Talk:USS Nautilus (SSN-571)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) article.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 4, 2005, February 4, 2006, February 4, 2007, August 3, 2007, February 4, 2008, August 3, 2008, February 4, 2009, February 4, 2010, and January 17, 2013.|
- 1 Content replaced
- 2 Big Science categorization explanation
- 3 Circumnavigation?
- 4 Depth Typo ?
- 5 ASW Question
- 6 ssn571.com
- 7 Nautilus was almost lost early in her career
- 8 USS NAUTILUS SSN-571 Collision with USS ESSEX CVS-9, April 1967
- 9 Security concerns?
- 10 USS Nautilus (SN-571) Torpedos
- 11 Thames River
- 12 Class action Lawsuit
Big Science categorization explanation
Could someone please explain how this article is related to the category Big Science? Thanks. Alex.tan 14:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Here's how the category is defined:
Big Science describes the trend in large scale science projects which became increasingly common after World War II. They are often said to involve the five Ms: * Men * Machines * Media * Money * Military
Nautilus is mentioned as making the first submerged Circumnavigation, yet no mention of that here. Presumably it's during the "11 years of history missing"?
Sworked 04:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nope, that was the USS TRIDENT
Depth Typo ?
From the article:
- ...96 hours and 1830 miles under the ice...
That seems a bit too deep to be plausible...
- I this refers to the distance traveled not the operating depth. Most submarines do not operate much below eight hundred feet. L Hamm 16:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The article states:
such changes in submerged mobility having virtually wiped out progress in anti-submarine warfare techniques
What is the evidence for this statement? Is there a comparison for pre and post nuclear ASW? L Hamm 16:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Review Friedman's US Submarines since 1945 and Tyler's Running Critical for a discussion of the effects of nuclear propulsion on ASW.
I deleted the link to ssn571.com as it is a commercial with no useful information on Nautilus. The 'search for crew' link was an affiliate link to Ancestry.com and the 'pictures' link was an affiliate link to art.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Nautilus was almost lost early in her career
The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Beneath the Sea by John Pina Craven
"More than a year and a half later, in the first days of October 1956, there was neither press coverage nor ceremony on the Thames when the Nautilus slowly made her way to the Electric Boat Company dry dock. She had been tried at sea and had won every praise and laurel. Now, however, she was silently limping home. She was "down by the bow," as keen observers could see, but no one except her captain, Commander Eugene P. "Dennis" Wilkinson, had the slightest indication that the mighty Nautilus might be in grave danger. ... Wilkinson was in shock because he now realized that he had come closer to losing the Nautilus than he had ever thought...I had never before seen or imagined a structure so completely destroyed by stress and fatigue ... Our inspection disclosed, to our horror, that all the ballast tanks showed splits along their sides..."
Craven was the naval engineer in charge of the Polaris submarine design program.
USS NAUTILUS SSN-571 Collision with USS ESSEX CVS-9, April 1967
I was a junior officer serving in ESSEX in 1967 as a CICWO. At the time of the collision I was soundly asleep in the junior officer bunkroom tucked under the flight deck in the forward section of the ship (We were standing Port and Starboard watches under Condition 1 AS, a modifified form of anti-submarine battle stations) when a loud noise was heard and a brief shudder passed through ESSEX, a 29k ton anti-submarine aircraft carrier. ESSEX went promptly to general quarters which is standard operating procedure for protecting a naval ship in the case of a collision of unknown proportions or a fire not under control as the crew immediately mans their battle ststions, including manning damage control parties, and sets Condition Zebra which secures all water-tight hatches throughout the ship.
ESSEX, her task group comprised of several destroyer and destroyer escorts, and NAUTILUS were conducting exercises in the Virginia Capes Operations Area (VACAPESOPAREA. ESSEX was being replenished underway by a fleet oiler and both ships were being screened by the escorts. The wind was backing and the UNREP ships were altering ROMEO CORPEN (replenishment course) five degrees to port to put the relative wind 355 degree relative to their ship's head. NAUTILUS successfully penetrated the screen and was simulating torpedo attacks when she apparently miscalculated either her submerged depth and/or the course of the mainbody. NAUTILUS's conning tower struck ESSEX which draws 29 to 30 feet depending on how she is loaded, on the forward port quarter of her bow-mounted SONAR. NAUTILUS was believed to roll to starboard and to pass under ESSEX keel rerighting herself as she executed an emergency surfacing procedure in he vicinity of ESSEX elevator on her starboard side, some 500-600 feet from her bow.
NAUTILUS appeared as though the forward leading corner of her sail area had been bitten cleanly off. Injuries were minor to two NAUTILOS crewman and to a Sonarman First Class in ESSEX. NAUTILUS did not suffer any apparent damage to her nuclear reactor or powerplant. No leaks of radioactive material were reported as testimony to her thorough construction. ESSEX's bow mounted sonar was badly dented/deformed but the ship's water-tight integrity was never breached, and she transited to the Boston Naval Shipyard for repairs and deployed in late May 1967 for an EASTLANT NATO Anti-submarine exercise (ASWEX). Fpartel (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What security concerns can there be for a 50 year old, obsolete design submarine that doesn't have its nuclear reactor installed? Sounds more like fancy wording for "We didn't restore or refurbish the rest of the submarine for tourists.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
maybe communication tech the u.s. is still hiding? or perhaps spots in the hull are weaker than other and they dont want anyone sinking the ship, welll sub really 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
the de-fueled reactor is still in the boat. the engine room is set-up for tours, however the area is still classified and security regulations prevent public access.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
USS Nautilus (SN-571) Torpedos
Does anyone know the diameter of the torpedos car--126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)ried on the Nautilus? USS Nautilus has six 21" torpedo tubes. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
For some time I wrestled with this phrase: "and then set a westerly course that put her into the Thames River estuary". Everyone knows that the Thames estuary is on the east coast of England, and so east of Portland. I thought is was a simple typo, but then it twigged. It was refering not to THE Thames, but to a minor river somewhere in USA. I suggest that no-one outside the USA would know this, so I have taken the liberty of changing it.
Class action Lawsuit
I came here to find information about the $111million class action lawsuit against the U.S. Navy by former crewmen of the Nautilus and families of deceased former crewmen. I haven't found any information, and think this is quite relevant. Is there someone who is an expert who can add reliable info please? I don't want to just add what I have been told. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)