Category Archives: Marine Technology

A Brief Look Back at the World’s First Modern Submarine

March 5, 2023All Posts, Engineering, Marine Technology, Military technology, Naval ships & systemsArthur Leopold Busch, Electric Boat Company, HMS Holland, Holland Torpedo Boat Company, Holland VI, John Phillip Holland, USS Holland, Vickers Sons & Maxim Ltd, Yokosuka Naval ArsenalPeter Lobner

Peter Lobner

1. Introduction

National Submarine Day, which occurs each year on 11 April, honors the anniversary of the day in 1900 when the U.S. Navy acquired the Holland VI submarine, which has been generally recognized as the world’s first modern submarine.

Similar, though slightly larger variants of the original Holland VI design also were acquired by the UK (1901 – 1904) and Japan (1904).

2. The Holland VI and the original U.S. Holland-class submarines

Designed in 1896 by Irish-American inventor John Phillip Holland and his Holland Torpedo Boat Company, the Holland VI was built at the Crescent Shipyard in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where Arthur Leopold Busch was the chief constructor / naval architect. The Holland VI was launched on 17 May 1897. This diminutive submarine (by today’s standards) had an overall length of 53 ft 10 in (16.41 m), displacements of 65 tons surfaced / 75 tons submerged, and was operated by a crew of six.

*Picture post card of the USS Holland (SS-1).*
*Source: Universal Ship Cancellation Society (USCS #3608)*

The Holland VI brought together a host of impressive features for the first time in one vessel, including:

Efficient hydrodynamic hull shape [teardrop-shape with bulbous bow and tapered stern] with good seakeeping ability on the open ocean.
Separate main and auxiliary ballast systems enable rapid diving and surfacing with minimial changes to the longitudinal center of gravity while underway.
- Accomplished by operating with full or nearly full ballast tanks when submerged.
- Allowed precise control of trim angle while submerged.
Able to dive to and accurately maintain a significant depth [up of 75 feet (23 m)].
- Diving planes provide the means to precisely control depth [stern planes only, located behind the propeller].
Dual propulsion systems driving a single propeller at the stern.
- Internal combustion engine provides reliable power on the surface, enabling long transits while charging the batteries [up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) at 6 knots]
- Lead-acid storage batteries provide power to run submerged for a considerable distance [about 30 nautical miles (56 km) at 5.5 knots].
Conning tower for directing ship and weapons activities on the surface or semi-submerged.
- No periscope. View ports around the top of the conning tower provided the commander with intermittent views while “porpoising” semi-submerged near the surface.
Offensive weapons systems.
- One reloadable torpedo tube at the bow, with three self-propelled torpedoes carried internally.
- One pneumatic dynamite gun at the bow that, on the surface, fired large projectiles, sometimes called “aerial torpedoes.” [This was subsequently removed].

John P. Holland first demonstrated the Holland VI to the U.S. Navy on 17 March 1898. It appears that Submarine Day originally was celebrated to mark anniversaries of this date.

*USS Holland (SS-1) internal and external arrangements.*
*The interior space was one contiguous compartment. Source: Navsource.com*

The U.S. Navy purchased the Holland VI for $150,000 on 11 April 1900. The Navy renamed and commissioned the submarine as the USS Holland on 12 October 1900. While the Navy previously owned and operated two submarines, Alligator (1862 – 63) and Intelligent Whale (1869 – 73), the USS Holland was the first commissioned submarine in the fleet. Lieutenant H.H. Caldwell became the first commanding officer of a modern commissioned submarine.

On 25 August 1905, the USS Holland made history by being the first American submarine to carry a U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt, while she ran submerged for 55 minutes.The Navy ordered six more Holland-class submarines from the Electric Boat Company, which was founded in 1899 and had acquired the Holland Torpedo Boat Company and the continuing services of John P. Holland as Manager. Patent US702729 was granted on 17 June 1902 for Holland’s submarine design and assigned to Electric Boat Company.

*Bow quarter view of USS Holland (SS-1) in drydock.*
*Source: Naval Institute photo archive*

*Stern quarter view of USS Holland (SS-1) in drydock.*
*Source: Naval History and Heritage Command*

*Bow view of USS Holland (SS-1) dockside showing the muzzle of the*
*pneumatic dynamite gun at the bow and the open conning tower amidships.*
*Source: Scientific American 1898 via Wikimedia Commons*

*John Philip Holland in the conning tower. Note the viewing ports around the top rim of the tower. Source: Wikimedia Commons*

*Reenactment showing the interior of the conning tower.*
*Source: screenshot from “Submarine #1” video (2022)*

The U.S. Navy’s Holland-class subs rapidly became obsolete as submarine technology advanced. USS Holland finished out her naval career in Norfolk, VA, was stricken from the Navy Register of Ships on 21 November 1910, and was sold for scrap in 1913. The USS Holland did not receive its “SS-1” designation until the Navy’s modern hull classification system was instituted on 17 July 1920.

3. The UK Holland-class submarines

In their online history, BAE Systems reports, “Following meetings with the Admiralty, an agreement was made on 27th October 1900 between the Electric Boat Company and Vickers Sons & Maxim Ltd of Barrow-in-Furness, giving Vickers 25-year license to manufacture the Holland-class of submarines, using Electric Boats patents.”

Vickers built five Holland-class subs for the Royal Navy. These were somewhat larger than their U.S. counterparts, with a length of 63 ft 4 in (19.3 m), a submerged displacement of 107 tons and a crew of eight.

*HMS Holland 1 underway. Source: RN Submarine Museum via Wikipedia*

The first sub, designated Holland 1, was launched in 1901. After 12 years of service, it was decommissioned in 1913 and sank at sea while under tow near Plymouth, on its way to be scrapped. The location of the sunken sub was discovered in 1981 and the largely intact vessel was raised in 1983. Today, the Holland 1 is on display at the Royal Navy’s Submarine Museum in Gosport, UK, in a climate-controlled environment designed to arrest further corrosion.

*UK’s Holland 1 in a drydock after being recovered from the seabed in 1983.*
*Source: screenshot from The National Museum of the Royal Navy video (2022)*

The last of the UK’s Holland-class submarines, Holland 5, was launched in 1904. After eight years in service, Holland 5 sank off the coast of Sussex in 1912 while being towed for decommissioning. In 1985, the intact, but encrusted, submarine was located on the seabed at a depth of 35 meters (115 ft), where it remains today, subject to the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.

*Map of the UK’s HMS Holland 5 on the seabed.*
*Source: screenshot from Wessex Archaeology video (2010)*

4. The Japanese Holland-class submarines

Japanese representatives had sailed aboard Holland IV during early testing in 1898 and during trials on the Potomac River in 1900. During the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese government purchased five “improved” Holland-class submarines from the Electric Boat Company in great secrecy, since the U.S. was a “neutral” nation. These submarines had a length of 67 ft (20.4 m) and a submerged displacement of 126 tons. They were delivered to Japan partially assembled in December 1904. Assembly was completed at the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal, the crews were trained, and the submarines were ready for combat operations in August 1905. None saw action before the war ended in September 1905. They served as training boats until being retired from service 1920.

*Japan’s first submarine squadron consisted of five “improved” Holland-class*
*(Type 7-P) subs. Source: Dynamic America, edited by J. Niven, 1960,*
*via Gary McCue*

5. Comparison with today’s nuclear-powered submarines

Since the first production run of Holland-class submarines built for the U.S. Navy, Electric Boat Company (now General Dynamics Electric Boat) has been delivering submarines to the Navy for more than 120 years.

The Navy’s Virginia-class SSNs, which started entering the fleet in 2004 with USS Virginia(SSN-774), are 7,800 ton behemoths in comparison to the USS Holland.

*Comparison of USS Holland (SS-1) & USS Virginia (SSN-774)*
*Sources: composite adapted from Wikiwand (SSN-774) & Navsource (SS-1)*

Almost 20 years later, the latest Virginia-class Block V SSNs are even bigger, with an overall length of 460 ft (140 m) and a submerged displacement of over 10,000 tons. The largest submarines currently in the Navy’s fleet are the aging Ohio-class SSBNs (strategic missile submarines) and SSGNs (cruise missile submarines). With an overall length of 560 ft (170 m) and a submerged displacement of about 18,750 tons, the Ohio-class subs dwarf all the other U.S. subs.

Since 2018, the U.S. Navy has been testing a large, autonomous, unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), Echo Voyager, which is 51 feet (15.5 meters) long and has a displacement of about 50 tons. This is approximately the same size as the USS Holland (SS-1).

John P. Holland would be amazed at the progress made in submarine design and operation over the 123 years since the USS Holland was acquired by the U.S. Navy in 1990 and commissioned that same year.

Enjoy National Submarine Day on 11 April, and remember that, in the U.S., it’s pronounced “sub-marine-er,” not “sub-mariner,” as they say in the UK and in Marvel Comics. If you’re going to dress up for the occasion, may I suggest this stylish T-shirt.

For more information

“USS Holland SS-1 – Some facts and History,” USS Holland AS-32 Association: https://www.ussholland.org/usshollandss1.html
Carol Johnk, “National Submarine Day,” Lichtenberger Engineering Library, University of Iowa, 10 April 2015: https://blog.lib.uiowa.edu/eng/national-submarine-day/
“Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service report RL32418, updated 21 December 2022: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf
“Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service report R45757, updated 21 December 2022: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R45757.pdf
“RN Subs – 1901 – 1913: Holland Class,” RN Subs in Association with the Barrow Submariners Association: http://rnsubs.co.uk/boats/subs/holland-class.html
“Holland-class Submarines – The Royal Navy’s first submarines,” BAE Systems: https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/holland-class-submarines
Gary McCue, “Japanese ‘Holland’ Submarines (Type 7-P),” Military Honors: http://militaryhonors.sid-hill.us/history/gwmjh_archive/Submarines/Holland_7J.html

Patent

Patent US702729, “Submarine Boat,” Inventor: John P. Holland, Filed 5 October 1900, Granted 17 June 1902, Assigned to Electric Boat Company: https://patents.google.com/patent/US702729A/en?oq=US702729

Videos – USS Holland

“‘No Deck to Strut Upon’ 1971 U.S. Navy Film, John P. Holland and Development of the Submarine, 80114,” (28.06 min), Periscope Films, posted online 7 June 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVzhn3X93Hg
“First US Navy Submarine: USS Holland,” (4.49 min), posted by Military History Visualized, 5 April 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBx1qyEILLk
“Uncovering Middlesex County August 2018: USS Holland (SS 1),” (1.00 min), posted by Middlesex County NJ Gov’t, 14 August 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHHmVCcSYGo
“Submarine #1,” (10.26 min), posted by Dark Seas, 11 April 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOeZJieYqRE
“USS Holland (Submarine) Trials,” (7.10 min), posted by AP Archives, 28 July 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44EB6xcWxKg
“HISTORY 1904! United States Navy’s first modern submarine..USS Holland,” (7.00 min), posed by Sam Ash, 3 February 2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oANnFeIz10k
“1/350 USS Holland (SS-1) 1,” (15.41 min, 3-D scale modeling project), posted by Sooo, 28 June 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvrgpk7cHRE
“The Story of John Philip Holland,” (8.23 min), posted by Cliffs of Moher Experience, 16 August 2000: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kklHONpO_z0

