Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Raising the Kursk 134

Posted by michael from the raiding-davy-jones-locker dept.
imrdkl writes: "Theres a conglomeration of Euro companies, from Euro countries renowned for their sea-prowess, who are working together with the Russians to raise their stricken sub. This will be some happy news, when they get it finished. Hopefully before winter gets bad up there in the "circle". A pretty good article, with a nifty flash animation which gives some notion of the scope of this engineering feat is to be found at USA Today."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Raising the Kursk More

Raising the Kursk

Comments Filter:
  • Someone remind me why it sank? Or did the Russians just vaguely avoid this question?
    • Well according to the russians it collided with an American sub. So where is the American sub? Limped home? Does this mean American subs have a sturdier construction? Unlikely. Most like what happened is a miss fire of a torpedo which tore a whole in the front end of sub sending it to the bottom of the ocean along with it's trainee crew. It would of course look better for the Russians if they had someone to blame it on :)

    • Re:Memory loss (Score:3, Informative)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      They never officially gave a cause (though they first blamed a NATO sub accidentally hitting it). There's been specualtion that there was an accident during what was supposed to be a test of a supercavitating (supersonic) torpedo, but it's generally accepted now by those who study such things that the problem was a plain old torpedo getting old without enough maintenance.

    • Re:Memory loss (Score:3, Informative)

      by StandardDeviant ( 122674 )
      going theory is that they were testing some sort of experimental torpedo that cooked off in the forward torpedo room, causing an explosive loss of hull integrity. this may be why they're a little vague about what exactly happened. some theories were common in russia that a western sub sank it; a western sub was in the area monitering what was going on (probably trying to listen in on the above test), but the theory that said sub did the sinking was eventually officially denied by the russians as well as the western agencies involved and so has been pretty much discredited. odds are the only people who know exactly what happened are dead.

    • Re:Memory loss (Score:5, Informative)

      by pmc ( 40532 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @03:26AM (#2367315) Homepage
      The theory that I believe is that a torpedo exploded. This was not the warhead going off, but the oxidiser. The Russian navy use hydrogen peroxide as an oxidiser - it is run through a catalyser to produce oxygen and water. On its own it is extremely safe. The torpedo system was thought to be live (they were about to do some test firing so this is a good assumption) and this puts the peroxide under pressure. This is the normal state of affairs.

      What happen now was that one of the pipes carrying the peroxide leaked and started spraying peroxide over the inside of the torpedo tube. All that's needed now for an explosion is a) the tube is reasonably air-tight (which is probably true) and b) that there is copper (one of the catalysts for the peroxide to oxygen reaction) available - these would usually be pipes carrying propellent.

      The British Navy learned in the fifties (after a similar incident) that copper was bad, and most people that used the peroxide method had removed copper (and any other catalysts) from the torpedoes. The Russians, due to a combination of suspicion, N-I-H syndrome, and a misplaced belief in their engineering prowess, are thought to have left the copper pipes in.

      At this state - after the oxidiser pipe has broken - you have a tube full of oxygen, electrics, and fuel (both the steel of the tube, the warhead, and the propellant). The pressure of the tube is also increasing rapidly. Then either the tube bursts through hydrostatic pressure, causing sparks and an oxygen fire, or a spark in the torpedo triggers an oxygen fire. Oxygen fires are very fierce, act like explosions, and are very difficult to extinguish. Add that the fire was in the forward torpedo room - full of fuel and munitions - you have a disaster.
      • This is the explanation I've heard too. The BBC aired a documentary program on it a month or two back. The torpedo motor was somehow started before the torpedo was launched. With the propeller running out of the water the motor ran overspeed and the pressure in the peroxide pipe increased to the point where it burst.
      • OK, I guess I'm old and stupid, but what the hell is an "oxygen fire"? Back when I was a kid and they invented fire, all fires used oxygen. I was out sick for while during the bronze age -- did I miss something?
        • Sorry - talking in jargon again. An oxygen fire is just a fire in an enriched oxygen atmosphere. Seems innocent, but things that don't normally burn (such as steel plate) will ignite. There is also a risk of spontaneous combustion of plastic and rubber if the percentage oxygen is high enough.

