NS Savannah - many merged threads

Jan Hendrik
13th April 2005, 13:31
The n.s. Savannah was the world's first nuclair powered commercial vessel.
Launched March 1962.
She roamed the world, however, was decomissioned in 1972.
Since 1999 now berthed in Newport News, Virginia.
Does anybody have pictures from her "laid up" period after 1972?

Vessel's particulars:
Displacement 21.500 tonnes, DWT: 10.000 cargo capacity 9.400 tonnes
length: 595 ft, beam: 78 ft.

Vessel could sail 336.000 miles without refueling, 21 to max 23 knots.
Passengers 60, crew up to 124.

I took these photos when she visited Rotterdam in 1963. Berth: Parkkade.
Note: One picture showing a non visiting day. Next picture the enormous "line" for visitors (including myself)

second part follows.

Jan Hendrik
13th April 2005, 13:37
Follow up story.

Hereby the original postcard which was handed out on board.
This vessel looked like a megayacht, yet it was classified as a cargo vessel.

Only another two nuclair commercial vessels were built:
n.s. OTTO HAHN and the Russian SERMORPUT
Has anybody photos of these two ships?

James_C
13th April 2005, 15:10
The Russians have a couple of Nuclear powered icebreakers which carry passengers to the north pole.

Santos
13th April 2005, 19:57
Jan,

Savannah

Go to the below site, there are a couple of pictures of Savannah laid up and a very good article on her.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=78787&ran=139450


Otto Hahn

Go to below site for Otto Hahn + picture below

http://www.radiationworks.com/NSOttoHahn.htm


Sevmorput

Picture below

Kind regards

Santos

Jan Hendrik
14th April 2005, 00:56
Thanks for the info Santos. I had already seen the website of Otto Hahn, but the other info on the Savannah is quite interesting to read.
It looks like the ship needs to be scrapped. Cannot be saved, even if they build in other engines as for what purpose could it be.
Only in case there is a multi millionaire who wants too convert the vessel into a megayacht.
Any luck with our members here??
There must be some wealthy retirees.......

James C. Regarding the nuclair ice breakers, I heard about it, but thought none was around anymore.
Any pictures and other info?

James_C
14th April 2005, 01:58
There was an article in Ships Monthly (I Think) about it a year or so ago. Theres 2 or 3 of them that take tourists up to the pole from Murmansk (I Think). That copy of the mag is now filed away in the loft unfortunately.

Bruce Carson
7th July 2005, 17:17
Hi:
The writer for the Virginian Pilot makes a nice distinction when he calls the Savannah "nuclear fueled".
Despite the method of raising steam, the ship was powered by that old tried and true method of propulsion, turbines.
Bruce C.

gdynia
18th November 2005, 21:30
Was the Tanker Manhattan not nuclear powered as well believe it or not saw her loading a grain cargo in Mississippi River(Destrahan) they cut holes in her decks to put spouts in and kept on pulling her off berth to turn around to load opposite side

trotterdotpom
20th November 2005, 02:09
I saw Savannah laid up in Charleston in the mid-80s. Unfortunately it was daylight so couldnt see if she glowed in the dark!

John T.

Allan James
20th November 2005, 08:49
John,

Saw her there in the late 70's-no she didn't glow, but from my recollection she was a rather sad sight.

Allan

KenLin39
3rd December 2005, 18:42
A great photo of the Otto Hahn has been posted in the Shipspotters site, to see it ----> http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=147949&cid=27 . Ken.

gdynia
3rd December 2005, 19:19
James C. Regarding the nuclair ice breakers, I heard about it, but thought none was around anymore.
Any pictures and other info?[/QUOTE]

Jan
Russian still maintains a large fleet of Nuclear Icebreakers they can be sourced on the websites

www.bellona.no
www.nti.org

Although they gave assurances to such bodies as Greenpeace they would be withdrawn from service they still are at large today.

Gdynia

Manfred Faude
3rd December 2005, 19:23
Wasn't there a japanese nuclear ship, which was build but encountered a lot of troubles with its rector during trials?
Does anybody has heard of this ship?

Gulpers
3rd December 2005, 19:34
Manfred,

The 8000 tonne Japanese Mutsu was the third civil vessel, put into service in 1970. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. It was dogged by technical and political problems and was an embarrassing failure.