Videos – Royal Navy Holland-class submarines

“Holland-class submarines – The Royal Navy’s first submarines,” BAE Systems: https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/holland-class-submarines
“The Royal Navy’s first submarine, Holland 1, turns 120 years old in 2021,” (2:56 min), posted by The National Museum of the Royal Navy, 27 September 2021:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgzHUFc4aQM
“HMS/m Holland V: Diving on an early Royal Navy submarine,” (7.27 min), posted by Wessex Archaeology, 8 July 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRx3-ofgqK0

Ulstein’s Nuclear-powered Thor and its All-electric Companion Vessel Are a Zero-Carbon Solution for Marine Tourism

June 11, 2022All Posts, Antarctic, Arctic, Environmental protection, Marine Technology, Nuclear propulsion, Power Generating Technology - Nuclear, Power Storage Technology, TransportationCMSR, Compact MSR, CORE-POWER, m-MSR, molten salt reactor, MSR, Seaborg Technologies, TerraPower, Thor, thorium, UlsteinDrummer

Peter Lobner

1. Introduction

In June 2022, the Norwegian firm Ulstein (https://ulstein.com) announced their conceptual design of a Replenishment, Research and Rescue (3R) vessel named Thor that will be powered by a thorium molten salt reactor (MSR). This vessel can function as a seaborne mobile charging station for a small fleet of electrically-powered expedition / cruise ships that are designed to operate in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic and Antarctic. Other environmentally sensitive areas include the West Norwegian Fjords, which are UNESCO World Heritage sites that will be closed in 2026 to all ships that are not zero-emission. In the future, similar regulations could be in place to protect other environmentally sensitive regions of the world, thereby reinforcing Ulstein’s business case behind Thor and its all-electric companion vessels.

*Ulstein’s Thor MSR-powered vessel (left) and*
*Sif electrically-powered expedition / cruise vessel (right).*
*Source: Ulstein*

2. The MSR-powered Thor charging station

Thor is a 149-meter (500-foot) long, zero-emission, nuclear-powered vessel that features Ulstein’s striking, backwards-sloping X-bow, which is claimed to result in a smoother ride, higher speed while using less energy, and less mechanical wear than a ship with a conventional bow.

For its R3 mission, Thor would be outfitted with work boats, cranes, a helicopter landing pad, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned surface vessels, firefighting equipment, rescue booms, a lecture hall and laboratories.

As a charging station, Thor would be sized to recharge four all-electric vessels simultaneously.

Thor also could serve as a floating power station, replacing diesel power barges in some developing countries or in some disaster areas while the local electric power infrastructure is being repaired.

Ulstein projects that an operational Thor vessel could be launched in “10 to 15 years.” However, the development and licensing of a marine MSR is on the critical path for that schedule.

*Thor, starboard side views. Source, both graphics: Ulstein*

3. The all-electric Sif expedition / cruise ship

Sif, named after the goddess who was Thor’s wife, is a design concept for a 100-meter (330-foot) long, all-electric, zero-emission expedition / cruise ship designed to operate with minimal impact in environmentally sensitive areas. The ship will be powered by a new generation of solid batteries that are expected to offer greater capacity and resistance to fire than lithium-ion batteries used commonly today. It will be periodically recharged at sea by Thor.

The ship can accommodate 80 passengers and 80 crew.

*Sif, starboard side view. Source, both graphics: Ulstein*

4. A marine MSR power plant

The pressurized water reactor (PWR) is the predominant marine nuclear power plant in use today, primarily in military vessels, but also in Russian icebreakers and a floating nuclear power plant in the Russian Arctic.

Ulstein reported that it has been exploring MSR technology because of its favorable operating and safety characteristics. For example, an MSR operates at atmospheric pressure (unlike a PWR) and passive features and systems maintain safety in an emergency. If the core overheats, the molten salt fuel/coolant mixture automatically drains out of the reactor and into a containment vessel where it safely solidifies and can be reused. You’ll find a good overview of MSR technology here: https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html

While a few experimental MSRs have operated in the past, no MSR has been subject to a commercial nuclear licensing review, even for a land-based application. Ulstein favors a thorium-fueled MSR. The thorium-uranium-233 fuel cycle introduces additional technical and nuclear licensing uncertainties because of the lack of operational and nuclear regulatory precedents.

Several firms are developing MSR concepts. However, the combination of a marine MSR and a thorium fuel cycle remains elusive. Two uranium-fueled marine MSR design concepts are described below.

Seaborg Technologies

The Danish firm Seaborg Technologies (https://www.seaborg.com), founded in 2014, is developing a compact MSR (CMSR) with a rating of about 250 MWt / 100 MWe for use in power barges (floating nuclear power plants) of their own design (see my 16 May 2021 post). The thermal-spectrum CMSR uses uranium-235 fuel in a molten proprietary salt, with a separate sodium hydroxide (NaOH) moderator.

Seaborg’s development time line calls for a commercial CMSR prototype to be built in 2024, with commercial production of power barges beginning in 2026.

In April 2022, Seaborg and the Korean shipbuilding firm Samsung Heavy Industries signed a partnership agreement for manufacturing and selling turnkey CMSR power barges.

On 10 June 2022, Seaborg was selected by the European Innovation Council to receive a significant (potentially up to €17.5 million) innovation grant to help accelerate their work on the CMSR.

CORE-POWER and the Southern Company consortium

The UK firm CORE-POWER Ltd. (https://corepower.energy), founded in 2018, began with a concept for a compact uranium-235 fueled, molten chloride salt reactor named the m-MSR for marine applications. This modular, inherently safe, 15 MWe micro-reactor system was designed as a zero-carbon replacement power source for the fossil-fueled power plants in many existing commercial marine vessels. It also was intended for use as the original power source for new vessels, as proposed for the Earth 300 Eco-Yacht design concept unveiled by entrepreneur Aaron Olivera in April 2021 (see my 17 April 2021 post). The power output of a modular CORE-POWER m-MSR installation could be scaled to meet operational needs by adding reactor modules in compact arrangements suitable for shipboard installation.

*A set of six small, compact CORE-POWER m-MSR modules*
*could generate* *90 MWe. Dump tank not shown. Source: CORE-POWER*

In November 2020, CORE-POWER announced that it had joined an international consortium to develop MSRs. This team includes the US nuclear utility company Southern Company (https://www.southerncompany.com), US small modular reactor developer TerraPower (https://www.terrapower.com) and nuclear technology company Orano USA (https://www.orano.group/usa/en). In the consortium, TerraPower is responsible for the fast-spectrum Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR). CORE-POWER is responsible for maritime readiness and regulatory approvals.

This consortium applied to the US Department of Energy (DOE) to participate in cost-share risk reduction awards under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), to develop a prototype MCFR as a proof-of-concept for a medium-scale commercial-grade reactor. In December 2020, the consortium was awarded $90.4 million, with the goal of demonstrating the first MCFR in 2024. DOE reported, “They expect to begin testing in a $20 million integrated effects test facility starting in 2022. The team has successfully scaled up the salt manufacturing process to enable immediate testing. Data generated from the test facility will be used to validate thermal hydraulics and safety analysis codes for licensing of the reactor.”In February 2021, CORE-POWER presented the MCFR development schedule in the following chart, which shows the MCFR becoming available for deployment in marine propulsion in about 2035. This is within the 10 to 15 year timescale projected by Ulstein for their first Thor vessel.

5. In conclusion

A seaborne nuclear-powered “charging station” supporting a small fleet of all-electric marine vessels provides a zero-carbon solution for operating in protected, environmentally sensitive areas that otherwise would be off limits to visitors. Ulstein’s concept for the MSR-powered Thor R3 vessel and the Sif companion vessel is a clever approach for implementing that strategy.

It appears that a uranium-fueled marine MSR could be commercially available in the 10 to 15 year time frame Ulstein projects for deploying Thor and Sif. The technical and nuclear regulatory uncertainties associated with a thorium-fueled marine MSR will require a considerably longer time frame.

6. For additional information

Ulstein Thor & Sif

“Ship design concept from Ulstein can solve zero-emission challenge,” Ulstein press release, 26 April 2022: https://ulstein.com/news/ulstein-thor-zero-emission-concept
“Nuclear vessel could be floating charging station for electric cruise ships,” World Nuclear News, 29 April 2022: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ulstein-touts-nuclear-concept-for-decarbonising-cr
“Ulstein reveals thorium-powered ship concept to support ecocruising,” New Atlas, 3 May 2022: https://newatlas.com/marine/ulstein-thorium-powered-ship-concept-ecocruising/
Jacopo Prisco, “Nuclear power could be the future of expedition cruises,” CNN travel, 3 June 2022: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/ulstein-thor-nuclear-powered-ship/index.html

Video

“’Thor’ – a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor ship design by Ulstein for Replenishment, Research and Rescue,” (2:16 min), Ulstein, 26 April 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBRVb0-0kAw

Seaborg CMSR

Peter Lobner, “Denmark’s Seaborg Technologies CMSR Power Barge Concept,” The Lyncean Group of San Diego, 15 May 2021: https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.28/gkz.aeb.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Denmark-Seaborg-CMSR-Power-Barge-converted.pdf
Peter Mateusz, “Molten salt revisited: the CMSR,” Nuclear Engineering International, 24 January 2022: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuremolten-salt-revisited-the-cmsr-9423379/
Seaborg Partners With Samsung,” Seaborg press release, 7 April 2022: https://www.seaborg.com/press-release-samsung
“Samsung, Seaborg partnership on floating nuclear reactors,” World Nuclear News, 8 April 2022: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Samsung,-Seaborg-partnership-on-floating-nuclear-r

CORE-POWER m-MSR

“Core Power joins team to develop MSR technology to power ships,” Ship Technology, 3 November 2020: https://www.ship-technology.com/news/core-power-msr-technology-ships/
“Core Power thinks nuclear will make waves in commercial shipping,” Nuclear Newswire, American Nuclear Society, 5 November 2020: https://www.ans.org/news/article-2348/core-power-thinks-nuclear-will-make-waves-in-commercial-shipping/
“Zero-emission energy revolution for ocean transportation,” Core-Power (UK) Ltd., NAMEPA briefing, February 2021: https://namepa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021.CORE-POWER-K37-EN-NAMEPA.pdf
Peter Lobner, “The Earth 300 Eco-Yacht Could Serve as a Prototype for De-carbonizing the World’s Commercial Marine Transportation Fleets,” The Lyncean Group of San Diego, 17 April 2021: https://lynceans.org/all-posts/the-earth-300-eco-yacht-could-serve-as-a-prototype-for-de-carbonizing-the-worlds-commercial-marine-transportation-fleets/
“Southern Company and TerraPower Prep for Testing on Molten Salt Reactor,” DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, 29 November 2021: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/southern-company-and-terrapower-prep-testing-molten-salt-reactor

What Do a Tidal Turbine and an Airship Have in Common?

May 17, 2021Aeronautical, All Posts, Energy, Marine Technology, Power Generating Technology - AlternateAeromodeller II, Lieven Standaert, O2 tidal turbine, Orbital Marine Power, tidal turbineDrummer

Peter Lobner

Orbital Marine Power (https://orbitalmarine.com) is developing a large, moored tidal turbine, the O2, which they claim is the most powerful tidal turbine in the world. The O2 soon will be deployed at sea off the Orkney Islands, northeast of Scotland.

*Rendering of the O2 tidal turbine. Source: Orbital Marine Power*

Side view *of the O2 tidal turbine. Source: Orbital Marine Power*

Key features of the O2 tidal turbine are:

74 meter (243 ft) tubular steel hull with fore and aft mooring connections.
Hydraulically-actuated steel legs extending from the hull support the generator nacelles and rotors that are deployed underwater after the hull has been moored using a four-point mooring system.
Two 20 meter (65.6 ft) diameter, 2-bladed rotors give the O2 more than 600 m² (6,458 ft²) of swept area to capture flowing tidal energy.
Blade pitch control enables bi-directional operation of the turbines with the hull in a fixed moored position (the hull doesn’t swing with the tide).
Each rotor drives a 1 MWe generator housed in the nacelle.
Power is delivered to shore by a submarine cable.

Here are three short videos that will give you a quick introduction to this remarkable machine:

“Orbital O2 2MW Tidal Turbine – World’s Most Powerful Tidal Turbine” (1:43 minutes), 2018 animation showing how the O2 design and how it will operate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hN3dBpPu8Q
“O2 move” (0:49 min), March 2021 video showing the completed O2 being moved through a shipyard prior to launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwVKmmG2yt8
“O2 Launch” (1:12 minutes), April 2021 videos showing the O2 launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws5XoUJm8kU

*O2 tidal turbine being moved in the shipyard in March 2021, prior to launch. The rotors are not yet attached to the nacelles.* *Source: Orbital Marine Power video screenshot*

*O2 with the rotors attached in the water, under tow. Source: Orbital Marine Power*

If the O2 demonstration proves to be successful, Orbital Marine Power plans to develop and deploy larger tidal turbines in the future.

So, what does the O2 tidal turbine have in common with an airship? The Aeromodeller II airship design developed by Belgian engineer Lieven Standaert implements an airborne mooring as a means to generate power using two wind turbines while remaining aloft.

*Ground anchor enables propellers to function as wind turbines for power generation while tethered.*
*Source: Inhabit.com*

*Rendering of Aeromodeller II shown tethered. Source: www.aeromodeller2.be*

Both the O2 tidal turbine and the Aeromodeller II airship are buoyant vehicles in their respective media (water and air, respectively) and both are designed to extract power from that medium while moored (or tethered). Important differences are that the O2 tidal turbine is permanently moored and supplies power to users on land. The Aeromodeller II drops its anchor periodically to recharge its own power system while tethered and then raises its anchor to continue its journey. You’ll find more information on the Aeromodeller II airship in my separate article here: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Aeromodeller-2-converted1.pdf

Floating Nuclear Power Plants Will be Operating at Several Sites Around the World by the End of the 2020s

May 16, 2021All Posts, Energy, Marine Technology, Power Generating Technology - NuclearACP100S, ACPR50S, Akademik Lomonosov, Baltic Shipyard, BANDI-60S, CGN, China General Nuclear Power, China National Nuclear Corporation, China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, CMSR, CNNC, Compact Molten Salt Reactor, floating nuclear power plant, Kepco E&C, KLT-40S, National Development and Reform Commission, OKBM Afrikantov, RITM-200M, Rosatom, Seaborg Technologies, SturgisDrummer

Peter Lobner

1. Introduction

This post is an update and supplement to the information on floating nuclear power plants (FNPPs) in my July 2018 post, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018,” at the following link: https://lynceans.org/all-posts/marine-nuclear-power-1939-2018/

An FNPP is a transportable barge housing one or more nuclear power reactors that can deliver electric power and other services, such as low temperature process heat and/or desalinated water, to users at a wide variety of coastal or offshore sites. FNPPs are a zero-carbon energy solution that has particular value in remote locations where the lack of adequate electrical power and other basic services are factors limiting development and/or the quality of life.

After being manufactured in a shipyard, the completed FNPP is fueled, tested and then towed to the selected site, where a safe mooring provides the interfaces to connect to the local / regional electrical grid and other user facilities.

The US operated the first FNPP, Sturgis, in the Panama Canal from 1968 to 1975. Sturgiswas equipped with a 45 MWt / 10 MWe Martin Marietta MH-1A pressurized water reactor (PWR) that was developed under the Army Nuclear Power Program.

*Sturgis moored in the Panama Canal. Source: Army Corps of Engg’s*

Sturgis supplied electric power to the Panama Canal Zone grid, replacing the output of Gatun Hydroelectric Plant. This allowed more water from Gatun Lake to be available to fill canal locks, enabling 2,500 more ships per year to pass through the canal. After decommissioning, dismantling was finally completed in 2019.

2. Akademik Lomonosov – The first modern FNPP

It wasn’t until 2019 that another FNPP, Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, supplied power to a terrestrial electricity grid, 44 years after Sturgis. The Lomonosov is a one-of-a-kind, modern FNPP designed for operation in the Arctic. With two KLT-40S PWRs, Lomonosov supplies up to 70 MWe of electric power to the isolated Chukotka regional power grid or up to 50 Gcal/h of low temperature process heat at reduced electrical output to users in the industrial city of Pevek, near the eastern end of Russia’s Northern Sea Route.

*Akademik Lomonosov at Pevek. Source: Sputnik / Pavel Lvov*

Lomonosov started providing electricity to the grid on 19 December 2019 and regular commercial operation began on 22 May 2020.

3. FNPPs under development by several nations

Several nations are developing new FNPP designs along with plans for their serial production for domestic and/or export sale. The leading contenders are presented in the following chart.

Floating Nuclear Power Plants in Operation & Under Development

Akademik Lomonosov and the first four new FNPP designs in the above chart use small PWRs in various compact configurations. PWRs have been the dominant type of power reactor worldwide since their introduction in naval reactors and commercial power reactors in the 1950s. The Seaborg power barges will use compact molten salt reactors (CMSRs) that have functional similarities to the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) that was tested in the US in the early 1960s.

Russia

Russia is developing their 2^nd-generation “optimized floating power unit” (OPEB) to deliver 100 MWe electric power, low temperature process heat and water desalination to support their domestic economic development in the Arctic. In November 2020, Rosatom director for development and international business, Kirill Komarov, reported that there was demand for FNPPs along the entire length of Russia’s Northern Sea Route, where a large number of projects are being planned. This was reinforced in May 2021, when Russia’s President Vladimir Putin endorsed a plan to deploy OPEBs to supply a new power line at Cape Nagloynyn, Chaunskaya Bay, to support the development of the Baimskaya copper project in Chukotka. The development plan calls for 350 MWe of new generation from nuclear or liquid natural gas (LNG) generators. Baimskaya currently is supplied from Pevek, where the Lomonosov is based.

A version of the OPEB also is intended for international export and has been designed with the flexibility to operate in hot regions of the world. Bellona reported that “Rosatom has long claimed that unspecified governments in North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia are interested in acquiring floating nuclear plants.”

China

In the 1960s, China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) set up the 719 Research Institute, also known as the Wuhan Second Ship Design Institute or CSIC 719, to develop applications for nuclear power technology in marine platforms. CSIC has become China’s biggest constructor of naval vessels, including nuclear submarines.

About a decade ago, China considered importing FNPP technology from Russia. In 2015, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) agreed with a CSIC 719 design plan to develop an indigenous offshore marine nuclear power platform. This plan included both floating nuclear power plants and seabed-sited nuclear power plants. Today, part of this plan is being realized in the FNPP programs at China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and China General Nuclear Power (CGN), two staunch competitors in China’s nuclear power business sector.

China included the development of CNNC’s 125 MWe ACP100S and CGN’s 65 MWe ACPR50S marine PWR plants in its 13th five-year plan for 2016 to 2020. The NDRC subsequently approved both marine reactor designs.

As an example of the magnitude of China’s domestic offshore market for FNPPs, the total installed fossil fuel-powered generation in China’s offshore Bohai oilfield was estimated to be about 1,000 MWe in 2020 and growing. Replacing just these generators and providing heating and desalination services for offshore facilities represents a near-term market for a dozen or more FNPPs. Other domestic application include providing these same services at remote coastal sites and offshore islands. China has announced its intention to construct a batch 20 FNPPs for domestic use. The Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC) has recommended installing the country’s first FNPP at a coastal site on the Yellow Sea near Yantai, Shandong Province. South Korea raised its objection to this siting plan in 2019.

*Possible site for China’s first FNPP.*
*Source: Pulse (22 Mar 2019)*

Other possible FNPP deployment sites may include contested islands that China has begun developing the South China Sea. This is a very sensitive political issue that may partially account for why there has been very little recent news on the CNNC and CGN FNPP programs. Based on their development plans discussed about five years ago, it seemed that China’s first FNPP would be completed in the early 2020s.

In addition to their domestic applications, China has repeatedly expressed interest in selling their FNPPs to international customers.

South Korea & Denmark

In the absence of clear domestic FNPP markets in South Korea and Denmark, KEPCO E&C and Seaborg Technologies are focusing on the export market, primarily with developing nations.

Details on modern FNPP designs

You’ll find more details on these new FNPPs in my separate articles at the following links:

Akademik Lomonosov KLT-40S: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Russia-Akademik-Lomonosov-FNPP-converted.pdf
OPEB RITM-200: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Russia-2nd-generation-OPEB-converted.pdf
CNNC ACP100S: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/China-CNNC-ACP100S-FNPP-converted.pdf
CGN ACPR50S: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/China-CGN-ACPR50S-FNPP-converted.pdf
Kepco E&C BANDI-60S: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/South-Korea-KEPCO-ES-FNPP-converted.pdf
Seaborg CMSR: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Denmark-Seaborg-CMSR-Power-Barge-converted.pdf

4. Maintaining FNPP fleets

All of the new FNPPs require regular reactor refueling and periodic maintenance overhauls during their long service lives. The periodic overhauls ensure that the marine vessel, the reactor systems and ship’s systems remain in good condition for their planned service life, which could be 60 or more years.

The FNPPs with PWRs have refueling intervals ranging from about 2 years (ACP100S) to as long as 10 years (RITM-200). Some of the PWR refuelings will be conducted dockside, while others will be conducted in a shipyard during a periodic maintenance overhaul. For Russian FNPPs, such overhauls (referred to as “factory repairs”) are scheduled to occur at 12-year intervals for the Lomonosov and 20-year intervals for the OPEB.

The fundamentally different Seaborg CMSR, with molten salt fuel, is refueled regularly while the reactor is operating. Periodic maintenance overhauls would still be expected to ensure the condition of the marine vessel, the reactor systems and ship’s systems.

With a fleet of FNPPs in service, most will be operating, while some are in the shipyard for their periodic maintenance overhauls. In addition, new FNPPs would be entering service periodically. When it is time to service an FNPP in a shipyard, it will be replaced by a different (existing or new) FNPP that is brought in to take its place.

At the end of its service life, an FNPP will be returned to a shipyard to be decommissioned, decontaminated and then dismantled, like Sturgis. Russia already has established special long-term spent fuel and radioactive waste storage facilities in mainland Russia. China, South Korea and Denmark will need to make similar provisions for the end-of-life processing and safe disposition of their retired FNPPs.