          There are very difficult to put out because

          a) it's hard to remove the fuel - steel plate will burn in these conditions (very hot, lots of oxygen)

          b) it's hard to remove the source of ignition (as things are spontaneously combusting anyway)

          c) It's hard to remove the oxygen (as there is so much of it)

          There is a classic chemistry experiment with steel wool and liquid oxygen. First you try to set steel wool alight - it can be done but is smolders gently. Then you try setting steel wool that has been soaked in liquid oxygen alight - whoosh: looks like a magnesium flare going off.
          • Got it. Come to think of it, a better term doesn't leap to mind.

            I remember reading about a test performed early in the space program. Guy lives in a pure O2 atmosphere for several days, see if he gets all giggly and stuff. Things go great until the ceiling light burns out. Hot bulb, so he grabs a towel and reaches up to change it -- WHOOSH! burning towel, burning sleeve, burning arm, until they crack the hatch and foam him.

            And of course, there was Apollo 1.

    • It has been told that they were testing a version of the Shkval supercavitating [fas.org] torpedo. These torpedoes apparently operate by forming bubbles of gas around the torpedo, therefore reducing the amount of friction.

      More on supercavitation here [sciam.com].
      • This is actually what happened. The torpedo warhead was activated just after "launch", so it is believed. The current insider theory/rumor going around is that the new experimental torpedo (a supercavitating, possibly *supersonic*) torpedo was designed to have a self-activating warhead based upon a simple time elapsing mechanism. It is believed that the shaft chamber malfunctioned, but those in the control room were not aware of it. They ordered the launch, the torpedo chamber flooded, the torpedo armed, and "boom".
        • This is actually what happened. The torpedo warhead was activated just after "launch", so it is believed. The current insider
          theory/rumor going around is that the new experimental torpedo (a supercavitating, possibly *supersonic*) torpedo was
          designed to have a self-activating warhead based upon a simple time elapsing mechanism. It is believed that the shaft
          chamber malfunctioned, but those in the control room were not aware of it. They ordered the launch, the torpedo chamber
          flooded, the torpedo armed, and "boom".


          The torpedo arm system is based on distance not time. It's based on distance for some very good reason and what you claim above is one of them. But consider that there is a great than one in 20 of to the torpedo being dub. How do you get the
          torpedo out of the flooded tube and turn it off before the timer goes off???? You can't, this is why torpedo's don't use timers.


          Another problem with timers is if the torpedo leaves the boat with engine problems and doesn't get to a safe distance, i.e. it limps a long at a inches a second, then arms and detinates itself next to it's boat of origin.


          Submarine warfare has been around for 100s of years, over the last 100 years we've got more effective at it, but we still seem to mess up.... I'd say one of the more exciting things about the next 100 years is going to be more personal submarine tarvel.

    • Like the world trade center collapse,
      the Kurusk explosions were well recorded by
      seimometers around northern European.
      The sounds suggest two explosions: (1) a smaller
      sub-disabling explosion and (2) a larger explosion
      of a torpedo going off while inside the sub.
  • It's very encouraging to hear about some good news throughout this very unsettling time. The Kursk is certainly a tragedy to itself, and I'm glad to hear that the men who died on that submarine are not being forgotten, especially in something as terrible as the recent terror attacks. Perhaps is this acceptance from Russia of European help a side-effect of the world-unity we are starting to experience? Hopefully this is a trend we can look forward to.
    • Even though it is nice for the families of the people who died to get to do a proper burial, I do not think this operation is done for the benefit of these unfortunate soldiers. It is a long tradition in marine nation to see the sea as a proper burial place for sailors who lose their life at sea. That is why for instant the ferry Estonia, that went down between Sweden and Finland, has not been raised or tried to be emptied for bodies, even though many relatives have been working hard for it. The argument of the Swedish goverment is that the ship itself is a proper graveyard for the passengers and the extra cost of raising the ship or getting out bodies at the risk of divers life, does not match the . The real reason to get the Kursk out of the sea, even though it is an extreemly difficult operation, is that you don't want a nuclear reactor in the sea slowly rusting away. This area of the north atlantic is extreemly important for fishing. The sad part is that there is still a lot of retired submarines and radioactive waste that the russian navy don't care about or don't have money to take care of in this area. The norwegian environmental organization Bellona has been working hard to gets funds and understanding that something has to be done to this potential environmental catastrophy. Check out http://www.bellona.no/ [bellona.no] for more information.
  • I'm sure the initial goal will be investigation.