Taken from http://www.uic.com.au/nip32.htm (Thumb)

Jan Hendrik
3rd December 2005, 23:31
Thanks a lot guys for all your additional info.
And Ken indeed an excellent photo of the Otto Hahn. Thanks

gdynia
3rd December 2005, 23:45
Jan
Im using Gdynias pc to ask this question Do you know the name/color of the paint they used on the Union Castle Hulls as would like it for my boat at home

Sven

Jan Hendrik
4th December 2005, 00:01
Sven, I am sorry but I do not know.
They were not a customer of my company (tears----tears---)
Jan

gdynia
4th December 2005, 00:11
Sven, I am sorry but I do not know.
They were not a customer of my company (tears----tears---)
Jan
Jan
Thanx 4 that will pass it on to Sven - hes busy with his engines
Gdynia

KenLin39
4th December 2005, 02:31
Jan
Im using Gdynias pc to ask this question Do you know the name/color of the paint they used on the Union Castle Hulls as would like it for my boat at home

Sven

Hi Sven, we called them the Lavender Ladies. Ken.

KenLin39
4th December 2005, 13:58
Thanks a lot guys for all your additional info.
And Ken indeed an excellent photo of the Otto Hahn. Thanks

Hi Jan. A photo of the Savannah has been posted in Shipspotters. Ken.
http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=147261&cid=27

rushie
7th August 2006, 10:35
From Hampton Roads Channel 3 news -

The Savannah, the world's first nuclear-powered cargo and passenger ship, will be rescued from the James River "Ghost Fleet" and restored by a Norfolk shipyard.

Colonna's Shipyard won a nearly one million dollar contract to repair and spruce up the maritime relic.

The ship is a national historic landmark that has been anchored for years among the rusting hulks of the Reserve Fleet.

The ship will be towed to Colonna's on August 15th.

The work is the first step in a larger government plan to remove the inactive nuclear reactor, scrub all remnant radiation, and prepare the ship for a new mission.

The Savannah arrived at the fleet near Newport News in 1994, following a stint at a maritime museum in Charleston, South Carolina.

Rushie

Aldinga
7th August 2006, 12:10
I can just see it, the clerk in the Dock Street Pool lifts up the little window that separates them from the cold bleak waiting room and yells, anyone of you with a bachelor's degree in advanced calculus, thermodynamics, and atomic and nuclear physics, in your book get down to No 5 West India the Savannah looking for a junior.

Ron

billyboy
7th August 2006, 12:40
very interesting ship. nice design, powerful, fast, the American government could use a ship like that if there were to be a war scenario or thret...dont suppose there is one do you???...LOL
wonder if thats why sanctions have been granted for her restoration. or am I just being a silly boy again?

ronnie r
7th August 2006, 16:02
This vessel is visible on google Earth in the James river, there's lots of other ships but Savannah is labeled
Ronnie

Keltic Star
8th August 2006, 06:28
It would be nice to see her active again, she looked like a real ship unlike the floating boxes of today.

lagerstedt
3rd September 2006, 07:25
Reactor has been removed and MARAD the US Government Dept of Transport which looks after the ship on behalf of the National Historic Places Trust wish to enter into a "Sponsored Ship" arrangement which some group.

See attached photos

Blair lagerstedt
NZ

Bruce Carson
3rd September 2006, 13:01
Another grand boondoggle,
There is no limit to a beaurocrat's imagination when it comes to spending taxpayers' monies.
Even if this pie in the sky scheme is eventually shot down, it will justify a few years of pencil pushing and monetary waste by an army of civil servants waiting to retire and collect their pensions.

Bruce C

dom
12th September 2007, 13:07
Norfolk Facility Wins Contract on N.S. Savannah Sept 7th 2007

BAE Systems to Drydock Landmark Ship



The Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration announced today that a $4,111,670 contract has been awarded to the Norfolk Ship Repair Unit of BAE Systems for dry-docking and maintenance on the National Historic Landmark vessel N.S. Savannah. The Savannah, the world’s first and the only U.S.-built nuclear-powered merchant ship, is currently moored at the BAE facility. All nuclear fuel was removed from the Savannah more than 30 years ago.



