It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fire on russian nuke sub.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
rt.com...




A fire onboard a strategic nuclear submarine has been brought under control by emergency workers. The blaze started when a fire broke out in a dockyard in northern Russia. Eleven fire crews, a helicopter and a boat managed to put the fire out.
Authorities say that the wooden scaffold around the submarine caught fire, which then spread to the outer skin of the vessel. However they have ruled out the possibility of the fire getting inside the submarine.
Russia’s Emergency Ministry confirmed that the scaffold caught fire as a result of procedural violations during repair works. They also say that radiation levels are normal at the moment and there is no threat of radioactive contamination in the area.
“Ahead of putting the submarine in for scheduled repairs, the reactor was shut down, and right now is in a secure condition,” a spokesperson for Russia’s Ministry of Defense said.
No casualties have been reported. A crew of military prosecutors is working at the scene investigating the cause of the fire.
The nuclear submarine “Yekaterinburg,” built in 1984, was undergoing repairs at a dock in Murmansk Region and was raised from the water in a dry dock at the moment that the fire broke out.


hypothetically, if the fire could reach the reactor, what would the consequences be?




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devern
hypothetically, if the fire could reach the reactor, what would the consequences be?


Possible MORE contanimation of the sea life of EA*



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Devern
 


Sounds like the fire was all outside and they are in the yard with the reactor all shut down. I would worry about all the paint being burned off and the hull rusting away to expose the reactor. Otherwise, no problem.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Devern
 


there are some serious pressure bulkheads between the reactor room and the adjoining compartments. hulls are around 50mm/75mm thickness so i wouldn't worry too much regarding the spread of flame and damage to reactor/exchanger.
f

edit on 29-12-2011 by fakedirt because: d



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Devern
 


Russian subs are coated in a rubber-like substance, Much like any other modern day sub.

Think about it though. Close the hatches and the fire will not get inside...it's not made of wood. It may raise the temp inside, but not to critical levels.

And it is surrounded by water.

But a fire inside a sub is a serious matter.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Devern
 
The materials used on the outer surfaces of these subs are highly flamable. They are used to reduce sonar echos, improve velocity, and reduce corrosion. They are not really intented as a flame retardant. If it had been a serious enough fire to threaten the reactor they would have flooded the dock. Soviets have been known to use sodium based reactor coolants, which means they design with greater operating temperatures in mind than US boats. I doubt the sub was in any danger.

What I would be more concerned about now is why they had a fire at all. Ordenance has a tendancy to go missing when these things happen.

AX
FTNWO



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Nice pictures of the old Delta Class ssbn. I didn't think that these were still in service.
The Russians use the same rubberized coating that we do. Technical name is Anechoic tiles. Designed to absorb active sonar signals, and to reduce noise that is gernerated from inside the boat, like deck popping, mechanical noises, etc... It is also very good covering that limits flow noises across the hull when the submerged and on patrol. Very Flamable!

There would be no danger to the reactor or anything inside the boat, since the pressure hull is atleast 3 to 4 inches thick of high yield steel.

If they were unable to put the fire out by conventional means, they would have flooded the dry dock.

AX is also correct about the reactor coolant being a liquid sodium. They do run hotter and produce more power that our conventional water cooled reactors. They do also give off more radiation. If I remember correctly, the soviets also experimented with Lead Bismuth cooled reactors, which was a heavy high temp liquified metal. Those boats were death traps due to the radiation.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaExray
reply to post by Devern
 
The materials used on the outer surfaces of these subs are highly flamable. They are used to reduce sonar echos, improve velocity, and reduce corrosion. They are not really intented as a flame retardant. If it had been a serious enough fire to threaten the reactor they would have flooded the dock. Soviets have been known to use sodium based reactor coolants, which means they design with greater operating temperatures in mind than US boats. I doubt the sub was in any danger.

What I would be more concerned about now is why they had a fire at all. Ordenance has a tendancy to go missing when these things happen.

AX
FTNWO



Liquid sodium reactors were experimented with possibly by the UK, but I know as a fact by the US. One reason, on paper liquid sodium was so interesting is it can operate at much higher temperatures, and higher pressures for a given size as opposed to pressurized water reactors. Hence greater power. One big problem. As with graphite modulated reactors which Chernobyl was by the way, they both have a notorious reputation of a reaction "getting away from you". Much worse liquid sodium like graphite can not be cooled with water as water if it comes in contact with such will react very violently. Pressure would rise exponentially and if thats not enough will usually explode. Not in a nuclear way, just in a conventional sense that can and will usually blow apart the reactor vessel and if in a sub will fracture the hull. If not, though it's almost impossible not to you still will scatter super-radioactive fuel, rods and the very "hot" vessel parts itself one way or the other. Real bad news.

The west due to just common sense abandoned the use of these reactors except for small, land based research reactors. For us, there is no way we would be crazy enough to put one in a ship or sub. The only way to put a fire out in a reactor would be to smother it with sand or something like that. Thats how they tried to fight the fire at Chernobyl, then entombed it in concrete. But it seems the fire was outside the sub, on or in the dock so, never mind...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
As it has been stated theres no way the fire could reach the reactor. Shielding would stop any fire that got close to the reactor.

As for liquid sodium coolant/moderators..yes bad idea. Way more radioactive and not inherently stable as water moderated reactors. I also believe they use boiling water reactors and not pressurized water reactors correct? The US toyed with the idea of liquid sodium cooled reactors, i think it was the skipjack..but not entirely sure.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Fire probably isn't going to spread directly into the submarine, but heat conducted through the hull could make life rather interesting, and possibly cause fires inside.

The reactor (as has been mentioned before) is probably not an issue, nor are the sub's weapons. The biggest issue for the sub is probably differential heating causing her plating to warp. She could be a total write-off even if she doesn't look heavily damaged. It's going to take a hull survey to know for certain.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The dry dock would only be flooded if it was a last ditch effort and things were getting out of control.

This is a judgement call as we do not know of there are hull; cuts made in the hull to admit or remove equipment.

What would be more critical is if the fire spread to support equipment located in the dry dock. Equipment necessary for the functioning or testing of systems in the boat. For example critical hose connections attached to the boat bringing on water or electricity...if they were damaged by fire it may be a problem for a multitude of onboard systems..including the reactor..

What is of interest to me is that the Russians are using wooden staging which is not fire retardant. I have seen heavy timbers and staging boards which are specially treated with a fire retardant chemical. They are expensive but greatly reduce the likely hood of a fire. Fire is just as dangerous on or around a submarine at port or in a dry dock as out at sea...even on a surface ship.

Nonetheless...the article makes me ask what these people are doing not using fire retardant staging timbers.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Turns out the fire was inside the sub and lasted for a least a day...

..with the 16 Sineva missiles still onboard...not to mention the 2 reactors with a combined 140 kilo's of U-235.

rt.com...

Cosmic..
edit on 14-2-2012 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I cannot believe that they put a Boomer in drydock with out taking off all of the ordinance.

What were these idiots thinking?????

Never mind, they obviously werent.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join