    After that, perhaps a memorial to people who've died at sea for (the soviet union || CIS || russia) would be constructed out of it? I'll be interested to see what they do with it, it'd be a shame if they just ended up scrapping it to make cheap razor blades or something. (OTOH, if somehow they reconstruct her I imagine most sailors would be hesitant to sail on a ship with that sort of history...)

  • hmmm (Score:1, Interesting)

    by FireChipmunk ( 447917 )
    Seems like a crazy idea to me. Isn't it a little bit late to be starting somthing like this up there?

    Little link I found with some good info on the Kursk: http://www.subexpo.com/oscar/ [subexpo.com]

  • that Halliburton [halliburton.com], the oil drilling firm whose last CEO was Dick Cheney, got the first offer to raise the Kursk but it eventually went to someone else. [aftenposten.no]


    Insert conspiracy theories here. [goatse.cx]

    • Dear SaintTaco:
      PLEASE FIX SLASHDOT. I've been a good geek this year. I dont deserve this! Under my preferences, I have the option selected:

      Display Link Domains? (shows the actual domain of any link in brackets)
      [ ] Never show link domains
      [X] Show the links domain only in recommended situations
      [ ] Always show link domains

      For the love of Pete, you'd think that the "conspiracy theories here" link above to goatse.cx would be considered a 'recommended situation' and put a lil [www.goatse.cx] next to it...I luckily am weary enough from previous coffee spitting exercises to mouse over my links still, regardless of preferences.
      But PLEASE fix this, or dont have it at all.


      [for the humor impaired: its a joke, but it does have a kernel of truth to it]

  • CIA tried to do this once. only quietly. (Score:5, Informative)

    by motherhead ( 344331 ) on Friday September 28, 2001 @11:59PM (#2367112)
    The CIA tried to do something just like this in the 70's it only kinda worked out for them though.

    Here is a blurb about it:

    1974
    The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency attempted to raise a Soviet Golf-class diesel-powered boat, K-129, which sank in 1968. The agency did so under cover of a deep-ocean mineral recovery effort using a ship built for the purpose, the Glomar Explorer. The submarine apparently broke apart and the stern half fell back to the bottom.

    I stole that from NOVA online by they way.

    Too tired for more google searches, but perhaps you aren't.
    • Okay one more google search,

      this is about the "Glomar Explorer" the ship that was purpose built to attempt the covert raising of the K-129 back in 1974

      http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer. ht m
    • There is a good discussion about the Glomar Explorer in the book Blind Man's Bluff (The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage) by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew. It is an interesting read.

    • Re:CIA tried to do this once. only quietly. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Talkischeap ( 306364 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @04:13AM (#2367350) Homepage

      Yeah, this was pretty cool...

      My old man was one of the designers of the claw that picked up the Golf class sub, they called the claw "Clementine".

      Unfortunately, due to ocean conditions at the time, they grabbed the sub wrong (Ahead of the conning tower.), and it broke in half while raising it.

      All the Russian sailors bodies that were recovered, were given full honorable burial at sea, complete with Russian flags, and it was video taped to cover their asses, just in case the cover on this Black Op was blown.

      Remember that the cover story was that the legendary Howard Hughes was doing ocean mining for manganese nodules, that are found at great depth in many parts of the worlds oceans.

      They actually did some real mining runs as a part of the cover story, I still have several of these very cool manganese nodules, they look like little black cauliflowers.

      It's a facinating story of real world spying, and covert operations.

      After it was declassified, my father recieved a letter of thanks from the Prez, for his part in it, and a little "plaque".

