| Author |
Message |
    
Simon Lindner
Member
Username: slind
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | 
|
Does anybody know what happened to the Hughes Glomar Explorer? This is the ship that raised the Russian sub from 17,000 feet in the early 70's . I assume she is in dry dock somewhere but where? |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 584
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 7:39 pm: |
|
It has been modified for commercial leasing as a offshore drilling platform and is now looking for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. It's capable of drilling at depths of over 2 miles. |
Simon Lindner
Member
Username: slind
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Thank You Bob, I couldn't find out what happened to her after 96. I am glad to hear she is back into service. Her History will always follow her.
Simon |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 585
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 8:35 pm: |
|
You're welcome, Simon. Here's a link to the relevant page on the website of Cascade General Inc, who did the conversion work:
http://www.casgen.com/services/projects/glomar_explorer.htm |
Simon Lindner
Member
Username: slind
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 12:43 am: |
|
You know I was just thinking, didn't an Oil Company find a sunken German submarine in the the Gulf of Mexico not too long ago? Hmmm! |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 6361
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 4:10 am: |
|
Simon, I may be mistaken, but my understanding of this discovery is that it was pretty much a matter of dumb luck. I doubt very much that the current owners of the Glomar Explorer have much interest in this sort of thing. Even if they did, a ship extensively modified to drill for oil just isn't equipped for that sort of thing.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Hathaway
Member
Username: compassrose
Post Number: 5
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 1:44 am: |
|
About 9 years ago, I saw the Glomar Explorer at Suisan Bay, California, mothballed with many navy ships.
When I lived in California, a neighbor was recruited as her captain on Project Jennifer-of course, he had no dealing with the operation itself and he was restricted where on the ship as to where he was allowed to go.
He was simply told where to take the ship- he only found out about what was going on much later. |
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Glomar Explorer is now doing what her original disguise was supposed to portend. Her sliding doors under the "moon pool" are now sealed, and the lifting capability is no longer possible. The scrounging claw, "Clementine", has been scrapped. What amazes me about this whole thing is as follows:
1) Everyone knows about the raising of the K129; 2) Reagen, Bush the elder, or Clinton gave Yeltsin the videotape of the Soviet Sailors remains being buried at sea after they were removed from the hulk; 3) The Golf class submarine is moribund. 4) the Hughes Glomar Explorer is no longer able to do what it did.
Why haven't the pictures and documentation been released by the US government for the historical record. This was as much "high-tech" work in inner-space as the satellite programs done in outer space. It's old technology today, and the story isn't a secret. Why can't Americans see the original photos? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11850
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
>>Why haven't the pictures and documentation been released by the US government for the historical record.<<
Perhaps because some of the information gleaned from what was recovered is still sensetive. At least in the government's point of view. If they actually managed to recover nuclear warheads from the torpedo room, this may be a valid concern. Historically, governments have been particularly loath to discuss such matters for any reason.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Hathaway
Member
Username: compassrose
Post Number: 75
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
I would think the presence of human remains remains a touchy subject- even aboard Hunley, or Monitor-(or Titanic)
I would love to see photos of what was recovered, I have wanted to since the story broke.
Wer know that remains were brought up, and later buried at sea, it may be a case of letting sleepig dogs lie.
The other explanation would be that more of the sub was recovered than would be indicated by the initial cover story.
Either way, I would like to see the photos-
Honjitsu tenki seiro naredomo nami takashi-...
Akiyama Saneyuki
|
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
What was recovered and how much was recovered has always been the question for people interested in the salvage. Even photographs of the K129 laying onhte Pacific floor would be of immense interest. This is "old news" and quite remote from those families and other directly involved. I would think that pressure with FIA applications would have some bearing on release. The CIA never likes to admit or deny it's doings, but this horse has been out of the barn for decades. The recovered portions of the sub were analyzed and sampled, then tossed back into the ocean, rather unceremoniously.
