Slashdot Mirror
Search For RMS Titanic Was a Cover Story
wiredog writes "According to National Geographic, Robert Ballard's search for the RMS Titanic in 1985 was a cover operation for the real search: They were looking for the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, two US nuclear submarines that sank during the Cold War." ABC News also has a story on this two-fer undersea search.
Bush's search for WMDs in Iraq was actually a cover story for the real search: Where's Waldo?
I remember hearing about this quite a few years ago, so this really isn't ground breaking news. I wish I could name a source....probably the Discovery Channel. I saw the special on the National Geographic Channel about this last night. The part that amazes me is that Ballard was able to keep his French partner in the dark about searching for the Scorpion.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
a test to measure the international paranoia level or a carefully timed admission, now that nobody would be surprised anymore about the US faking a civil operation to hide military objectives.
Nah...Robert Ballard was really searching for a very expensive diamond dropped overboard by Rose.
So is James Cameron going to make a 3 hour chick flick where a young enlisted man falls in love with a high ranking officer, and they make love in the engine room while the Captain, the officer's life partner, searches frantically for him. Then the submarine starts to sink and the gay enlisted man gives the officer the last life jacket and the officer says, "I'll never let go!" and then he lets go and James Cameron wins 200 more Oscars?
The U.S. government has used false pretenses to cover up secret submarine recovery operations before. In Project Jennifer, the CIA got Howard Hughes to build the Glomar Explorer, ostensibly to mine undersea minerals but actually to try and recover a sunken Russian submarine. The project failed to recover much of the submarine, which broke apart as it was being pulled to the surface. However, two Russian nuclear missiles were recoverd.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Hey, RMS might be a little on the large size, but Titanic? Come on.
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
And all this time I thought Ballard was pissy because the others on the boat were making fun of his hair loss.
Now I know it was both!
"Hi, Navy? It's Bob Ballard. Guess what I just found."
I call BS. The USN knew exactly where the Thresher when down as if failed durring monitored sea trials, and knew that the Scorpion didn't go down in the North Atlantic.
Didn't anybody else wonder how Ballard got funding for a picture taking expedition? Salvage in the ocean is basically anyone's ball game and is funded on premise of profit...who else other than the Navy would be funding essentially R&D for salvage without salvaging anything?
The remotely-controlled drone that Ballard used to search for the Thresher, Scorpion, and Titanic is an excellent example of a piece of dual-use equipment.
More recent exploration of the Titanic's wreckage with remote drones and two-man submarines indicates that the edge of the iceberg that the Titanic hit may have been somewhat "crowbar" shaped, with a vertically-oriented escarpment below the surface puncturing the ship from underneath, in addition to gashing it open from the side. This may help explain why the Titanic sank so rapidly, since the side-hull tears didn't seem to be large enough to account for the volume of water pouring into the ship.
They had this huge Howard Hughes project to vacuum up metallic nodules off the ocean floor that was a cover to attempt to recover a Russian sub that sank in 15000 feet of water, they got a chunk of it, but a mechanical failure resulted in most of the sub staying on the bottom.
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
"RMS Titanic"...? Oh, you must be referring to the GNU/Hurd kernel.
One of my favorite books which tells some of the stories of cold-war era submarine operations is "Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage" (ISBN# 006103004X). One of the stories is about the USS Scorpion.
I haven't read it yet, but the story of the USS Thresher is also told in "The Death of the USS Thresher: The Story Behind History's Deadliest Submarine Disaster" (ISBN# 1592283926).
Very interesting!
SixD
USS Scorpion has been visited a couple of times, http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ssn589-n.htm has pics.
Don't pick up the pho*(@)$*@&@!@ NO CARRIER
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
The English Navy where also 'rumored' to know the position of the boat (back in 1985) with all that submarine detection stuff in the atlantic perhaps its was question of knowing what to do with the data. The Royal Navy didnt find it physically but according to one newspaper hack they where spot on when it was found.
That was America participating in Europe's war.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
I believe that Ballard was looking specifically for the nuclear reactors on board the two subs. The Navy hired him to locate them to ensure they weren't leaking anything radioactive. So he had to do more than just locate the hull of the subs but search the entire debris field of each sub. According to an interview I heard with him just the other day he used what he learned searching those debris fields to locate the Titanic.
The two cited sources actually contradict each other. One says, like the slashdot headline, that the Titanic search was a cover-up. However, the other source directly quotes the searcher and makes it clear that it was not at all a cover-up, but rather the opposite - something that accidentally drew attention when it unexpectedly succeeded. There was concern that the attention might also raise other questions.
Methinks that some of the news media just likes to use the word cover-up, without particular regard for whether or not it fits.
