Talk:United States naval reactors

Naming?

Erm, isn't the title for this a little bit off? Shouldn't it be "United States Naval Reactors"? Elde 08:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are some discrepancies between the vessels listed under each reactor type and the reactors named in the articles describing the individual reactors and vessels (e.g. S3G reactor, USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659), USS Gato (SSN-615) and USS Triton (SSN-586). This will have to be sorted out by somebody with accurate knowledge! EdH 16:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Here's the cause of the confusion: most U.S. nuclear submarines built in the 1960s and 1970s used S5W reactor plants with S3G reactor cores. The S5W design was used for the reactor pressure vessel, the steam generators, piping, pumps, turbines, and all other components outside the actual reactor vessel. Early S5W reactors used the original S5W cores designed for the S5W reactor. Later, however, the Navy began using the core originally designed for the S3G reactor. The S3G reactor was not widely used, but the 3rd version of the S3G core (the assembly of nuclear fuel elements and control rods that fits inside the pressure vessel) became the standard reactor core for most submarines until the introduction of the S6G and S8G reactors to power the much larger Los Angeles class and Ohio class submarines. --A. B. 03:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Further confusion

Why the inclusion of USS JFK (CV67) in this article? As a mere Brit, even I am aware that that ship is conventionally fuelled. Brian.Burnell 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton.

"mere" Brit? How about "mighty" Brit? You guys pretty much invented the carrier anyway. And good point about the JFK.--A. B. 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Brits are usually more modest. Though often find Ameriacan usage charming. But I have a request, knowing you are an ex-missile-submariner.

I've uploaded a greatly rewritten text on the Chevaline article. Some suitable pics will follow later when I'm certain about copyright status. Meanwhile I'd be grateful if you would cast an eye over the text. The earlier text was both very inaccurate and POV. In the UK the Chevaline project is still v.politically contentious, in part because in its later period it was not cancelled by Margaret Thatcher, who unfairly IMHO got much of the blame for something begun by three earlier administrations. Whether they love her or hate her few people here regard the saintly Margaret as uncontroversial, and the Chevaline thing is so bound up by folk memories of her, and is still rarely mentioned here free from emotional partisan political associations, that I was determined to be especially careful to avoid POV or alienating people; or inciting them to have a pop at it.

I'd be grateful for a fresh pair of eyes, free of UK associations, bearing in mind the broader non-Wiki community who come to Wiki for non-POV source material. Feel free to ask others to do likewise, and to criticise.

The Royal Aeronautical Society Historical Symposium on Chevaline where much of the recent data originates from has published the papers in hardcopy only as ISBN 1-85768-109-6. However there is a free OCR scanned abridged copy available from me as a download for those interested. Its a bit big but can be zipped up.

Regards. Brian.Burnell 11:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton.

Several comments:

1. I'm not an ex-boomer sailor but rather ex-SSN. I'm prouder of my dolphins than my two degrees (1, 2)-- the degrees were hard enough to earn, but the dolphins were much harder. (Besides, gold dolphins on a shirt look a lot cooler than some sheepskin on a wall.)
2. I'm flattered
3. This sounds very interesting and I'd love to help
4. I'm very busy and it would be a few days. Can you maybe send me a reminder e-mail then using the link on my user page?

--A. B. 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What's this article about?

This article is entitled United States Naval reactor. Some portions of the article deal with other navies' reactors, civilian merchant ship reactors even land-based reactors that aren't marine designs (the Antarctic reactor mentioned, while operated by U.S. Navy Seabees was an Army reactor and the operators were Army-trained).

I suggest we consider any or all of the following:

• Renaming this article
• Splitting it into multiple articles. For example, here's one possibility:
  • United States naval reactors
  • Nuclear marine propulsion, or
    • Naval reactors
    • Civilian merchant marine reactors

--A. B. 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You make some excellent points. While the information on other nuclear navies helps to add perspective to this article, the civilian reactors section clearly does not. I will go ahead and move that to the Nuclear marine propulsion article. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some changes needed -- what should they be

This is titled United States Naval reactor but it covers other countries' naval reactors. Should this article be renamed or some more general article on naval reactors in general be started? Or perhaps a naval reactors section be added to a new section in Nuclear marine propulsion.

Altogether, we have:

• United States Naval reactor
• Naval Reactors about the U.S. Navy organization (should probably be changed to "Naval Reactors (Organization)"
• Nuclear marine propulsion
• Nuclear navy

Your thoughts?
--A. B. ^(talk) 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Army reactors on a Navy page?

We have the paragraph I just modified about the Army-designed reactors (my addition in italics):

Other small, easily field-deployed reactor designs have been developed but have no connection to the U.S. Naval Reactor program. A small reactor was used to supply power (1.5 MWe) and heating to McMurdo Station, a US Antarctic base, for ten years to 1972, testing the feasibility of such air-portable units for remote locations. Two others were installed in arctic locations, all constructed as part of the US Army Nuclear Power Program. A fourth mounted on a barge provided power and fresh water in the Panama Canal Zone. Russia is well advanced with plans to build a floating power plant for their far eastern territories. The design has two 35 MWe units based on the KLT-40 reactor used in icebreakers (with refueling every 4 years).

This paragraph should not really go in this article. (Yes, there were Navy reactor operators for the Antarctic reactor, but that's only because it was a navy-supported base; those operators were Army-trained Seabees -- navy construction personnel operating an Army reactor designed for land-based use). The Naval Reactors office was not involved. If Rickover couldn't control something, he didn't want to be responsible for it in any way; he had the clout (even with Presidents) to get his way about this sort of thing.

Perhaps just a short note in the "See Also" section (or wherever the Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates):

U.S. Navy construction personnel, trained by the U.S. Army, operated an Army-designed reactor at the civilian McMurdo Station in Antarctica for ten years to 1972 as part of the Navy's non-military operational support there. For more information, see: Army Nuclear Power Program.

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo

There was not much about decommissioning in the text. I've added disposal a photo from http://www.navsea.navy.mil/shipyards/puget/Page/CVN65FinalEA.pdf

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford,_WA_in_2004.png Johnvr4 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

identical to PWR commercial reactors producing electricity, except ...

that they are not singularly concerned with driving a generator, but the steam turbine's primary use is to provide propulsion for the propeller shafts, right? Also on the carriers additional steam is generated for the airplane catapults. And I would expect that they are constructed in a way to easily and efficiently power up and down, compared to electric power generating stations, where you usually want to operate the reactor at one optimal point for as long as possible. --BjKa (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)