What are the alternate propulsion mechanisms on a carrier if

>>31716486
yes

>>31716486
>carrier
>engine gasket

Also they sent ships out to tow it back and bomb a random sand country

>>31716512
so are you saying if there are no other ships the carrier can't limp back into port?

>>31716712

Carriers don't go out to sea alone.

>>31716712
if there are no other ships the carrier is in much deeper trouble than just being stuck there

>>31716712
>what is a carrier battle group

>>31716712
Okay I looked it up, the Nimitz class carriers have backup diesel generators.
>There are four emergency diesels of 10,720hp
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/
Look at the very button of the article. So the power from the generators could power the four shafts. Most likely not at full speed but it is something.

>>31716486
Everyone gets a paddle and rows

Could they rope all the helicopters together like reindeer and pull the carrier?

>main engine blows its head gaske

You autistic fuck they use reactors. They have multi[ple that run in parallel. If one goes down they use the others until it's fixed. holy fuck.

>>31716712
I...

what?

>Nigel, so are you saying if there are no other ships the Ship of the Line can't limp back to port?
>Marcus, so are you saying if there are no slaves the trireme can't limp back to port?
>commander, so are you saying if the primary flux phase quantum entanglement capacitor is not functioning, the Enterprise can't warp back into starbase?

Do you believe ships typically have a secondary propulsion system just sitting around, costing mass, waiting to be used?

>>31716856
Nuke subs do, they found out they sink when the reactor scrams.

>>31716874

No, that's batteries.

They run the reactor and have batteries for backup to power the screws.

Carriers have diesel engines that can also power the screws.

>>31716886
>>31716874
I'm not a sub crewmen, but something seems fishy.

Don't the ballast tanks keep the sub from sinking, not the screws? Therefore, unless your ballast tanks randomly vent/lose pressure during power loss, or when you are diving you instantly lose power, you should just stay at neutral buoyancy .

File: Carrier engine repair fluid.jpg (147KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1200x1200px

>>31716486
Just wait for it to cool down a bit, put a towel over the radiator cap (just in case) release the pressure from the cooling system and dump a bottle of chemiweld in it.

How do you think the Nimitz has been getting around for so long?

>>31716842
You retard do you think the US is the only nation that has aircraft carriers, and that those other carriers might not be nuclear powered? FFS it wasn't that long ago the Forrestal class was in service.

>>31716906

You're right, what he's referring to is the Soviet sub that was lost do to a reactor malfunction.

>>31716842

Other nations have like two carriers, total. And they do the same thing, but with turbines, friendo.

>>31716856
ships carry crew anyway, right? It shouldn't cost much in terms of weight to have oars available for them to start rowing

>>31716486
I think... if a carrier were to, "blow its gasket," as you say... It would erupt into a nuclear fireball.
Unless you're not american of course, in which case you cry for help.

>>31716935
And an American sub.

It's reactor scram'd and it lost turbine steam, shutting down the screw, causing it to sink.

(it's ballasts wouldn't blow because of hydrates forming in the air pipes)

>>31717347
That's not how that works. If a nuclear reactor were to meltdown, without any coolant it would burn through every casing and deck in the ship and punch a molten hole through the hull. No fireball, just death by drowning and rad poisoning.

>>31716486
it's called a tug

>>31716838
no, the helicopters would just use up all the air around them since they're not moving and fall

just strap jets to the back of the carrier and turn their engines on

>>31717492
>If a nuclear reactor were to meltdown

They would just scram the reactor. It wouldn't have a meltdown.

Stop getting your info about nuclear reactors from cartoons and videogames.

>>31716874
>Nuke subs do, they found out they sink when the reactor scrams.

Nuclear submarines have batteries and backup generators. If they lose the reactor, they can still surface and call for help.

Quit being a cuck and don't post about shit you don't know.

>>31716486

They hook cables to all the jets, launch them, and have them tow the carrier back to port

>>31717517
will do, boss.

>>31716486
Lol. Good ol cvn77. That's the old xo. He was a faggot and a kiss ass

>>31716838
Historically, gliders were used for this purpose. In fact, scientists are looking to this propulsion method again to reduce the noise of HMS Zumwalt.

>>31716712
So in your situation every ship in the battle group except the carrier has been sunk?

