Talk:GSF Explorer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

LA Times[edit]

Has anybody got more information on the LA times story (authors, how they found out etc.) ?? Also, a better picture may be nice (although I also like this one). Come on, this is such an interesting story ! --Iediteverything 11:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since there is no other "Glomar Explorer", there is no need for extra disambiguation and the naming conventions require that pages should be titled with their most common form and not disambiguated further than necessary. --Lexor|Talk 12:01, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

The ship naming conventions require that ships' articles remain at their full name, with redirects from short forms and nicknames. ➥the Epopt 16:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Satellite photo[edit]

Can anyone find the ship on a google map ?

According to the location on the TerraImage server, this should be its location. However it is not in the exact same position and now there are a number of ships that seem to be 'Mothballed' there in the bay. No idea on how to tell which is which or even if one of them in the Glomar Explorer. But the TerraImage server's images are from June of 1993, and Google is sometime in 2004 or 2005 likely. So I guess you can't expect the ship to be in exactly the same spot. -- Malo 07:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Glomar Explorer was leased out and has not been in the mothball fleet for about 10 years. When the ship was mothballed it was positioned by itself at the head of the fleet and was the ship nearest to the bridge that's to the left of the photo. It was quite visible from the bridge and nearby connector to highway 80. It's too bad the ship is gone as the current Google Maps image can be zoomed in all the way giving you great views of the existing fleet. The "remodeling" needed for the lease was quite extensive and the ship as pictured on looks quite different than what I remember as it used to have a large crane/tower structure in the middle. Google Images confirms this though I can't remember if the two towers fore and aft of the main tower were up when the ship was mothballed. The Glomar Explorer was distinctive enough that anyone driving on the bridge would wonder what "that thing" was. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

LA Times[edit]

I will be adding info on how the story leaked when I get round to it.

Also, what is the source for the Chikyu / Polus speculation? Google doesn't seem to know anything about it...

EDIT:-- Polus changed to Polyus

Adding to existing article[edit]

I am new. I was trying to add to the Glomar Explorer in Fiction. I wanted to add that:

The Glomar Explorer also makes an appearance in the novel Shock Wave by Clive Cussler. It was used to dangle a modified satallite dish under the surface of the ocean to deflect a massive acoustic shockwave.

I did manage to add it but it went down at the bottom after the external links section. Did I do something wrong or is that just how it works out?

Just curious. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rforee (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 January 2006.

I think you just clicked on the wrong [edit] by mistake, someone has already fixed this for you! Just to be clear, you have to click the [edit] link above the section you wish to edit, rather than below. Happy editing and welcome to wikipedia! --Lox (t,c) 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeap thats it I clicked on the wrong edit button thanksRforee 10:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese drilling ship[edit]

In 2005 Japan has launched a 57,500 ton ship named Chikyu ("Earth" in Japanese) nominally tasked with drilling through the mantle of the Earth for quake research [2]. It is rumored that the true aim of the mission is to repeat the feat of the Glomar Explorer. The suggested actual objective would be to recover the remains of the Soviet Polyus battle space station prototype, which was launched unsuccessfully in 1987 and fell into 6000 meter deep waters in the southern Pacific Ocean. The advanced military technology and top secret cryptographic communications equipment seized from the remains would, according to the rumor, provide Japan with bargaining chips to demand the return of the Kurils from Russia.

