Raising of "Kursk"?
Henning Sietz
In german newspapers there were some hints that Russia will probably
raise the wreck of the "Kursk".
I wonder how this will be possible. The wreck is sinking more and more
into the seaground, the structure is damaged, there are strong currents
on the seabed, the sub probably doubled its weight because of the water
inside - let alone the question about the reactor safty. Even smaller
ships are difficult to raise. And as far as I know the raising of K-129
(often called K-219; the "Jennifer"-Project) in the 70ies failed (it was
possible to raise only a small part of the sub.)
Did the technique of raising ships develop very much in the meantime?.
Any ideas, any proposals?
Kind regards
Henning Sietz
martin...@my-deja.com
Kursk is in (IIRC) about 350 ft of water. K129 was in much, much
deeper water.
I'm betting that Kursk will be raised, if only to secure the reactors.
I'm sure lots of Russian Navy folks are wondering if the crew had time
to properly scram the reactors before they died. The only way to be
sure that there will not be a massive leak of radiation would be to
raise the boat.
Not being a naval architect or engineer I can't definitively say how
this could be done, but I remember the idea of using pontoons to raise
the hull being talked about early in the 'rescue' phase of this
disaster. Perhaps that would work - I really don't know.
Other ideas??
Martin Fisher
In article <39A15877...@t-online.de>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
frank...@my-deja.com
name) who flew with Richard Branson, said he thought he could use
balloons to raise the sub. He said he could manufacture the balloons
in a month.
It appears the boat (sub) is almost shattered. I guess they could put
lines on the thing but it may fall apart into pieces. They think a
huge explosion(s) occurred inside the sub.
Keith Willshaw
"Henning Sietz" <Hennin...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:39A15877...@t-online.de...
> Hi,
>
> In german newspapers there were some hints that Russia will probably
> raise the wreck of the "Kursk".
>
> I wonder how this will be possible. The wreck is sinking more and more
> into the seaground, the structure is damaged, there are strong currents
> on the seabed, the sub probably doubled its weight because of the water
> inside - let alone the question about the reactor safty. Even smaller
> ships are difficult to raise. And as far as I know the raising of K-129
> (often called K-219; the "Jennifer"-Project) in the 70ies failed (it was
> possible to raise only a small part of the sub.)
>
Anything is possible if you have the funding. After all
the US did refloat most of the sunk BB's after
Pearl Harbor , albeit in much shallower water
The accomodation module was recovered from Piper
Alpha despite being buried in the collapsed debris
of the rig.
Its going to be expensive however , I guess you'd go
to someone like Smit Tak and write a blank cheque
The first thing that will be required is to do a structural analysis
of the Hull in its damaged state to see if it will hold
together if lifted.
If it will then you could run lifting strops under the hull
attach them to lift bags and ease the sub off the floor.
You'll probably need to pump fluid into the mud to break the
stiction and it'd be a good idea to get an air lift dredger
in place to prevent too much build up
If the Hull is too far gone you'll need to build
an lifting cradle. This could be done by one of the Oil
rig manufacturers.
The only saving grace is their was
plenty of spare capacity last time I checked as a
result of the downturn in the North Sea.
That may have changed however with the current price
of oil
Budget $50-100 million at a first guess and dont
expect any change
Keith
frank...@my-deja.com
The West would have to pitch in money. The only reason why the West
might do it is because of the reactors and the water is shallow. The
Barents Sea is one of the cleanest in the world and the people up in
those parts eat a lot of seafood.
Keith Willshaw
<martin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nrn5h$pd3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The biggest difference between Kursk and K-129 is depth of water.
> Kursk is in (IIRC) about 350 ft of water. K129 was in much, much
> deeper water.
>
Yeah but the Kursk is much bigger than K-129
and K-129 was a DE so no reactors to worry about
Golf II
Displacement 2800 tons submerged
Dimensions 99m long 8.2 m beam 8.5 m draft
Oscar II
Displacement: 24,000 tons submerged
Dimensions: 155 x 18.2 x 9.2 meters/508.5 x 59.7 x 30.2 feet
Keith
martin...@my-deja.com
be a walk in the park. My only thought was that it took the CIA custom
building Hughes Glomar Explorer to covertly recover K129 from the
depths. The technical challenges associated with 1)the depth and 2)the
covert v. overt nature of the recovery are lessened with Kursk.