>>31717502
No. That's not how it works

>>31717553
sunk, or turned traitor, or were laid up for repairs

>>31717557
Well I guess the carrier is fucked then

>>31717563
What if a nuclear sub is nearby, could it push the carrier to port?

>>31717589
See
>>31717554

File: 719d4fbf102c79e7a3212bf2112e478e.jpg (23KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 650x366px

>>31717554
Sure about that buddy?

>>31716856
>Do you believe ships typically have a secondary propulsion system just sitting around, costing mass, waiting to be used?
Subs and carriers all do, yes.

>>31717517

A SCRAM is not a guaranteed reactor shutdown, anon. Per example the Fukushima reactors were SCRAMed and they still went into meltdown.

>>31717512
this

>>31717512
How do helicopters hover then?

>>31717545
I love how hard this board abuses retarded ideas lol.

>>31720263
Reverse magnitisim, dumbass.

>>31719166
To be fare. The reactor design also requited coolent to be curculating even in scram.

>>31719166
>A SCRAM is not a guaranteed reactor shutdown
>Per example the Fukushima reactors were SCRAMed and they still went into meltdown.

Firstly, a reactor shutdown and a meltdown are two totally separate events.

This is like if you said that hitting the brakes on a car wasn't a guarantee that you won't get in an accident, because you could still get hit by another car. No shit! But driving directly into another car without hitting the brakes is a great way to CAUSE an accident. Hence why we scram reactors...to "hit the brakes" on the reaction.

Secondly, the reactors at fukushima DID shut off. The tsunami destroyed the backup generators that were cooling the reactors down, after they had been shut down. They slowly overheated over the course of 2 days, which caused a meltdown.

No, scramming a reactor is not a magical cure-all, but it's step #1 when it comes to preventing a meltdown. A submarine that scrams its reactor isn't going to magically meltdown, it will simply switch to its battery and diesel backups (depending on the sub) and rise to the surface to await rescue.

>>31720375
what if rescue isn't forthcoming? Is there a way for the sub to eject the reactor core before it explodes? And is there a way to put up sails on the tower mast/oars on board to begin rowing back to shore?

>>31720399
Is this fucking Star Trek?! There is no ejecting the core. It is fix it or die.

>>31720399
But yes a carrier have back up diesel generators that can power limp it back home in case of a SCRAM.

>>31720399
>eject the reactor core
What sort of mechanism for this are you imagining, anon?

File: 1433111781820.gif (3MB, 390x293px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 390x293px

>>31717517

>what is waste heat

dropping the rods completely stops the fission but heat from the decay of short-lived isotopes created by the fission will continue to heat the reactor to meltdown if there isn't any coolant

literally exactly what happened to K-19 you retard

>>31720485
a porthole under the sub that can be opened that causes the reactor to fall out of the submarine into the ocean

>>31720538
Is this real??? I going to need a source on that.

File: bait dont care.png (27KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x626px

>>31720399
>Is there a way for the sub to eject the reactor core before it explodes?
It can't explode, there isn't sufficient density of fissile material for a nuclear explosion to occur.

>And is there a way to put up sails on the tower mast/oars on board to begin rowing back to shore?
No one can be this stupid.

>>31720399
A small sailing boat I sometimes sail weighs about 300 kg and 2 people can oar it to go maybe a knot or two. An LA class has a displacement of roughly 6000 tonnes, which is 6 million kg. Since 300 kg can be moved in water by 2 people with oars, it would require roughly 40 thousand people to row a nuclear submarine.
>tldr: you are retarded

>>31716856
>Nigel, so are you saying if there are no other ships the Ship of the Line can't limp back to port?
Wut. They use sails, nigga. Unless the other ships ran off with your sails, you're fine. Men o' war frequently sailed alone, just not into battle.

>>31720399
>what if rescue isn't forthcoming?
reminds me of a cosby show bit
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Cosby_Show#Jitterbug_Break_.5B1.16.5D

>Vanessa: Theo is babysitting?!
>Cliff: That's right.
>Vanessa: But what if the house catches fire?
>Cliff: Then Theo will call the fire department!
>Vanessa: Well what if burglars break in?
>Cliff: Then Theo will un-arm them!
>Vanessa: Well what if they know karate?
>Cliff: Then Theo will die!