There are some really neat computer graphics of the recovery online, although I've lost the URL. I'm sure a little directed searching will locate them. In the meantime, I'd really appreciate hearing more about this event from participants inthe group. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11856
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
>>In the meantime, I'd really appreciate hearing more about this event from participants inthe group.<<
So would I. Don't count on it happening. The military contingent would be bound by certain laws regarding the safegaurding of classified information and the civilians would be bound by non-disclosure agreements and a number of criminal statutes which cover this ground. There are aspects of my service on the USS Ranger which I still cannot discuss to this day. It may be "Old News" from over 25 years back, and some things are long out in the public domain but I just can't talk about it.
I don't pretend that it makes sense, but it's just there. It won't go away.
>>I would think that pressure with FIA applications would have some bearing on release.<<
Freedom of Information is not nesseccerily the panacea some think it is. It's not unknown for people to request records only to see signifigent portions blacked out.
>>The recovered portions of the sub were analyzed and sampled, then tossed back into the ocean, rather unceremoniously.<<
Well, there's no reason to keep most of it. I think I'm on fairly safe ground in suggesting that anything of a sensitive nature is still sitting in a secure warehouse or holding facility somewhere, and will be for some time to come.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Daniel Bentley
Member
Username: danb
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Would make a nice reef when it becomes obsolete. Just imagine that monster upright and intact, covered with warm water corals...
Better that than being razorbladed. |
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 165
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
How would this be done today? I have a few ideas regarding deep water research which are futuristic, to say the least, and possibly impractical in the understanding of physics as we acceptably understand it today. Of course, "putting a man on the moon and safely returning him to Earth, before this decade is out" was also merely conceivable, yet impossible in 1961.
ARRIVE- Autonomous Research and Recovery Investigative Vehicle for Exploration- I conceive of this as a deep water, self-powered vehicle equipped with GPS, sonar, and radar imaging cameras. Dropped into the ocean, they'd sink to the bottom and powered by electric motors, ping as they migrate about 35 meters above the sea floor. Shipwreck debris would be tagged with position and several radar images. As wreck sites were identified, the little beasts would rise to the surface and report the find to a satellite, recharge their buoyancy tanks, then descend once more to continue the mission. The electrical supply could charge from electrolytes in the seawater or sunlight on the surface. Wrecks would be plotted, identified, and investigated systematically over years of service. Ocean floors would scoured for information regarding archaeology and history. Ferrous objects would be fairly easy to identify, although reflections of copper, aluminum, wood, and ceramics, would require identification software in the beasts electronic "brain".
Recovery of wreckage, along the lines of the "Glomar Explorer's" mission would change as well.
How would you recover wreckage or a whole submarine today? Let's assume that the whole emotional/respect for the dead issue is set aside for the purpose of the discussion. I would like to read what refinements could be made to "Project Jennifer", assuming it was being done in the full light of day, for the purpose of knowledge rather than espionage.
I can't believe this type of recovery has been forgotten by the U.S. government. It's future-tech at its foremost. |
Trevor William Sturdy
Member
Username: trev
Post Number: 76
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 3:19 am: |
|
Hi Richard, I would imagine that you're "ARRIVE" system is quite within the realms of possibility now! - However - First and formost it is going to require funding, and lots of. One craft, criss crossing the ocean floor in a grid pattern consistently, could never be enough- you would need a fleet of them, and say you put a conservative estimate of, perhaps,$50,000 dollars running cost per day on a single vehicle - the lack of treasures you will find will quickly bankrupt you.
As for submarine recovery - better the ex-navy men here respond to that....
Regards.
Amateurs built the Ark - Professionals built Titanic.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11208
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 3:55 am: |
|
>>Let's assume that the whole emotional/respect for the dead issue is set aside for the purpose of the discussion.<<
Don't.
I'm not trying to be harsh, just realistic. Military vessels remain the property of the nation state which owned them so even if nobody died on one, molesting any such wouldn't be taken lightly. Throw in some bodies and you get all the baggage which comes with the deal. It just doesn't go away.