Last I checked, this is an encyclopedia, and that section in the article sounds like conspiracy theorizing at its best. I deleted the section, since I couldn't find any references of this to a reliable, unbiased source. Would the person who added this care to comment? Alexthe5th 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Glomar response[edit]

There should probably be something about the Glomar response in this article. --Descendall 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

After Project Jennifer[edit]

The following comment was added to this section by anon user

[Note that Hunters Point Naval Shipyard was closed in 1994, so the above info might be incorrect; 12 Sept 2006]

This information should be verified and properly added to the article text, if applicable.--Lord Kinbote 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can never work out how to add an extra heading here, but it's covered by this one. Namely, the article states that in 1978 it was leased as "another cover story", yet it's also clearly stated that it's true mission was revealed in 1975 LAT article. So why would they have another cover story three years after the truth came out? Doesn't this need a verification or clarification? VonBlade 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal perspective[edit]

My father worked with one of the subcontractors (Honeywell Marine Systems) on the Glomar Explorer. A letter of 20 June 1974 thanking him for his contributions included a Coin commemorating the launch of the ship. He also had a "Manganese Module" presumably picked up by the ship in July 1971 from 20,000 ft deep in the Pacific. -- All elaborate cover for the real objective. 13:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Jim


It is unclear from this article when the recovery attempt actually happened, with the section on Project Jennifer covering the whole period between 1972 and 1978. Was the attempt before or after the congressional hearings also described in this section. Was it before or after the ship was laid up in January 1977. The text is so confused it is really difficult to tell.

Also the text of the article implies that the vessel was only laid up for a very short period, from January 1977 to September 1978, when it was aquired by Ocean Minerals Company of Mountain View. And it says nothing about the life of the ship with that company until its 1997 conversion. But there is a picture of the ship laid up in 1993. How come?.

I suppose one reading is that the acquisition in 1978 was when the ship was acquired for the submarine recovery attempt, which explains why the para on the acquisition is under the Project Jennifer section and not the After Project Jennifer section. And it explains the photo; presumably the ship went back into layup after the attempt. But this contradicts the statement that the ship was specifically built for the recovery. The more I read this article, the more confused I get.

Because of these, I'm going to tag the article in need of cleanup. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Metal shredder[edit]

I just chatted up an ex-Bethlehem Steel guy who worked aboard the ship in the 70s at its first decommissioning at Hunter's Point following the Soviet sub salvage action. He said there was a giant metal shredder within the Glomar Explorer and that it was clear from the way the ship's crew were joking around that the majority of the recovered section of Soviet submarine was shredded into bits and dumped at sea, never to be found again. Totally unsupportable as Wiki reference material but interesting nontheless. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The book Blind Man's Bluff [1] claims several interesting points concerning the Glomar Explorer and the Golf class sub. The main one is that there was a mechanical failure of the lift due to it hitting the ocean floor during the first attempt. As a result three of the mechanical arms failed as the sub was being raised on the second try. The book also states that the sub indeed did break apart during the lift. With the part that fell back to the ocean floor went the missiles and warheads along with the code books that the CIA was most interested in.

The book also points out that raising the Golf class sub was irrelevant due to advances in Soviet sub design. Oat57 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, according to Kenneth Sewell, co-author of All Hands Down: The True Story of the Soviet Attack on the U.S.S. Scorpion, (ISBN 978-0743297981), the Glomar Explorer raised the entire hull of the K-129, not just a few pieces. I haven't read his new book, and don't even know if the book delves into this topic, but heard the author being interviewed about it on a radio show today. —QuicksilverT @ 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Included is the latest detail concerning the ships status as it is documented that it arrived at the Chinese breakers on 5 June 2015. So I have included this and provided a source reference. The ship status has also been updated. Aquizard 11:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested External Reference[edit]

In my humble way I'd like to contribute by adding an external reference. I put the link there, but it is not integrated into the the external references section. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I want to get this right. PBS Scientific American has a good citation for the introduction, citing the loss of the Russian Golf class submarine. The page is called Raising Sunken Ships: The Glomar Explorer at Good link for starts no?

Charlietunafish (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

possible citation[edit]

The journal Science, June 1976, pp 1313-1315 contains an analysis of the ship's capabilities based on GSA and ERDA publications. The conclusions/surmises drawn there are that the situation was quite different from that presented in the news papers, and I would add the later tv show. (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Clarke Schneider 1/20/2009

neutrality tag[edit]

"There are claims from unofficial writers (who provide no documentation nor source data) that the material recovered by the Glomar Explorer included nuclear missiles and various codebooks. It is also suggested, again by writers with no first hand knowledge, that contrary to the official account, nearly the entire submarine was recovered and that the official CIA account amounts to disinformation to give the impression of an unsuccessful mission."

