From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #51 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 29 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 051 In this issue: RE: Recent Sub info... Re: Recent Sub info... Report on failed mail Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #50 Navy News Re: Recent Sub info... See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Michael Keller Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:28:22 +0100 Subject: RE: Recent Sub info... Thresher went down in '63, Scorpion in '68. From my local fishwrap it appears that USN has just declassified everything they know about the loss of both subs. It's likely that Jane's Defence Weekly will have something to say about this. One of the University libraries where I'm at has a subscription to JDW and I'm planning on using it to try to find out what JDW has to say about this. Since this is rather off the charter of this list, those with an opinion either way as to whether they would or would not like to see a summary of what JDW has to say should send me private e-mail as to whether or not they would like to see a summary posted to this list. If something in JDW does appear at my library, it will probably be at least two or three weeks from now, so, be patient. Cheers, Paul Keller pkeller@engin.umich.edu ------------------------------ From: megazone@WPI.EDU (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Recent Sub info... Once upon a time Jamie Aycock shaped the electrons to say... >lost approx. the same time in the Atlantic off of New England on "routine >maneuvers".. Can someone fill in the blanks for me? How does a sub sink on >routine maneuvers? That would be the USS Thresher, which was the name ship of the class. It was changed to Permit (I hope I recalled that right) class after the sinking. It was on tests after a major refit and sank while on depth trials. The wreck is very well recorded, the Trieste and/or Alvin took many photos of the scene. There are several theories about the sinking, the most common I've seen are: One of the cooling water pipe welds (the sea water inlets for the heat exchanger) was faulty and ruptured on the depth trials. The flash flooding of the engine room scrammed the reactor. That left the ship without full power, at depth, and rapidly taking on water. They couldn't blow enough ballast to make up for the incoming water and the Thresher sank below crushing depth. Another I've heard is that the compressed air taken on at the dock before the trials had too much moisture. After the rupture they tried an emergency blow, but the expansion of the gas cooled it enough to freeze the water out onto the airvalves, clogging them. Does anyone have the Navy report? (Maybe this should go to sci.military....) - -- megazone@wpi.wpi.edu megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.schunix.dmc.com "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: WPI anime FTP site, 130.215.24.1 /anime, the anime FanFic archive; rec.arts.anime.stories, questions to anime-dojinshi-request@wpi.wpi.edu GTW d-- -p+ c++(++++) l u+ e+ m+(*)@ s++/+ !n h- f+ !g w+ t+@ r+@ y+(*) ------------------------------ From: nmail-daemon@xanadu.enet.dec.com Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 10:19:42 EDT Subject: Report on failed mail Errors were detected when processing your mail message which was entered at 28-OCT-1993 10:24 From: US2RMC::"skunk-works-digest@ecn.purdue.edu" To: skunk-works-digest@ecn.purdue.edu Subj: Skunk Works Digest V4 #50 - ---------------- The following error message was returned whilst sending to address XANADU::MRGATE::ADD::XANADU::AM::CUMMINGS %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node MRGATE -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown This is a hard error. No more attempts to send to this address will be made. - ---------------- The text of your failed mail message follows: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 28 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 050 In this issue: Re: Not all the activity is at Beale... Re>Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #47 Recent Sub info... RE: Recent Sub info... See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Not all the activity is at Beale... The "other airport" at White Sands is probably Northrup Field, where the Space Shuttle landed on its third flight. It greatly predates Space Harbor. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com - ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dent Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 15:57:53 -0800 Subject: Re>Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #47 Sean Sullivan stated that: >>Once upon a time Mary Shafer shaped the electrons to say... >>>about a month now. Since they're always telling us that these are just >>>regular aircraft with just (highly trained) regular pilots doing regualr >>>maneuvers, I can't understand why they haven't replaced the lead by now. >(stuff deleted) >> >>They may be normal aircraft, and are apart from smoke systems, and they >>are normal, albeit hight experienced, pilots flying normal manuevers. >I know I'm being really picky here but I was under the impression that the >Thunderbirds also used a modified breather element in the oil tank of their >engines (F100-PW-220s) in order to allow for extended inverted flight time. I'm not sure which generation of F-16 aircraft the Thunderbirds are using, but if they are like the Blue Angels, the aircraft are one step from the boneyard. The Blues commonly use aircraft that are no longer flight certified for carrier landings and are therefore not useful for normal military flight