That does appear to be the case… The fellows always said that Bainbridge was so close we wouldn’t even know the difference if we were its #2 plant, and that Longbeach’s steam plant was identical in layout but larger (e.g. BF-5 designates the same valve in both plants, but there’s more elbow room around it).
Another D1Git chiming in. I qualified as an EOOW in class 9107. I then had to forget everything I’d learned when I reported to my sub with an S6G plant. Actually, everything except the core–both D1G and my sub’s S6G plant had D2W cores.
Mangetout, agreed with your point, and I have no doubt in my mind that such security lapses occur even today. However, nobody should be able to wander into secure areas nowadays, as they should be physically locked. Should be. We are still finding problem areas in our inspections that need to be corrected. The biggest challenge we face in implementing these new regulations is changing the way ship personnel think. We’re trying to break bad habits, and breed good ones. A tall order, as you know from experience. We need to emphasize that security is everyone’s job, not just the security chief or deck officers. We’re trying to breed the mind set that if someone on the hotel staff sees someone out of place strolling down I-95, they should be challenged - it is their job. Just like safety.
A tall order, indeed.
Well, we have to start somewhere, and we’re making some progress.
Huh? Are you saying that GE plants had Westinghouse cores? Or just that the basic design of the GE and Westinghouse cores were the same?
AIUI, yes, that’s exactly what happened. Basically, the difference (in very general terms is that a D2G core was slightly more efficient, and had a more even fuel burn profile over core life, while a D2W core had more fuel, and thus a longer core lifetime, at the cost of some of the improved efficiency of the D2G core. We started to get trained on the D2W cores when we were about to be refueled before the Peace Dividend meant that it was time to kill the nuc cruisers.
(If I sound bitter, it’s because I am. I don’t believe that the nuc cruisers were better ships than the more modern Aegis ships, however, their ability to go anywhere on a loooong logisitical tail without need for refueling had tactical and strategic implications beyond mere economic costs. Esp. since the cores were already purchased. Hell’s Bells, they scrapped SoCar after she was refueled. Just one nuc cruiser in the fleet in 2000 would have given the Navy a choice of sending a ship other than the Cole to the Persian Gulf. Which would have meant no opportunity to bomb a US ship in Aden harbor.)
Imagine the Achille Lauro, only with uranium. Why, every cruise ship would need a military consort just to keep the terrorists at bay. I’m guessing you don’t want any ship with fissile material on board unless it can shoot back in a major way.
At the risk of providing ideas to our terrorist overlords, you don’t need uranium to make a ship into an improvised weapon of devastating potential.
Allow me to introduce the SS Mont-Blanc, and the SS Grand Camp.
Chiming in on the original topic… one more reason is that the market seems to prefer cruises around 7 days long, not 700 days. That’s one more reason they don’t need nuclear.
Civilian use of nuclear power is overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Military use of nuclear power is overseen by the Department of Energy.
I doubt the US Navy would still have nuclear propulsion if they’d ended up under the NRC when the AEC split.
I’d look into what reasons were given when the CGN program was killed, and see what reasons are given for continuing the CVN and SSN/SSBN/SSGN programs. I’m willing to bet even if there weren’t excessive regulatory concerns, it still wouldn’t make very much sense over more conventional power plants.
Well, it would be impossible to blow up a nuclear-powered vessel with what’s in the reactor, as is. But one could steal the fuel for use in a “dirty bomb”, or maybe for reprocessing into a nuclear bomb of some sort if the fuel were sufficiently refined. I suppose one could sabotage the reactor in a major port, maybe triggering an explosion and producing lots of fallout.
Actually, that’s pretty damned unlikely. For one thing, the bolts holding the reactor vessel shut are torqued on the order of 100,000 ft-lbs force. Not exactly something you can open with any man portable equipment.
And carrying a fuel cell is a death sentence. We’re talking thousands of rads, or hundreds of grays per hour. When a piece of a spent fuel rod at a decommed reactor plant in California turned up administratively missing last year it was pointed out that no one could serriptitiously walk off with it, without getting themselves kiled.
A nation state could steal such a ship for the refined fuel to reprocess but anyone with fewer resources than that, would be SOL on that regard.
Which doesn’t mean that anyone wants a reactor running around unprotected where someone might try, whether they could use it or not.
BTW, I’ve opened a thread in IMHO for some of the nuc cruiser type questions that this thread has generated. And answer to 1010011010’s last post is there as the OP.
Just to follow up on the Savannah, I saw it when it was still open to the public at Patriot’s Point near Charleston, South Carolina. My wife and I honeymooned on the Isle of Palms and we went aboard the Savannah as well as the Yorktown and some of the other ships on display at Patriot’s Point.
I remember it seeming a lot smaller than it looks in the photo linked earlier in the thread. Of course, I had just come off a pocket carrier (the aforementioned Yorktown) at the same dock. Given its size and the identity complex inherent in trying to be both a passenger ship and a cargo ship, I couldn’t figure out how they expected to make any money off of it. It makes sense that it was actually a subsidized, demonstration project that was never meant to be profitable. It was a pretty ship though. I have some rather nice pictures of the newly minted Mrs. Voluble strutting her stuff about its decks… but that is a subject for an entirely different board. 