>>31716856
>Do you believe ships typically have a secondary propulsion system just sitting around, costing mass, waiting to be used?
y-yes, most ships in fact do have that, because ships tend to break and you can't exactly go to the corner gas station to get it fixed even in the middle of a bay, let alone the middle of the ocean

though
>costing mass
lmao
LMAO
if they were worried about things "costing mass" they wouldn't have wood paneling in officer's messes and keep miles of steel wire for flag ceremonial stuff and have personnel whose only job it is to restock vending machines and shit

I dont know what the fuck you are talking about you fucking squid

>>31716838
Nah, but they could just tie some ropes to the fleet of ships and subs that are always with the carrier and pull it like tugboats.

If a carrier or sub loses power they just tie ropes to all nonesseantial personnel and make them swim, thus pulling the carrier/sub to safety

>>31722540
Served on a carrier for 10 years. Can confirm. We drilled this all the time.

File: bsg heavy raider.gif (498KB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 350x197px

>>31722540
>>31722836
I like you.

>>31720527
>implying a reactor, military or otherwise, can't cool waste heat by bleeding secondary steam

So, what you're telling me is no reactor can truly be shutdown because it will meltdown when rods are at the bottom? You don't think there's a way for reactors to cool waste heat after shutdown?

>reactor will meltdown if there isn't any coolant
Where in this magical scenario is all the closed loop primary water going? Let's say it does all evaporate to steam (it doesn't), what makes you think there aren't systems which add make up water to the primary?

Are you seriously this fuckin' stupid?

>>31717472
Old design, that's not done anymore. In the old days, high pressure air blasts to ballast tanks were the only way of surfacing. Piping runs for high pressure air to blow ballasts were too long and the high pressure air wasn't dry enough. When the air lowers pressure to blow ballast tanks, it cooled down and water froze into ice and blocked the pipes.

File: duck and cover bitches.jpg (397KB, 1006x1280px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1006x1280px

>>31723249
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss-of-coolant_accident
However, due to radioactive decay the nuclear fuel will continue to generate a significant amount of heat. The decay heat produced by a reactor shutdown from full power is initially equivalent to about 5 to 6% of the thermal rating of the reactor. If all of the independent cooling trains of the ECCS fail to operate as designed, this heat can increase the fuel temperature to the point of damaging the reactor.

>>31716486

Do you not realize how large and heavy a carrier is?

Sails, oars, pffft

>>31723511
there are videos of people pulling jumbo jets over a tarmac alone with just their bare hands

I'm sure a big enough sail could get a carrier moving

>>31723625
God forbid there is a slight current or light breeze in the wrong direction.

>>31723485
Yes, but what I'm saying, and said in the post you replied to, is that reactor designs account for cooling waste heat after shutdown to prevent this. Loss of coolant casualties are completely different animals and are not necessarily caused by waste heat after shutdowns. They're two completely different things. In most cases, there are easy ways to add water to the primary to mitigate loss of coolant.

Are you dense?

>>31716486
Questions like these really makes me wonder about the future of humanity

>>31724310
boats with sails and oars have been around for thousands of years, what's wrong with modern boats using them

>>31723249
>what you're telling me is no reactor can truly be shutdown because it will meltdown when rods are at the bottom?

depends what you mean by shut down familam

criticality stops as soon as the rods are down far enough but reactors continue to need active cooling for some time after the end of criticality

the original post did mention a loss of coolant and I was mostly responding to the naive and retarded claim of "lol just SCRAM the rods"

while there are backups and ways to repair primary coolant loops that doesn't change the single point of my post which was that if left uncooled(even if the core is dry and un-moderated because decay heat isn't caused by fission) post-shutdown a reactor will heat up and suffer core damage

>>31724806
I'm familiar with how reactors work. That's what I do for a living. And I'm not debating anything about decay heat. Yes active cooling is needed, but outside of the context of loss of coolant, it's a non-issue as there are several ways to reduce decay heat.

And, as you said in this post, which I was reiterating, is that there are multiple ways to restore coolant to the primary.

But you must make it clear that both are completely different things.

>>31723625
Because just like planes, ships are designed to be as light as possible so that they can fly through the air!

>>31725170
and yet planes will float on water too

>>31725289
For a small amount of time before sinking very quickly, yes.

>>31717347
>it would erupt into a nuclear fireball
This meme needs to die. Nuclear reactors do not use weaponized fuel, and its far below critical mass as well. Explosions connected to reactor accidents (Chernobyl, mentioned soviet sub) were a result of steam overpressure, sometimes due to the heat of a reactor core meltdown. What would happen with the molten core is that it would burn its way through the ship into the sea, which still would probably sink the ship. But you wouldn't get that neat mushroom cloud, and btw, nukes do also NOT explode when being hit by a bullet

>>31716886
I don't think a back up generator is going to power a steam turbine.

>>31720399
Reactor cores do not explode, buddy. Its the steam overpressure in the system due to meltdown heat that causes the explosion

> posting this fucking thread again

OP get the fuck off my board.

>>31720538
The engineers are going to lynch you for demanding such a huge, but still waterproof door on your sub, which also has to be made of solid lead to contain the radiation. Better not tell them that the incoming water upon reactor release also mustn't sink the sub, and that you need a mechanism to hold the reactor securely and release it on demand

>>31716856
The enterprise used a dilithium crystal matrix matter antimatter drive.

>>31716886
You're an idiot.
>>31716906
You're close.
>>31717472
That didnt happen because of a reactor scram (they dont scram themselves by the way, so please stop saying it like they do)

Now, ill hang out for a bit if you guys have questions. Ive noticed a lack of submariners on this board so i do what i can.
>popcornanon checking in

File: IMG_20161006_022725.jpg (26KB, 400x304px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x304px

>>31716486
The tie the jets to it, and then launch them. The jets then pull the ship where it needs to go. They lost a lot a planes doing this back in the day, which is why they invented jump jets that could land vertically once at the port.

God dammit I know who is right or wrong in this thread. Someone keeps responding with what seems super factual but then someone replies with something that seems even more factual that refutes what the other guy says. Wheres a nuclear engineer when you need one.

File: even in 10,000 roentgens per hour I must squat.jpg (244KB, 1200x816px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x816px

>>31728508

as one of the people who posted some of the posts that sounded like they know what they were talking about: all the highly technical sounding posts are correct and the arguments were basically just people getting their wires crossed

in summation

>SCRAMing i.e dropping neutron absorbing control rods does shutdown the reactor and stop the fissioning
>SCRAMing isn't an "instantly make your reactor safe" button because fission produces some very short-lived spicy isotopes and their decay can melt a reactor without coolant so reactors are still actively cooled after they are shutdown until the spicy isotopes are depleted and the reactor is "cold"
>decay heat only really matters in a loss of coolant scenario and reactors have fail-safes and backups for such a scenario

even in the K-19 accident which was very serious loss of coolant(a big leak and loss of pressure in the pressurised Primary Coolant Loop: the coolant that flows over the reactor core which is pressurised so it can be heated to several hundred degrees without boiling) that happened on a very basic early soviet reactor with no backups they still managed to get the reactor back under control because the engineering crew sacrificed their lives by exposing themselves to extreme levels of hard radiation to nigger rig a system to pump in fresh water to cool the core

File: USMC.jpg (65KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x404px

>>31716830

>>31728476
Where'd you go for school?

>>31728508
Yeah, the shitpost levels in this thread are high. Also, subs have an auxiliary diesel propeller in just in case.

>>31720485
Trebuchet

>>31722863
Lel that file name

File: image.jpg (52KB, 640x560px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x560px

>>31730028

also I should come clean

I'm not a nuclear engineer working on next generation core geometry or a plant operator

I'm just a mechanical engineering student who has been leisure learning about the technical aspects of nuclear power ever since learning about decay, fission and nuclear power in the nuclear units of HS chem and physics made 15 yr old me's benis explode in sticky torrents hands-free from naughty thoughts about neutron moderation and self-sustaining nuclear fission

also to any civilian nooks: looking at nuclear plant operator job listings for education some say you need an associates others say you need a batchelors or even a masters likewise some say electrical other say mechanical and all of them say you need prior plant operator experience

would the bachelor's in mechanical engineering I'm currently working towards be fine or is it the wrong path? and how do I get my foot in the door vis-a-vis experience?

>>31717512
>just strap jets to the back of the carrier and turn their engines on
I know this is troll physics, but it seems like it would work.

>>31727875
>Explosions connected to reactor accidents (Chernobyl, mentioned soviet sub) were a result of steam overpressure
Pretty sure Chernobyl and Fuckmyshitup Dieitchy (and TMI) were caused by the reactor farting out a nice big bubble of hydrogen gas which then went kaboom, not steam overpressure.