Slashdot Mirror
Raising the Kursk
imrdkl writes: "Theres a conglomeration of Euro companies, from Euro countries renowned for their sea-prowess, who are working together with the Russians to raise their stricken sub. This will be some happy news, when they get it finished. Hopefully before winter gets bad up there in the "circle". A pretty good article, with a nifty flash animation which gives some notion of the scope of this engineering feat is to be found at USA Today."
It's very encouraging to hear about some good news throughout this very unsettling time. The Kursk is certainly a tragedy to itself, and I'm glad to hear that the men who died on that submarine are not being forgotten, especially in something as terrible as the recent terror attacks. Perhaps is this acceptance from Russia of European help a side-effect of the world-unity we are starting to experience? Hopefully this is a trend we can look forward to.
I'm sure the initial goal will be investigation.
After that, perhaps a memorial to people who've died at sea for (the soviet union || CIS || russia) would be constructed out of it? I'll be interested to see what they do with it, it'd be a shame if they just ended up scrapping it to make cheap razor blades or something. (OTOH, if somehow they reconstruct her I imagine most sailors would be hesitant to sail on a ship with that sort of history...)
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Well according to the russians it collided with an American sub. So where is the American sub? Limped home? Does this mean American subs have a sturdier construction? Unlikely. Most like what happened is a miss fire of a torpedo which tore a whole in the front end of sub sending it to the bottom of the ocean along with it's trainee crew. It would of course look better for the Russians if they had someone to blame it on :)
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
They never officially gave a cause (though they first blamed a NATO sub accidentally hitting it). There's been specualtion that there was an accident during what was supposed to be a test of a supercavitating (supersonic) torpedo, but it's generally accepted now by those who study such things that the problem was a plain old torpedo getting old without enough maintenance.
going theory is that they were testing some sort of experimental torpedo that cooked off in the forward torpedo room, causing an explosive loss of hull integrity. this may be why they're a little vague about what exactly happened. some theories were common in russia that a western sub sank it; a western sub was in the area monitering what was going on (probably trying to listen in on the above test), but the theory that said sub did the sinking was eventually officially denied by the russians as well as the western agencies involved and so has been pretty much discredited. odds are the only people who know exactly what happened are dead.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Insert conspiracy theories here.
Goat sex free since 2001
The CIA tried to do something just like this in the 70's it only kinda worked out for them though.
Here is a blurb about it:
1974
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency attempted to raise a Soviet Golf-class diesel-powered boat, K-129, which sank in 1968. The agency did so under cover of a deep-ocean mineral recovery effort using a ship built for the purpose, the Glomar Explorer. The submarine apparently broke apart and the stern half fell back to the bottom.
I stole that from NOVA online by they way.
Too tired for more google searches, but perhaps you aren't.
Remember that this is basically farther north than Norway and East Of Lapland. Even with the last traces of the Gulf Stream up there, I expect snow and ice to appear soon.
I was up there in that sea once on a navy ship. The terrain is barren for a reason!
I wish them luck!
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Second resource is a transcript from a recent BBC program on the Kursk that reviews the various theories about the sinking of the Kursk. It discusses the Russian allegations of US sub hitting the Kursk (as nation's subs have bumped each other numerous times in the past.) It also goes into depth on the popular British theory that a torpedo ran amuck in a way similar to a 40-year old incident of theirs only recently explained. Interesting and reasonably current thinking on the why.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I really don't think 'Russia' counts as a superpower. It's more like Sweden, but dumpy.
Display some adaptability.
IIRC they've used balloons before to raise sunken ships. This give you the advantage that it's relatively cheap and you don't need to do a lot of work, just drop down some compressed air with it and once they're all attached just pump'em full of air and it raises itself. Why wasn't this done in this case?
If God gave us curiosity
As late as last May, the major news services were all abuzz about supercavitation technology and the Kursk — everything pointed in the direction of Shkval, Russia's supercavitation torpedo that's been in development for the past couple decades and which is supposed to go in excess of hundreds of miles per hour under water inside an envelope of gas it generates.
Why haven't we heard anything more since? Even if it turns out not to be true, it's nevertheless intriguing and worthy of as much speculation as the rest of what we've been hearing (in the absence of any real news to report these past months on the subject). When they bring the Kursk back up, it's bound to be missing large chunks where classified hardware was stripped out in the intervening months.
If the media fail to titilate us with wild speculation about sexy technology, then they're not the media we've come to know and love. I for one am still waiting on baited breath.
read the article before posting:
"Russian officials want to raise the submarine to eliminate any potential threat to the area's rich fishing grounds from its twin nuclear reactors and try determine the cause of its sinking."
I don't think romatic views take precedence over glowing fish... but I could be wrong.
ParallelGraphics has put together some slick VRML scenes depicting the salvage operation. There's a link from their home page. It needs their VRML browser, but if you're running Windows it's worth a look.
At the risk of being considered chauvenistic, there is a sense of pride for me as a Dutchman, that this job is being done by the Dutch. As a kid I would often get photobooks from the public library which had the work of these companies in there.
The things these companies have towed, lifted, salvaged and transported is amazing. If you want to have a look at some of their projects, go to the Mammoet projects site and go to the salvage website of Smit International
You should also have a look at Mammoet's new building. It is made from metal, looks like a 43 meter high bollard and is built indoors, up to the cabling, the sockets etc. etc. Then it needs to be transported whole over water for about 30km and lifted to its location.
The Van Seumeren family, that owns and runs the company is pretty down to earth and unconventional. When a journalist asked the Director Jan van Seumeren Sr. what he would do when they had lifted the Kursk, he replied: "Ooh man, that is going to be some party, we are going to be drunk for a week." (BTW the family also owns a small bar, that they bought when they thought too many yuppies came in.)