      At least two books were written about it, I read the one my dad had called "A Matter Of Risk" [pacificsites.com], which is a great story.

      From the above page: A Matter of Risk by Roy Varner & Wayne Collier, Ballantine Books 1978, ISBN 0-345-28639-1 First Edition May 1980.

  • ...or "Old habits die hard"
    Russian officials say they want to: "eliminate any potential threat to the area's rich fishing grounds from its twin nuclear reactors" The country doesn't have a history of taking great care with nuclear hazards.

    I think everyone would be OK with it if the Russians just went ahead and said "we don't want other countries snooping around our submarine technology".
  • Yeah, I guess 10 sentences is a pretty good USA Today article!

    No, seriously, the graphic is pretty nice. I would have thought that cutting off the nose would be dangerous, given that explosives were stored nearby and may have moved in the blast. Getting the people back is good, and I'm sure the russians had a few secrets on that sub they wouldn't want anyone else to see, but I would have thought that the nose was the most interesting part of the wreck: It would be the best evidence for the still-debated cause of the sinking.

    (and the article is actually from the AP, as much as I like to knock USA Today for their "short attention span" journalism)
    • OT - USA Today: Still bugs me how they put sentences together with little regard for safety of the reader:

      "The Giant 4, a hoisting pontoon, will lift the 24,000-ton Kirsk off the floor of the Barents Sea, more than a year after it sank, killing all 118 crewmembers."

      I had to stop and read this a couple times. How will lifting the 24,000-ton Kirsk off the bottom of the Barents Sea kill all 118 crewmembers>

      Commas can help make a sentence easier to read. Unfortunately they can also make you go blind.
      • How will lifting the 24,000-ton Kirsk off the bottom of the Barents Sea kill all 118 crewmembers?

        Aren't you familiar with Schrodinger's cat? Until you actually open the box...
        • "Suppose we put a cat in a cage with a radioactive atom, a Geiger counter, a hammer, and a poison bottle; further suppose that the atom in the cage has a half-life of one hour, a fifty-fifty chance of decaying within the hour. If the atom decays, the Geiger counter will tick; the triggering of the counter will activate the hammer, which will break the poison bottle, which will kill the cat. If the atom doesn't decay, none of the above things happen, and the cat will be alive. Now the question, What is the state of the cat after the hour? "

          I give up.

  • Winter Comes Soon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @12:07AM (#2367129) Journal
    Winter comes soon to the oceans of the Artic.

    Remember that this is basically farther north than Norway and East Of Lapland. Even with the last traces of the Gulf Stream up there, I expect snow and ice to appear soon.

    I was up there in that sea once on a navy ship. The terrain is barren for a reason!

    I wish them luck!

  • First is the website being run by the salvage operation: http://www.kursksalvage.com [kursksalvage.com]. Hourly updates, diagrams, engineering plans, animations, all the official details one could ever dream for. Truly a goldmine for those interested in the hows.

    Second resource is a transcript [bbc.co.uk] from a recent BBC program on the Kursk that reviews the various theories about the sinking of the Kursk. It discusses the Russian allegations of US sub hitting the Kursk (as nation's subs have bumped each other numerous times in the past.) It also goes into depth on the popular British theory that a torpedo ran amuck in a way similar to a 40-year old incident of theirs only recently explained. Interesting and reasonably current thinking on the why.

  • IIRC they've used balloons before to raise sunken ships. This give you the advantage that it's relatively cheap and you don't need to do a lot of work, just drop down some compressed air with it and once they're all attached just pump'em full of air and it raises itself. Why wasn't this done in this case?
    • Probably control. The lift bag system is nice and cheap, but tough to control. Once the load starts lifting the gas in the bags expands. That produces more lift, it rises faster, the gas expands more etc. The bags can rupture or dump their gas and then the whole thing sinks again.Jacks and big barge is the way to go here.
  • well, i was waiting for this, i wonder if they will tell us why it really sank

  • would the sailors want this? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Would the sailors who died on board under the sea really want to be raised? It has always been my understanding that, traditionally, this would be considered their final "grave" and, in a somewhat romantic way, this would be where a sailor who died with his ship would want to remain.
    • read the article before posting:

      "Russian officials want to raise the submarine to eliminate any potential threat to the area's rich fishing grounds from its twin nuclear reactors and try determine the cause of its sinking."