5. Economic issues

In March 2019, Jim Green wrote on what he called “the questionable economics of SMRs” in his article, “An obituary for small modular reactors.” One of his conclusions was that, “…in truth there is no market for SMRs.” Another conclusion was that “No-one wants to pay for SMRs. No company, utility, consortium or national government is seriously considering building the massive supply chain that is at the very essence of the concept of SMRs ‒ mass, modular factory construction. Yet without that supply chain, SMRs will be expensive curiosities.”

I might agree that this could be the case for land-based SMRs, but marine FNPPs are a different matter. In remote areas being considered for FNPP deployment, there probably are fewer energy options, energy price competition is a lesser concern, and an extended fuel supply chain is undesirable or impractical. Examples include FNPP applications supporting resource development along Russia’s Northern Sea Route and in China’s offshore waters. The domestic markets in both nations probably can support production runs of 10s of FNPPs. While this isn’t “mass production” in the sense of many heavy industries, it would certainly be a big enough production run to change the manufacturing paradigm in the marine nuclear industry and provide a real validation of the economics of SMRs.

6. International nuclear regulatory / legal / political issues

Deployment of the first modern FNPP, the Akademik Lomonosov, in the Arctic was accomplished under Russian domestic nuclear laws and regulations and, after the reactors were fueled, the transit to its destination was accomplished within Russian territorial waters. The final destination, Pevek, is about 980 km (609 miles) from the Bering Strait and the nearest international boundary. Not without controversy, particularly among Scandinavian nations, Lomonosov’s deployment was straightforward after the vessel completed all stages of licensing and regulatory reviews required in Russia. Now Lomonosov has been commissioned and is setting an example for the rest of the world by operating successfully in a remote Arctic port.

Except for Russia’s nuclear-powered icebreaking vessels, there have been no other civilian nuclear vessels in service since Japan’s Mutsu retired in 1992. For almost 30 years, there has been no need to establish and maintain a comprehensive international civilian nuclear vessel regulatory and legal framework.

In her August 2020 article, “Legal framework for nuclear ships,” Iris Bjelica Vlajić reports that the main international documents regulating the use of civil nuclear ships are:

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
IMO Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
IMO Convention on The Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships and the Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships

Further FNPP deployment along Russia’s arctic coast and initial FNPP deployment in China’s territorial coastal waters can be accomplished under the respective nation’s domestic nuclear laws and regulations. It’s easy to imagine that a range of international issues will arise as FNPP deployment becomes more widespread, in situations like the following

An FNPP is deployed to a site close to an international border.
An FNPP is deployed in a sensitive international ecosystem.
A fueled FNPP from any nation needs to transit an international strait or an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of another nation enroute to its destination.
An FNPP is deployed to an island that is contested by one or more other nations (i.e., several islands and island groups in the South China Sea).

There has been speculation recently that the sensitivity of the last issue, above, may be contributing to increased secrecy in the last couple of years related to China’s FNPP programs.

As FNPP deployment expands, the international community will be playing catch-up as the UN, IMO, IAEA and others contribute to developing a modern nuclear regulatory and legal framework for FNPPs.

7. Conclusions

In the next decade, I think it’s very likely that two or more of the new FNPP designs will enter service. The leading contenders seem to be Russia’s OPEB and China’s ACP100S FNPP. It remains to be seen if economic issues and/or international nuclear regulatory / legal / political issues will stand in the way of eventual FNPP deployments to sites around the world.

8. For more information

General

Jim Green, “An obituary for small modular reactors,” Nuclear Consulting Group, 11 March 2019: https://www.nuclearconsult.com/blog/an-obituary-for-small-modular-reactors/
Iris Bjelica Vlajić, “Legal framework for nuclear ships,” Nuclear Engineering International, 6 August 2020: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurelegal-framework-for-nuclear-ships-8063937/
“Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments – A Supplement to: IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) 2020 Edition,” International Atomic Energy Commission, 2020: https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_Book_2020.pdf

US – Sturgis

Chris Gardner, “Sturgis Nuclear Decommissioning Completed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Team,” US Army Corps of Engineers, 14 September 2018: https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Stories/Article/1632590/sturgis-nuclear-decommissioning-completed-by-us-army-corps-of-engineers-team/

Russia

Atle Staalsen, “State developers plan flotilla of floating reactors on Russian East Arctic coast,” The Barents Observer, 26 February 2021: https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/nuclear-safety/2021/02/state-developers-plan-flotilla-floating-reactors-russian-east-arctic-coast
Charles Digges, “Russian nuclear officials offer new promises to build ‘optimized’ floating nuclear plants,” Bellona, 20 April 2021: https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2021-04-russian-nuclear-officials-offer-new-promises-to-build-optimized-floating-nuclear-plants
Charles Digges, “Russia eyes building five more floating nuclear plants: report,” Bellona, 4 May 2021: https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2021-05-russia-to-build-5-more-floating-nuclear-plants-report

China

“719 Research Institute – Wuhan Second Ship Design Institute,” GlobalSecurity: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/719-institute.htm
“China Gets On Board,” Nuclear Engineering International, 16 August 2016: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurechina-gets-onboard-4980507/
Viet Phuong Nguyen, ”China’s planned floating nuclear power facilities in South China Sea: Technical and Political Challenges,” 21 November 2018: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329782263_China%27s_planned_floating_nuclear_power_facilities_in_South_China_Sea_Technical_and_political_challenges
Viet Phuong Nguyen, “China’s planned floating nuclear power facilities in South China Sea: Technical and political challenges,” International Atomic Energy Agency, December 2018: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329782263_China%27s_planned_floating_nuclear_power_facilities_in_South_China_Sea_Technical_and_political_challenges
“New build: Chinese SMR Program Faces Slowdown and Secrecy,” Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, 24 July 2020: https://www.energyintel.com/pages/eig_article.aspx?DocId=1079039

South Korea

“Korea takes another step toward floating nuclear power plants,” Global Construction Review, 8 October 2020: https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/korea-takes-another-step-toward-floating-nuclear-p/

Denmark – Seaborg

Kamen Kraev, “New Technologies / Denmark’s Seaborg Attracts Private Funding For Molten Salt Reactor Project,” Nucnet, 27 November 2020: https://www.nucnet.org/news/denmark-s-seaborg-attracts-private-funding-for-molten-salt-reactor-project-11-5-2020

Other

Other FNPP designs and concepts for “transportable reactor units” (only the nuclear steam supply section of an FNPP) and seabed-sited nuclear power plants are included in my 2018 post: “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018:” https://lynceans.org/all-posts/marine-nuclear-power-1939-2018/

The Earth 300 Eco-Yacht Could Serve as a Prototype for De-carbonizing the World’s Commercial Marine Transportation Fleets

April 17, 2021All Posts, Environmental protection, Global Climate, Marine Technology, Nuclear propulsionAaron Olivera, Core Power, Earth 300, environmental protection, IACS, Iddes Yachts, m-MSR, marine molten salt reactor, molten salt reactor, MSR, RINA, TerraPower, thoriumDrummer

Peter Lobner

In early April 2021, a flurry of articles described the beautiful, futuristic, nuclear-powered eco-yacht conceived by entrepreneur Aaron Olivera, CEO of Earth 300 (https://earth300.com), and introduced in Singapore as his concept for a signature vessel for conducting environmental research and raising environmental awareness around the world.

*Aaron Olivera and the Earth 300 eco-yacht. Source: Archyde.com*

This sleek yacht is almost 300 meters long with a prominent cantilevered observation deck near the bow and a 13-story glass “science sphere” amidships. Olivera describes this vessel as follows:

“Earth 300 it is an extreme technology platform for science, exploration and innovation at sea. Its mission is to ring the ecological alarm on a global scale and combat climate change. Using technology it will quickly scale and deploy solutions to market. Its ultimate ambition is to inspire billions of people to contribute to the preservation of our shared planet, and becoming a sustainable and future worthy civilization.”

The ship’s design was developed by Ivan Salas Jefferson, founder of Iddes Yachts (https://iddesyachts.com), in collaboration with the Polish naval architecture firm NED (https://www.ned-project.eu). Mikal Bøe is the CEO of London-based Core Power (https://corepower.energy), which will supply the next-generation, inherently safe marine molten salt reactor (m-MSR) power plant, using MSR technology developed by the US nuclear company TerraPower (https://www.terrapower.com) that was co-founded by Bill Gates.

*The general arrangement of the ship’s inhabited spaces.*
*Source: Earth 300*

The current design has taken six years and $5 million to develop. Earth 300 reports that it is making good progress toward getting an Approval in Principle (AIP) from RINA (formerly Registro Italiano Navale). RINA is a founding member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), which promotes safer and cleaner shipping worldwide. The AIP is a framework used by RINA to review and approve innovative and novel concepts that are not covered by traditional classification prescriptive rules, so that a level of safety in line with the current marine industry practice is provided. The AIP process is a risk-based approach to classification that allows for new designs and novel concepts to be validated with safety equivalencies.

Following the AIP, Earth 300 should be able to request construction quotes from one or more shipyards, likely in Europe and/or South Korea. The ship will be equipped with 22 laboratories for about 160 scientists, cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics systems, and facilities for operating helicopters and submersible and semi-submersible vehicles. Earth 300 executives reportedly estimated that the total construction cost will be between $500 million and $700 million.

*The observation deck is located atop the bow section of the ship.*
*Source: Earth 300*

*Foredeck helipad and hangar for a helicopter. Source: Earth 300*

*The sphere houses a “science city” where most of the shipboard research facilities are located. Source: Earth 300*

Once in operation, the ship is certain to command attention wherever it goes, as a recognizable symbol for environmental protection. This notoriety may be enough to attract wealthy tourists willing to pay $3 million for a 10-day cruise in the 10 luxury suites with private balconies and accommodations for personal staff in a separate set of cabins. That sort of money will buy a lot of selfies, instagrams and some durable bragging rights.

The ship is designed to accommodate 425 people, including the ship’s crew, scientists, and the group of wealthy tourists paying full price. In addition, it has been reported that Olivera envisages inviting groups of other people to travel at a lower price or even for free. For example, 10 suites would be made available to what Olivera calls Very Interesting Persons – people from all walks of life who would bring unique experience or knowledge to the voyage. In addition, some lucky artists, explorers and students may travel for free.

While I’m impressed with the general concept of this ship, I feel that the primary benefit of this grand vessel can’t be to serve as a mobile marine “mixer” for a few very wealthy individuals to associate with scientists, some elite Very Interesting Persons, and a patchwork of others interested in environmental protection.

Like the 3 AM infomercial says, “But wait, there’s more.” Research performed aboard the ship would be “open source” and shared with other research efforts around the world. That’s great, but more information is needed on the meaningful research programs that would be conducted on the Earth 300 vessel in segments that match the schedule and route of what is essentially a cruise ship. It seems that a much less expensive dedicated vessel could accomplish the same research while not serving as an environmental sideshow on a cruise ship.

With the ship scheduled to launch in 2025, the vessel itself will be ready many years before the planned marine molten salt reactors (m-MSRs) have been developed and approved by the appropriate nuclear and marine regulatory agencies. Therefore, it is likely that the vessel will be designed to operate initially with a conventional marine power plant running on synthetic “renewable” fuels. This isn’t exactly a big step in the right direction for helping to reduce the carbon emissions from worldwide commercial marine transportation.