— disputed section

It's been 30 years since I read Clyde Burleson's Jennifer Project, but I seem to recall that no one prior to his investigation had written anything on the story of the Glomar Explorer. Burleson's book was well-documented with material, as I recall. So if the writer of the above statement intends to suggest that Burleson made claims which were unsupported, I'd like to know why? Furthermore, I'd like to know from what the writer of the above statement draws his own conclusions about unofficial writers (who provide no documentation nor source data) and writers with no first hand knowledge. These phrases are heavily loaded with point of view, and they provide absolutely no background to verify them. Hag2 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur, I have the Jennifer Project and a number of video documentaries have recently used this book as source material. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC).
I suppose we should try to find who inserted the above statement. I will attempt to retrieve that from the History sometime today. 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) It appears as though User:Gwyncann is the editor who felt that the above paragraph needed to be written. Gwyncann's editorial remark is: "Re-wrote the paragraph concerning alternate theories of the success of Project Jennifer to better show that these theories are undocumented and controversial." (see here for a comparison of before and after). I believe I can understand Gwyncann's reasoning; however, I also believe that Gwyncann's rewrite turns the whole issue of the separate beliefs into far more of a controversy than that issue really is/was. By stating emphatically: unofficial writers (who provide no documentation nor source data) and writers with no first hand knowledge, it sounds as if "crank conspiracy theorists", or "spook-minded lunatics" are responsible for any assumptions that differ from the official statement regarding the retrieval. I consider this a derogatory remark upon Clyde Burleson's entire work. Consequently, I believe we should attempt to get Gwyncann to elaborate further, or merely rewrite Gwynn's edit. Am I wrong here? As I recall, Burleson concluded that there was a possibility that the CIA had been successful in retrieving vital information before the hoist cable etc. gave way to the submarine's weight. Although he did not have any clear and convincing documentary evidence to support his conclusion, he did however have sufficient news articles and research material suggesting that the official version was suspect. Or am I remembering incorrectly? Hag2 (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The Glomar Explorer's role in the Cold War is a matter of record, and Burleson's account is not ambiguous, although more information has come out since. This is not the first instance of private concerns being conscripted by military officials to do reclamation. See the veeeery controversial use of Dr. Ballard's toys to recover Soviet secrets. He traded the use of his underwater devices for support to go hunting for the Titanic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC).
What would you say to reverting User:Gwyncann's edit back to the paragraph wording prior to the edit? I am comfortable with that (I believe). Hag2 (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's revert Gwynncann. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's no real hurry here. Let's invite Gwyncann in for a chat. :) If we don't here anything by Monday, then it would be ok by me. (We could revert right now but that hardly seems polite, and I doubt seriously if the world is going to fall apart over the issue because its been written like it is since July 2007. Also, maybe there are a few more opinions besides our three.) Hag2 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

built where and when?[edit]

The article has a category "Ships built in Pennsylvania" but currently this claim lacks not only a citation, but is not mentioned in text (which is mostly silent about when and where the ship was constructed). This is presumably based on the fact that it was build by Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.. Another problem concerns when the ship was build: the article states that the ship "was built between 1973 and 1974", but the infobox states: "Launched: November 1, 1972" and "Placed In Service: July 1, 1973". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Name (Hughes Glomar)[edit]

Who or what is/was "Hughes Glomar"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hughes is Howard Hughes, and GLOMAR is a shortening of GLObal MARine. VonBlade (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions and infobox[edit]

This is certainly more famous as the Glomar. However its current status as the GSF Explorer should be included in the infobox. In any event the normal naming convention on Wikipedia is to use the current name.Americasroof (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

is there any problem with just renaming it? --emerson7 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)