      I don't think romatic views take precedence over glowing fish... but I could be wrong.
      • Well, i guess it depends on what you call romantic. As candles arn't much use with a couple of trillion gallons of water around you, glowing fish might just be the "next best thing"...

        and the prunes would be very fresh, mind you...

  • Anything more on supercavitation & Kursk? (Score:5, Informative)

    by alewando ( 854 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @12:51AM (#2367191)
    As late as last May, the major news services were all abuzz [sciam.com] about supercavitation technology and the Kursk — everything pointed in the direction of Shkval, Russia's supercavitation [deepangel.com] torpedo that's been in development for the past couple decades and which is supposed to go in excess of hundreds of miles per hour under water inside an envelope of gas it generates.

    Why haven't we heard anything more since? Even if it turns out not to be true, it's nevertheless intriguing and worthy of as much speculation as the rest of what we've been hearing (in the absence of any real news to report these past months on the subject). When they bring the Kursk back up, it's bound to be missing large chunks where classified hardware was stripped out in the intervening months.

    If the media fail to titilate us with wild speculation about sexy technology, then they're not the media we've come to know and love. I for one am still waiting on baited breath.
    • The BBC did a followup Horizon programme about what sunk the Kursk. They suggested that a torpedo had had its engine switched on and left running while it was still in the armoury, which caused a fuel line to burst.

      Apparently, Russian torpedos are powered by hydrogen peroxide, which reacts with metal to produce a gas (expanding several hundred times), so when the fuel line burst, the peroxide reacted to the metal casing of the torpedo, and caused it to eventually explode, starting a fire which couldn't be controlled, causing the rest of the armaments to explode. (A British submarine was sunk due to a similar incident sometime around WWII, which is why we don't use peroxide torpedos)

      Andrew.

    • Re:Anything more on supercavitation & Kursk? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      For more on supercaviation see www.sciam.com, for their popular article "Warp Speed under Water". Essentially supercaviation involves enveloping an object in a mantle of gas which reduces the friction around the object so much higher speeds are attainable than otherwise. Estimates of speeds of hundreds of km/hr underwater have been made. A not too dissimilar approach was used in the sixties for airplanes, a plane's wing was drilled with thousands of almost microscopic holes so the air at speed would pass through the wing thus reducing the chaotic flow conditions at the leading edge. Also small elements have been used, experimentally, on wings so that chaotic flow is reduced.
  • About six months ago PopSci had a good article on this task. . .they may have it on their web site by now (I'm too tired to kool right now. . .)
  • Any ideas how much will it cost to raise the sub?

  • Kursk in VRML (Score:2, Informative)

    by PrismaticBooger ( 103265 )
    ParallelGraphics [parallelgraphics.com] has put together some slick VRML scenes depicting the salvage operation. There's a link from their home page. It needs their VRML browser, but if you're running Windows it's worth a look.

  • Dutch Pride :-) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Raindeer ( 104129 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @02:26AM (#2367271) Homepage Journal
    At the risk of being considered chauvenistic, there is a sense of pride for me as a Dutchman, that this job is being done by the Dutch. As a kid I would often get photobooks from the public library which had the work of these companies in there.

    The things these companies have towed, lifted, salvaged and transported is amazing. If you want to have a look at some of their projects, go to the Mammoet projects site [mammoet.com] and go to the salvage website of Smit International [smit-international.com]

    You should also have a look at Mammoet's new building. It is made from metal, looks like a 43 meter high bollard [mammoet.com] and is built indoors, up to the cabling, the sockets etc. etc. Then it needs to be transported whole over water for about 30km and lifted to its location.

    The Van Seumeren family, that owns and runs the company is pretty down to earth and unconventional. When a journalist asked the Director Jan van Seumeren Sr. what he would do when they had lifted the Kursk, he replied: "Ooh man, that is going to be some party, we are going to be drunk for a week." (BTW the family also owns a small bar, that they bought when they thought too many yuppies came in.)