Or else you follow slashdot patterns and eat too much
Or you are a nudist too
Or you shine your collection daily
Or you collect Titanic janitorial equipment
Infuriate left and right
Infuriate left and right
Knowing where on the surface the Thresher went down is quite different from knowing where she lies on the bottom, 11,000 or so feet below. Ships travel significant distances on their way to the bottom, since they don't just drop vertically. Not only are there currents, but also the boat is not spherical, so it has more hydrodynamic resistance in some aspects than others. That makes it glide and twirl down like a leaf falling through air. It's also breaking apart on the way, and releasing air, and these impulses further push and pull on the wreckage as it sinks. They reach a respectable downward velocity, probably 40-80 MPH near the end, but even so it takes a good 5-10 minutes to get to the bottom. Plenty of time to travel many miles horizontally.
In any event, the purpose of Ballard's expedition was not just to know where the subs were, but to know whether the Soviets had found them yet, and to know what condition they were in (so if the Soviets did find them, it would be known what knowlege might have been at risk).
A friend of mine who is an editor on the 'reality' TV show, 'The Deadliest Catch,' told me it's actually a documentary on the search for the Russian sub that sank in 2003 while it was being towed to the scrapyard. Most of the work he has to do is replace the unmanned search subs with CGI crab pots in every shot.
The producers are financing the search for the nuclear sub by selling it to the Discovery Channel as a fishing show. Once they find the submarine, then they're going to remove all the CGI and do a little more editing and re-sell the same footage back to the Discovery Channel as a submarine salvage show.
Still no word on what the producers are planning to do with the nuclear kit they're hunting for.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I read this in his official illustrated book out in the mid 1990s, so it most certainly is not news!
"Royal Mail Ship" is a mark of honor for especially fast ships, qualified to carry the mail.
Probably also because it's similar to the Royal Navy title, HMS = "Her/His Majesty's Ship."
Oh yeah, because, you know, you shouldn't hide military objectives. They should be done right out in the open. Gentlemen don't read other gentlemens' mail. And all this hiding behind rocks and stuff when you're in a shooting war? Totally not cricket, old boy. You're supposed to just form ranks in your nice red uniforms and march out into the machine-gun fire, closing up ranks whenever someone takes a bullet.
Sheesh.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
I usually dont do this. But reading the comments here has somewhat frustrated me as you are not alone in not having read the article. It is quite clear if you read it that they were not searching for the subs. They knew exactly where they were. The Navy was interested in having the reactors of the subs inspected for safety and also seeing if they could get any further information.
Where do you think most of the decommissioned Russian nuke boats ended up? They towed them north and either opened the bilges or spent the afternoon firing torpedoes into them. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that there are some unholy nuclear messes around the arctic circle.
The only difference being that the USSR didn't have much of an EPA to contend with. "Dump it in the ocean" was SOP for many countries for a long time. It doesn't make it right, but to think that we were the only ones is silly.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Subs, Secrets and Spies, NOVA January 19, 1999
When these landlubbers mix up terms. For instance, "The ship is docked..." or "Tied up..." when it's really MOORED.
..."
But, FTA, what caught my eye was:
"They call it scrambling"
BZZZT! Get ur stuff right, reporters. It's SCRAM, as in Safety Control Rod Activation Mechanism. I frackin' knew this back in 80, as a 15-year old. WTF is wrong with these well-funded reporting arms out there? So, the text probably ought have said, "They call it SCRAMing"..., that is, unless something changed that i didn't know about in the past decade or so...
If the reporter wants to discuss "reactors" and "scrambling", then maybe the story should cover intra-molecular scrambling....
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1381116996002701
But, the reporter should have done some basic patent and process checking:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4337118.html
"APRM 40 transmits a scram signal to the rod drive system 6 to scram the reactor. Scramming takes place when the power level reaches about 120% of the
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The official report states that the K-129's forward section broke apart while being winched up by Glomar Explorer, but that two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and the remains of six crewmen were recovered (they were given a memorial service and buried at sea with military honors by the U.S. Navy). There have been whispers that the official story was disinformation for the Soviets' benefit, and that the mission was an unqualified success, recovering a ballistic missile and the real jackpot, the code books containing invaluable cryptographic information, including Soviet launch codes. Guess we'll know the full story in a few decades or so.
Standard operating procedure throughout the cold war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Islands#Nuclear_waste
What is this "English" Navy that you speak of? As a loyal subject of Her Majesty I know of a Royal Navy.
You could perhaps get away with describing it as the British Navy, but describing it as the English Navy has been completely incorrect since 1707.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
A civilian provides plausible deniability, which is exactly why the military would ask civilians to do something for them. A civilian research vessel within a few dozen miles of your lost vessel is maybe cause for a raised eyebrow, but a US Navy-flagged vessel nearby is cause to put a few extra subs in the area and maybe send a battle fleet nearby to continue protecting the right to transit international waters.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You should also use nonsenseofhumor tags so the humor-impaired will get a message instead of a blank space, or people with their senseofhumor disabled will know they're missing content and can re-enable it if they wish.
For example:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=570431&cid=23629289
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
A Russian, a Yankee, and a $HUMOROUS_NATIONALITY are talking about subs.
"In my country we can send a submarine underwater and it doesn't come back up for 4 months," boasts the Russian.
"That's nothing. We can send a sub underwater and it doesn't come back up for 7 months," scoffs the American.
"Seven months? Pathetic!" opines the $HUMOROUS_NATIONALITY. "Where I come from we can send one of our submarines underwater and the thing will never be seen again!"
(Insert $HUMOROUS_NATIONALITY to taste).
You and your newfangled shiny TV stuff... Back in my day we had books...
"Explorations: my quest for adventure and discovery under the sea." (Hyperion, 1995)
Seriously, not only is this not news, or even new news... TFA gets the sequence of events all wrong. Ballard had already been hunting Titanic with side scan sonar and photo sleds (which is even harder than finding a needle in a haystack) when the Navy approached him to map the wreckage of Thresher and Scorpion. Not find, but map (the locations were already known to the Navy). This was done as part of a Navy project to examine reactors known to be on the bottom of the ocean to determine if reactors could be disposed of by ocean dumping. They also dove on both wrecks using the Alvin (Oxford University Press, 1990) to take samples of the seabed and wreckage and to take radiation readings (photographs from this expedition can be seen at the Naval Historical Center page on Scorpion ).
When the Navy hired him to perform those surveys, he examined the earlier ones (there have been several), and realized that debris trails were the key to locating deep water wrecks. The Scorpion wreck site is compact as she broke up on impact with the bottom. Thresher's wreck on the other hand is scattered across a considerable area as she broke up (relatively) shallow. The Navy however refused to pay for a search for Titanic to prove the theory and to further test Dr. Ballard's new mapping sled. Instead the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution funded a search for Titanic as an extension of the expedition to map the Scorpion's wreckage. (Though all WHOI knew was that it was a classified USN expedition.)
This was neither. It was Dr. Ballard and a retired admiral involved in the project independently describing the work to National Geographic, which Ballard now works for. Presumably they were finally cleared to reveal this, but as I understand it (I'm not with National Geographic), the accounts came from them as individuals, not in any capacity as naval officers. As others mentioned above, this cover-up was also related on the Discovery channel a few years ago, although it doesn't sound like the sources were as clear.
The timing of this particular article is related to the release of a film documentary about it on the National Geographic Channel last night. I know this because I had the fortuitious opportunity to act as a red-shirt extra (meaning I died) in the production of the documentary back in November.
In my opinion it was a decently interesting, slightly over-dramatized program. Those who regularly watch the History Channel like I do will enjoy it. If you care to watch it, keep an eye out for a sailor frantically trying to restart a scrammed reactor* during the account of the loss of USS Thresher! The program is called Undercover Titanic with Bob Ballard.
As for hiding military operations behind civil facades, that's not at all uncommon, nor do I find it particularly scandalous. In this case, the civil facade was real and actually did achieve its objective. If you want an example of a good, old-fashioned SNAFU with a totally bogus non-military cover-up, read about Project Jennifer and the Glomar Explorer. That story broke 20+ years ago, and it's partially why the Navy wanted the examinations of Thresher and Scorpion kept secret. If we could steal (or at least try to) top secret Soviet hardware from the ocean floor, they could do the same to us, if they knew where to look.
* Bonus trivia - the submarine the re-enactment portion was filmed on is a retired diesel-electric boat built the same year as USS Scorpion. The "Radiation Hazard" signs were just props to distract you from the huge diesel engines they were hung on.
Sometimes I intentionally troll and get modded insightful. Sometimes I try to be funny and get modded troll. It always amazes me, and this time is no exception. I thought I had laid it on thick enough that even the most self-righteous moral guardian could at least tell it was trying to be funny.
:-)
Oh well. Here comes an off-topic mod to set me on my ear
Infuriate left and right
CAN you dispose of reactors by ocean dumping? If so, it seems like they should just build the reactors down there, then get the energy topside somehow. If something happens, just open the door.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
George VI fought at Jutland as an officer on HMS Collingwood. Some of the others had joke appointments, but no-one can complain that he didn't put his ass on the line.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
As a helicopter pilot, Prince Andrew flew operational missions in the 1982 Falklands war. IIRC, his job was to make his helicopter a more attractive target than HMS Invincible to an Exocet missile. I think this also counts as putting his arse on the line.
A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
See here. Not that I'm a royalist, but they do serve in the forces. (Though if they feel like "borrowing" a Chinook to impress their birds/go on a stag weekend, that seems OK too.)