Martin Fisher
In article <8nru0f$pk8$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
Andrew Toppan
>Any ideas, any proposals?
The salvage is certainly possible. The water is relatively shallow, so divers
and ROVs can work relatively easily (compared to 16,000 feet down for the
Soviet 'Golf', etc.). The Norwegians have demonstrated that diving at this
depth is practical.
The marine salvage and offshore oil industries have a number of 'tricks' that
could be employed...
-Lift via salvage pontoons (either inflatable or rigid) has already been
proposed.
-Lift by pumping compressed air into the vessel is a time-proven technique and
should be possible.
-Direct crane lift is also possible. The largest floating cranes can lift
over 14,000 tons.
Regardless of the lift technique, I would expect the sub to be maneuvered onto
a heavy lift deckship when it approaches the surface. The deckship would make
the final 'surfacing' lift, and take the hulk back to port.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Keith Willshaw
<martin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ns1ni$6p1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> True enough. I am not thinking that any recovery of Kursk is going to
> be a walk in the park. My only thought was that it took the CIA custom
> building Hughes Glomar Explorer to covertly recover K129 from the
> depths. The technical challenges associated with 1)the depth and 2)the
> covert v. overt nature of the recovery are lessened with Kursk.
>
> Martin Fisher
>
But the technical challenges are vastly increased by the sheer
mass of the Kursk.
Derrick barges with the ability to lift a Golf are numerous
I know of NONE that could lift the Kursk
Keith
Andrew Toppan
>Derrick barges with the ability to lift a Golf are numerous
>I know of NONE that could lift the Kursk
SAIPEM 7000 and THIALF have total lift capacities of 14,000 and 14,200 tons,
respectively. In theory, you could even work two of these vessels together...
Besides, you don't need to lift the water, just the steel...
See: http://www.op.dlr.de/FF-DR/dr_er/staff/looye/sscv.html
Keith Willshaw
"Andrew Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:okd3qs4jk3j462me6...@4ax.com...
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >Derrick barges with the ability to lift a Golf are numerous
> >I know of NONE that could lift the Kursk
>
> SAIPEM 7000 and THIALF have total lift capacities of 14,000 and 14,200
tons,
> respectively. In theory, you could even work two of these vessels
together...
>
> Besides, you don't need to lift the water, just the steel...
>
> See: http://www.op.dlr.de/FF-DR/dr_er/staff/looye/sscv.html
>
Thats the max capacity with both cranes operating
there are issues like dynamic loads you need to consider
but yes operating 2 together might do it. Of course
I dont know how far ahead they are booke at present
I know the Tialf well , it used to be DB-102 and I recall
modelling it in a 3D CAD package to simulate lifts
Keith
Clark Martin
>Hi,
>
>In german newspapers there were some hints that Russia will probably
>raise the wreck of the "Kursk".
>
>I wonder how this will be possible. The wreck is sinking more and more
>into the seaground, the structure is damaged, there are strong currents
>on the seabed, the sub probably doubled its weight because of the water
>inside - let alone the question about the reactor safty. Even smaller
>ships are difficult to raise. And as far as I know the raising of K-129
>(often called K-219; the "Jennifer"-Project) in the 70ies failed (it was
>possible to raise only a small part of the sub.)
>
>Did the technique of raising ships develop very much in the meantime?.
K-129 was in something like 15,000 feet of water. Kursk is in 500 feet.
BIG difference. Divers can operate at Kursk's depth.
--
Clark Martin
Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting
"I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway"
Dwayne Allen Day
: K-129 was in something like 15,000 feet of water. Kursk is in 500 feet.
Kursk is in 350. And the sea currents are not bad at all. The Russians
said that they were, then the Norwegian divers went down and had no
problems.
D