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.

 

6 injured as fire still burns aboard nuclear-powered USS Miami

page: 3
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
fire still burning?
yes/no,,,under control,,for how long?,,
cause maybe that if it is,,u know still burning,,,might want to give those RUSSIAN firefighters a ,,
hey how u doing,,by the way,,,




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it... how wrong you are en.wikipedia.org...

ooh i found all these as well ... which the americans named after the english cities


en.wikipedia.org...

We had a fire on that day by the docks funny enough ...



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


inhale deeply my friend.. i hear radioactive particles are great for the lungs



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerdyclutzyblonde


I don't know much about this type of vessel. The fact that it's a nuke has me a bit nervous.

Anyone out there with knowledge if this is a major nuclear hazard???

I know it's silly question. Bu. t if anyone could inform - that wpuld be fantastic!

Thank you!



www.seacoastonline.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


The Miami is a Los Angeles Class or 688 class attack sub that is equipped with Tomahawk cruise missles. She has the VLS tubes in the bow for deployment of the Tomahawks as well as standard horizontal torpedo tubes that can launch either torpedoes or Tomahawk CM's. She is number 5 of the new design 688's that does have the VLS's in the bow. The forward compartment where the fire took place could be the missile launch control compartment however seeing that she was in port for upgrades and maintenance I highly doubt that there was any armament, conventional or nuclear on board.

The nuclear reactor is not located in the area of the fire so there should be no risk of contamination leakage. 755 was the first sub I ever served on and I had several mission deployments from her during my active years. I used to love exiting through the DDS system or the ASD system but sadly ASD systems are no longer used since 06. Brings back a lot of memories for me seeing images of her on the news.

I'm just really thankful this didn't happen at sea, a sub fire is about the most horrifying thing a sailor can experience at sea.
edit on 24-5-2012 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
"The shipyard says the sub's reactor wasn't operating at the time of Wednesday evening's fire and wasn't affected."

That is pandering to the public! You can't 'turn off' a reactor. We should have learnt that by now.

This fire should have been out a lot quicker than it has been. I would suggest that major work is underway. All you have to do in a fire type SHTF scenario in a sub is to close all the hatches and wait for the O2 to run out. Why that has not happened yet is interesting. Even if the hull was open, a tarp covering the opening would be enough.

I am certainly not an expert but this is a sub!

P


They can shut down the small reactor on navy subs. It's not like the large power station ones at all. If they thought there was any danger, they could scram the reactor which would majorly disable it.

They probably have a lot of $ involved and aren't wanting to do anything (like fill it full of water or seal it up & let it burn out) that will mess with their investment. If it is under control but not out, they will proceed cautiously.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 





She has the VLS tubes...

Yep, Truly Sailor: "She", but not "it"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
At least I am not a dumb ass.


Yes, you are.


Originally posted by pheonix358
The tarp needs to be kept wet. That is how you put out a fire in a pot on the stove. Wet the tea towel, trow it over the pot, smothers fire.


Geez. Yeah, a burning sub is the same as a freakin' burning pot on the stove. Just get a giant tea towel.


Originally posted by pheonix358
The fire has been burning for what 6 hours. There is not that much air in a sub. I am not an expert...


We know you're not. You were already schooled on that.


Originally posted by pheonix358
.... but you sir are an offensive little drip under pressure!


Why, for calling you out on a dumb idea that would have gotten sailors killed?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Nuclear Reactors aboard US Naval Vessels are the safest reactor design in the world. There has never once been an accident with a Nuclear reactor aboard a ship or sub, they are that safe. Far safer than any reactor operating in any nuclear plant in the world.

Where do you people get this stuff from?

The reactors in US Navel Vessels are not intrinsically safe and the real details of them can not be found on the internet. The only way I can conceive that they are safer than power generation reactors is they are smaller. A large land based reactor might be 4500 megawatts (thermal) whereas the Los Angeles class sub has a 150 megawatt (thermal) reactor. That's a power difference of 30. A 4500 megawatt thermal power reactor will cost about as much as four entire nuclear attack submarines. On the other hand, naval reactors use weapons grade uranium.

They are pressurized water reactors, which are the most common power generation reactor - so they are based off the same design, which is actually a bad thing, because the needs of a nuclear submarine and electricity generation are different. Compactness and high power density doesn't matter for power generation, plus water in many ways is a bad coolant. To stay a liquid it has to be kept under very high pressure, if that pressure is lost then the water will boil away. Power reactors are pretty much naval reactors scaled up by a factor of 30, using different fuel.

The reactors generate fission products in the same way land based reactors do, so they will still generate a lot of decay heat even after shut down and will require cooling. They use a different fuel type, power generation reactors usually use uranium oxide fuel pellets (5% enrichment) cladded with zirconium. Nuclear subs use a metallic alloy of bomb grade uranium and zirconium. This surely has implications to safety, I don't know in what way though.

The reason the US Navy hasn't had an accident is because the crews are very highly trained and a little luck. There are also more land based reactors than US Navy reactors.
edit on 4/6/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 




They are pressurized water reactors, which are the most common power generation reactor - so they are based off the same design, which is actually a bad thing,

PWR type is most safe design among old ones, but BWR's are real $hitty things
anyway, we need new schemes like MSR



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by C0bzz
 




They are pressurized water reactors, which are the most common power generation reactor - so they are based off the same design, which is actually a bad thing,

PWR type is most safe design among old ones, but BWR's are real $hitty things
anyway, we need new schemes like MSR


iirc, BWRs are generally safer than PWRs, but it depends on what kind of containment they are in. Older BWRs have a weak containment in comparison to some of the later ones which were PWR style.
edit on 5/6/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/6/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 

one cooling circuit ain't about to've been safe, but BWR's have greater efficiency relatively to PWR's
decades ago, some engineers in USA had solidly opposed versus trash design of nuke plants, but they were washed away from Industry because $©*m has needed low-price kW*h.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


From my limited knowledge from my Navy buddies . . . it would require a LIST of many impossible things to happen before such a forward fire would hazard the reactor.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


"impossible",,,
said the German Commander,,
what was that reply???

"NUTZ"

ya make a LIST good idea.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


From my limited knowledge from my Navy buddies . . . it would require a LIST of many impossible things to happen before such a forward fire would hazard the reactor.

$hit is always hella possible. engrave it in your mind
we only can minimize risks



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join