Thanks for the information on the sea-based reactors. Are we still
monitoring the Thresher/Scorpion reactors? I wonder if they will
retain their integrity over long periods of time exposed to the sea
water. I understand that Thresher hit the bottom at a pretty good
rate of speed, so its reactor was probably subjected to a pretty good
stress test, but unless the claims of those who assert that
Scorpion's accident was caused by an exploding torpedo are right, my
understanding so Scorpion's accident was due to a collision with an
undersea mountain. Obviously not good for the ship or its crew, but
not as potentially damaging as a high-speed impact with the ocean
bottom.
But I guess that my concern about the reactors would be as a result
of battle damage, rather than simply from the sinking. If the reactor
suffers a direct hit from a large explosive weapon, which
subsequently sinks, will it retain its integrity, or could this
spread the reactor "all over the sea bottom"?
I think that the reactors being PWRs makes sense except that, it
doesn't seem consistent with them not supporting superheaters for the
propulsion steam. I know that in an oil-fired ship, the saturated
steam is fed back into the burner in a separate heat exchanger which
heats the saturated steam to the higher temperature. Maybe I don't
understand the heat exchange process between the primary and
secondary water systems, but it does seem that it should be possible
to put the saturated steam back through the heat exchanger to
superheat it even in a nuclear reactor. Can either of you tell me why
this isn't done? My experience was in the weapons department and not
engineering or reactor so I have to admit, I'm not expert on how the
superheaters worked, but I do know that every steam engineer I knew
during my navy career was a firm advocate of superheated steam as a
reliable and highly versatile propulsion system.
Also, since you served on Enterprise after I did, Bill M., can you
tell me what the lifetime of that refueling (the second, IIRC) was
intended to be, and if, after the third refueling, is it scheduled
for or has it gotten a fourth (and last) one?
My understanding is that it is scheduled for decommissioning sometime
around 2030--a very long lifetime for a modern man-o-war.
And one last question that I didn't know enough to ask my reactor
officer buddy at the time, is the fuel in these reactors a permanent
installation, like in the submarines? My recollection is that the
entire reactors were going to be pulled out and replaced with new
ones during the 1970 refueling, so I assume that means that the fuel
was an integral part of the reactor and when this fuel was depleted,
the reactor and its depleted fuel would be scrapped. Is my
recollection correct? I also know that the fuel in the SSNs is HEU.
Is that also true of the fuel in the surface ships? I suspect it is,
but I don't know for sure.