from what I have heard there were no major improvements between WW1 and WW 2 conditions.
-It’s the periscope for you, no, I mean, you do as the periscope. Next!
Thanks Rick.
On reccomendation from someone in another thread (…you?), I read part of the Idaho Falls book—in particular, the section of the autopsies on the unfortunate reactor crewmen. Yowie.
I toured the Pampanito, too. Not that cramped…until you realize that it had a crew of 80 people. And at one point, picked up 70 more people who’d survived a sinking.
Say, carnivorousplant, while I’m thinking of it, what kind of nuke was on the Razorback, if you recall?
They didn’t say. You firedit out a stern tube when the balloon went up and full speed ahead. Which was what, 15, 20 knots submerged in 1960?
thanks!, but you mentioned a murder/suicide theory i dont see it in the wiki article, dont tease us man!, we want the lurid details also (we **specially **want the lurid details)
Ranchoth, thanks for the link. It certainly hadn’t been me who showed you the link, since I’d never known the book existed. It’s interesting reading, and expands what I recall from my own training.
Frodo, if you read the link that Ranchoth provided you’ll get the sum total of the so-called murder/suicide theory.
Basically, what happened was that during planned maintenance the operator doing a manual pull on the control rod exceeded the maximum pull by a huge margin. Everyone I’ve known who looked at the bare bones of the incident was of the opinion that something beyond the ordinary had to have happened for that to have occurred. Unfortunately, no one I’d ever met had ever inspected or worked on an SL-1 style reactor. So there’s a dearth of first-hand knowledge about the quirks of the plant that might explain what happened.
The rumor is that the guy pulling the rod found out that one of the other guys on the crew had been sleeping with his wife. And so killed himself and the man who cuckolded him by making that huge pull.
It’s a neat, tidy theory. It explains a lot that seems otherwise inexplicable to the outside observer.
But there’s absolutely no evidence for it. All of the wives deny the possibility.
And from a strictly Macchiavellian perspective, the theory is the most palatable explanation for the nuke power enthusiasts, because it takes the cause of the disaster from the realm of design error and into operator misuse. While it’s not unreasonable to say that the plant should be constructed so that the operators can’t do something like that easily - it’s also a truism that Naval nuclear plants are all designed around an intelligent, highly trained operator, and that operator remains a vital link in the safety factor for the plants.
(Which is one reason why the story about the mess aboard the USS Hampton last year created such a shitstorm.)
Sometimes, of course, even highly trained operators will make mistakes. The plant I worked on was robust enough to handle a lot, and so none of the errors I was a witness to caused any damage. It does underline the need for reactor plant designs that are robust. SL-1 wasn’t as robust as even most of the senior people that I met in the Nuke program would have liked. Because of the design specs, I wonder whether a design could have been made, at the time, around a BWR of that power output that would have been more robust.
I mentioned the theory because it is compelling. I don’t quite believe it. (I don’t know about you - but I find it hard to imagine anyone would want to commit suicide by having a radioactive steam explosion throw a control rod through one’s body.)
I forgot to ask, Frodo is that the sort of lurid detail you were looking for?
Aren’t the doorways really low? Do they make you wear a helmet on the tour?
No helmet, and I’m apparently the perfect height for sub crew.
Things were comfy for me save for the steps in and out, it’s you John Wayne types who would have trouble.