ops. The combat-related electronic equipment is pulled for re-use on still operational aircraft as spares and the planes are relegated to training purposes, the Blues, or the boneyard. The Blues of course get first choice on the planes heading for retirement. It seems to me that the engines are also different and the refueling probes are removed for weight savings. The policy a few years back for long distance flights was to carry fuel tanks. That policy was changed in 1990. I don't know if it has since changed back. Since the F/A-18s have such short legs, they had to refuel more often. The wingtip Sidewinderlaunchers used to be old, but still serviceable models that had been given to the Blues. I've heard since then that the launchers are now welded shut, filled with cement for ballast and obviously no longer useable. I visited their training base at Pensacola, Florida in '90. >Did anyone see the recent NATO Science and Society newsletter that suggested >that Lockheed's Skunk Works will serve as the new research paradigm for >US research policy? I deleted my copy by mistake. How can I subscribe to this newsletter? - - -Clarence Dent - - ------------------------- "I still maintain that nothing is as easy as it should be-cd" - ------------------------------ From: Jamie Aycock Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 22:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Recent Sub info... Just a little question regarding the recent revalations about sub sinkings in the Atlantic.. The navy reported the details of the Scorpions sinking, but there was a little blurb to the extent of saying there was another sub lost approx. the same time in the Atlantic off of New England on "routine maneuvers".. Can someone fill in the blanks for me? How does a sub sink on routine maneuvers? (I know, not quite on topic, but I hope y'all let it fly in here.." :) _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ Jamie Aycock _/ _/_/_/_/ jaycock@cap.gwu.edu _/ _/ _/ _/ "Yeah, we have colds. Probably like ammonia _/_/_/ _/ _/ or something" - Beavis - ------------------------------ From: cimshop!KELLEHER%DISNEY@uunet.UU.NET Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 21:43:43 PDT Subject: RE: Recent Sub info... The only other US nuke to ever have sunk in the open seas was the USS Thresher, another attack boat. The brand new Thresher went down while undergoing sea trials off the New England coast and was lost with all hands. The sinking of the Thresher was much more widely publicized than the Scorpion, and the board of inquiry ended up being held amidst a great deal of press coverage. The wreckage was well photographed by the submersible Trieste. Suppositions about the cause of the sinking have been generally focused on some rather minor mechanical failure. The Thresher had been exercising rapid dives and surface operations, so even a small error could be magnified tremendously. The current theory is that an external pipe fitting may have ruptured permitting seawater to directly enter the submarine under such pressure that the crew was unable to respond in a timely manner to seal the compartment. One of the older theories (and the one I believe) was that a hydraulic fitting for one of the fairwater planes ruptured while the submarine was at high speed deep maneuvers. This caused one of the planes to shift position with a resultant corkscrew effect on the ship. Imagine moving at full speed, approaching maximum operational/test depth, and the boat suddenly starts a 360 degree roll! The result was the movement of the boat to below crush depth with subsequent implosion. The Thresher, however, was not quite at the same time as the Scorpion. It preceded the Scorpion by about a decade. Despite the two tragic losses, the general safety of the US nuclear submarine program has remained exceptionally high. John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com (former Capt., USAF Imagery Intel) - ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #50 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). % ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ====== % Received: by us2rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA16679; Thu, 28 Oct 93 05:47:10 -0400 % Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA28789; Thu, 28 Oct 93 02:49:31 -0700 % Received: by harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA18655; Thu, 28 Oct 93 03:22:08 -050 % Received: by harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA18645; Thu, 28 Oct 93 03:22:05 -050 % Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 03:22:05 -0500 % Message-Id: <9310280822.AA18645@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu> % From: skunk-works-digest-owner@ecn.purdue.edu % To: skunk-works-digest@ecn.purdue.edu % Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #50 % Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@ecn.purdue.edu % Sender: skunk-works-digest-owner@ecn.purdue.edu % Precedence: bulk ------------------------------ From: jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:41:21 -0600 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #50 At 3.22 AM 10.28.93 -0500, skunk-works-digest-owner@ecn.purdue.edu wrote: > Suppositions about the cause of the sinking have been generally focused on >some rather minor mechanical failure. The theory that I recall was that one of the hand-wheel valves was marked backwards... > The Thresher, however, was not quite at the same time as the Scorpion. April 10, 1963 There was an article in National Geographic with pictures taken from the Trieste. bcnu - G (John Gladu) .Opinions are just that. Systems Support Center -- Baylor College of Medicine