As to recovering a whole submarine, I'm afraid technology hasn't come that far. The Kursk was recovered by drilling holes in the hull, cutting off the forward section where the torpedo room was located, attaching cables to the hulk then lifting it off the bottom. This was at a depth of about 600 feet if I recall correctly. Try this at the depths where boats such as the Thresher, Scorpion, and the ill fated Soviet missile boat lie, and you end up with a requirement for more cable and more lifting capacity then can be stuffed into a single hull.
The little minibots that Richard alluded too may well be feasible, but I don't think you'll have them constantly resurfacing. More likely, they'll use a fibre optic cable to transmit information to a support vessel on the surface.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 166
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 4:05 am: |
|
Trevor: Thank you for your analysis. In fact, you are probably correct, although as long as I am conceiving the project, I'll conceive that the development of the first will be expensive and far less expensive once a production line is set up with electronic component boards. Such a vehicle would have to be expected to fail at some point during it's service life, so eventually, the little explorers would be sacrificed. A fleet is what I'd like to imagine, and the expense of operation would be bourne by whichever corporate entities or government agencies want to do the exploring. In the 1970's $500 million to recover the K129 was an outrageous figure. Today it is actually a feasible figure. The Navy or CIA might easily finance such a fleet if it got them, not artifacts, but information. Figure a long lost Charlie or Oscar class sub is still pretty interesting, particularly if it's spilling it's nuclear fuel. Other ships and subs will likely be lost in the future, and some may hold information deemed critical to national security. Other than that, the Japanese sub with the gold for the Nazis would be a very interesting target, not to mention those Galleons which sailed over the horizon into the Atlantic and never saw Spain. There are plenty of intellectual questions on the sea floor, not to mention insurance claims, frauds, etc. Units might be dropped in a region of the sea, where an event was known to have happened, but specific information is not yet on hand.
Today it is out of some realms of acceptance, but given time, I think it's a real likelihood. I hereby issue my copyright and patent applied for! |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11210
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
>>In the 1970's $500 million to recover the K129 was an outrageous figure. Today it is actually a feasible figure.<<
Errrrr......today, adjusted for inflation...that figure would probably be more like 5 billion dollars. Keep in mind, this is to raise a barely 3000 tonne boat from the ocean floor using what was essentially an overbuilt oil derrick with a grappling claw. For larger vessels, think in terms of the size of the hardware needing the preportionate increase.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Trevor William Sturdy
Member
Username: trev
Post Number: 77
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
"The little minibots that Richard alluded too may well be feasible, but I don't think you'll have them constantly resurfacing. More likely, they'll use a fibre optic cable to transmit information to a support vessel on the surface."
Totally agree Michael,
whether these minibots are crab size or MIR size, for them to come to the surface to relay there data will put them miles away from were they left there search, and consume half there power reserves to get back to where they left off on the ocean floor.
Richard, The ocean is a huge place and to run a fleet of these things would not even guarantee you success, as Michael explained, it is a costly process especially if you're technology requires surface support.
I fish two reefs locally to where I live - one is three miles offshore, the other is 10 miles offshore. Without my GPS the 10 mile out reef would just be a waste of time trying to find, the three mile out reef would be possible to find using my depth sounder, but it would be time consuming, using visual marks I have taken from land.
To cut a long story short - If you are searching a hundred square miles of seafloor for some old Galleon(whatever), that may or maynot contain valuables, 9 out of 10 times you are going to be dissapointed.
Regards.
Amateurs built the Ark - Professionals built Titanic.
|
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 167
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
I knew I could count on Michael for a bucket of ice cold reality over my head! I wasn't even considering adjusting the K129 recovery at today's inflated costs; my bad. I was thinking of the 1970 cost in today's economy. The whole purpose of having such a fleet of micro-sub investigators would be to drop them and basically forget them until they reported back. The GPS idea was to record the specific research location on the seabed, recording the data in a microburst of information, then allowing the unit to surface and pass the transmission. Where the unit surfaced would be inconsequential, since the wreck location would be recorded on site. The electronics involved in recharging the system would be, again dependent upon the technology developed to support such an autonomous unit. I know of surface solar and have projected seawater electrolytic resources. As an amateur radio operator, I am intrigued all the time by people who build their own satellites on the kitchen table, or construct transmitters in a tuna fish can. Both of these are historical realities. I would have to agree that nobody would get rich off this system, but the idea was based on accumulation of information and knowledge rather than money. I am a weak-kneed, liberal teacher, so the "Indiana Jones" in me goes before the economist.
