ANDREW::esmythe@ATL.dnet.ge.com (Erich J Smythe) (11/30/90)
From: Erich J Smythe <"ANDREW::esmythe"@ATL.dnet.ge.com> >From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) > >In article <1990Nov21.222724.21580@cbnews.att.com>, Allan Bourdius writes: >*Not only was SSN 575 decomissioned, it was stricken from the Navy List >*and scrapped. > >*The liquid sodium reactor was removed because it didn't work very well. > >this is the official reason. some argue that it was scrapped because >Rickover didn't like it, and that it might have had great potential >if developed properly. > >mind you, i'm no expert and am not prepared to argue the point. > >richard >-- I may not be one of Rickover's greatest fans, but the legacy he left the nuclear navy was an overwhelming commitment safety. He knew that 1) any accident would have prohibited the acceptance of nuclear power in the navy, and 2) even minor accidents would have unacceptably endangered crews, requiring protective equipment for the lifetime of the vessel. He required scrupulous attention to safety, and prohibited any unnecessary risks. He rode Electric Boat hard, since he knew that any accident at the shipyard would impede the mission of the submarine. At EB, radiation training is part of your first day's indoctrination, even in my case when I was working 13 miles away from any nuclear materials. Rickover killed the liquid sodium reactor in part because he felt it represented an unacceptable safety margin. In doing so he knew he was giving up more power with less weight. The soviets, on the other hand, have developed liquid sodium reactor propulsion, and their boats are the fastest at sea. Anyone with hard (and unclassified) facts on the _nuclear_ safety records of the two navys care to comment? It would be interesting to see how the safety/speed tradeoff is going. -erich smythe esmythe@atl.dnet.ge.com (don't use reply, the return address is wrong) GE Advanced Technology Labs Moorestown, NJ
awtron@strawber.princeton.edu (Andrew Walter Tron) (12/03/90)
From: awtron@strawber.princeton.edu (Andrew Walter Tron) In article <1990Nov30.023259.10033@cbnews.att.com> ANDREW::esmythe@ATL.dnet.ge.com (Erich J Smythe) writes: > >Anyone with hard (and unclassified) facts on the _nuclear_ safety records >of the two navys care to comment? It would be interesting to see how >the safety/speed tradeoff is going. > As for the safety of Soviet nuclear subs, I have two points: 1. The defector Viktor Suvorov commented in one of his books (I beleive "The Aquarium", but I don't have it handy so I can't verify it) that that the Soviet Navy used prisoners on death row to refurbish the reactor cores of their ships, the rationale being that this job was so dangerous that it was a virtual death sentence. 2. About a month ago, my second cousin came over to Canada for a visit. He told me that he served on a conventional submarine for his military service, and that he knows of people who served on nukes and have suffered radiation poisoning as a result. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Never trust a pilot with clean hands.| Andrew Tron at Princeton University Never address a major international | awtron@phoenix.princeton.edu (Internet) terrorist as "Bubbi". | uunet!phoenix!awtron (UUCP)
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (12/04/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) |Rickover killed the liquid sodium reactor in part because he felt it |represented an unacceptable safety margin. In doing so he knew he was |giving up more power with less weight. The soviets, on the other hand, |have developed liquid sodium reactor propulsion, and their boats are the |fastest at sea. Does this explain why the Soviet subs have a very poor safety record?
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (12/05/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) *>|Rickover killed the liquid sodium reactor in part because he felt it *>|represented an unacceptable safety margin. In doing so he knew he was *>|giving up more power with less weight. The soviets, on the other hand, *>|have developed liquid sodium reactor propulsion, and their boats are the *>|fastest at sea. *>Does this explain why the Soviet subs have a very poor safety record? They do seem to have problems with submarine fires.. and a huge amount of metallic sodium in such close proximity to water would be a fairly big fire/explosion hazard, no? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !