Nuclear submarines? Nuclear aircraft carriers? Are they really nuclear powered?

[NuclearSubmariner]

Hello skeptics, I currently serve onboard an SSBN and I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and ask just what is so incredulous about submarines running on nuclear power? It's really quite simple if you think about it. In fact everyone onboard has to understand the basics just to be submarine qualified, from the nuclear operators (we call them the nukes) down to the cooks. One nuke explained it to me this way: The sub is run on a big steam engine. You have the hot rock, which gets hot. The hot rock heats up the water in the primary system, which is driven to the steam generators. (There is no steam in the primary system. It stays liquid by being pressurized, which allows it to be superheated. There is no liquid exchange between the primary and secondary systems.) The steam generators heats up the water in the secondary system, which gets turned to steam driven to the turbines, to generate juice (electricity) and push (forward motion). After spinning the turbines the steam hits the condensers and is condensed back into water. (The condensers are big tanks that have pipes connected to sea running through them) The condensers are connected to the hotwell, which accumulates the hot water. The condensate pumps pull the water out of the hotwell and push it to the feed pumps, which push it to the steam generators, starting the cycle anew.

The fastest that I am allowed to tell you we can go on this system is 15 knots. We have an emergency propulsion motor(EPM) which runs on electricity, in case we lose steam in a casualty situation. However we are limited to a speed of 4 knots on this. If we lose steam (i.e. lose electrical power and propulsion) we shut down all non-essential electrical systems and start running the boat on battery power. We can do this for about two days, if we're lucky. Hopefully we'll have gone to the surface before then, to start running the diesel. The diesel has a fuel tank with roughly 650 gallons of fuel. We don't like to run it unless we have to though. It's loud, it's shaky, everything starts to smell and taste like diesel fuel. It's just a bad day all around. The diesel and battery aren't onboard because we're secretly running the boat on them. They're there as an emergency backup system. Everything onboard a sub has at least one backup. Hell, there's two separate steam plants, one port and one starboard, so that if one side goes down we can run at half power until we repair the other side. We've got three systems for getting the boat to the surface in case propulsion completely fails, and two more for getting personnel off if all those fail. There isn't enough room onboard to have ridiculous hidden propulsion systems, everything that is there needs to be there for the boat to function.

Also, I could be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but carriers aren't refueled with nuclear fuel every day. That's jet fuel for flight operations. Nuclear fuel runs at about a 25 year cycle for carriers and a 20 year cycle for subs based on current numbers, and the refueling last for about two to three years. My current boat recently got out of a refueling overhaul. She had been running for about 20 years prior to that without a nuclear refuel. Now she's good for 20 more.

Also also, the reason the reactor is shut down inport is because it takes eleven people to maintain the engine room when the reactor is critical. When we go to shutdown that number drops to two. One electrical operator and one roving guard. We don't need to push the ship inport, we just need electricity. So we hook up to shore power and water, that way we don't have to make our own.

I hope this answers some of your questions. If not I'll be happy to explain as much as I can, which is surprisingly a lot in regards to the reactor system. It's not even classified secret, just NOFORN.

~Radioactively yours,
NuclearSubmariner

[rerevisionist]

Yes, welcome. Yes, we all know how steam turbines work. However, we're sceptical that the things in fact use nuclear power.

The reason we have doubts is in the cut-down version [1] we've found Hiroshima and not Nagasaki were not 'nuked' [2] we've found supposed 'H-bomb' films are full of fakes; as a result we wondered about nuclear power, and found there's nowhere on earth powered just by nuclear power, which seems strange as there are lots of very isolated places. We also note that China is building lots of power stations, but they're all coal-fired.

Submarines (and possibly space satellites etc) are therefore about the only thing allegedly powered by nuclear power. The problem with you account is that submarines existed years before nuclear power was thought up. There were submarines in WW1 and submarines in WW2 and they obviously were able to travel fast. So we suspect your boats are not powered by nuclear stuff at all. And e.g. the 25 year cycle is just a pretence.

There are also several theoretical reasons. The most important is that nuclear fission if it exists must get out of control very quickly, because there's exponential growth in the number of neutrons zipping round. It seems a dnagerously hair-trigger situation.

Another point is missiles. You've seen you boats; is it really possible to fit missiles with fuel and warheads into these boats, and also make them launchable? Remember this was supposed to be the case before microelectronic steering systems.

[Exorcist]

Hello "NuclearSubmariner"
Am I to understand that the "B" part of your SSBN acronym indicates that you serve on a submarine armed with "fake" ballistic nuclear weapons? If so would you care to comment on the absurd lies, propaganda and fakery issued by previous US administrations and propagated by your current one in support of your non-existent nuclear weapons ?

I invite you to comment on your employer's lies here:

http://www.nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=524

.....and here:

http://www.nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=552

Radioactively yours
(Background radiation only)

Exorcist

[NUKELIES]

Welcome NuclearSubmariner.

I believe I can speak for the skeptics on this forum when I state that we do not doubt your experience, but we believe you may have been misled. Who misled you? Your superiors who may have been misled themselves - and their superiors and so on. You may be describing actual processes, but are these "nuclear?" What would that entail if it were true?

[NuclearSubmariner]

Yes we do indeed have the capability to launch D-5 missiles. You can see these launches if you search "DASO (Demonstration And Shakedown Operation) Launch", during which we launch a test missile to prove that we are capable of launching within the government's required timeframe. And as a quick aside, the missiles don't fire the main rocket until they've left the water. They are launched out by filling the missile tube with nitrogen. Then a small rocket motor attached to the tube flash boils about 30 gallons of water into steam, which propels the missile up, wrapped in a protective bubble of nitrogen. It has a miniature gyroscope in it that detects movement so that the rocket only starts firing once the missile starts to drop. At the depth we launch at the missile doesn't have to travel very far to reach the surface. Then you only have to get into a ballistic trajectory. With the fuel rapidly decreasing (i.e. lightening the load) but the rocket still maintaining the same amount of force, the missile actually gets faster. Once on a ballistic flight path, most of the missile breaks away, revealing what the techs sterilely call a "re-entry body".

We had a DASO just last year and it was a harrowing experience, let me tell you. We only launched a single missile and the entire boat shook like we had hit a mountain. It roared like you had your head in a lion's mouth. Down in lower level you could actually see the deckplates twist. It was the single most powerful expression of man-made power that I have ever personally witnessed. It was beautiful. It was terrible. I sleep uneasy every night thinking of that run.

Yes, submarines existed years before nuclear power. The first one used for a military purpose was the Turtle in the American Revolution, in fact. However, most of the early ones were human powered, or coal powered at best. The later diesel/electric submarines (diesel on the surface which also charged the batteries, electric when deep) expanded the range and capabilities of submarines, allowing them to stay out for much longer and travel much farther. For example, the Gato class diesel boats could travel over 10,000 miles on the surface at a speed of 10 knots with 116,000 gallons of diesel fuel (compare just under 700 gallons for the Ohio class). Underwater the numbers drop drastically though, at a 48 hour limit, with speeds of around 2 to 4 knots(at least 15 knots for Ohio class). This could get you to London, but not back. That's where the submarine tenders come in. Sub tenders are supply ships who carry necessary resources such as food and fuel. They usually hang at at the back lines of the force and when the subs need a bit of a pick-me-up, they stop by. With assistance from the tenders, the Gato could stay out as long as 75 days. Meanwhile, the Ohio can stay out for over 90 days entirely unassisted. As another point the Gato (311 ft length, 27 ft beam 2.5K ton displacement) was much smaller the Ohio (560 ft length, 42 ft beam 18.8K ton displacement). You would need the back third of the entire boat to be solid engine to push it through the water with diesel power, much less a Stirling cycle or battery power.

Nuclear power, like any other power source, is very safe... when used correctly. The two biggest "incidents" that come to mind when talking nuclear power are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. At Chernobyl, not only were the operators poorly trained compared to the American counterparts, their safety practices were worse than any in American history. Additionally, the materials and designs used to construct the plant were shoddy beyond belief. The explosion was caused, not by random happenstance, but by them purposefully removing key components of the reactor WHILE IT WAS CRITICAL. Why, you ask? To see if they could induce a SCRAM fast enough to prevent the reactor from meltdown. YEP.
At TMI, the meltdown was caused by poor training as before, but also far too much trust in the computer system and the operators not really knowing what all the signals meant. TMI is still in operation, Chernobyl is not.

Nuclear power is expensive. It costs a lot of money to build a plant, train workers, pay said workers, buy uranium etc. etc. This is one reason why many countries don't use it. It's also got a bad rap, not helped by giant, smoking, radioactive craters in Ukraine. After the above incidents, the construction of nuclear plants slowed so far that the government in comparison reaches relativistic speeds. It was not until this year (34 years since stoppage) that ANY plants have been approved for construction. Plant systems such as coal, in comparison to nuclear, are cheaper and easier... in the short run. They are also dirtier and less efficient. The reason that other (fossil fuel based) sources of energy continue to grow is because of the fear and hatred of nuclear power. You say the word nuclear and "bomb" is the first thing that pops into most people's mind. The layman doesn't make the distinction between weapons grade and reactor grade material. The grade is determined by the purity of the substance. Think of it like an alloy. Weapons grade uranium is about 90% U-235 and smaller amounts U-232 and U-238, while reactor grade is about 40% U-235. These are all Uranium, yes, but it's what kind of Uranium that tells you if it goes boom or MOTHERF#*KING BOOM when the shit hits the fan.

Unfortunately I have to go to sleep now, I have to stand duty in the morning. I know I didn't get to all of your questions, but I hope that that answers at least some of them. If anything was unclear or inadequate just let me know, I'll be happy to talk more and give as many details as I (legally) can. I'll be back on Sunday, have a nice weekend.

Radioactively yours,
NuclearSubmariner

P.S. I didn't even know that there were nuclear powered satellites, I thought that they were solar. I guess you learn something new every day.

[Exorcist]

Then a small rocket motor attached to the tube flash boils about 30 gallons of water into steam, which propels the missile up, wrapped in a protective bubble of nitrogen.

Is the small "flash boil" rocket motor attached to the submarine "silo containment tube" or to the C5 missile?

[NuclearSubmariner]

It's attached to the outside of the containment tube. There was an incident with one a year or so ago, where the missile techs forgot to secure one of the "water bowls" during a pressurization test. It blew the top off of the device, put a dent in the deckplates, a big scratch in the side of the tube, and sprayed water up into second level. (The motors are in lower level for reference. The levels go upper, second, third, and lower) We replaced the deckplates and cleaned up the water, but the CO had them keep the scratch in the side of the tube as a reminder.

Also, we're currently using the D-5 missile, the previous version was the C-4.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The Pentagon has sent us a ringer.

[BNSF9647]

"In fact everyone onboard has to understand the basics just to be submarine qualified, from the nuclear operators (we call them the nukes) down to the cooks."

I imagine the cook is using a nuclear powered oven . I don't see the need to inform a cook about the so called reactor system as he only needs to know to cook, how much food, culinary supplies is on-board, and know all emergency procedures aboard the vessel. One question for you Nucsub what is done with the hydrogen from the electrolysis to produce your vessels oxygen supply , also is the water desalinated or not before going for electrolysis?

[rerevisionist]

... Or two or three, FCS

[NuclearSubmariner]

BNSF9647
Know the emergency procedures is exactly why everyone is taught about the reactor. Everyone gets a cursory knowledge about every system on the boat, from the stoves to the torpedoes to the hydraulics and everything in between. That way, when the fecal matter strikes the rotary air impeller, everyone knows where they need to go and what they need to do. On larger ships they have dedicated DC-Men (Damage Control) to fight casualties, hundreds of them out of a crew of thousands. On a submarine we have 150 people. That's why we all learn everything about our boat. Because at the end of the day, we just want to go home. And you can't go home if you're dead.

The excess hydrogen is pumped off-hull, and the water used is desalinated and deionized.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Are there any private yachts or submarines that run on nuclear power? IF not, why not? There's some rich people out there that could afford it.

When I was a kid, I read about a submarine that went under the polar ice cap, and stayed submerged for six months, or so. At the time, I believed that. But at that time, I also believed that NASA had gone to the moon. Now I realize that I only have the word of officials to go on. And some pretty pictures.

Should I go over the list of times the government has officially lied to me?