Michael's point about the "Kursk" is valid, and would no doubt be equally so for another large nuke, lost at 3 to 4 miles depth. The Jennifer Project was capable of recovering a vessel which , though smaller, would have been deemed just as impossible to bring. Until declassified, we will never know why the H.G.E.'s "moon pool" was smaller than the overall length of the sub it was meant to swallow. So the intrigue, the technology, the chance to snatch something back from "forever lost" remains tantalizing to the marine archaeologist, historian, or spy. We've all heard the impractical and/or stupid arguments for recovering the "Titanic", the "Bismarck", the "Yorktown", the Yamato". I'm not talking about that type of recovery. I would love to know how modern technology would recover a K129 or similar vessel in the early years of the 21st Century, and leave the discussion open to that, assuming (once again) that the mission outweighs the conventions on recovering human remains lost at sea.
Michael, allow me to put on my heated drysuit before you get out the buckets of Arctic water. |
Grant Carman
Member
Username: lksimcoe
Post Number: 44
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 5:50 pm: |
|
If you want to identify sites, why couldn't you use a satellite with a magnetomitor (sp) on board. That way, it could identify the sites, and then you could use the minibots to explore. It would save a heck of a lot of time if you had specific coordinates, rather than doing a grid search.
And like Richard, I await the omnipresent Michael to drag me kicking and screaming into reality.
 |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11219
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 4:34 am: |
|
>>I wasn't even considering adjusting the K129 recovery at today's inflated costs; my bad. I was thinking of the 1970 cost in today's economy.<<
Don't feel too bad. A lot of people would make the same mistake. Unfortunately, the value of the dollar isn't what it was. Nobody really likes to think about that...especially if you have a 401k...but there you are.
>>I would love to know how modern technology would recover a K129 or similar vessel in the early years of the 21st Century, <<
So would I if only because some situation may arise at some time which makes the job essential.
>>and leave the discussion open to that, assuming (once again) that the mission outweighs the conventions on recovering human remains lost at sea.<<
I wish it were possible to do it that neatly. One little problem:
It's not.
There are legal concerns to deal with and then there's the emotional aspect which never ever goes away, much as we might like it to. Nation-states do not like their sunken naval vessels being molested, even by their own citizens...much less by "Them durned furriners" and even mounting an expedition to take photos only often requires special permissions. This is especially true if it happens to be a designated war grave such as the HMHS Britannic. (Ask Parks Stephenson about that!)
From a technical aspect, I would think that if somebody wanted to have a go at it, they would build the Glomar Explorer only on testosterone...say by converting a very large oil tanker for the work. Such a vessel would have the storage capacity for the needed equipment and tools and could be fitted with a moon pool large enough to hold the recovered vessel.
Now if only they could keep the grappling equipment from coming apart on them.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
mark wengler
Member
Username: nebka
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 6:18 am: |
|
The K-129 broke up in to 2 or 3 pieces if you look at the size of the moon pool on the Glomar Explorer it would be to small to hold the Sub if it was intact.
The idea that they held the sub under water below the Explorer and cut the sub up is Bull.
I do not buy the idea that the sub broke up and most fell back in to the ocean.
This idea is blown out of the water BIG TIME in 1991 when we gave the video of the burial service to the russians we also gave them the bell from the K-129.
This bell was attached in the sail of the sub which according to the cia fell back into the Ocean.
If the bell fell back into the ocean with the sail of the sub how could we give it to them in 1991 then? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11709
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 6:29 am: |
|
>>The idea that they held the sub under water below the Explorer and cut the sub up is Bull.<<
That's because it wasn't cut up, nor did anybody claim that it was. It broke up while being lifted up from the ocean floor.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
mark wengler
Member
Username: nebka
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Yes it said that in A Matter Of Risk a Book that came out in 1978.
