• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Fuggin Russians

Thanks for the link because I was wondering what was going on. Having spent a good amount of time in Russia and preparing to spend more time there, my observation is that they really don't care a whole lot about this kind of thing. We look at it as catastrophic, they look at it as a pragmatic approach to handling the world. People are commodities in many respects in Russia. Massive differences between our world and theirs...massive.

Interesting article, thanks for the link.
 
Funny how they won't mention the specific place the accident occured....but it wasn't near the reactor :whistling:
 
HUH?

"The state-run RIA-Novosti news agency cited an unnamed official in Russia's Pacific Fleet as saying the accident occurred toward the bow of the submarine and that there was no threat to the nuclear reactor, closer to the center."

Gawl said:
Funny how they won't mention the specific place the accident occured....but it wasn't near the reactor :whistling:
Click to expand...
 
AVB said:
HUH?

"The state-run RIA-Novosti news agency cited an unnamed official in Russia's Pacific Fleet as saying the accident occurred toward the bow of the submarine and that there was no threat to the nuclear reactor, closer to the center."

Gawl said:
Funny how they won't mention the specific place the accident occured....but it wasn't near the reactor :whistling:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, but right below that they say: "Dygalo would not name the submarine or say exactly where the accident took place."

So yes, they say towards the bow, but won't specifically say where.
 
I read it as they won't say where in the world, i.e. the physical location in the ocean, where it occurred.
 
With the bow cited as the source, that brings a nuke torpedo to mind. I'll bet it was another hot run in the torpedo room. Self oxydizing fuel is nasty stuff. Gas masks would not prevent death.
 
Of the 208 people on board, only 81 were Navy personnel? Is this normal? I guess I assumed that all personnel aboard a sub were Navy unless they were accompanied by some scientist or something.
 
From what I read, the sub was not yet commissioned, so it was likely a test-run with engineers aboard to test everything before it was delivered to the Navy. 17 of the 20 that died were civilian engineers. Also, there doesn't appear to have been a fire; rather, the fire extinguishing system on board malfunctioned and freon was released causing the men to suffocate.

Linky
 
Mike33 said:
From what I read, the sub was not yet commissioned, so it was likely a test-run with engineers aboard to test everything before it was delivered to the Navy. 17 of the 20 that died were civilian engineers. Also, there doesn't appear to have been a fire; rather, the fire extinguishing system on board malfunctioned and freon was released causing the men to suffocate.

Linky
Click to expand...

US Navy uses Halon. Its more expensive, but is less likely to displace the oxygen. Given that the boat was full of yard birds, that explains the high death toll. One requirement for submarine qualification is being able to locate every breathing mask and every air manifold. On US subs, they're about 8 feet apart and each has about 10 connections. One rather harsh method of demonstrating that is for the candidate to wear a blacked out mask, then being directed to different parts of the boat. You either find the next manifold, or you fail. No, there is no danger to the candidate. I'd be surprised to hear that any of the ship's crew was lost.
 
Freon, Halon, or CO2 systems all work by displacing the air and you don't want to be in a confined space with any of them when they go off.

In a past life I did engineering work on automated wet bench tools for the manufacturing of silicon wafers. Was in a maintenance chase in a clean room one day when a new guy, in complete violation of every safety protocol we had, whipped out his drill and went to work without disarming the CO2 first. The UV from the brushes arcing in the drill set off the CO2 and it went opaque in there in a second or two. We were lucky to make it out alive. Let alone what it cost to evacuate the clean room, clean that tool from top to bottom, and recharge / reprime the suppression system.

That was his last "official" act as a maintenance tech with that company.

Moral of the story is suppression systems in confined places can be pretty scary.
 
It's sad when any sailor dies. God bless those men who go to sea in ships. I don't care what country they're from.

Doc.
 
Nicklor said:
Should I await another Chernobyl-like accident? :angry:
Click to expand...

When I saw the article, my first reaction was to see if it was nuclear power related.
Did Russia not incorporate safety steps to prevent Chernobyl happening again? I find that really hard to believe.
Let me tell you why.

1. ) Chernobyl had no containment field.
Every US nuclear Power plant has a containment field.
If something was to go wrong, the containment field would stop from any kind of fall out.
I really think Russia learned from the Chernobyl accident and started to put safety features in the generator. Then again, what do I know.

2.) Chernobyl was operating as a power source AND a nuclear war head generator.
Every US nuclear power plant does one thing. Generate electricity. None of them can convert the waste to nuclear grade material.
If the US really wanted to do that, it would mean to completely redesign the power plant. In other words it is too costly to do so.

It is true, Russia does not care too much for their people, but still. The accident at Chernobyl was too expensive to do again.
I am sure they put in some safety features. As for a torp going wrong, well that could be a possibility. I just do not think it had anything to do with the power reactor.

Nuclear power is, or can be, the cheapest power out there.
It is also the safest if done correctly. It emits no carbon or all that other crap that our coal burning facilities do.
 
It'a a shame when a man dies doing his duty. But right now the Russkies are flexing their muscles while we are occupied with every little thing. I can't wish them good luck.
 
sack said:
It'a a shame when a man dies doing his duty. But right now the Russkies are flexing their muscles while we are occupied with every little thing. I can't wish them good luck.
Click to expand...
You're not a sailor. You can't possibly understand. No sailor cheers with the sinking of an enemy ship. It's an old tradition, going back to the days of wooden ships and canvass.

Doc.
 
Devil Doc said:
sack said:
It's a shame when a man dies doing his duty. But right now the Russkies are flexing their muscles while we are occupied with every little thing. I can't wish them good luck.
Click to expand...
You're not a sailor. You can't possibly understand. No sailor cheers with the sinking of an enemy ship. It's an old tradition, going back to the days of wooden ships and canvass.

Doc.
Click to expand...
You're right Doc, I'm not a sailor, but i know how i feel. Seems to me that they really are looking for a confrontation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top