The major work to be done on the Savannah is a full surface preparation and coating of the ship’s exterior from top to bottom. Other work includes detailed inspection of the ship’s double bottom ballast tanks, repairs to the ship’s cargo hatch covers, and minor exterior repairs to ensure the weather tight integrity of the ship. The ship’s propeller will be removed during the drydocking as well. These repairs are in preparation for the eventual dismantlement and disposal of the remnants of the ship’s nuclear power plant.



The Savannah is expected to remain at the BAE facility into the early part of 2008. More information on the ship and plans for its decommissioning may be found at www.marad.dot.gov.

Jeff Taylor
12th September 2007, 18:40
Supposedly it's to be turned into a museum/exhibit--don't know where it's to be docked however.

mrcanoehead
17th September 2007, 22:55
sad end to such a nicely designed ship, it should have been copied & made over as a diesel electric drive. But a museem so be it then...



Bill shaver

John Campbell
15th November 2007, 20:56
I had thought that this great vessel was already scrapped but I was wrong and I came upon this article in Telstar Logistics and it might be of interest to S/N members

The s.n."Savannah" costing millions of dollars in 1969 America’s first and only Nuclear powered merchant ship was designed in hopes of finding peaceful uses for Nuclear energy. She was the pride of the fleet and designed with looks as powerful as her reactor. With a savings of over 29 million gallons of fuel oil during her short 5 year service life (1965-1970) she might have been a solution to present environmental and self-sufficiency problems. Her high maintenance cost however, led to her downfall. Since 1975 she has been sitting idle, left to rust, but this year post 9/11 security concerns have led the U.S. Government to budget 4.5 million for her restoration and conversion. Her new mission? She will be brought back to her cold war glory and re-activated as a museum ship offering future Americans a glimpse into the atomic age.

Has any of our members ever seen this vessel and where is she now?
JC

Santos
15th November 2007, 21:09
She is currently in the James River where she has been for the last 13 years with the Ghost Fleet. She is awaiting removal to the Norfolk Ship Repair Yard where she is going to be converted and re-activated.

You may like to visit this site which is all about her and with some pics of her as she is now. http://mysite.verizon.net/nealelosge/index.html


Chris.

Geoff_E
15th November 2007, 22:17
What did she ever achieve? Was there ever any commercial value or was it just another "We can do better than the Soviets"?

Nobody, as far as I know, has ever admitted that she had any commercial value. She's been a dead dog for the best part of 40 years; better to rust in peace - better still, recycle the steel.

william dillon
15th November 2007, 22:20
She is currently in the James River where she has been for the last 13 years with the Ghost Fleet. She is awaiting removal to the Norfolk Ship Repair Yard where she is going to be converted and re-activated.

You may like to visit this site which is all about her and with some pics of her as she is now. http://mysite.verizon.net/nealelosge/index.html


Chris.

I saw her this year (September) when I was on holiday in Virginia, didn't recognise her (ignorance on my part), she is in one of the pics in my gallery.(Thumb)

aleddy
16th November 2007, 01:37
I saw NS Savannah somewhere during the early 60's and believed she was a ship of the future with that power plant.
Even at that time there was talk about running out of fossil fuels, that hasn't happened yet and will it ever?? but what ever happened to the old addage of "the more you use the cheaper it gets", the current price has by far outstripped the ratio to usage.
I,m all for Nuclear Power and putting a cork in the other power outlet

tunatownshipwreck
16th November 2007, 03:21
My memory (don't bet the house on it) is of the Savannah being launched in 1963.

cboots
16th November 2007, 05:48
I saw her twice during my seagoing, the first time she was active and I think it was in Antwerp. The second time she was laid up in one or other of the US Gulf ports and I actually thought that she already was some kind of a museum ship, apparently not. Whilst I am not a fan of nucleur energy, the world's biggest failed industry afterall, I do believe that she was intended as a genuine commercial experiment, albeit very heavily government subsidised. The West Germans built a nucleur powered merchant ship, the "Otto Hahn" I think she was called and the Japs did also. I remember there being calls at the time for the UK to build one too, but good old HMG was either too wise or too tight fisted.
CBoots

cboots
16th November 2007, 05:50
Oh, and I do agree she was a beautiful looking ship, although she would look very dated now.
CBoots

Jan Hendrik
16th November 2007, 06:19
You will find several threads about this vessel in SN.

e.g. following for more details:
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=1466&highlight=otto+hahn

Naviguesser
16th November 2007, 07:37
Oh, and I do agree she was a beautiful looking ship, although she would look very dated now.
CBoots

Dated yes, but still beautiful.

