6 ms·

Is it nuclear in the sense that it has nuclear bombs or it is just nuclear powered?

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 1y ago
Nuclear powered. i.e. No need to resurface for air (as all oxygen can be recycled or separated from water) and no need to refuel for the entire lifespan of the submarine.
- embedding-shape 1y ago
  How long can they actually stay below the surface in practice though? I'm guessing water is filtered on the vessel, but food must be re-supplied constantly I'm again guessing? Maybe they do it like airplanes refuel in the air, rendevouz with another submarine and somehow transfer the resources for food making between then? Probably read too much Tom Clancy...
  - echoangle 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(S103) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(S103) Seems like the record is 111 days submerged. Nuclear Subs are typically pretty big so they can probably bring enough food to last for the entire time without resupply.
    - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
      Yeah that's the official record and it's pretty close to that on average. The main limit is morale. People want their swim calls and sunlight.
  - trueismywork 1y ago
    3 months. There's an episode by smarter everyday about it
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
    water is provided via desal or filtration. air is scrubbed and additional O2 is available via water splitting. the main limit is food. food is stored under the floor boards and it can last a while but generally they are gonna try and restock every few months rather than running to empty (which on full stock can be close to a year)
embedding-shape 1y ago
I'm not a native English speaker, but I think "nuclear submarine" implies "submarine powered by nuclear", otherwise they'd use "nuclear-armed" or similar. Of course, the title is probably ambiguous on purpose, so people click on it to try to figure it out. > Subsequently, the construction of Nuclear submarines marks a departure from past efforts, as previous South Korean submarine construction has focused primarily on conventionally powered submarines
- koakuma-chan 1y ago
  I'm asking because if it's just nuclear powered and doesn't have nuclear bombs, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
  - sillysaurusx 1y ago
    Would environmental damage be a big deal if the reactor exploded? It seems odd that people care very much about nuclear power plants, but relatively little about nuclear submarines, which are just smaller power plants. The USS Thresher was lost at sea when it sunk below its test depth and imploded. I wonder if there was any damage whatsoever from the fallout. https://youtu.be/g-uJ1do3yV8?si=CLFS80oo564PKouo https://youtu.be/g-uJ1do3yV8?si=CLFS80oo564PKouo Also the USS Scorpion if I remember correctly. If the environmental effects don’t matter, then I’m surprised it’s ever been a big deal in the first place. Also slightly surprising that we don’t have nuclear sub-sized power plants powering neighborhoods or cities. I guess one big difference is that any nuclear sub accident would be located far from populated areas. But has there been any studies of how bad the fallout from one of these smaller reactors could be? If it’s 1/100th the size of Chernobyl, it seems like the maximum damage could be 1/100th of Chernobyl, which may or may not be a sufficient buffer. Someone downthread joked about using nuclear powered submarines to transmit electricity back to the mainland, but it seems plausible to build a nuclear sub sized reactor offshore (just the reactor, no sub) while enjoying the safety benefits that this class of nuclear reactor apparently has.
    - anvuong 1y ago
      Of course there will be fallout, but much less severe than a meltdown on land. Water is extremely effective in containing radiation, and the ocean is so huge it will be dilutet to neligible amount very quickly.
adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
both. nuclear powered submarines are the primary wing of nuclear deterrent because launching a missile from a platform that stays underwater for months at a time and is basically impossible to track is basically impossible to prevent
- mmooss 1y ago
  I have not read that the US is giving SK the technology to build nuclear-armed subs - that is, ballistic missile submarines - but only nuclear-powered subs. The US has those and also nuclear-powered but conventionally armed subs. The ballistic missile subs hide and, if called upon, launch their nuclear-armed missiles (which never has happened, of course). The conventionally armed subs attack ships and other subs.

Nuclear powered. i.e. No need to resurface for air (as all oxygen can be recycled or separated from water) and no need to refuel for the entire lifespan of the submarine.

embedding-shape 1y ago
How long can they actually stay below the surface in practice though? I'm guessing water is filtered on the vessel, but food must be re-supplied constantly I'm again guessing? Maybe they do it like airplanes refuel in the air, rendevouz with another submarine and somehow transfer the resources for food making between then? Probably read too much Tom Clancy...
- echoangle 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(S103) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(S103) Seems like the record is 111 days submerged. Nuclear Subs are typically pretty big so they can probably bring enough food to last for the entire time without resupply.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
    Yeah that's the official record and it's pretty close to that on average. The main limit is morale. People want their swim calls and sunlight.
- trueismywork 1y ago
  3 months. There's an episode by smarter everyday about it
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
  water is provided via desal or filtration. air is scrubbed and additional O2 is available via water splitting. the main limit is food. food is stored under the floor boards and it can last a while but generally they are gonna try and restock every few months rather than running to empty (which on full stock can be close to a year)

embedding-shape 1y ago

I'm not a native English speaker, but I think "nuclear submarine" implies "submarine powered by nuclear", otherwise they'd use "nuclear-armed" or similar. Of course, the title is probably ambiguous on purpose, so people click on it to try to figure it out. > Subsequently, the construction of Nuclear submarines marks a departure from past efforts, as previous South Korean submarine construction has focused primarily on conventionally powered submarines

koakuma-chan 1y ago
I'm asking because if it's just nuclear powered and doesn't have nuclear bombs, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
- sillysaurusx 1y ago
  Would environmental damage be a big deal if the reactor exploded? It seems odd that people care very much about nuclear power plants, but relatively little about nuclear submarines, which are just smaller power plants. The USS Thresher was lost at sea when it sunk below its test depth and imploded. I wonder if there was any damage whatsoever from the fallout. https://youtu.be/g-uJ1do3yV8?si=CLFS80oo564PKouo https://youtu.be/g-uJ1do3yV8?si=CLFS80oo564PKouo Also the USS Scorpion if I remember correctly. If the environmental effects don’t matter, then I’m surprised it’s ever been a big deal in the first place. Also slightly surprising that we don’t have nuclear sub-sized power plants powering neighborhoods or cities. I guess one big difference is that any nuclear sub accident would be located far from populated areas. But has there been any studies of how bad the fallout from one of these smaller reactors could be? If it’s 1/100th the size of Chernobyl, it seems like the maximum damage could be 1/100th of Chernobyl, which may or may not be a sufficient buffer. Someone downthread joked about using nuclear powered submarines to transmit electricity back to the mainland, but it seems plausible to build a nuclear sub sized reactor offshore (just the reactor, no sub) while enjoying the safety benefits that this class of nuclear reactor apparently has.
  - anvuong 1y ago
    Of course there will be fallout, but much less severe than a meltdown on land. Water is extremely effective in containing radiation, and the ocean is so huge it will be dilutet to neligible amount very quickly.

adgjlsfhk1 1y ago

both. nuclear powered submarines are the primary wing of nuclear deterrent because launching a missile from a platform that stays underwater for months at a time and is basically impossible to track is basically impossible to prevent

mmooss 1y ago
I have not read that the US is giving SK the technology to build nuclear-armed subs - that is, ballistic missile submarines - but only nuclear-powered subs. The US has those and also nuclear-powered but conventionally armed subs. The ballistic missile subs hide and, if called upon, launch their nuclear-armed missiles (which never has happened, of course). The conventionally armed subs attack ships and other subs.