Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: ANDREW::esmythe@ATL.dnet.ge.com (Erich J Smythe)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Rickover and Safety (was seawolf submarine)
Message-ID: <1990Nov30.023259.10033@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 30 Nov 90 02:32:59 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 44
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Erich J Smythe <"ANDREW::esmythe"@ATL.dnet.ge.com>
>From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
>
>In article <1990Nov21.222724.21580@cbnews.att.com>, Allan Bourdius writes: 
>*Not only was SSN 575 decomissioned, it was stricken from the Navy List
>*and scrapped.
>
>*The liquid sodium reactor was removed because it didn't work very well.
>
>this is the official reason.  some argue that it was scrapped because
>Rickover didn't like it, and that it might have had great potential
>if developed properly.
>
>mind you, i'm no expert and am not prepared to argue the point.
>
>richard
>-- 
I may not be one of Rickover's greatest fans, but the legacy he left the
nuclear navy was an overwhelming commitment safety.  He knew that 1) any
accident would have prohibited the acceptance of nuclear power in the navy,
and 2) even minor accidents would have unacceptably endangered crews, 
requiring protective equipment for the lifetime of the vessel.  He required
scrupulous attention to safety, and prohibited any unnecessary risks. 
He rode Electric Boat hard, since he knew that any accident at the shipyard
would impede the mission of the submarine.  At EB, radiation training is
part of your first day's indoctrination, even in my case when I was working
13 miles away from any nuclear materials.

Rickover killed the liquid sodium reactor in part because he felt it 
represented an unacceptable safety margin.  In doing so he knew he was
giving up more power with less weight.  The soviets, on the other hand,
have developed liquid sodium reactor propulsion, and their boats are the
fastest at sea.  

Anyone with hard (and unclassified) facts on the _nuclear_ safety records
of the two navys care to comment?  It would be interesting to see how
the safety/speed tradeoff is going.

-erich smythe
esmythe@atl.dnet.ge.com   (don't use reply, the return address is wrong)
GE Advanced Technology Labs
Moorestown, NJ