Like the 3 AM infomercial says, “But wait, there’s more,” or at least, there should be.

Core Power, the developer of the m-MSR planned for the Earth 300 vessel, is designing their 15 MWe inherently safe micro-reactor system as a zero-carbon replacement power source for the fossil-fueled power plants in many commercial marine vessels. On their website, Core Power presents the following business case:

“Over the next few decades as many as 60,000 ships must transition from combustion of fossil fuels to zero-emission propulsion. The UN’s maritime agency IMO has mandated with unanimous approval from 197 countries that shipping must reduce emissions by 50% of the 2008 total, before 2050. This means an actual emission reduction of almost 90%, by 2050. MSR technology being developed by the consortium could achieve that goal, by powering production of green sustainable fuels for smaller ships and providing onboard electric power for large ships, with zero emissions as standard.”

*A set of six small, compact Core Power m-MSRs could generate*
*90 MWe (about 120,000 hp). Source: Core Power*

I think it is actually fortuitous that the Earth 300 vessel will start its life as a fossil-fueled vessel. From this starting point, Earth 300 will be at the vanguard of a new generation of inherently safe marine nuclear power system development and deployment.

Converting the Earth 300 vessel to nuclear power will move the discussions on commercial marine nuclear power from the academic domain, where it has languished for many decades, to the commercial marine nuclear safety regulatory domain, which has been inactive for decades and likely is not prepared for this new applicant. By being first in line, Earth 300 and Core Power take on substantial licensing risk that certainly will add to the time and cost of their nuclear licensing efforts. However, they are in unique positions as a reactor supplier and a vessel operator to help shape the licensing dialogue pertaining to the use of inherently safe micro-reactors in marine vessels, and the worldwide operation of vessels using such reactors.

The experience gained from converting Earth 300 from fossil to nuclear power will de-risk the nuclear power conversion process for the entire marine transportation industry.

Regulatory precedents will have been established for the reactor designer and the vessel operator.
The conversion experience will yield many metrics and lessons learned that will help in planning and executing subsequent conversions.
Ports around the world will be on notice that commercial nuclear-powered vessels once again are a reality and appropriate port-specific nuclear safety plans may be required

In this role alone, Earth 300 will create a path for the commercial marine transportation industry to meet the IMO’s 2050 emission goal. This would be a truly substantive accomplishment that will far outweigh the ship’s public relations accomplishments as a symbol of environmental protection and showcase for environmental research.

I hope Aaron Olivera gets the support he needs to build the Earth 300 ship and subsequently convert it to nuclear power. At one level, the ship is a grand gesture. On another level, the nuclear powered ship is a substantive step toward a future with zero-carbon commercial marine transportation.

For more information

Rachel Cormack, “This Insane 984-Foot Explorer Gigayacht Has a Giant ‘Science Sphere’ for Research,” Robb Report, 8 April 2021: https://robbreport.com/motors/marine/explorer-yacht-longer-than-titanic-sports-science-sphere-1234606332/
Jenna Mehdi, “300m Floating Research Lab EARTH 300 Unveiled,” SuperYachts, 9 April 2021: https://www.superyachts.com/news/story/300m-floating-research-lab-earth-300-unveiled-15367/
Adam Majendie, “Atomic Superyacht to Offer $3 Million Eco-Tours With Scientists,” Bloomberg, 10 April 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-10/atomic-superyacht-to-offer-3-million-eco-tours-with-scientists
“Approval in principle of innovative projects,” RINA: https://www.rina.org/en/approval-in-principle-of-innovative-projects
“Safer and Cleaner Shipping,” International Association of Classification Societies (IACS): https://www.iacs.org.uk

The Amazing America’s Cup AC75 Foiling Monohull Flying Boat

February 25, 2021All Posts, Marine TechnologyAC75, America's Cup, Emirates Team New Zealand, foiling monohull, Luna Rossa, Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team, Te RehutaiDrummer

Peter Lobner, 25 February 2021

The first race of the 36^th America’s Cup racing series starts on 5 March 2021 in Auckland, New Zealand. The defending Emirates Team New Zealand and the challenging Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team will be sailing (or rather flying) a radical new class of America’s Cup boats knows as the AC75, which is a foiling monohull that was designed from the ground up to “fly” on its foils. It isn’t clear if the AC75 is a flying boat or a sailing airplane.

*Emirates Team New Zealand boat Te Rehutai (Sea Spray) in flight.*
*Source: Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron*

The Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team won the right to challenge based on its performance in the Prada Cup match races held from 14 January thru 20 February 2021. The America’s Cup races are scheduled from 5 to 14 March 2021. You’ll find complete information on the races on the America’s Cup website at the following link: https://www.americascup.com

*Luna Rossa in flight. Source: Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team*

The New York Yacht Club American Magic entry, Patriot, was eliminated during the Prada Cup races, after recording no wins in the Round Robin series and no wins in the semi-final races against Luna Rossa. Patriot was damaged and in danger of sinking following a dramatic high-speed capsize following a tack in gusty wind conditions while leading Luna Rossa during Round Robin 2 Race 3 on 16 January 2021.

*Patriot in flight, but out of control and starting to capsize, 16 Jan 2021.*
*Source: America’s Cup video screenshot*

The AC75 operates with two completely different sets of boat dynamics:

Waterborne while accelerating at maximum power to quickly reach foiling speed at 12 – 14 knots
Flying on the foils to reach a top speed that can exceed 50 knots

Making a smooth transition from waterborne to flying on the foils can be a big challenge for the crew. As the transition is being made, the power demand drops rapidly (suddenly) as the hull emerges from the water and starts flying on the foils. The crew must quickly adjust sail power and trim to maintain control of the flying boat.

As you would expect, there are extensive regulations governing most aspects of the boat’s design. The Rule is explained at the following link: https://www.americascup.com/en/official/the-class-rule

To get an introduction to an AC75 boat and its primary components, you can view a 3-D model here: https://www.americascup.com/en/ac75

The AC75 is a very lightweight vessel, with a fully-loaded weight of 7,600 kg (16,800 lb). The empty weight, not including sails or crew, is limited to 6,520 kg (14,374 lbs.). Of that, 3,358.5 kg (7,403 lb) is supplied by, or specified by, the America’s Cup event organizer, and includes the following standard items for all teams.

Mast: A detailed specification; essentially a one-design mast with a D-shaped leading edge; teams can choose their manufacturer.
Rigging: Supplied to all teams.
Media equipment: Cameras, mounting hardware, power & controls supplied to all teams.
Foil cant arms and hydraulic control system: Standard system developed, tested and supplied to all teams by one manufacturer. The hydraulic system is powered manually by hand-operated grinders. The hydraulic system includes an interface to the trailing edge flaps on the foils supplied by each team.

*Foil cant arms and hydraulic control system.*
*Source, both graphics: AmericasCup.com*

Each team is responsible for designing and building the rest of the boat while remaining within an empty weight budget of 3,161.5 kg (6,968 lb). The primary areas for innovation by each team are the following:

Hull design: (maximum length 75 feet / 22.86 m), with the primary choice being a flat bottom or with skeg to provide a less sensitive transition between waterborne and foil borne modes.
Crew and hand-operated grinder placement
Twin-skin soft main sail: Forms a fabric 3-D airfoil
Single-skin soft head sails
Rudder + stern foil
Foil wings, fairing and active trailing edge flaps: These are mounted to the standard cant arms; foils must be symmetrical with a maximum span 4 meters; flaps control lift; total weight is limited to about 1/3^rd the weight of the empty boat.

*Example hull designs. Source: AmericasCup.com*

*Example crew placement. Source: AmericasCup.com*

*Airflow around a twin-skin main sail.*
*Source, both graphics: AmericasCup.com*

*Foil wings generate lift. Source, both graphics: AmericasCup.com*

*Luna Rossa showing cant arms, foil wings and fairing, and rudder and stern foil. Source: AmericasCup.com*

There are many AC75 videos available online, including many covering the exciting Prada America’s Cup World Series races in December 2020 and the Prada Cup races in January – February 2021. These boats are so fast that the races are short and action packed. I’ve listed several videos focusing more in boat technology below.

I hope you’ll enjoy a few of the AC75 videos and follow the America’s Cup Races. It’s not like any yacht racing you’ve seen before.

For more information:

“The AC75 – The Technology,” Americas Cup: https://www.americascup.com/the-technology
Mark Chisnell, “Weighing in on the AC75,” Sailing World, 15 September 2020: https://www.sailingworld.com/story/racing/weighing-in-on-the-ac75/
Christopher McFadden, “The Engineering and Design Behind Modern Racing Yachts,” Interesting Engineering, 23 February 2021: https://interestingengineering.com/the-engineering-and-design-behind-modern-racing-yachts

Videos:

“The AC75 | Designed to Fly” (7:25 minutes), America’s Cup, 2 August 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQUl_hf6yo8&feature=emb_logo
“America’s Cup – How Crews Handle Their AC75s” (17:41 minutes), Americas Cup, 24 January 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0bReWK_vsg
“Sea Wolves – The new America’s cup boat! AC75 Technology analysis/Deep dive special! Auckland 2021” (51:07 minutes), Sea wolves, (with an introductory review of Americas Cup history by Troy Sears, owner of the replica yacht America, which is home ported in San Diego, CA), 16 December 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjs76uHEqeM
“The American Magic Capsize – A Step by Step Explanation” (8:32 minutes), America’s Cup, 24 January 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXLUIouASdM

60th Anniversary of the First Visit by Humans to the Deepest Point in the Ocean – the Challenger Deep

January 9, 2020All Posts, Marine Technology, Ocean SciencesAuguste Piccard, bathyscaphe, Challenger Deep, Deeps Challenger, Don Walsh, Five Deeps Expedition, full ocean depth submersible, Jacques Piccard, James Cameron, Limiting Factor, Mariana Trench, Patrick Lahey, syntactic foam, Trieste, Triton Submarines, Troton 36000/2, Victor VescovoDrummer

Peter Lobner

The Challenger Deep, in the Mariana Trench in the middle of western Pacific Ocean, is the deepest known area in the world’s oceans. Its location, as shown in the following map, is 322 km (200 miles) southwest of Guam and 200 km (124 miles) off the coast of the Mariana Islands.

*Location of the Mariana Trench. Source: Google Earth*

Since the first visit to the bottom of the Challenger Deep 60 years ago, on 23 January 1960, there have been only five other visits to that very remote and inhospitable location. In this post, we’ll take a look at the deep-submergence vehicles (DSVs) and the people who made these visits.

The following topographical map, created in 2019 by the Five Deeps Expedition, shows that the Challenger Deep is comprised of three deeper “pools.” The dive locations of the manned expeditions into the Challenger Deep are shown on this map.

1960: Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh and Swiss engineer Jacques Piccard, in the bathyscaphe Trieste, made the first manned descent into the Challenger Deep and reached the bottom at 10,916 meters (35,814 ft) in the “Western Pool.”
2012: Canadian filmmaker and National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence James Cameron, in the DSV Deepsea Challenger, reached the bottom at 10,908 meters (35,787 ft) the “Eastern Pool.”
2019: Businessman, explorer and retired naval officer Victor Vescovo, in the DSV Limiting Factor, made two dives in the “Eastern Pool” and reached a maximum depth of 10,925 meters (35,843 feet).
2019: Triton Submarine president, Patrick Lahey, in the DSV Limiting Factor, made two dives to the bottom, one in the Eastern Pool and one in the Central Pool.

