Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Book on NR-1 208

snStarter writes "Hyman Rickover created NR-1 for a variety of purposes, one of which included doing science from a nuclear-powered vessel capable of sustained deep operations. Back in the '70s I really wanted to be on the crew of this puppy but all crew members were required to qualify as second class divers and that was hopeless for me. A new book, and web site, discusses NR-1 and is the most complete information on the boat I've seen in one place."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Book on NR-1

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Creepy... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @09:54PM (#4682732)
    Actually, the nuclear boats are a hell of a lot more comfortable than the WWII era boats. (For rounds numbers, 2x the crew with 9x the interior volume)
  • About the Book (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 15, 2002 @09:56PM (#4682739)
    Operating alone and unarmed on the bottom of the sea, the U.S. Navy's smallest nuclear-powered submarine is one of its biggest weapons. Tied up at a pier, the boat with the bright orange sail looks absolutely minuscule, innocent and out of place beside its big brothers, the fleet's huge missile-carrying and attack submarines, but it can dive deeper, stay down for a month, and accomplish missions far beyond the capabilities of any of them. The ship has been cloaked in mystery. It wasn't commissioned or given a name, and even today it is hardly known beyond a select fraternity of sailors and scientists. They simply call it the NR-1.

    The little submarine was born in controversy, served in secrecy, survived potential catastrophe on numerous occasions, and is still in operation almost forty years after being concieved. It was and remains the only one of its kind ever built.

    The story of the NR-1 is told against the tense background of the Cold War and peopled with such rich characters as the acerbic Admiral Hyman Rickover, ocean scientist Robert Ballard (who found the Titanic), the designers and builders who faced almost impossible tasks to give life to the ship, the unique officers and sailors who took the little boat down into depths on covert missions, and the families who waited for them on shore, unaware that there would be no escape if the boat ran into trouble.

    "Dark Waters: An Insider's Account of the NR-1, the Cold War's Undercover Nuclear Sub" is a thrill-a-minute book of submarine adventure, imminent danger, personal bravery, technological wonder and historic discovery. It will be a proud addition to the shelves of readers who love stories of the sea, history and intrigue.

  • Re:Creepy... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Wonko the Sane ( 25252 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @10:02PM (#4682768) Journal
    You would be correct for every nuclear boat _except_ the NR-1. It's tiny. It is more cramped than the WWII era boats.
  • Re:Creepy... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Deadstick ( 535032 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @10:36PM (#4682970)
    If you want to see cramped, have a look at U-1 (launched 1906) in the Deutsches Museum in Munich. It's a full-fledged diesel-electric boat, but it looks like something about halfway between a WW2 U-Boat and the Hunley.

    rj
  • Re:Creepy... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Desert Raven ( 52125 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @11:27PM (#4683235)
    Heh, I love this line of thinking.

    I spent 6 months on a helicopter carrier. It was often weeks between times I got out on the surface decks, and I was allowed to. Not just any schmuck can waltz out on the weather decks when it pleases them. The vast majority of the time, only those folks whose jobs require it are allowed out there. Most folks spend the entire time inside. Thus, the difference is that the surface ships are almost always pitching and rolling, as opposed to the subs, which are pretty stable unless doing vigorous maneuvering.
  • Re:Creepy... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Macgruder ( 127971 ) <chandies.williamson@ g m ail.com> on Friday November 15, 2002 @11:32PM (#4683258)
    Tail end of the cold war... Joined in '88. Was a sonar tech. Did my share of WESTPACs.
  • More info on NR-1 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Cheese Cracker ( 615402 ) on Saturday November 16, 2002 @12:24AM (#4683496)
    If you're interested in learning more about the NR-1 sub... go here [tamu.edu].
  • Re:Creepy... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16, 2002 @12:33AM (#4683573)
    They say that a lot, and maybe it used to be true but there is no way you can reasonably say that they "carefully screen" people anymore.

    The fact is that submarine life sucks. A lot. Most people get out after their first enlistment, which means that we're hurting for senior, experenced people.

    I know first hand that to make E6, all you have to do is sign you name correctly on the test. When you have advancement exams with 80%+ advancement rates, then you aren't screening shit.

    We keep a lot of people who whould never had made it this far 10 years ago simply because we have to have enough warm bodies to fill up the watchbill.
  • by MrWa ( 144753 ) on Saturday November 16, 2002 @12:42AM (#4683637) Homepage
    That was SL-1 [wisc.edu] and it demonstrates that not following procedures and, even worse, not understand WHY, can be a very dangerous thing. Making a nuclear reactor go supercritial (basically: the reactor is not only self-sustaining, but each reaction causes the reactor power to increase!) is a bad thing.

    Short story - someone purposely pulled a control out of a shutdown reactor too far, causing the reactor to become supercritial, emit a lot of steam, and impale him on the ceiling. The Army - since they didn't have Adm. Rickover (say what you want about him, he did make a very safe, very successful nuclear power program in the Navy) - should not be messing with nuclear power.

  • Re:"No Escape" (Score:4, Informative)

    by eyegor ( 148503 ) on Saturday November 16, 2002 @01:12AM (#4683799)
    I've heard that it's possible to escape from a couple hundred feet, but the odds of your survival are pretty slim. The longer it takes from the time you begin to pressurize the escape trunk to when you begin your assent, the more likely it is that you're going to get a very bad case of the bends. If that doesn't get you, there's also a VERY good chance you'll hold your breath just a tiny bit and blow out a lung due to overpressurization during your assent.

    In spite of what happened to the guys on the Kursk, most of the ocean is so fricking deep that your ship will crush LONG before you hit the bottom.

    Hence, escape training is largly a waste of time.

    When the ship crushes, the volume inside the ship gets VERY small, very quickly (think diesel engine). Everything bursts into flame, then you get hit in the face with a thousand piece of equipment, then the fire gets put out a split second later by tons of seawater. Fun...

    Beats being shot and laying in a muddy ditch with your guts hanging out.....

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16, 2002 @02:33AM (#4684108)
    the uss halibut, uss seawolf, and uss parche tapped russian cables in okhotsk and the barents. instead of some gay-ass claw they snuck in and used deep-sea divers to place a tap, waited a while (or left), and then retrieved the tap's tapes.

    all this and more in Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage [amazon.com]

With your bare hands?!?

Working...