The story that 'the entire sub could be sliced apart by divers while suspended below the moon pool' is ridiculous. And the rated lift capacity of the Explorer was less than that needed to lift the dry-weight of the entire sub.
This is what this book is clamming.
One of the authors is Wayne Collier he says that he was involved in the project. |
Robert H. Gibbons
Member
Username: hhardleyat
Post Number: 299
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Having worked for Hughes Aircraft Co, and very much interested in underwater salvage and "Project Jennifer", there was a second vessel used to salvage the Russian submarine. The Glomar Explorer was the surface vessel with the moon pool and the apparatus to raise and lower the claw attached to the drill pipe, but the giant enclosed barge "Redwood City" was the actual recovery vessel. The Redwood City was to sink under the Glomar and then out of sight of spying Russian satellites, recover the intact submarine totally under water, and then be refloated to the surface with the submarine inside. the Redwood City was to be fastened under the Glomar and the claw went through the top and bottom of the Redwood City to bring up the submarine. Robert H. Gibbons |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11713
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 8:18 pm: |
|
>>One of the authors is Wayne Collier he says that he was involved in the project.<<
And I should believe this because.....?????
>>This bell was attached in the sail of the sub which according to the cia fell back into the Ocean. <<
The problem I have with that claim is that this just wouldn't have happened unless that submarine crew was phenomonally careless. A bell left on the sail during normal operations would have been a potential source of noise, and sub drivers hate noise. (It tends to give you away when you're trying to avoid being found.) That's why bells are typically removed and stowed below so this won't be a problem.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 180
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Michael, might it be that the bell was stowed inside the sail? I have always had problems with the idea that the moon pool was smaller than the submarine they were trying to lift. Now I think I understand the idea of the barge, although I don't recall it being brought along with the Glomar Explorer, in any of the literature I've read.
This salvage has been a pet interest of mine for years, and it would make a Hell of a movie, assuming it was done well. Why the CIA doesn't release photos and information at this point in the game is beyond me. Perhaps, someday, we'll get a President with the ability to tell us what we've already told the Russians.
Of course, there is the perchance that we are still doing this kind of thing with newer, more stealthy technology, and the government doesn't want to stir the pot at all. This is probably the most intriguing marine salvage in history, in my opinion, although probably not the most revealing. |
mark wengler
Member
Username: nebka
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 12:38 am: |
|
They say that the front forward part of the sub made it back up and the sail with the missiles the code books fell back into the sea.
When the claw broke bring the sub up.
As i said if the part where the bell which was in the sail and that fell back into the ocean how could they give it the russians in 1991 |
mark wengler
Member
Username: nebka
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 1:07 am: |
|
How do i load a photo i found one of the K-129 |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11715
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 5:28 am: |
|
>>As i said if the part where the bell which was in the sail and that fell back into the ocean how could they give it the russians in 1991<<
I heard you the first time. Apparantly you missed my response. The bell would not have been on the sail during normal operations. It would have been struck below into storage because of the noise the thing would make. Richard offers an interesting question as to whether or not it would have been stored inside that sail but I'm not aware of storage facilities of any kind in such structures.
It's not outside the realm of possibility that a later expedition went back and managed to recover something. Something like this would have been done on the Q-T since nation states take a really dim view of foreign nations molesting their wrecked military vessels.