  • How will they overcome the 35,000 tons of soil suction pressure with 25,100 tons of crane lifting power? Yes, I did read the words as well as look at the pictures!

  • Why the Kursk sank (Score:5, Informative)

    by RussGarrett ( 90459 ) <{russ} {at} {garrett.co.uk}> on Saturday September 29, 2001 @03:38AM (#2367329) Homepage
    There was a television program on here in Britain a few months ago investigating why the Kursk sank. Essentially, several seconds before the Kursk actually exploded, seimologists picked up a first, much smaller blast which was similar in waveform, which indicates a similar source of the blast.

    The program claimed that an experimental torpedo in the ship sprung a leak of Hydrogen Peroxide propellant, which reacted with metal fittings inside the body of the torpedo, producing Oxygen and slowly pressurisng the torpedo. About 30 seconds before the Kursk actually exploded, they claim the body of the torpedo exploded, filling the forward hull of the submarine with Oxygen, and inevitably causing fires. The crew of the ship couldn't keep these fires under control, and after time the torpedo warheads exploded, flooding the forward torpedo compartments and sinking the boat.

    They based this conclusion on the fate of a little-known (so little-known I can't remember it's name) British sub, which sank in harbour off the coast of Scotland. The Navy investigation concluded that this was due to a Hydrogen Peroxide leak inside an experimental torpedo the sub was carrying.
    • I saw the same documentation, but I have a few corrections:
      The program wasn't talking about experimental torpedoes in the russian ship. The britisch accident you refer to was caused by an experimental one. The suspected kursk-killer was a torpedo like used all in the russian navy. The british just backed off from this type of torpedoes, the russians used it widely.

      The oxygen production is not entirely true, the main product, iirc, is heat, turning the formed water into steam, quite rapidly.
      This caused the torpedo to crack open, releasing the oxygen., with the known consequences...

  • Russian style communication... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kraft ( 253059 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @04:55AM (#2367385) Homepage
    Time Europe ran a feature [time.com] on the raising of Kursk a week ago.

    The story linked describes nicely the sideshow journalists find themselves in, when dealing with Russian officials. Lies, name-calling seem to be part of the norm when they have set dates for the recovery.

    says official: "The information you're getting unofficially isn't the truth. The only information one must trust is what we say officially."

    This is nicely followed up by an interview [time.com] with Vice Admiral Yevgeny Chernov who believes Moscow is covering up the cause of the accident.

    "Had it been done, we would have known what happened to the Kursk. Now, there are three versions. A floating mine, which is nonsense. A collision with a submarine, but there were no other submarines there. Or a collision with a surface ship. Had they shown that there were no surface ships in the area, this version could have been ruled out for good. But their failure to have done so makes doubts linger."

    Nb: the story 'Accidents can happen' requires a password, but if you access it here [time.com] it works.
  • there should be a lameness filter on the submission engine which filters anything from USA-Today
  • A pretty good article, with a nifty flash animation which gives some notion of the scope of this engineering feat

    Sure. Raising 118 dead sailors from their eerie grave is way nifty. Didn't we address this before [slashdot.org], and before [slashdot.org]?

    • No, a nifty animation. See, adjectives are not like hand grenades. They have specific nouns they modify, in this case "flash animation", rather than every noun in the vicinity, like "118 dead seamen".

      I understand your concern that their deaths not be trivialized, but I think your energies are misdirected here.

  • I heard a rumor that the Kursk sank because of a faulty test of a so-called "Super-Cavitating Torpedo." The technology is said to allow ultrasonic underwater torpedos. The torpedo, in theory, travels fast enough to create a bubble of water vapor around its nose. Since gas offers less drag than water, the torpedo is able to accelerate to considerable speeds. Again, the rumor I heard was that a test of such an experimental torpedo went bad, causing to Kursk to go down.
  • I hope they lift the Estonia [tripod.com] next. And expose the Swedish role and responsability in the "accident".

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close