Degema
16th November 2007, 14:24
Saw her in the late 70s. She was alongside in Savannah Georgia.

kings
10th January 2008, 12:57
Re Savannah
went on board in Le Havre? in about '65. Remember looking down through porthole set in deck to see reactor. Officers uniforms had more gold braid than the first sea lord - had a sort of emblem depicting nuclear power above the stripes. All seemed very high tech at the time, we still had steam winches
Kings

Gavin Gait
10th January 2008, 12:59
I believe she is to be converted into a museum ship , i'll see if i can find the links to the info when I get home this afternoon

What the Fug
10th January 2008, 16:15
Did the Japanese ever have a nuclear powered boat, vague memory of me old fella calling our last mongrel mutt after it?

tunatownshipwreck
10th January 2008, 19:33
Did the Japanese ever have a nuclear powered boat, vague memory of me old fella calling our last mongrel mutt after it?

I think it was the "Fuji" or "Meiji", something like that.

Santos
10th January 2008, 20:26
The Japanese ship was the MUTSU

Launched: June 12, 1964
Delivered from construction yard: 1970
Commissioned: 1990
Length: 426.5 ft (130 m)
Beam: 62 ft (19 m)
Draft: 23 ft (7 m)
Displacement: 8,242 tons
Speed: 16.5 knots (31 km/h)
Propulsion: steam turbine 10,000 hp (7.5 MW)

There was also a German ship OTTO HAHN

Launched 1969
Displacement 25,790 tons (26,200 t) full, 16,871 tons (17,141 t) standard
Length: 164.3 m waterline, 172.0 m overall
Beam: 23.4 m
Freeboard: 5.3 m
Capacity: 14,040 gross register tons (39,760 m³)
Propulsion: Nuclear drive
Speed: 15.75 knots (29 km/h)
Waterproof compartments: 14
Loading spaces: 6
Complement 63 crew, 35 research personnel maximum
Deactivated 1979

A Russian one too the SEVMORPUT

Length: 853 ft (260 m)
Beam: 105 ft (32 m)
Draft: 39 ft (12 m)
Displacement: 33,980 tons
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h)
Propulsion: 40,000 hp (30 MW)
Power Plant: one KLT-40 reactor
This ship is currently being converted into the worlds first nuclear-powered oil drilling vessel.

There were only 4 nuclear powered merchant ships built in the world, the above three and of course Savannah.

Chris.

tunatownshipwreck
10th January 2008, 22:51
Mutsu, yes, not much in common with Fuji or Meiji, but at least I didn't tag a "Maru" at the end.

Bearsie
11th January 2008, 01:18
If memory serves correct the Otto hahn was rebuilt with Diesel drive
shortly after her decomissioning

surfaceblow
22nd January 2008, 19:44
She is currently in the James River where she has been for the last 13 years with the Ghost Fleet. She is awaiting removal to the Norfolk Ship Repair Yard where she is going to be converted and re-activated.

She is in the yard now not Norfolk Ship Repair but one of the smaller yards. They are removing what is left of her nuclear power plant. I have a friend that is the 1 A/E on her. A nice 8 - 5 job home at nights.

TTFN
Joe

Tony money
22nd January 2008, 21:03
I saw the Savannah in Norfolk Virginia back in the 60s. We were berthed just ahead of her loading rolls of paper/board for making into boxes for bananas. She was a fine looking ship.

John Crossland
23rd January 2008, 04:14
Hi Joe,

What do you call a 1 A/E ?

surfaceblow
23rd January 2008, 04:30
Hi Joe,

What do you call a 1 A/E ?
Hello John

On American ships there is only one engineer all the rest are assistants.

The American Ranking for the Engine Department is

Chief Engineer
First Assistant Engineer
Second Assistant Engineer
Third Assistant Engineer

Then the ranks of the unlicense engine department
Pumpman on tankers only
Electrican
QMED Qualified Member of the Engine Department
Oiler
Fireman
Wiper

And the lowest is the Cadet or midshipman from one of the State Merchant Marine Schools or the Federal School called Kingspoint (USMMA).

TTFN
Joe

John Crossland
23rd January 2008, 04:56
Thanks for that Joe, it's always good to hear how the other half live.

