Talk:USS Thresher (SSN-593)

message: The two sizes for the debris field don't agree - 134,000m² and 400 square yards. GreatWhiteNortherner 08:48, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
:They agreed when the Imperial measurement read 400 yards square, which means a square 400 yards on a side.  I hope whoever changed it from "yards square" to "square yards" went down and actually swept all that debris into the new 60x60 foot area. (I've reverted the change.)--the Epopt 15:47, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Not sure if civilians were technicians, engineers or both.Fg2 01:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Per the bios in the external link at the bottom, and other sources, the Portsmouth employees were a mix of techs and engineers, while the NOL, Sperry, and Raytheon employees were engineers.  I also corrected the affiliation of the NOL employee, which is now consistent with numerous other sources (the error was probably copied from the Arlington Cemetary site http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/uss-thresher.htm which corrected it in 2005). The history of NOL, "The Legacy of the White Oak Laboratory", NSWC, Department of the Navy, Dahlgren VA, 2000, p. 55, refers to a Naval Ordnance Laboratory scientist, Don Kuester, lost on board the USS Thresher in April 1963. Mattfiller 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicians or engineers? 

message: Anyone know what the actual lower limit on this class of Submarine is?  I'm assuming it's lower/higher (...not sure what the correct nominclature is) that 8000m, but the article never actually mentions it.
:I don't know if that data is still classified or not, so I googled for it, and http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/usa/submarines/thresher/ states "diving depth is 1200' and crush depth is 1950'." ➥the Epopt 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crush Depth 

message: I rolled back an attempt to add the "Thresher was deliberately sunk by the Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapon" lunacy.  I am quite familiar with that particular conspiracy theory, as my dad was an earnest proponent of it.  It can be summarized as "the Soviets could (can? [cue ominous music]) use buzzwords to cast magic spells," and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.
I would support the creation of an article describing the fantasized Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapon, and perhaps even a mention in this article that a dozen or so, um, er induhviduals believe that Thresher was sunk by it, but I oppose any attempt to present such as claim as a fact, or even as a serious conjecture. ➥the Epopt 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Scalar EM Weapon Lunacy 

message: Hi,
i'm on my way writing the german article into featured status. One question occured to me: is there any point i don't unterstand with the last garbled message "nine hundred north" (if it was exaclty like that)? Any hidden reference to test or crush depth i dont see? Thanks, --schlendrian •λ• 19:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nine hundred north 

message: Mr. McCoole's oft-repeated claim that he would not have closed the Main Steam stops, and thus kept main propulsion avalable, does not stand up for two reasons.
1. The S5W plant had a three position switch in Maneuvering that controlled the stops. Until procedures were revised following Thresher's loss, the switch was kept in "Auto" which means the stops would close automatically on a reactor scram, too quickly for an operator to prevent. Keeping this switch in Manual, so they didn't automatically close was one of the post-Thresher changes.
2. As the MPA, Mr. McCoole was responsible for training his people. There's no reason to believe they acted contrary to his training, and no reason to believe he would have done any different.
H.A. Joyce, Jr (fmr MM1(ss) 1971-1980, and son of ETC(SS) H.A. Joyce, plankowner and RC Div. Chief, USS Thresher, pre-comm thru 04/08/63)
:Regarding 1. Before we dismiss Lt. McCoole as a liar or victim of memory deluded by wishful thinking, perhaps there's an intermediate position. Your critique assumes that the stop switch was on "Auto" at the time of the SCRAM because this is what Navy procedure called for. I gather there was no lock out in place that would have prevented McCoole from moving the switch to manual at his discretion. Wouldn't a sub at or near test depth, especially with depleted batteries, present an intelligent time for an experienced Reactor Control Officer to do so? The fact that Rickover thought of it after the fact and changed policy doesn't mean somebody(s) in the fleet didn't think of and implement it first. In fact, the line from the article "Nothing enraged Rickover more than this argument. Common sense, he argued, would prove this to be untrue." suggests that just such a scenario was very much the case. I doubt the history of the Navy has no instances where experienced officers deviated from standard procedure.
:Regarding 2., As to training, would Lt. McCoole finish imparting all of his knowledge to his subordinate the moment he boarded, or a day, week or months later? More importantly, training and experience overlap somewhat but are hardly the same thing. Lt. McCoole stated that he had more experience, not training, than his subordinate. Surely you aren't suggesting that training held equal, experience is irrelevant in a combat team, and is not prized because it results in better choices and performance in difficult circumstances.
 
Mark Davis, Saw a submarine once.
WarQuestions 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could have saved the Thresher? 

message: Speaking of batteries, the article says "The logical action at this point would have been for Harvey to order propulsion shifted to a battery-powered backup system." and then just carries on. User WarQuestions stats above that the batteries were depleted. Can anybody shed more light into this? The nuclear power plant should both keep the sub running by itself, and probably recharge the batteries, even when submerged, right? So, why could Tresher not use her batteries for propulsion? If they were depleted, then again, why? thestor (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batteries 

message: I've edited the last half of the sentence
"This was done to prevent an over-rapid cooldown of the reactor, which could actually restart spontaneously and go out of control if the core was cooled too quickly."
to read
"This was done to prevent an over-rapid cool-down of the reactor." 
I'm not aware of any data reporting a reactor restart following a scram. When scrammed, the safety rods are totally in and there is no way fissioning could restart because the rods overwhelmingly absorb all neutrons buzzing around. That is precisely what they are designed for - to absolutely prevent a chain reaction under any circumstances.
Mark Davis
WarQuestions 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spontaneous reactor re-starts after SCRAM 

message: I think having an image that size on the page is a usability issue.  It slows rendering and can freeze browsers.  It's a very nice illustration of what happened, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.  Maybe someone with more technical skill than I have could make the file smaller?  If not, and if nobody comes up with a compelling reason to keep the file I might edit it out in a few days. 24.69.98.46 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  The animation sequence is beautiful, and we all should be honored that someone took time out of their day to make such an animation sequence that graphically explains the events.  If you can point me to evidence of how it hinders usability, then maybe we can link to the graphic externally instead of actually showing the graphic on the thresher page, but I have an old computer, and it works fine for me.   Does anyone else have any issues with it? Azoreg (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It presumably took a fair amount of effort, and I doubt anyone is prepared to remove it, but it looks amateurish, and it has issues. The animation loops, but there's no indication of when it is supposed to start and end; there's no clear timeline throughout the video to explain the chronology - it needs a time clock in the corner (the text-only chronology is a lot easier to understand). There is some text to explain the failure of the vales, but the rest of the action is not narrated, which gives the impression that the frozen valves were the only event that took place - the video doesn't even explain that the reactor fails, or why (perhaps we're supposed to intuit this from the stopped props). Did the submarine really drop like a stone, as portrayed in the video? I understand the desire not to offend people, but it needs to show the submarine imploding, if only with abstract graphics. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.7MB Animated .gif file

message: This article cannot be reached by typing "Tresher" nor "USS Tresher" in the search bar. Could someone make approbiate redirects? I lack the necessary user level. thestor (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article requires redirects to

message: The "tubes obstructed with ice" version always left me with a doubt "how the hiss was possible then ?". One of Russian article tells that investigation committee figured out, that compression air pressure was someday calculated for diesel submarines, and was not updated when nuclear submarines been designed for greater depths, hence the greater water pressure. The implication was that after power loss, either air pressure or tubes walls were not enough to counter external water pressure and lacking active powered equipment they just could not blow the water out. This article, to me, lacks the info about committee findings, versions and arguments against them. Of particular interest could be, what was the air pressure kept at submarine and how it compares to water pressure in the tanks. 79.111.218.128 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressed air pressure ? 

message: I've found a book compiled by the U.S. Navy in memorial to the Thresher and her crew. While this book contains little information on the sinking of the Thresher, I believe that it may be of interest to add it to a "Further Reading" section. It contains bios on all crew members, a copy of the eulogy shared at the memorial service, and written condolances from various Navy officers and dignitaries.
U.S. Atlantic Fleet. Staff , Deputy Commander Submarine Force. (1964) United States Ship Thresher (SSN 593): In memoriam April 10, 1963. U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet. No Available ISBN.
Ethan McHenry (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading Addition 

message: The current article the Sinking section paragraph #6 mentions "Thresher likely imploded at a depth of 1,300–2,000 ft (400–610 m)."  Later Bruce Rule's analysis is quoted as saying "With an estimated average sink-rate of about 130 feet per minute, its pressure-hull collapsed at 09:18:24 at an estimated depth of about 2,400 feet, more than 400 feet below her designed collapse depth."
Can someone clear this up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monzagorilla (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implosion depth discrepancy 

message: So I read the Navy Times article by Bruce Rule, then I came to this article and found that Rule's thesis wasn't separated out but was just kind of pasted in under the time sequence, and did not adequately explain Rule's theory and how much it differs from the official Navy theory.  For one thing, the article as I found it did not explain that Rule rejects flooding as a cause and says that the ship was intact up until it imploded.  I created a new section for the Rule analysis and I tried to reduce word cruft while including the fundamental information about Rule's theory.  Since AFAIK the official Navy theory is still the "flooding from a silver brazed joint" conclusion from 50 years ago, I took care to describe Rule's theory as Rule's theory and not the official facts. Vidor (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote Bruce Rule theory

message: @Andy Dingley, I agree that the British English term "sponsored" is a specific term with a specific meaning. In the WP article on the subject, "sponsored" appears to be conflated with the US term "christened" (have a look). I therefore felt it appropriate to change "sponsored" to "christened," given that the article is about a US submarine. In the US, we don't "sponsor" ships, other than, perhaps, in commercial sponsorship. 
Is it not the case that articles about specifically US subjects "usually should" be written in US English? Otherwise, we might have WP articles about the Ford Edsel referring to its boot and bonnet.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sponsored" 

message: I came to this page via Phil Ochs song, "The Thresher" from his album All the News That's Fit to Sing. Phil Ochs was notoriously anti-war, and his line of "can't you see the wrong? She was a death ship all along, died before she had a chance to kill" reflects that, but what do folks think about adding mention of this to the Memorials section? --Dhraakellian (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phil Ochs song 

message: 1 without proof it was safe 
2 for any tactical situation
just like the challenger - managers thought they knew best  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  no need to be at 1000 depth 

message: The story related re: LCDR "final transmission" is false for several reasons. 
# VLF is practically unusable at depths greater than 20 meters (depending upon many factors such as salinity, temperature, etc).
# Even if a recorded message were sent via buoy (don't think Thresher class boats had this capability) it certainly would not be of that content.  Not with anyone I've ever known in the U.S. Navy at least.
# As previously mentioned all officers would be at stations and the XO would likely be where needed most, aft where the main seals likely were leaking torrents during her terminal descent.  That or overseeing sealing engineering aft off.
# Last, no Naval Officer would be "afraid" of that admission.  Just look at the officers on the bridge when TWA 800 went down in the Atlantic.  The officers who believed they saw surface to air missles launched from nearby put their names to those claims.  That certainly was far more controversial than a silly "final transmission" from U.S.S Thresher.
God rest the men who crewed these boats and did not return to port, may their memory not be forgotten.
U.S.S. Thresher
U.S.S. Scorpion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgenes (talk • contribs) 07:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The story related re: LCDR "final transmission" is false for several reasons.   

message: https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2358204/department-of-navy-releases-records-related-to-loss-of-uss-thresher/
--Josephearlhebert (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Navy Releases Records Related to Loss of USS Thresher 

message: Hi, while adding a couple references from Rickover and the Nuclear Navy I saw a good quote on page 85 from Rickover early in the court inquiry, but I'm not sure how or if it should be included. Either way some might appreciate it -- 
I believe the loss of the THRESHER should not be viewed solely as the result of failure of a specific braze, weld, system or component, but rather should be considered a consequence of the philosophy of design, construction and inspection, that has been permitted in our naval shipbuilding programs. I think it is important that we re-evaluate our present practices where, in the desire to make advancements, we may have forsaken the fundamentals of good engineering. - Rickover, 29 April 1963
Strangerpete (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rickover quote from court 

message: The Japanese submarine I-52 (1942) was sunk with 112 men aboard, according to our article. J S Ayer (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a peek to see if I could quickly add it here, but sources over there are scant without the books; in addition I noticed the info box says 94 officers + 18 civilians, but the 'Fatal Voyage' section says there were 14 technicians (not clear if civilian or mil), and later picked up 2 german military. Only accounting for 16 there, and no clear citation for the 94 officers either, I think that article needs a little clean up before considering those numbers over here Strangerpete (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submarines lost with more than 100 aboard 

message: Rule concludes that the primary cause of the sinking was a failure of the electrical bus that powered the main coolant pumps. According to Rule, SOSUS data indicates that after two minutes of electrical instability, the bus failed at 09:11 a.m., causing the main coolant pumps to trip off. This caused an immediate reactor scram, resulting in a loss of propulsion.
Has there been any proof that such electrical instability can happen in similar electrical buses? Tvbanfield (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical Instabilities 

message: @EEng, it would be more appropriate for you to discuss your edit here rather than a very long comment to an edit.  Why start an editing war over such a small point? Vepr157 (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no danger of an edit war if you don't continue to restore  the idiotic information that a crewmember was absent because, specifically, his wife had been injured in a "household accident", as if that could possibly be of any value to the reader whatsoever. It shows a complete failure to grasp what is and isn't appropriate expenditure on our part the reader's time and attention. All that matters was that he was absent. EEng 06:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just like your opinion, man. In 16 years and about 1,000 edits no one has deemed that sentence to be as exaggeratedly inappropriate as you deem it to be. Have you considered that one might wonder why the reactor officer was not on board that day? In the grand scheme of things this sentence being there or not is not a big deal, but the way you are bullying your way to it being removed is concerning. Vepr157 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactor Officer