Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Monday, April 10, 2006

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.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

Blogger Mike Chapman said...

While Googling the 50th anniversary of the Thresher sinking, I came upon this:

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