[FirstClassSkeptic]

I have heard of subs staying under the ice cap for weeks at a time, but never 6 months. What sub was it you claim did it for 6 months?

OH. So then, what's the point in having nuclear power?

I don't remember which sub, and I'm not sure of the six months. Maybe it was nine or twelve. Or three.

[rerevisionist]

This may have been a British submarine, real or imagined. I certainly remember a report of a sub being months under the Arctic.

(Rule Britannia plays - this is the extended version with flourishes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35IEkEwMqzg) --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_class_submarine

Maybe the story has been withdrawn or back-pedalled. Talking of Rule Britannia, I remember a joke by Erica Jong about splashy British lavatories - she said Britain rules the waves there, now. Anyway, it's nice to know British liars can sometimes by number 1.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Oh, I see. Maybe it was one week:

The Reader's digest: Volume 72 books.google.com
De Witt Wallace, Lila Acheson Wallace - 1958 - Snippet view... while our overseas bases are without exception within point-blank range of Soviet missile submarines. ... hide anywhere (the Nautilus recently spent a week under the icecap near the North Pole) and fire atomic missiles without even ...

More editions

http://www.google.com/search?client=ope ... el=suggest

So, what does it do that a diesel/ electric sub can't do? I mean, I've heard that nuclear subs could be underwater for months at a time, and now you guys are cutting it down to a few weeks.

...the nuclear submarine. It can submerge indefinitely...

http://books.google.com/books?id=2U8QAA ... CEwQ6AEwAw

[FirstClassSkeptic]

How long can submarines stay underwater?

Nuclear-powered submarines can stay submerged for long periods of time. They are designed and manned to stay underwater long enough to support a wide variety of missions, which can last for several months. Submarines have equipment to make oxygen and keep the air safe. Food and supplies are the only limitations on submergence time for a nuclear submarine. Normally, submarines carry a 90-day supply of food.

Historically, diesel-powered submarines operated internal-combustion, air-breathing engines on the surface or just below the surface by using a snorkel mast (snorkeling). When completely submerged, a diesel-powered submarine uses its battery power and electric motors for propulsion. Depending on speed and other battery use, the submarine could stay underwater for up to several days before recharging batteries and exchanging stale air for fresh air.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html

[Lark]

The point of having nuclear powered subs is that they can operate at high power for long periods of time completely submerged. Diesel and AIP cannot do this as far as I know. I have heard of subs operating under the ice, just not for 6 months at a time. It is not like the navy keeps someone like me up to date on their operations hahahahahah.

Some sailors have told me stories about how they went at high speed across the ocean, then slowed down when they got to the place they needed to be. They said they could not do this without nuclear power.

Who was it that told you a diesel sub could stay under for months at a time then changed their mind? Maybe they meant that they kept the sub under and only raised the snorkle to run the diesel and get fresh air?

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Who was it that told you a diesel sub could stay under for months at a time then changed their mind? Maybe they meant that they kept the sub under and only raised the snorkle to run the diesel and get fresh air?

Bad sentence structure. I went back and changed it.

The point of having nuclear powered subs is that they can operate at high power for long periods of time completely submerged. Diesel and AIP cannot do this as far as I know.

As far as I know, nuclear subs can't either. You see, you're saying something that I have to take your word for, or the word of an official.

[Lark]

Well, you would obtain some sort of evidence that nuclear fission is not practical. Or you would join the navy and find out for yourself. I think it would be impossible to hide an alternate power source on a submarine when there is so little room left over after they pack it full of reactor, steam plant, weapons and support systems.

[Lark]

Also, please don't tell me you guys think the moon landings are fake too.

Sailor Boy.........refute this:

http://www.nukelies.com/forum/elites-jews-number-needed-for-control.html

There are some people here; http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi? that might enjoy a spirited debate on your findings.

[NuclearSubmariner]

You guys were busy while I was gone.
I shall now reply in reverse order for no particular reason.

Lark, thanks for the assist. Sorry I haven't replied to your PM, I can't seem to send them myself. Anyone know what's up?

FCS, the point is that diesel subs were dependent not only on how much food they could bring but also how much fuel they had, how much water they could make(they didn't have such good desalinization technology back then) and how much air they could hold. Nuclear subs don't have to worry about water or air, as we can make our own, or fuel, since it last for quite a while. If we could grow our own food we could stay down almost indefinitely. What we don't want to do is spend a lot of time underneath solid objects. As I mentioned before, if something goes horribly, horribly wrong onboard the first thing we're going to do is shoot straight to the surface. If, for whatever reason, we can't make it to the top, we go to the bottom. We don't want that. A submarine sitting on the bottom is just a really expensive coffin.

And yes, those are tourists (when visitors come underway with us we cal them riders). I forget who exactly was riding with us when those picture were taken. It was a while ago.

Sorry, Exorcist I'm not exactly sure what your diagrams are saying there. Did you take into account the higher curvature of the moon? It's a smaller body than the Earth, so the math may be off if you didn't. I'll take a closer look later, I'm a bit tired tonight.

What is the Pentagon Painting and Decorating Department? Is this an in-joke that I'm missing?

Find out what gauge those cables are. Suggesting a reactor if you want to call it that, being a large capacitor or battery is very plausible. It would simply be recharged by the steam plant. At the same time the steam plant could very well power an electric boiler or heater cores to boil water to steam.

Wait. So you're saying that the reactor is a capacitor/battery that is powered by the steam plant, which is in turn powered by a boiler or heater of some kind, which is itself powered by the steam plant?
I think you might need to review this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Oh, by the way Exorcist, you made me think with that 4 cubic feet thing. That sounded way too small, so I checked with the MTs about the gas generators. I was wrong about the capacity, it's not 30 gallons it's 96 gallons. They're about 12 feet tall by 4 feet across, all in all. Not sure what I was thinking about, though.

Radioactively yours,
NuclearSubmariner

[voerioc]

My god, so classic. I have seen so many trolling agents like him on controlled conspiracy forums, beginning to say "I am a specialist in this domain", "I am gonna explain you why you are wrong" and then making a long text having nothing to do with the real topic.

So, I would say "ban this guy and delete his messages". The quality of a forum is crucial to attract people like us or just curious. With guys like that, which make people losing their time, the quality decreases.

This will also send the following message to agencies which send agents like that one on free forums : "it doesn't work".

[Exorcist]

Sorry, Exorcist I'm not exactly sure what your diagrams are saying there. Did you take into account the higher curvature of the moon? It's a smaller body than the Earth, so the math may be off if you didn't. I'll take a closer look later, I'm a bit tired tonight.

I've already debunked the "Moon curvature" argument here.....Next!!!

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environ ... ost1205985

[Exorcist]

My god, so classic. I have seen so many trolling agents like him on controlled conspiracy forums, beginning to say "I am a specialist in this domain", "I am gonna explain you why you are wrong" and then making a long text having nothing to do with the real topic.

So, I would say "ban this guy and delete his messages". The quality of a forum is crucial to attract people like us or just curious. With guys like that, which make people losing their time, the quality decreases.

This will also send the following message to agencies which send agents like that one on free forums : "it doesn't work".

Note his backtracking on the amount of water used to generate steam in the "fake" underwater launch of "fake" Trident missiles....lol