*Topography of the Challenger Deep and locations of the deep dive sites.*
*Source: Five Deeps Expedition*

What is there to see on the way down to the bottom?

The oceans can be divided into vertical zones based on water depth. This basic concept is shown in the following diagram.

Vertical zonation of the ocean. Source: adapted from https://www.slideshare.net/mstrieb/zonation-in-the-ocean-powerpoint

The five vertical zones in the above diagram have the following general characteristics:

The Sunlight Zone: This is the shallow (upper 150 meters), sunlit upper layer of the ocean, extending above the continental shelf. Phytoplankton can photosynthesize in this zone.
The Twilight Zone: This is the medium-depth ocean where sunlight is still able to penetrate to a modest depth (a few hundred meters). There is enough light to see, but not enough for photosynthesis. This zone is bounded by the edges of the continental shelf and islands in the deep ocean.
The Midnight Zone: This is the deep ocean, which is bounded by the continental slope and the seamounts and islands rising above the ocean floor. No sunlight is able to reach this deep. There is no photosynthesis in this zone.
The Abyssal Zone: This zone includes the deep ocean plains and the deep cusp of the continental rise. The temperature here is near freezing and very few animals can survive the extreme pressure.
The Hadal Zone: This is the ocean realm in the deep ocean trenches. More people have been to the Moon than to the Hadal Zone.

The Challenger Deep is the deepest known Hadal Zone on our planet. On the way down through 11 kilometers (6.8 miles) of ocean, the few explorers who have reached the bottom have seen aquatic life throughout the water column and on the sea floor. You can take a look the varied and strange sea life by scrolling through the well done graphic, “The Deep Sea,” by Neal Agarwal, which is at the following link.

https://neal.fun/deep-sea/?fbclid=IwAR3_Z3Vzwoy_g9jWvbExxJfMb39KdhXlx7RSAE43Cc4ldplvx6kR8NPqVe8

Thanks to Mike Spaeth for sending me this link.

Now, let’s take a look at the few manned missions that have reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep.

1960: Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh in the bathyscaphe Trieste

Trieste was designed by Swiss scientist Auguste Piccard and was built in Italy. This deep-diving research bathyscaphe enabled the operators to make a free dive into the ocean, without support by cables from the surface. Trieste was launched in August 1953, operated initially by the French Navy and acquired by the U.S. Navy in 1958.

The design of the 15 meter (50 ft) bathyscaphe Trieste is analogous to a zeppelin that has been redesigned to operate underwater. On Trieste, the “gondola” is a 14-ton spherical steel pressure vessel for two crew members. The weight of this “gondola” is carried under a large, lightweight, cylindrical float chamber filled with gasoline for buoyancy (gasoline is less dense than water). There is no differential pressure between the float chamber and the open ocean.

*General arrangement of the bathyscaphe Trieste. Source: National Geographic*

The Trieste is positively buoyant when loaded with ballast and floating on the surface before a mission. To submerge, Trieste would take on seawater and fill its fore and aft water ballast tanks. If needed to achieve the desired negative buoyancy, Trieste also could release some gasoline from the main float chamber. To achieve positive buoyancy at the end of a mission and ascend back to the surface, the pellets in the two ballast hoppers would be released, and Trieste would slowly rise to the surface.

The propulsion system consists of five special General Electric 3-hp dc motors. These motors are designed to operate in inert fluid (silicone oil) and are subjected to full ambient pressure during diving operations. These modest propulsors gave Trieste only limited mobility.

After acquisition by the Navy, Trieste was transported to San Diego, CA, for extensive modifications by the Naval Electronics Laboratory.

After a series of local dives in Southern California waters, Trieste departed San Diego on 5 October 1959 aboard a freighter and was transported to Guam to conduct deep dives in the Pacific Ocean under Project Nekton. After arriving in Guam, record-setting dives to 18,000 and 24,000 feet were conducted in nearby waters by Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh and Swiss engineer Jacques Piccard (son of Auguste Piccard). Then Trieste was towed to the Mariana Trench dive site, where Walsh and Piccard began their mission into the Challenger Deep on 23 January 1960.

*Trieste just before the record dive on 23 January 1960. The destroyer escort USS Lewis is in the background. Source: U.S. Navy photo.*

*Don Walsh (L) and Jacques Piccard (R) aboard Trieste.*
*Source: U.S. Navy photo.*

The mission took 8 hours and 22 minutes on the following timeline:

Descent to the ocean floor took 4 hours 47 minutes. They reached the bottom at a depth of 10,916 meters (35,814 ft).
Time on the bottom was 20 minutes.
Ascent took 3 hours and 15 minutes.

For much of the mission, cabin temperature was about 7° C (45° F). While on the bottom, Walsh and Piccard observed sea life, although the species observed are uncertain. They described the sea bottom as a “diatomaceous ooze.”

Artist’s concept drawing of Trieste on the bottom. Source: Internet Archive, page 21 of the book “The bathyscaph Trieste : technological and operational aspects, 1958-1961,” (1962) by Don Walsh

For a comprehensive review of this historic dive into the Challenger Deep, I recommend that you watch the following video, “Rolex presents: The Trieste’s Deepest Dive,” (22:38).

After successfully completing Project Nekton, Trieste underwent further modifications and was transferred to the East Coast in 1963 to assist in the search for the USS Thresher (SSN-593), which sank off the coast of New England. Trieste found the wreck of the nuclear submarine at a depth of 2,600 m (8,400 ft). Trieste was decommissioned in 1966 and went on display in 1980 at the National Museum of the U.S. Navy in Washington, D.C. Following are photos I took during my visit to that museum.

*Trieste bow quarter view, at the National Museum of the U.S. Navy. P. Lobner photo*

*Trieste stern quarter view. P. Lobner photo*

*Trieste crew pressure vessel. P. Lobner photo.*

2012: James Cameron in the Deepsea Challenger

Almost a decade ago, filmmaker and National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence James Cameron led a team that designed and built the one-man, 11.8-ton DSV named Deepsea Challenger (DCV 1) for a mission to dive into the Challenger Deep and reach the deepest point in the ocean. The general arrangement of this novel submersible is shown in the following diagram.

*General arrangement of the Deepsea Challenger.*
*Sources: https://www.core77.com (left), Wikipedia (right)*

In the water, the submersible floats vertically with the steel pilot’s chamber at the bottom of the vessel. When brought aboard its support vessel, the submersible sits horizontally in a cradle.

About 70% of the Deepsea Challenger’s volume is comprised of a specialized structural syntactic foam called Isofloat, which is composed of very small hollow glass spheres suspended in an epoxy resin.

*Syntactic foam, shown by scanning electron microscopy, consisting of glass microspheres within a matrix of epoxy resin. Source: Nikgupt via Wikipedia*

The strength of this structural foam enabled the designers to incorporate 12 thrusters as part of the infrastructure mounted within the foam, but without the need for a steel skeleton to handle the loads from the various mechanisms. The lithium batteries are housed within the syntactic foam structure. The foam also provides buoyancy, like the gasoline-filled float chamber on the bathyscaphe Trieste.

The Deepsea Challenger is equipped with a sediment sampler, a robotic claw, temperature, salinity, and pressure gauges, multiple 3-D cameras and an 8-foot (2.5-meter) tower of LED lights. An underwater acoustic communication system provides the communications link with the support vessel during the dive. Mission endurance is 56 hours.

*Deepsea Challenger floating vertically in the water with booms extended.* *Source: National Geographic*

On March 26, 2012, more than 52 years after the Trieste’s dive into the Challenger Deep, Cameron plunged 10,908 meters (35,787 feet, 11 kilometers, 6.8 miles) below the ocean surface and became the first solo diver to reach such depths. After a two hour and 36 minute descent, he traveled along the bottom for about three hours and reported it being a flat plain with a soft, gelatinous sea floor. The thrusters enabled precise station keeping and a maximum speed of 3 knots.

*Artist’s concept drawing of Deepsea Challenger on the bottom.*
*Source: http://divemagazine.co.uk*

*Deepsea Challenger being lifted aboard its support vessel, the Mermaid Sapphire,*
*after returning from the Challenger Deep. Source: National Geographic*

*James Cameron emerges from Deepsea Challenger after returning from the*
*Challenger Deep. Source: National Geographic*

You can read a short summary of the mission here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/3/120326-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deepest-lunar-sub-science/#close

A National Geographic film of his expedition, Deepsea Challenge 3D, was released to cinemas in 2012. You can watch the short movie trailer (2:44) here:

Cameron was awarded the 2013 Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest for his deep dive into the Challenger Deep. In the following long video (58:25) “Journey to the Deep,” he shares his experiences and perspectives from his record-setting dive.

The Deepsea Challenger is retired from diving.

2019: Victor Vescovo and the Five Deeps Expedition

In 2015, businessman and explorer Victor Vescovo partnered with Triton Submarines LLC to design and build the two-person, 14-ton, titanium hull, deep-submergence vehicle Limiting Factor to enable Vescovo to conduct the Five Deeps Expedition to visit the deepest points in the world’s five oceans. The Five Deeps Expedition website is here:

https://fivedeeps.com/home/expedition/

Between December 2018 and August 2019, the Five Deeps Expedition team accomplished this goal:

Atlantic Ocean’s Puerto Rico Trench: December 2018; depth 8,375 meters (27,477 ft).
Southern Ocean’s South Sandwich Trench: February 2019; depth 7,434 meters (24,388 ft).
Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench / Challenger Deep: May 2019; depth 10,925 meters ± 6.5 meters (35,843 ft ± 21 ft).
Indian Ocean’s Java Trench: April 2019; depth 7,192 meters (23,596 ft).
Arctic Ocean’s Molloy Deep: 24 August 2019; depth 5,550 meters (18,209 ft).

During this period, the expedition covered 87,000 km (47,000 nautical miles) in 10 months and the Limiting Factor submersible completed 39 dives.

*Locations of the Five Deeps diving sites. Source: https://tritonsubs.com/hadal/*

*Victor Vescovo in full dive gear during his 2019 dives to the bottom of the Mariana Trench’s Challenger Deep. Source: Glenn Singleman photo via Wikipedia*

The DSV Limiting Factor is a Triton 36000/2 submersible that is designed for dives to 11,000 m / 36,000 ft and pressure tested to 14,000 m / 45,991 ft. Like James Cameron’s Deepsea Challenger, the Limiting Factor is constructed with glass-bead based syntactic foam, which is very durable and able to withstand the enormous pressure placed on the submersible as it descends thousands of meters into the sea, and does so repeatedly without significant deformation or stress fractures developing over time.

The Limiting Factor has a Kraft Telerobotics “Raptor” hydraulic manipulator capable of functioning at full-ocean depth. Mission endurance is 16 hours plus 96 hours of emergency life support.

