Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: TechMan on June 08, 2012, 04:06:16 PM

Title: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: TechMan on June 08, 2012, 04:06:16 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/us/submarine-fire/index.html? (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/us/submarine-fire/index.html?)

USS Miami was docked for repairs and a fire started (on board) in a vacuum cleaner used to clean work sites at the end of a shift.  The fire caused an estimated $400 million in damage.  I would say that is a might big Ooops.
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: zxcvbob on June 08, 2012, 04:10:48 PM
Not as bad as losing the whole boat because you flushed a toilet while submerged (German U-1206)   :facepalm:
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: RoadKingLarry on June 08, 2012, 05:35:35 PM
Well that sucks.
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: geronimotwo on June 08, 2012, 08:32:58 PM
wow, 400 mil............ MY MONEY!!! (somebody had to say it)
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: RoadKingLarry on June 08, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
wow, 400 mil............ MY MONEY!!! (somebody had to say it)

Of course you realize that $400M is just an estimate and that the actual cost will probably be closer to twice that much.
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: Azrael256 on June 09, 2012, 12:12:10 AM
 :facepalm:

I know some submariner is going to come along and lecture about how not barbecuing a sub is harder than it looks, but...


Does The Navy realize just how dumb they look when they total a billion-dollar boat because somebody forgot to empty the bag?

Sinking a boat because of a defective crapper is almost acceptable when you're talking about a device that's only marginally less complex than a car engine.  Turning a nuclear sub into razor blades because the maid couldn't figure out what to do when the Hoover got all sparky is just embarassing.
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: BobR on June 09, 2012, 02:58:48 AM
:facepalm:

I know some submariner is going to come along and lecture about how not barbecuing a sub is harder than it looks, but...


Does The Navy realize just how dumb they look when they total a billion-dollar boat because somebody forgot to empty the bag?

Sinking a boat because of a defective crapper is almost acceptable when you're talking about a device that's only marginally less complex than a car engine.  Turning a nuclear sub into razor blades because the maid couldn't figure out what to do when the Hoover got all sparky is just embarassing.

Actually it was the shipyard workers that forgot to empty the vacuum cleaner after using it to suck up welding slag. Every submariner I know ( a few) has stated there is no way they would submerge on this boat now. There were places where the hull was glowing red from the chimney effect fire.

Not a good thing, at all.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/06/navy-miami-sub-fire-vacuum-cleaner-060612w/

bob

Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: erictank on June 09, 2012, 05:34:34 AM
Actually it was the shipyard workers that forgot to empty the vacuum cleaner after using it to suck up welding slag. Every submariner I know ( a few) has stated there is no way they would submerge on this boat now. There were places where the hull was glowing red from the chimney effect fire.

Not a good thing, at all.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/06/navy-miami-sub-fire-vacuum-cleaner-060612w/

bob



Yeah, that sounds like razor blade-time to me. No WAY that hull's gonna be safe for submergence now.  And I wasn't even a sub guy (carrier for me).
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: geronimotwo on June 09, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
a blacksmith would have used just the right amount of water (while fighting the fire) to retemper the hull.
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: TommyGunn on June 09, 2012, 11:39:17 AM
Not as bad as losing the whole boat because you flushed a toilet while submerged (German U-1206)   :facepalm:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I recall reading that toilets on some of those old U-boots were operated by a series of levers ..... which, if operated incorrectly, would flood the boat rather than flush the toilet.  Not good getting that effluent squirted right back at ya!  :facepalm: [barf]

My father served on an old Gato-class diesel electric from 1953-4, which had been reclassified as a "hunter-killer."  I recall being able to, circa the early mid 1960s being able to take an unofficial "tour" of the boat (the U.S.S. Cavalla, which is now part of a museum exhibit in Pelican Bay, Tx) and the "toilet" was a recess in a corridor....with a plastic bathroom curtain across it; either your knees or your bum were likely to project into the corridor, depending upon what you were doing .......  =D :O
Ain't no privacy in them ol' sardine cans...................... >:D
Title: Re: Vacuum cleaner blamed for fire on nuclear submarine
Post by: RoadKingLarry on June 09, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Likely if saving the boat is the best choice they can replace a section of the hull.
Another alternative is simply restrict the operating depth of the boat.

---------

The heads on the  boats I was on flushed to a holding tank(sanitary tank). The sanitary tank is emptied by pressurizing it with air and blowing it to sea, then the pressure is vented inboard through activated charcoal filters which sort of absorb the odor. The head facilities are isolated from air  pressure by 2 valves. Sometimes the valve in the tank leaks by a little and if the flush ball valve gets opened a poop geyser is the probable result. Much hilarity ensues when it happens.