There's really nothing outlandish or improbable about the government's story. The technology they used was cutting edge for the time and things were bound to go wrong. What amazes me is that the grappling claw held up for as long as it did.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 11:32 pm: |
|
It's too delicious a story to allow the conspiracy theories to pass by the wayside! Everyone likes to allow their minds to wander over the unimaginable and color in the missing spaces. The government may well be telling the truth to the limit of what it cares to reveal. Personally, I think they got everything they went after and more. I can't believe the moon pool size didn't take the submarine size into account. The failure to recover the whole boat is a good cover, and while it makes the expense look like a huge boon-doggle, it allows us to say "it'll never happen again" with our fingers crossed behind our backs. If they had a mission failure, why keep all the images secret, thirty years later? Furthermore, why go to the expense of destroying the claw mechanism and other pieces? I hope somebody is pursuing a F.O.I.A. request for this material. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11732
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 5:42 am: |
|
>>It's too delicious a story to allow the conspiracy theories to pass by the wayside!<<
I think I can manage without it. The tinfoil hat mentality just isn't my bag and the U.S. government doesn't have a really good track record for hiding secrets that weigh in at 3000 tonnes. Sooner or later, somebody squeals and the word gets out.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not the sort of person who trusts government on any level, but I'm also mindful of the fact that a large submarine is bloody difficult to hide. If somebody wants to get me to believe the claim that the government managed to recover the entire submarine, that would be easy enough.
Just show me the submarine.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
mark wengler
Member
Username: nebka
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 6:05 am: |
|
Here is something from Amazon is from one of the authors of the book A Matter Of Risk
If this is wrong to print this here it can be deleted
I'm Roy Varner, author of the book sourced by Wayne Collier, the CIA operative who recruited people for the CIA mission. I'm going to republish the book one of these days and build an extensive web site to document and celebrate this great vestige of the Cold War. I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who was a part of the mission, especially on the ship itself, and from family members who got to hear the stories years later. I'll include the most interesting submittals in the book to generate a more rounded view of the mission some 35 years after this book was published. Also welcome inside stories from those on the Russian side of this event. Send your stories to risk@royvarner.com and I'll get back to you. You're welcome to be anonymous in the book, but I will have to reach you by phone to be able to validate your story. Thanks! |
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 207
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 5:06 pm: |
|
How interesting! My guess is not many will come forward. I have the impression that most of these workers will be the patriotic types who believe they "were sworn to secrecy, and by God, they'll keep it secret". Not a bad thing, except that it probably wouldn't hurt anybody by talking today. I doubt anyone brought their Kodak "Instamatics" aboard, either. I believe in the text, of Varner's book, it says that Louisianna oil workers were recruited because of their experience on deep water platforms and their patriotic fervor. Something like that. I'd love to know more about this fascinating salvage effort. |
James Smith
Member
Username: jds88
Post Number: 351
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 6:35 am: |
|
Mark/Roy--
This is a long shot, but if you're trying to research the Hughes end of the situation you might contact Jerry Bell, a former Hughes bodyguard who has researched Hughes' later years and has published a book of his own experiences. I don't think he was directly involved with the Glomar Explorer, but he may be able to put you in touch with other former members of Hughes' staff who would know more and would be willing to talk about it. You can try to get in touch with him through his publisher, Granite Publishing, at http://www.granitepublishing.biz.
--Jim |
joel bleakley
Member
Username: joelb
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 6:24 pm: |
|
The k-129 had broken into two major pieces when it hit the seabed. The front section was deemed the "target object". The Glomar was only configured to recover the front section of 136 feet which would have fitted into the moon pool. |
joel bleakley
Member
Username: joelb
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 4, 2007 - 11:45 am: |
|
How about this for a theory on K-129,
K-129 was accidentally sunk by the uss swordfish by mistake. The russians respond by sinking the uss scorpion about a month later. The CIA trying to avoid a major international incident offer to salvage the K-129 and return the bodies to the families much in the same way as the Ehime Maru was salvaged after being sunk by the uss greeneville. The salvage of k-129 goes wrong and only the front section and six bodies are salvaged. Faced with the problem of splitting the dead and only returning some they instead have a burial at see and both sides promise to keep this very sad and tragic tail secret out of respect for the dead.
Not as exciting as the conspiracy theories but it fits all the facts. May not be exactly what happened but closer to the truth maybe?
