Quote:
Originally Posted by FireDragon76
In both the case of the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, the subs were lost because the emergency system used to blow ballast wasn't up to the task of diving to those depths.
|
Both Scorpion and Thresher were operating within their submerged operating envelope, meaning the EMBT Blow system was rated for the depth they were at when their respective accidents occurred.
Quote:
|
There was freezing in the system due to the extreme pressures they were working under.
|
There was freezing in the system due to the presence of moisture in the compressed air used for the EMBT system. When the valves were opened releasing that compressed air, the pressure dropped and in turn caused the air temperature to drop. The lower temperatures caused the moisture to condense on the piping until it got cold enough to freeze, blocking the piping.
Quote:
|
The possibility cannot be denied that Rickover might have tried to downplay the safety risks of having a single nuclear reactor on a submarine as the sole means of propulsion. Soviets often would use two reactors on their early nuclear boats for this reason alone, and on some of their single-reactor designs, they would either use backup electric motors or they would use highly reactive metals to produce gas to blow out the ballast. Of course, Soviets were often trading off noise for deep diving and survivability as a result.
|
The reactor is not the sole means of propulsion. An Emergency Propulsion Motor can be clutched in to the shaft to provide emergency propulsion should the reactor shut down. Not sure where you're getting this idea of safety risks involved with a single reactor design. The USN has had ZERO reactor incidents with its single or dual reactor designs. All the reactors in the world don't matter if you have a steam line rupture and have to shut your Main Steam valves.