Triton 36000/2 exterior view. Access hatch is at the top center. Thrusters are located on the sides. View ports for the two-person crew are at the bottom center. Source: Five Deeps Expedition

Triton 36000/2 interior view. The spherical titanium pressure vessel for the two-person crew sphere in the center, beneath the access trunk. Thrusters and their support structures are mounted to the pressure vessel.
*Source: Five Deeps Expedition*

More details on the Triton 36000/2, also known as the Hadal Exploration System, are available here: https://fivedeeps.com/home/technology/sub/

Using a Kongsberg EM124 multi-beam echo sounder mounted to the hull of the support vessel DSSV Pressure Drop, the Five Deeps Expedition team created detailed topographical maps of the Challenger Deep before the first of four dives. Dives 1 and 2 were conducted by Vescovo into the Eastern Pool. Dives 3 and 4 were conducted by Triton Submarines President, Patrick Lahey; Dive 3 was into the Eastern Pool and Dive 4 was into the Central Pool. Two days later, Dive 5 was conducted in the Sirena Deep. These five dives were accomplished in eight days. A synopsis of each dive follows:

Dive 1 (28 April 2019): This was the deepest dive of the mission and the deepest dive in human history. Vescovo reached the bottom at a depth of 10,925 meters ± 6.5 m (35,843 ft ± 21 ft, 10.92 km, 6.79 miles). Time on the bottom was 248 minutes. Note that the maximum depth originally was reported as 10,928 meters ± 10.5 meters, but this was later corrected. See the depth certification here: https://fivedeeps.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Triton-LF-Max-Depth-Confirmation-for-Dives-12-DNV-GL.pdf

Dive 2 (3 May 2019): Vescovo reached a depth of 10,927 meters. Time on the bottom was 217 minutes.

Dive 3 (3 May 2019): This was a commercial certification dive with Patrick Lahey piloting and Jonathan Struwe aboard as a specialist. A Five Deeps Expedition scientific lander that became stuck on bottom during Dive 2 was freed from the bottom and recovered from 10,927 meters by direct action of the manned submersible (deepest salvage operation ever). Time on the bottom was 163 minutes. The submarine passed all of its qualification tests and commercial certification by DNV GL was granted following this dive.

Dive 4 (5 May 1959): This was a scientific dive with Patrick Lahey piloting and John Ramsay (the submarine’s designer) in the second seat. Video surveys were conducted and biological samples were collected. Time on the bottom was 184 minutes.

Dive 5 (7 May 2019): While still in the Mariana Trench area, Lahey conducted the first ever dive into the Sirena Deep, 128 miles (206 km) northeast of the Challenger Deep. On this dive (Dive 5), he reached a depth of 10,714 meters (35,151 ft, 6.66 miles). Time on the bottom was 176 minutes.

*DSV Limiting Factor preparing to dive into the Challenger Deep*
*Source: Triton Submarines LLC*

*DSV Limiting Factor being recovered by its support ship DSSV Pressure Drop.*
*Source: Five Deeps Expedition*

You’ll find a good summary of the five dives in the Challenger Deep and Sirena Deep in the expedition’s press release dated 13 May 2019, “Deepest Submarine Dive in History, Five Deeps Expedition Conquers Challenger Deep,” which is available here:

https://fivedeeps.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FDE-Challenger-Release-FINAL-5132019.pdf

The Five Deeps Expedition’s “Pacific Ocean Expedition Blog,” also provides an excellent overview of this mission at the following link:

https://fivedeeps.com/home/expedition/pacific/live/

The entire expedition was filmed by Atlantic Productions for a five-part Discovery Channel documentary series, “Deep Planet.”

Into the future

The Triton 36000/2 Limiting Factor is the only submersible that is commercially certified for repeated exploration to the deepest points in the ocean. It is the only insurable, full ocean depth (FOD) manned submersible in the world. The official certification of the vessel to FOD is overseen by an independent third party, the world-standard credentialer of maritime vessels DNV-GL (Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd).

The manufacturer, Triton Submarines LLC, located in Vero Beach, Florida reported:

“Designed and certified to make thousands of dives to Hadal depths, during decades of service, Triton is excited to offer the opportunity for a private individual, government or philanthropic organization or research institute to acquire this remarkable System and continue the adventure.”

“Available to purchase today for $48.7 million, the Triton 36,000/2 Hadal Exploration System will be ready for delivery in 2019, after its successful (Five Deeps) expedition. The System will be fully proven. It will have extended the boundaries of human endeavor and technology. And it will offer a unique deep-diving capability unmatched by any nation or organization in the world.”

The Triton website is here: https://tritonsubs.com

They’re waiting to take your order.

Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018

Peter Lobner

In 2015, I compiled the first edition of a resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60^thanniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 –2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations.

Here’s a quick overview of worldwide marine nuclear in 2018.

Source: two charts by author

In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 –2018.” Due to its present size (over 2,100 pages), the resource document now consists of the following parts, all formatted as slide presentations:

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2A: United States – Submarines
Part 2B: United States – Surface Ships
Part 3A: Russia – Submarines
Part 3B: Russia – Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications
Part 4: Europe & Canada
Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations
Part 6: Arctic Operations

The original 2015 resource document and this updated set of documents were compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain.

I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications. My resource document contains a great deal of graphics from many sources. Throughout the document, I have identified the sources for these graphics.

You can access all parts of Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 here:

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 1_Introduction

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 2A_USA_submarines

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 2B_USA_surface ships

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 3A_R1_Russia_submarines

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 3B_R1_Russia_surface ships & non-propulsion apps

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 4_Europe & Canada

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 5_China-India-Japan & Others

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 6 R1_Arctic marine nuclear

I hope you find this resource document informative, useful, and different from any other single document on this subject. Below is an outline to help you navigate through the document.

Outline of Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.

Part 1: Introduction

Quick look: Then and now
State-of-the-art in 1955
Marine nuclear propulsion system basics
Timeline
- Timeline highlights
- Decade-by-decade
Effects of nuclear weapons and missile treaties & conventions on the composition and armament of naval fleets
Prospects for 2018 – 2030

Part 2A: United States – Submarines

Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US
US current nuclear vessel fleet
US naval nuclear infrastructure
Use of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in US naval reactors
US submarine reactors and prototype facilities
US Navy nuclear-powered submarines
- Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSN)
  - Submarine-launched torpedoes, anti-submarine missiles & mines
  - Systems to augment submarine operational capabilities
- Nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBN)
  - Submarine-launched strategic ballistic missiles (SLBMs)
- Nuclear-powered guided missile submarines (SSGN)
  - Cruise missiles and other tactical guided missiles
- Nuclear-powered special operations submarines

Part 2B: United States – Surface Ships

US naval surface ship reactors & prototype facilities
US Navy nuclear-powered surface ships
- Evolution of the US nuclear-powered surface fleet
- Nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers (CGN)
  - CGN tactical weapons
- Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVN)
  - Carrier strike group (CSG) & carrier air wing composition
Naval nuclear vessel decommissioning and nuclear waste management
US civilian marine nuclear vessels and reactors
- Operational & planned civilian marine vessels and their reactors
- Other US civilian marine reactor designs
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) marine applications
US marine nuclear power current trends

Part 3A: Russia – Submarines

The beginning of the Soviet / Russian marine nuclear power program
Russian current nuclear vessel fleet.
Russian marine nuclear reactor & fuel-cycle infrastructure
Russian nuclear vessel design, construction & life-cycle infrastructure
Russian naval nuclear infrastructure
Russian nuclear-powered submarines
- Submarine reactors
- Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSN)
  - Submarine-launched torpedoes & anti-submarine missiles
- Strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSB & SSBN)
  - Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM)
- Cruise missile submarines (SSG & SSGN).
  - Cruise missiles
- Nuclear-powered special operations subs & strategic torpedoes
- Other special-purpose nuclear-powered subs
- Examples of un-built nuclear submarine projects

Part 3B: Russia – Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications

Russian nuclear-powered surface ships
- Surface ship reactors
- Nuclear-powered icebreakers
- Nuclear-powered naval surface ships
  - Nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers
  - Nuclear-powered command ship
  - Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
  - Nuclear-powered multi-purpose destroyer
Russian non-propulsion marine nuclear applications
- Small reactors for non-propulsion marine nuclear applications
- Floating nuclear power plants (FNPP)
- Transportable reactor units (TRU)
- Arctic seabed applications for marine nuclear power
- Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG)
Marine nuclear decommissioning and environmental cleanup
Russian marine nuclear power current trends

Part 4: Europe & Canada

Nations that operate or have operated nuclear vessels
- United Kingdom
  - The beginning of the UK marine nuclear power program
  - UK current nuclear vessel fleet
  - UK naval nuclear infrastructure
  - UK naval nuclear reactors
  - UK Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines
    - Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSN)
      - Submarine-launched tactical weapons
    - Nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBN)
      - Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM)
  - UK disposition of decommissioned nuclear submarines
  - UK nuclear surface ship and marine reactor concepts
  - UK marine nuclear power current trends
- France
  - The beginning of the French marine nuclear power program
  - French current nuclear vessel fleet
  - French naval nuclear infrastructure
  - French naval nuclear reactors
  - French naval nuclear vessels
    - Nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines (SNLE)
      - Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (MSBS)
    - Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SNA)
      - Submarine-launched tactical weapons
    - Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
  - French disposition of decommissioned nuclear submarines
  - French non-propulsion marine reactor applications
  - French marine nuclear power current trends
- Germany
Other nations with an interest in marine nuclear power technology
- Italy
- Sweden
- Netherlands
- Canada

Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations

Nations that have operated nuclear vessels
- China
  - The beginning of China’s marine nuclear power program
  - China’s current nuclear vessel fleet
  - China’s naval nuclear infrastructure
  - China’s nuclear vessels
    - Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSNs)
      - Submarine-launched tactical weapons
    - Nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile subs (SSBNs)
      - Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)
    - Floating nuclear power stations
    - Nuclear-powered surface ships
  - China’s decommissioned nuclear submarine status
  - China’s marine nuclear power current trends
- India
  - The beginning of India’s marine nuclear power program
  - India’s current nuclear vessel fleet
  - India’s naval nuclear infrastructure
  - India’s nuclear-powered submarines
    - Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSNs)
      - Submarine-launched tactical weapons
    - Nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
      - Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM).
  - India’s marine nuclear power current trends
- Japan
Other nations with an interest in marine nuclear power technology
- Brazil
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Iran
- Israel
- Australia

Part 6: Arctic Operations

Rationale for marine nuclear power in the Arctic
Orientation to the Arctic region
US Arctic policy
Dream of the Arctic submarine
US marine nuclear Arctic operations
UK marine nuclear Arctic operations
Canada marine nuclear ambitions
Russian marine nuclear Arctic operations
- Russian non-propulsion marine nuclear Arctic applications
China’s marine nuclear ambitions
Current trends in marine nuclear Arctic operations

Periodic updates:

Parts 3A and 3B, Revision 1, were posted in October 2018
Part 6, Revision 1, was posted in February 2019

You Need to Know About Russia’s Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research (GUGI)

May 21, 2018All Posts, Arctic, Marine Technology, Military technology, National Security, Naval ships & systems, Nuclear Arms & Arms Control, Nuclear propulsionBelgorod, GUGI, K-139, Kanyon, Kashalot, Khabarovsk, Losharik, Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research, Military Unit 40056, Nelma, Olenya Bay, Paltus, Poseidon, Sarov, Status-6, undersea cable network, Vice-Admiral Aleksei BurilichevDrummer

Peter Lobner

The Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research, also known as GUGI and Military Unit 40056, is an organizational structure within the Russian Ministry of Defense that is separate from the Russian Navy. The Head of GUGI is Vice-Admiral Aleksei Burilichev, Hero of Russia.