Joel. |
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 225
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 4, 2007 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Joel, I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to this at all, even if it magically connects some random dots. Risking all out nuclear retaliation over the loss of a submarine is very unlikely. The powers involved would have discussed it behind closed doors, and possibly some restitution might have been discussed, but the U.S. and Soviets were interested in posturing publicly, not behind closed doors. Creative as it is, I'm afraid your theory doesn't seem to carry much water. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12802
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 5, 2007 - 5:49 am: |
|
I can't buy into this either. Especially since the CIA went to a lot of effort to keep all of this under wraps. The last thing they were interested in would be salvaging the K-129 with an eye towards returning the bodies. The ones that were recovered were buried at sea in any event. A rather strange move if the goal is to return the bodies. All that aside, there is no evidence whatever of torpedo damage to the hull. If there had been, there wouldn't have been much of anything left of the boat to salvage.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
joel bleakley
Member
Username: joelb
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - 4:23 am: |
|
The russian report was not of torpedo damage but it sank as a result of a collision with either the sail or periscope. Most agree this is unlikely and so do I but I wouldn't discount that fact that a collision between two subs could cause one to sink. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12867
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - 4:44 am: |
|
>>The russian report was not of torpedo damage but it sank as a result of a collision with either the sail or periscope.<<
A collision with who? The first the U.S. knew of it was when the noises of the K-129's death was picked up on SOSUS. No U.S. sub was close enough to do the deed even if the C.O. had wanted to do so. This happened on 8 March 1968. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-129_(Golf_II) )
The bent periscope the Swordfish was reported to have when she pulled into Japan would hardly have been enough to breech the K-129's hull, and it sure as hell wouldn't have caused an explosion.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
joel bleakley
Member
Username: joelb
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 1:24 am: |
|
No sooner do I do I have my theory then I discover a book with a similar theory although slightly different. "Scorpion down, sunk by the soviets buried by the pentagon". Reviews seem to be mixed with some supporting it while others view it as fictional and as bogus as the red star rogue book and theory. One thing for sure is without any real facts most will remain just that theories. I'm sure we won't find out for sure unless they want us to. |
Jim Hathaway
Member
Username: compassrose
Post Number: 236
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 1:42 am: |
|
Find out what?
Using logic like this, either the pentagon has hushed everything over, or your theory is proved.
The Golf and Hotel class were first generation missile subs with no end of ways to kill themselves (witness K-19).
There are some theories worth considering and some not- I would firmly place this in the not category.
The pentagon, in this case, may be telling you what they know- Human error often leaves few traces, and submarines, as well as aircraft (I can tell you from personal experience),are often unforgiving of human error-
Honjitsu tenki seiro naredomo nami takashi-...
Akiyama Saneyuki
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12919
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 7:06 am: |
|
Joel, you need to be very careful about trusting anything you see on the bookstore shelves these days. As Jim rightly points out, submarines are especially unforgiving of mistakes and Russian subs in particular suffered from a lot of them Witness the events with the Kursk to see what I mean. No conspiracies here. Just HTP getting loose in the torpedo room, and this was just a few years ago.
There are photos of the Scorpion's wreck which are in the public domain and from the looks of it, the boat may very well have been the victim of one of her own torpedos. Hot runs inside torpedo tubes were always a threat as was eating one of your own from a circular shot.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Richard Glueck
Member
Username: richard_glueck
Post Number: 226
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 5:31 pm: |
|
There is also a theory that the "Titanic" was guided into the iceberg by a flying saucer, and the missing dead were actually teleported to another planet as specimens. Hey, somebody published it, so it must have a grain of truth, right?
"Scorpion" was killed by one of her own, or something she carried. The Navy has released a long list of photographs of the wreckage, and while censored, I'm sure, there is enough to substantiate the proposition that an accident of a climactic nature collapsed her at an unforgiving depth. K129 was a victim of lousy engineering, alone, and without hope of rescue. Without the specifics and photographs of the recovery and disassembly, what we really don't know is how much of the Soviet sub was retrieved, and what was truly learned from her. Maybe the CIA will release that information one day, but until then, I think we know what happened aboard both subs. |
Jim Hathaway
Member
Username: compassrose
Post Number: 237
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 6:01 pm: |
|
>>K129 was a victim of lousy engineering, alone, and without hope of rescue.<<
If I had to posit a guess as to a likely culprit, I would look at the missile system, the Golf, Hotel, and Yankee class all put to sea with liquid fuelled missiles, and they had caused problems before with leaky missile tubes and seawater becoming mixed with the nitric acid used as one of their fuel components.
