Quote:
I was also very intrigued by the comments on the acoustic signature analysis by Mr. Rule although if I am interpreting the analysis correctly, his views seem to diametrically oppose Dr. Craven's interpretation of the events. Obviously, there is more to the science of acoustic interpretation than I realized.
Craven's torpedo theory was dismissed by the original COI Board. The wreckage is inconsistent with a torpedo explosion. The bow itself is largely in one piece, and the
Skipjacks had bow torpedo tubes. An explosion in the bow of a Mk 37 would have caused severe bow damage. In addition, the telescoping of the stern section forward into the machinery spaces is indicative of a hull failure (due to external sea pressure) at that point. The water ram would have entered at supersonic velocity, blown the bow off and shattered the operations compartment. This is consistent with the state of wreckage on the ocean floor.
Quote:
The summation that Scorpion's hull implosion at 1500 feet and change surprised me as well. It was my understanding that Scorpion was operationally limited to depths no greater than 300 feet due to possible weaknesses in the hull and that she was scheduled for a yard period on return home to address these structural issues, or is that simply hearsay? Did the supposedly weak hull really withstand over 40 atmospheres of pressure before failure?
Test depth on the
Skipjack class was 700 feet. The hull was HY-80, but the fittings and other items limited the depth. The
Thresher/Permits had HY-80 hulls, but had 1300 foot test depths, because the hull, framing and other items were able to withstand those depths. In fact,
Thresher's hull failed at around 2400 ft. when she was lost in 1963.
The 300 feet limitation on
Scorpion was due to lack of SubSafe modifications, still to be made. The collapse depth has been determined from the acoustic records to have been about at 1530 feet.
Quote:
Mr. Rule does not address the issue of the large "bite" out of the rear of the sail either. Is this perhaps where some of these TLX-53A batteries located? If not, do you suspect this "bite" was due to the collapse of the sail on impact with the seafloor or the implosion of the pressure hull?
The batteries are located at the lowest level of the hull, below the crew quarters (see below diagram). The state of the wreck on the ocean floor is due to multiple factors, most notably the "telescoping" of the stern into the auxiliary machinery space, which was the initial hull failure point. The operations compartment was shattered, and in the process the sail came off. The "bite " could have happened then or when the sail came to rest on the ocean floor.
Quote:
I admit to being more than chilled to think that it is possible that some of the crew could have suffered for 20 odd minutes as the boat slowly sank. I pray this was not the case.
The SOSUS recordings indicated the size of the initial explosion, interpreted as a TLX-53A battery explosion. This created an overpressure of roughly 150-200 PSI, not sufficient to rupture the pressure hull, but well over the 50 PSI overpressure necessary to kill humans. There would have been insufficient time for human perception; the crew was instantaneously rendered unconscious and death from compression shock occurred rapidly. With no crew alive, the submarine slowly sank to a depth where the hull failure occurred.