Talk:USS Nautilus (SSN-571)

Content replaced

I replaced the previous contents of the page, which were identical to http://www.ussnautilus.org/history.htm , with the DANFS entry --the Epopt 23:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Big Science categorization explanation

Could someone please explain how this article is related to the category Big Science? Thanks. Alex.tan 14:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's how the category is defined:

  Big Science describes the trend in large scale science projects which
  became increasingly common after World War II. They are often said to
  involve the five Ms:
   * Men
   * Machines
   * Media
   * Money
   * Military

I think that USS Nautilus (SSN-571) involves those categories. - Bevo 17:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Circumnavigation?

Nautilus is mentioned as making the first submerged Circumnavigation, yet no mention of that here. Presumably it's during the "11 years of history missing"?

Sworked 04:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nope, that was the USS TRIDENT

Vasa2 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Triton, not Trident.216.80.110.88 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Depth Typo ?

From the article:

...96 hours and 1830 miles under the ice...

That seems a bit too deep to be plausible...

I this refers to the distance traveled not the operating depth. Most submarines do not operate much below eight hundred feet. L Hamm 16:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

ASW Question

The article states:

such changes in submerged mobility having virtually wiped out progress in anti-submarine warfare techniques

What is the evidence for this statement? Is there a comparison for pre and post nuclear ASW? L Hamm 16:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Review Friedman's US Submarines since 1945 and Tyler's Running Critical for a discussion of the effects of nuclear propulsion on ASW.

ssn571.com

I deleted the link to ssn571.com as it is a commercial with no useful information on Nautilus. The 'search for crew' link was an affiliate link to Ancestry.com and the 'pictures' link was an affiliate link to art.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.164.253 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Nautilus was almost lost early in her career

The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Beneath the Sea by John Pina Craven

"More than a year and a half later, in the first days of October 1956, there was neither press coverage nor ceremony on the Thames when the Nautilus slowly made her way to the Electric Boat Company dry dock. She had been tried at sea and had won every praise and laurel. Now, however, she was silently limping home. She was "down by the bow," as keen observers could see, but no one except her captain, Commander Eugene P. "Dennis" Wilkinson, had the slightest indication that the mighty Nautilus might be in grave danger. ... Wilkinson was in shock because he now realized that he had come closer to losing the Nautilus than he had ever thought...I had never before seen or imagined a structure so completely destroyed by stress and fatigue ... Our inspection disclosed, to our horror, that all the ballast tanks showed splits along their sides..."

Craven was the naval engineer in charge of the Polaris submarine design program.

Vasa2 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

== USS NAUTILUS SSN-571 Collision with USS ESSEX CVS-9, 10 NOV 1967.

I was a junior officer serving in ESSEX in 1967 as a CICWO. At the time of the collision I was soundly asleep in the junior officer bunkroom tucked under the flight deck in the forward section of the ship (We were standing Port and Starboard watches under Condition 1 AS, a modifified form of anti-submarine battle stations) when a loud noise was heard and a brief shudder passed through ESSEX, a 29k ton anti-submarine aircraft carrier. ESSEX went promptly to general quarters which is standard operating procedure for protecting a naval ship in the case of a collision of unknown proportions or a fire not under control as the crew immediately mans their battle ststions, including manning damage control parties, and sets Condition Zebra which secures all water-tight hatches throughout the ship.

ESSEX, her task group comprised of several destroyer and destroyer escorts, and NAUTILUS were conducting exercises in the Virginia Capes Operations Area (VACAPESOPAREA. ESSEX was being replenished underway by a fleet oiler and both ships were being screened by the escorts. The wind was backing and the UNREP ships were altering ROMEO CORPEN (replenishment course) five degrees to port to put the relative wind 355 degree relative to their ship's head. NAUTILUS successfully penetrated the screen and was simulating torpedo attacks when she apparently miscalculated either her submerged depth and/or the course of the mainbody. NAUTILUS's conning tower struck ESSEX which draws 29 to 30 feet depending on how she is loaded, on the forward port quarter of her bow-mounted SONAR. NAUTILUS was believed to roll to starboard and to pass under ESSEX keel rerighting herself as she executed an emergency surfacing procedure in he vicinity of ESSEX elevator on her starboard side, some 500-600 feet from her bow.

NAUTILUS appeared as though the forward leading corner of her sail area had been bitten cleanly off. Injuries were minor to two NAUTILOS crewman and to a Sonarman First Class in ESSEX. NAUTILUS did not suffer any apparent damage to her nuclear reactor or powerplant. No leaks of radioactive material were reported as testimony to her thorough construction. ESSEX's bow mounted sonar was badly dented/deformed but the ship's water-tight integrity was never breached, and she transited to the Boston Naval Shipyard for repairs and deployed in late May 1967 for an EASTLANT NATO Anti-submarine exercise (ASWEX). Fpartel (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(Former) Ensign Frank Partel - remember you well Sir! It was a pleasure working with you aboard ESSEX back then. I was a Reserve Seaman, mess cooking at the time and destined to OI Division. LTjg Ron Cummings recruited me away from OI Division to work the yet to be built ASCAC across the centerline passageway.

The reason why I write is that the collision with NAUTILUS was 10 NOV 1967, and we were located off the Virginia Capes. Recall , Sir, that we spent the following Christmas in the Boston South Yards drydock repairing/replacing the sonar and sonar dome before getting underway for Springboard. We then ran aground near Vieques, PR just a few months later. Luckily the blocks were still in place in Boston where the hull was repaired again.