An excellent account of an incident like this aboard a Yankee class boomer is in "Hostile Waters" by Huchthausen.
The US proposed designs for similarly equipped subs,using the Jupiter missile which looked like a Skipjack hull form with the large sail of a Golf Class boat, however the development of the solid fuelled Polaris made this intermediate and dangerous type unneeded in the USN.
The missile system is a likely source of what happened to K-129, but it is by no means the only one.
It was a type operating at the limits of their technology, and was neither safe, nor sane (To use the slogan of a well known fireworks manufacturer).
Honjitsu tenki seiro naredomo nami takashi-...
Akiyama Saneyuki
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12931
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Russian occupational/industrial safety standards were generally understood to lag behind those of the west by at least a century, and what that meant in practice was that they were willing to take chances with construction and operating standards that would have been unthinkable in the west.
They paid the price for that too. The K-19 was not known as "Little Hiroshima" by Northern Fleet sailors for nothing. Then there were the losses they had because of engineering casulaties and weapons accidents.
The reason the Russians used liquid fueled missiles was because their solid fuel technology wasn't even close to what could be accomplished in the west so storable liquid fuels were the only way to go. They had the advantage of being a lot more energy dense then solid fuel, but they were also toxic, corrosive as hell, and needed little incentive to explode.
Forget the silly conspiracy theories! Even western boats had weapons that would bite, and their share of engineering problems that could and did turn lethal. (Ask the crew of the Thresher by way of Oujia-Board-Express!) Given the problems the Soviets faced, it's a wonder that this sort of thing didn't happen more often then it did!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
joel bleakley
Member
Username: joelb
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Hello
Thanks Michael and Jim for your intelligent thoughts and I must say that I do agree. The J.Craven theory was the safety device exploded after a failed attempt trying to blow up Hawaii with one of the nuclear missiles. While who knows I might one day be proven wrong on this but I find this near impossible to believe.
I think your points about Russian safety are spot on especially with regards to missiles as has been seen with the Kursk. To me your ideas may be closer to the truth.
I haven't heard of any definitive cause having been discovered in either the scorpion or k-129 sinkings yet so without any evidence most suggestions will remain theories.
PS I don't always believe what I read not even the Scorpion down book and especially not the Red star rogue book either I just have a hard time believing the Russians were trying to blow up hawaii with a nuclear missile be it a Rogue or otherwise. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 13046
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 7:23 am: |
|
Conspiracy theories may be fun to kick around but seldom hold up well when the evidence is given a hard look. Submarines didn't need a lot of help to get into trouble. It's the nature of the game itself which makes is plenty dangerous in it's own right.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
joel bleakley
Member
Username: joelb
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 6:03 am: |
|
Hello,
Does anyone know about the technical details of "the fish" that was used by halibut in photographing k-129. I am interested in this in terms of the development of deep underwater surveillance equipment. The only other unit of that area I would imagine would be the one used by Mizar. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 13909
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 6:15 am: |
|
Joel, I don't know that you're going to find out a lot about that device. A lot of the details of the equipment used by our submarines for this sort of thing were and remain closely gaurded state secrets.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
joel bleakley
Member
Username: joelb
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 6:53 am: |
|
Hello Michael,
I guess your probably right. Quite ingenious I thought of launching one from a submarine. I am sure from a technical standpoint it is well superseded by todays models. It would be nice from an historical time line prospective showing the development of such devices. Imagine the development on cars or planes missing from history. Perhaps one day such things will be declassified. You'll have to wait even longer to find out what is on USS Jimmy Carter. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 13912
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 4:24 pm: |
|
>>I am sure from a technical standpoint it is well superseded by todays models.<<
It probably is but it's amazing how long some information will stay under lock and key for no apparantly good reason.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