Use Adsense for Charity
How will they overcome the 35,000 tons of soil suction pressure with 25,100 tons of crane lifting power? Yes, I did read the words as well as look at the pictures!
The theory that I believe is that a torpedo exploded. This was not the warhead going off, but the oxidiser. The Russian navy use hydrogen peroxide as an oxidiser - it is run through a catalyser to produce oxygen and water. On its own it is extremely safe. The torpedo system was thought to be live (they were about to do some test firing so this is a good assumption) and this puts the peroxide under pressure. This is the normal state of affairs.
What happen now was that one of the pipes carrying the peroxide leaked and started spraying peroxide over the inside of the torpedo tube. All that's needed now for an explosion is a) the tube is reasonably air-tight (which is probably true) and b) that there is copper (one of the catalysts for the peroxide to oxygen reaction) available - these would usually be pipes carrying propellent.
The British Navy learned in the fifties (after a similar incident) that copper was bad, and most people that used the peroxide method had removed copper (and any other catalysts) from the torpedoes. The Russians, due to a combination of suspicion, N-I-H syndrome, and a misplaced belief in their engineering prowess, are thought to have left the copper pipes in.
At this state - after the oxidiser pipe has broken - you have a tube full of oxygen, electrics, and fuel (both the steel of the tube, the warhead, and the propellant). The pressure of the tube is also increasing rapidly. Then either the tube bursts through hydrostatic pressure, causing sparks and an oxygen fire, or a spark in the torpedo triggers an oxygen fire. Oxygen fires are very fierce, act like explosions, and are very difficult to extinguish. Add that the fire was in the forward torpedo room - full of fuel and munitions - you have a disaster.
It has been told that they were testing a version of the Shkval supercavitating torpedo. These torpedoes apparently operate by forming bubbles of gas around the torpedo, therefore reducing the amount of friction.
More on supercavitation here.
Do you like German cars?
There was a television program on here in Britain a few months ago investigating why the Kursk sank. Essentially, several seconds before the Kursk actually exploded, seimologists picked up a first, much smaller blast which was similar in waveform, which indicates a similar source of the blast.
The program claimed that an experimental torpedo in the ship sprung a leak of Hydrogen Peroxide propellant, which reacted with metal fittings inside the body of the torpedo, producing Oxygen and slowly pressurisng the torpedo. About 30 seconds before the Kursk actually exploded, they claim the body of the torpedo exploded, filling the forward hull of the submarine with Oxygen, and inevitably causing fires. The crew of the ship couldn't keep these fires under control, and after time the torpedo warheads exploded, flooding the forward torpedo compartments and sinking the boat.
They based this conclusion on the fate of a little-known (so little-known I can't remember it's name) British sub, which sank in harbour off the coast of Scotland. The Navy investigation concluded that this was due to a Hydrogen Peroxide leak inside an experimental torpedo the sub was carrying.
Time Europe ran a feature on the raising of Kursk a week ago.
The story linked describes nicely the sideshow journalists find themselves in, when dealing with Russian officials. Lies, name-calling seem to be part of the norm when they have set dates for the recovery.
says official: "The information you're getting unofficially isn't the truth. The only information one must trust is what we say officially."
This is nicely followed up by an interview with Vice Admiral Yevgeny Chernov who believes Moscow is covering up the cause of the accident.
"Had it been done, we would have known what happened to the Kursk. Now, there are three versions. A floating mine, which is nonsense. A collision with a submarine, but there were no other submarines there. Or a collision with a surface ship. Had they shown that there were no surface ships in the area, this version could have been ruled out for good. But their failure to have done so makes doubts linger."
Nb: the story 'Accidents can happen' requires a password, but if you access it here it works.
-Kraft
Live and let live
Like the world trade center collapse,
the Kurusk explosions were well recorded by
seimometers around northern European.
The sounds suggest two explosions: (1) a smaller
sub-disabling explosion and (2) a larger explosion
of a torpedo going off while inside the sub.
OK, I guess I'm old and stupid, but what the hell is an "oxygen fire"? Back when I was a kid and they invented fire, all fires used oxygen. I was out sick for while during the bronze age -- did I miss something?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
I understand your concern that their deaths not be trivialized, but I think your energies are misdirected here.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Sorry - talking in jargon again. An oxygen fire is just a fire in an enriched oxygen atmosphere. Seems innocent, but things that don't normally burn (such as steel plate) will ignite. There is also a risk of spontaneous combustion of plastic and rubber if the percentage oxygen is high enough.
There are very difficult to put out because
a) it's hard to remove the fuel - steel plate will burn in these conditions (very hot, lots of oxygen)
b) it's hard to remove the source of ignition (as things are spontaneously combusting anyway)
c) It's hard to remove the oxygen (as there is so much of it)
There is a classic chemistry experiment with steel wool and liquid oxygen. First you try to set steel wool alight - it can be done but is smolders gently. Then you try setting steel wool that has been soaked in liquid oxygen alight - whoosh: looks like a magnesium flare going off.
I remember reading about a test performed early in the space program. Guy lives in a pure O2 atmosphere for several days, see if he gets all giggly and stuff. Things go great until the ceiling light burns out. Hot bulb, so he grabs a towel and reaches up to change it -- WHOOSH! burning towel, burning sleeve, burning arm, until they crack the hatch and foam him.
And of course, there was Apollo 1.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
I hope they lift the Estonia next. And expose the Swedish role and responsability in the "accident".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc