April 10, 1963 -- Loss Of USS Thresher
Forty-three years ago today, USS Thresher (SSN 593) was lost during sea trials with 129 riders and crew. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard marked the anniversary this weekend with a solemn ceremony. While the sinking of Thresher remains a cause of mourning within the Sub Force, we can take solace from the fact that the boat's loss spurred the development of the SubSafe program, which I believe has been one of the main reason we haven't lost any boats since USS Scorpion (SSN 589) in 1968 -- the program wasn't fully implemented in time to save her.
To the families of the 129 men lost aboard Thresher -- their sacrifice was not in vain. We continue to honor them along with all Submariners still on Eternal Patrol.
Update 0623 11 April: Here's a new American Heritage article on the loss of the Thresher. From this page, I also found a pretty good article on the history of submarine escape systems from 1986.
posted by Bubblehead at 12:24 AM
2 Comments:
Hi. It ate my first post so this one is shorter. I'll be home in about an hour.Right now we're in Health learning about diabetes. I have a project due on the 24th. You had better remember dad.
That is all, deepdiver
4/10/2006 1:44 PM
While Googling the 50th anniversary of the Thresher sinking, I came upon this:
https://www.designed4submariners.com/Thresher_Loss_Analysis.html
As poorly written as it is, this raises some interesting questions:
*Could you really determine the status and health of an electrical bus based on acoustical analysis of cooling pump speed?
*...especially using the technology of the day (limited computing power.)
*...and isn't it convenient that the original recordings were destroyed?
*...and if there were an electrical problem, wouldn't you think the CO would stop the dive until the problem was located? As an ex-ENG, he would know all too well the hazards of scramming out at or near test depth.
*If there was no pipe rupture, why did the sub sink? It suggests that the ship had negative buoyancy on a deep dive after overhaul - which seems like insanity.
Anyway, it's an interesting take. It seems to exonerate the workmanship at Portsmouth - which may be the idea.
What do you think of this? I noted elsewhere that Norman Polmar cited this analysis in a shot he took at the current director of NR (why is Polmar still whizzed at NR? DId they cancel a ride he was to take?)
3/12/2013 9:34 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home