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."
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Even though it is nice for the families of the people who died to get to do a proper burial, I do not think this operation is done for the benefit of these unfortunate soldiers. It is a long tradition in marine nation to see the sea as a proper burial place for sailors who lose their life at sea. That is why for instant the ferry Estonia, that went down between Sweden and Finland, has not been raised or tried to be emptied for bodies, even though many relatives have been working hard for it. The argument of the Swedish goverment is that the ship itself is a proper graveyard for the passengers and the extra cost of raising the ship or getting out bodies at the risk of divers life, does not match the . The real reason to get the Kursk out of the sea, even though it is an extreemly difficult operation, is that you don't want a nuclear reactor in the sea slowly rusting away. This area of the north atlantic is extreemly important for fishing. The sad part is that there is still a lot of retired submarines and radioactive waste that the russian navy don't care about or don't have money to take care of in this area. The norwegian environmental organization Bellona has been working hard to gets funds and understanding that something has to be done to this potential environmental catastrophy. Check out http://www.bellona.no/ for more information.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---