Source. Adapted from Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, http://eng.mil.ru/en/index.htm

Vice-Admiral Aleksei Burilichev at the commissioning of GUGI oceanographic research vessel Yantar. Source: http://eng.mil.ru/

GUGI is responsible for fielding specialized submarines, oceanographic research ships, undersea drones and autonomous vehicles, sensor systems, and other undersea systems. Today, GUGI operates the world’s largest fleet of covert manned deep-sea vessels. In mid-2018, that fleet consisted of eight very specialized nuclear-powered submarines.

There are six nuclear-powered, deep-diving, small submarines (“nuclear deep-sea stations”), each of which is capable of working at great depth (thousands of meters) for long periods of time. These subs are believed to have diver lockout facilities to deploy divers at shallower depths.

One Project 1851 / 18510 Nelma (aka X-Ray) sub delivered in 1986; Length: 44 m (144.4 ft.); displacement about 529 tons submerged. This is the first and smallest of the Russian special operations nuclear-powered submarines.
Two Project 18511 Halibut (aka Paltus) subs delivered between 1994 – 95; Length: 55 m (180.4 ft.); displacement about 730 tons submerged.
Three Project 1910 Kashalot (aka Uniform) subs delivered between 1986 – 1991, but only two are operational in 2018; Length: 69 m (226.4 ft.); displacement about 1,580 tons submerged.
One Project 09851 Losharik (aka NORSUB-5) sub delivered in about 2003; Length: 74 m (242.8 ft.); displacement about 2,100 tons submerged.

The trend clearly is toward larger, and certainly more capable deep diving special operations submarines. The larger subs have a crew complement of 25 – 35.

Kashalot notional cross-section diagram. Source: adapted from militaryrussia.ru

Kashalot notional diagram showing deployed positioning thrusters, landing legs and tools for working on the bottom. Source: http://nvs.rpf.ru/nvs/forum

The Russian small special operations subs may have been created in response to the U.S. Navy’s NR-1 small, deep-diving nuclear-powered submarine, which entered service in 1969. NR-1 had a length of 45 meters (147.7 ft.) and a displacement of about 400 tons submerged, making it roughly comparable to the Project 1851 / 18510 Nelma . NR-1 was retired in 2008, leaving the U.S. with no counterpart to the Russian fleet of small, nuclear-powered special operations subs.

GUGI operates two nuclear-powered “motherships” (PLA carriers) that can transport one of the smaller nuclear deep-sea stations to a distant site and provide support throughout the mission. The current two motherships started life as Delta III and Delta IV strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The original SSBN missile tubes were removed and the hulls were lengthened to create large midship special mission compartments with a docking facility on the bottom of the hull for one of the small, deep-diving submarines. These motherships probably have a test depth of about 250 to 300 meters (820 to 984 feet). They are believed to have diver lockout facilities for deploying divers.

General arrangement of a Russian mothership carrying a small special operations submarine. Source: http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/08/russias-own-jimmy-carter-special-ops.html

Delta-IV mothership carrying Losharik. Source: GlobalSecurity.org

The motherships also are believed capable of deploying and retrieving a variety of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), including the relatively large Harpsichord: Length: 6.5 m (21.3 ft.); Diameter 1 m (3.2 ft.); Weight: 3,700 kg (8,157 pounds).

Harpsichord-2R-PM. Source: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/30962

The following graphic shows a mothership carrying a small special operations sub while operating with a Harpsichord AUV.

Source: https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/tag/9m730/

These nuclear submarines are operated by the 29th Special Submarine Squadron, which is based along with other GUGI vessels at Olenya Bay, in the Kola Peninsula on the coast of the Barents Sea.

Olenya Bay is near Murmansk. Source: Google Maps

Russian naval facilities near Murmansk. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org

Mothership BS-136 Orenburg at Oleyna Bay. Source: Source: http://www.air-defense.net/

The GUGI fleet provides deep ocean and Arctic operating capabilities that greatly exceed those of any other nation. Potential missions include:

Conducting subsea surveys, mapping and sampling (i.e., to help validate Russia’s extended continental shelf claims in the Arctic; to map potential future targets such as seafloor cables)
Placing and/or retrieving items on the sea floor (i.e., retrieving military hardware, placing subsea power sources, power distribution systems and sonar arrays)
Maintaining military subsea equipment and systems
Conducting covert surveillance
Developing an operational capability to deploy the Poseidon strategic nuclear torpedo.
In time of war, attacking the subsea infrastructure of other nations in the open ocean or in the Arctic (i.e., cutting subsea internet cables, power cables or oil / gas pipelines)

Analysts at the firm Policy Exchange reported that the world’s undersea cable network comprises about 213 independent cable systems and 545,018 miles (877,121 km) of fiber-optic cable. These undersea cable networks carry an estimated 97% of global communications and $10 trillion in daily financial transactions are transmitted by cables under the ocean.

Since about 2015, NATO has observed Russian vessels stepping up activities around undersea data cables in the North Atlantic. None are known to have been tapped or cut. Selective attacks on this cable infrastructure could electronically isolate and severely damage the economy of individual countries or regions. You’ll find a more detailed assessment on this matter in the 15 December 2017 BBC article, “Russia a ‘risk’ to undersea cables, Defence chief warns.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42362500

GUGI also is responsible for the development of the Poseidon (formerly known as Status-6 / Kanyon) strategic nuclear torpedo and the associated “carrier” submarines.

Poseidon, which was first revealed on Russian TV in November 2015, is a large, nuclear-powered, autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) that functionally is a giant, long-range torpedo.

The Russian TV “reveal” of the Oceanic Multipurpose System Status-6 November 2015. Source: https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/tag/9m730/

It is capable of delivering a very large nuclear warhead (perhaps up to 100 MT) underwater to the immediate proximity of an enemy’s key economic and military facilities in coastal areas. It is a weapon of unprecedented destructive power and it is not subject to any existing nuclear arms limitation treaties. However, its development would give Russia leverage in future nuclear arms limitation talks.

The immense physical size of the Poseidon strategic nuclear torpedo is evident in the size comparison chart below.

Source: http://www.hisutton.com/

The Bulava is the Russian submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) carried on Russia’s modern Borei-class SSBNs. The UGST torpedo is representative of a typical torpedo launched from a 533 mm (21 inch) torpedo tube, which is found on the majority of submarines in the world. An experimental submarine, the B-90 Sarov, appears to be the current testbed for the Poseidon strategic torpedo. Russia is building other special submarines to carry several Poseidon strategic torpedoes. One is believed to be the giant, highly modified Oscar II submarine K-139 Belgorod, which also will serve as a mothership for a small, special operations nuclear sub. The other is the smaller Project 09851 submarine Khabarovsk, which appears to be purpose-built for carrying the Poseidon.

For more information on GUGI, Russian special operations submarines and other covert underwater projects, refer to the Covert Shores website created by naval analyst H. I. Sutton, which you’ll find at the following link:

http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Russian%20Status-6%20aka%20KANYON%20nuclear%20deterrence%20and%20Pr%2009851%20submarine.html

How to Build a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

November 26, 2017All Posts, Marine Technology, Military technology, National Security, Naval ships & systemsCVN-78, Ford-class carrier, Newport News Shipbuilding, USS Gerald R. FordDrummer

Peter Lobner

The latest U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), is the first of a new class (the Ford-class) of carriers that is intended to replace the already-retired USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and all 10 of the Nimitz-class carriers (CVN-68 to CVN-77) as they retire after 49 years of service between 2024 to 2058. Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), a Division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, built all U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and is the prime contractor for the Ford-class carriers.

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was authorized in fiscal year 2008. Actual construction took almost four years from keel laying on 13 November 2009 to launching on 11 October 2013. NNS uses a modular construction process to build major subassemblies in industrial areas adjacent to the drydock and then move each modular unit into the drydock when it is ready to be joined to the rapidly growing structure of the ship.

Overview of the NNS shipyard and CVN-78 in January 2012. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding / Chris OxleyCVN-78 under construction in the NNS drydock. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding

NNS created a short video of an animated 3-D model of CVN-78 showing the arrival and placement of major modules during the 4-year construction period. Highlights are shown in the screenshots below, and the link to the NNS animated video is here:

http://nns.huntingtoningalls.com/employees/pub/media/videos/cvn78_build.mp4

CVN-78 construction sequence highlights. Source: composite of 10 screenshots from a Newport News Shipbuilding video.

You also can watch a time-lapse video of the 4-year construction process from keel laying to christening here:

http://nns.huntingtoningalls.com/employees/pub/watch/cvn78-timelapse-4years.html

In this video, you’ll see major subassemblies, like the entire bow structure and the island superstructure moved into place with heavy-lift cranes.

CVN-78 lower bow unit being moved into place in 2012. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding / Ricky ThompsonCVN-78 “island” superstructure being moved into place. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding

After launching, another 3-1/2 years were required for outfitting and testing the ship dockside, loading the two Bechtel A1B reactors, and then conducting sea trials before the ship was accepted by the Navy and commissioned in July 2017.

CVN-78 underway. Source: U.S. Navy

Since commissioning, the Navy has been conducting extensive operational tests all ship systems. Of particular interest are new ElectroMAgnetic Launch System (EMALS) and the electro-mechanical Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system that replace the traditional steam catapults and hydraulic arresting gear on Nimitz-class CVNs. If all tests go well, USS Gerald R. Ford is expected to be ready for its first deployment in late 2019 or early 2020.

So, how much did it cost to deliver the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Navy? About $12.9 B in then-year (2008) dollars, according Congressional Research Service (CRS) report RS-20643, “Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress,” dated 9 August 2017. You can download this CRS report here:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

Milestones for the next two Ford-class carriers are summarized below:

CVN-79, USS John. F. Kennedy: Procured in FY 2013; scheduled for delivery in September 2024 at a cost of $11.4 B in then-year (2013) dollars.
CVN-80: USS Enterprise: To be procured in FY 2018; scheduled for delivery in September 2027 at a cost of about $13 B in then-year (2018) dollars.

To recapitalize the entire fleet of 10 Nimitz-class carriers will cost more than $130 B by the time the last Nimitz-class CVN, USS George H.W. Bush, is scheduled to retire in 2058 and be replaced by a new Ford-class CVN.

The current Congressional mandate is for an 11-ship nuclear-powered aircraft carrier fleet. On 15 December 2016, the Navy presented a new force structure assessment with a goal to increase the U.S. fleet size from the currently authorized limit of 308 vessels to 355 vessels. The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength reported that the Navy’s actual fleet size in early 2017 was 274 vessels, so the challenge of re-building to a 355 ship fleet is much bigger than it may sound, especially when you account for the many planned retirements of aging vessels in the following decades. The Navy’s Force Structure Assessment for a 355-ship fleet includes a requirement for 12 CVNs. The CRS provided their commentary on the 355-ship fleet plans in a report entitled, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” dated 22 September 2017. You can download that report here:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

As the world’s political situation continues to change, there may be reasons to change the type of aircraft carrier that is procured by the Navy. Rand Corporation provided the most recent assessment of this issue in their 2017 report entitled, “ Future Aircraft Carrier Options.” The Assessment Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations sponsored this report. You can download this report at the following link:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

So, how many Ford-class aircraft carriers do you think will be built?