Security concerns?

What security concerns can there be for a 50 year old, obsolete design submarine that doesn't have its nuclear reactor installed? Sounds more like fancy wording for "We didn't restore or refurbish the rest of the submarine for tourists.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

maybe communication tech the u.s. is still hiding? or perhaps spots in the hull are weaker than other and they dont want anyone sinking the ship, welll sub really 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

the de-fueled reactor is still in the boat. the engine room is set-up for tours, however the area is still classified and security regulations prevent public access.--108.34.210.131 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

USS Nautilus (SN-571) Torpedos

Does anyone know the diameter of the torpedos car--75.172.240.127 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)ried on the Nautilus? USS Nautilus has six 21" torpedo tubes. --108.34.210.131 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For the most part Nautilus carried 21" torpedoes. She has been preserved with Mark 14 torpedoes. However, as with other US submarines 1956-72, an exception was the Mark 37 torpedo. This was designed for swimming out of a 21-inch tube rather than being ejected. The torpedo itself was 19" diameter, with 1" thick guide studs to allow space around the torpedo for swimming out. RobDuch (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thames River

For some time I wrestled with this phrase: "and then set a westerly course that put her into the Thames River estuary". Everyone knows that the Thames estuary is on the east coast of England, and so east of Portland. I thought is was a simple typo, but then it twigged. It was refering not to THE Thames, but to a minor river somewhere in USA. I suggest that no-one outside the USA would know this, so I have taken the liberty of changing it.

Baska436 (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC) The New London submarine base (actually Groton CT) and Electric Boat are located on the Thames River. The river flows south into Long Island Sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.54.98 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

To anyone familiar with US submarines, they are well aware of the OTHER Thames (also pronounced differently than the English version), but good catch, because many people are not aware. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of the TP's

Sorry, but the Wiki Talk Pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the articles, not for someone "fishing" for information on some lawsuit.

Noise?

Can we expand coverage of the internal noise problems for Nautilus, and the adverse effect this had on crews. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we also explain to laymen reading an encyclopedia what is meant by a vibrating "sail"? --BjKa (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The "sail" of a submarine is the streamlined housing on the top. It contains the main personnel hatch, access tube, periscope, snorkel(s), RADAR and radio antennas etc. Some sails also support a pair of dive planes. Apparently after so much distance traveled and the squeezing of all the diving and surfacing, some of the streamlining skin and perhaps parts of the structure supporting it had worked loose. As Nautilus was a one of a kind boat primarily built for research and development of technologies for later submarine classes, the US Navy and Congress wouldn't have considered it worth the time and money to do a full teardown and rebuild of an obsolete submarine. Bizzybody (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ice Thickness

I remember well listening to news reports of the voyage to the north pole, and that there was extensive data collected about the thickness of the arctic ice. Despite the relevance of this information to the current interest in global warming, there is no information in the article about this ice thickness. An average thickness of about 26 feet keeps coming to mind. What are the real numbers? Of course, there was a great range of thicknesses of ice, and the submarine only surfaced in temporary patches of thin ice or open water, but how thick was the ice? Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC) I note, from the article, that on August 1, 1958, the ice in the Bearing Sea was as much as 18 meters or 60 feet thick. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Nautilus (SSN-571). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070120064339/http://www.sots.ct.gov:80/RegisterManual/SectionX/SITESEALSYMB.htm to http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionX/SITESEALSYMB.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Class of vessel

For those who are not familiar with the conventions followed by the U.S. Navy (and likely other nations as well) the first vessel of a new design becomes the name of the following ships' class. For example, I was on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) which was considered a Nimitz class vessel (named for CVN-68, USS Nimitz) as were other carriers constructed after until I believe a major design change happened, at which time, the following classes were then named for the first one in the bunch. I have not been able to find what class the Nautilus (SSN 571) belonged to. I would think that being the first nuclear powered submarine in the U.S. Navy would make it a class all it's own, but from what I have been able to find, it is not considered as such. Anyone happen to know this information? 32.212.102.239 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is considered its own class, a it's a new design not based on another type. Where did you find information that it's not considered its own class? - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Museum Status

Nautilus now serves as a museum of submarine history operated by the Naval History and Heritage Command. The ship underwent a five-month preservation in 2002 at Electric Boat, at a cost of approximately $4.7 million. Nautilus attracts some 250,000 visitors annually to her present berth near Naval Submarine Base New London Lack a citation. Now - in October I see several sites quoting the ship has now gone to Electric Boat for preservation. I try searching for information on the 2002 Preservation effort, and an not succeeding. Any body know of any citations for the 2002 Preservation effort. I also recommend deletion of the second sentance - duplicate - included in the Article Header. Wfoj3 (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Museum Section

Last paragraph regarding "herculean" effort and attempt to minimise others effort does not seem fitting for an encyclopaedia entry. Referenced article also s Ems to be behind a paywall. 2A01:C22:C94C:4800:5109:63F7:9D34:257F (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. The sentence in question was a bit of vandalism added July 5. I have removed it.--agr (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

UNDERWATER FREIGHT??

"Nuclear-powered cargo submarines may, in the future, use this route to the advantage of world trade."-- seriously? I wonder when this was written. Maybe 1935?

Actually, now, I believe if you want to sail the Northwest Passage you can do it on the surface.

Maybe just to delete this sentence.2600:6C50:800:2787:29AB:E316:C300:F82E (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)