INTERNET: jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu | VOICE: (713)798-7370 US MAIL: One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas 77030 "Vanna, I'd like to buy a diphthong." ------------------------------ From: ptbast@ivy.WPI.EDU (Peter F Bastien) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 12:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Navy News This is what was released about the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion =========================================================== From navnews@tecnet2.jcte.jcs.mil - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Navy News Service - NAVNEWS BY EMAIL - navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil - ------------------------------------------------------------------ NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 26 OCT 93 - NAVNEWS 072/93 Editor's Note This Navy News Service message follows NAVNEWS 071/93, DTG 212300Z Oct 93. NAVNEWS 072/93 is being released as a means of providing more timely information to the fleet; we will release news when it is news. -USN- NNS840. Navy Releases Reports on Loss of Scorpion and Thresher NNS841. Senate Releases Active-Duty Promotions NNS842. Navy Manpower Plan Update -- Navy Times Clarification -USN- NNS840. Navy Releases Reports on Loss of Scorpion and Thresher WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The U.S. Navy released previously classified reports Oct. 26 on the Court of Inquiry findings into the loss of the nuclear-powered submarines USS Thresher (SSN 593) in 1963 and USS Scorpion (SSN 589) in 1968. The reports also contained environmental assessments that were produced after four expeditions to each site. A changed world security environment permitted the U.S. Navy to release the information to allay concerns about its sunken nuclear submarines, and to provide long-term environmental data on the impact of the incidents on the world's oceans. After more than 18 years of extensive monitoring at both sites, the investigations concluded that there has been no significant environmental impact or radiological hazard as a result of the sunken submarines. Data from these reports will also assist the scientific community studying radioactive materials lost in the deep oceans, including the status of several Soviet submarines lost at sea. USS Thresher sank April 10, 1963, about 100 miles east of Cape Cod in 8,500 feet of water. The submarine was conducting scheduled sea trials at the time of the incident. A total of 129 men were killed (13 officers, 99 enlisted and 17 shipyard workers). The Board of Inquiry which investigated the accident found that in all probability the cause was an initial flooding casualty in the engine room, compounded by the loss of reactor power. These casualties were coupled with a less than complete "emergency blow" of the submarine's ballast tanks. USS Scorpion sank May 22, 1968, while returning to homeport from a deployment to the Mediterranean Sea. The submarine is located 400 miles southwest of the Azores in 10,000 feet of water. A total of 99 men (12 officers and 87 enlisted personnel) were lost in the incident. Based upon acoustic readings, the ship's routine preparations for entering the Norfolk Navy Yard for scheduled docking, and the condition of the hull/sail (once discovered), the investigations concluded that the most probable cause for the sinking would be that one of USS Scorpion's own Mark 37 torpedoes engaged the submarine after it had been ejected following a "hot run" in the torpedo tube. Over the past 40 years, the Navy's nuclear-powered ships have steamed more than 95 million nautical miles and operated the equivalent of over 4,200 reactor-years without a single reactor accident resulting in the release of radioactivity with a significant impact on the environment. The use of nuclear propulsion in today's modern submarines and ships continues to provide the Navy with unmatched flexibility and unlimited capabilities. -USN- [the rest was about other topics] ------------------------------ From: agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 15:30:21 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: Recent Sub info... |> There are several theories about the sinking, the most common I've seen |> are: |> One of the cooling water pipe welds (the sea water inlets for the heat |> exchanger) was faulty and ruptured on the depth trials. The flash flooding |> of the engine room scrammed the reactor. That left the ship without full |> power, at depth, and rapidly taking on water. They couldn't blow enough |> ballast to make up for the incoming water and the Thresher sank below |> crushing depth. |> |> Another I've heard is that the compressed air taken on at the dock before |> the trials had too much moisture. After the rupture they tried an emergency |> blow, but the expansion of the gas cooled it enough to freeze the water out |> onto the airvalves, clogging them. |> |> Does anyone have the Navy report? According to our local paper which had a column on the Scorpion and the Thresher yesterday or the day before, the official Navy version is the first one you mentioned, that a faulty exterior weld ruptured. Speculation aside, that is probably the only explanation we will ever get. - -- ______ _____________ ______________________ ______ /\####/\ / / / / /\####/\ / \##/ \ /_______ / / _ ______ / / \##/ \ /____\/____\ / / / / \ \ / / /____\/____\ \####/\####/ / /____\ \_/ / / /_______ \####/\####/ \##/ \##/ / / / / \##/ \##/ \/____\/ /_____________________/ /____________/ \/____\/ agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #51 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).