Blackal
29th January 2008, 20:20
I'm sure I have an Institute (or something) publication on the Savannah, lying about somewhere - must dig it out.

Al (Thumb)

DICK SLOAN
29th January 2008, 22:00
1979 ,1980 she was tied up in Savannah, I was on a Strath ship and tied up not far from her,

Burntisland
29th January 2008, 22:27
I have to laugh sometime when I hear shows on tv discussing a nuclear powered ship. A few nights ago on Weapons of War there was an expose' about USS NIMITZ and the narrator kept referring to "Nuclear Turbines". This stuff drives me nuts. As I'm sure most of you know, on a nuclear powered ship the only part that is NUCLEAR is the "firebox" which heats the feedwater. It's a reactor rather than an actual fire........a nuclear fired boiler. Other than that, the power plant is the same as any other steam turbine driven vessel. You could remove the reactor and replace it with oil fired boilers and haul ass as if nothing had happened. (Of course in the case of SAVANNAH it WOULD be prudent to install a funnel). But these tv types talk about nuclear power as though everything including the friggin' propellor shaft is somehow specially built to a mythical nuclear standard. GRRRRR!

surfaceblow
8th May 2008, 15:45
The Savannah is on the move again. The Savannah has left the NorShipCo yard on May 7 and is on the way to a new lay berth in Baltimore Maryland. I was told that some interior restoration has been started and that the exterior is freshly painted.

Dave Wilson
8th May 2008, 15:59
Burntisland/Surfaceblow
Always impressed with the automation onboard the ships of the Pacific Far East Line, Likes. The Mariner Class had their outboard guys (vangs) positioned on trestle work well above the gunwale. What bonuses were paid to the deck crowd for topping and lowering the derricks?

surfaceblow
8th May 2008, 17:01
The only questions were if the work was beyond the crews normal 8 hours. It so then they were paid overtime. Most of the time all hands would be on hand for tieing up and rising the booms so the watch would be on straight time while the rest of the crew were on overtime. The same would be for lowering the booms to get under way all hands would be called to get the ship ready for sea and letting go. Of course weekends were overtime for all other than the Captain and Chief Engineer.

I was on the Mormac Saga where the Chief Mate was raising the boom at sea but forgot to let out the runner (the runner was still shackled to the deck) and tore the boom off the house. The knuckle and side plating of the house peeled off exposing the Purser who was on the can at the time. The Chief Mate got picked up by the runner that whipped around his middle picked him up and let down like a yo-yo. If the Chief Mate wasn't so big around there would have been more injuries instead of bruised ribs and ego. I was on deck when I hear the bang and saw the mess take place.

salvina
8th May 2008, 17:41
I saw the n/s Savannah in either Houston or Galveston in 1963.

Dahl
8th May 2008, 18:08
Hello
i was on board in copenhagen, i think it was in 1963, and there i understand i was some kind off stunt from the american shipsworld, but i remember is was a nice ship, and she have some cargo on board to the next harbour,that is true.
Benny

Dahl
8th May 2008, 18:18
hallo
The last i can find is , she is Hulked as museum in 1980 when you look on Miramar ships index
Benny

tunatownshipwreck
8th May 2008, 18:47
I was on the Mormac Saga where the Chief Mate was raising the boom at sea but forgot to let out the runner (the runner was still shackled to the deck) and tore the boom off the house. The knuckle and side plating of the house peeled off exposing the Purser who was on the can at the time. The Chief Mate got picked up by the runner that whipped around his middle picked him up and let down like a yo-yo. If the Chief Mate wasn't so big around there would have been more injuries instead of bruised ribs and ego. I was on deck when I hear the bang and saw the mess take place.

That should be in a movie.

Shipbuilder
23rd July 2008, 10:32
SAVANNAH Nuclear steamship
I am prompted to start this thread after reading “Steam Will Return,” containing various references to nuclear power in merchant ships & the SAVANNAH in particular. At the outset, I will state that I am a former radio officer & NOT a marine engineer. With this in mind, everything I write here is taken from the specifications of the ship & scrutiny of her plans. I have never had any particular interest in the SAVANNAH & regard my records on the vessel as a small, but interesting point in the development of marine propulsion systems.

Length Overall: 595 ft 6 in
Breadth: 78 feet
Draught: 29 ft 6 in
Deadweight capacity: 10,000 tons
Displacement: 21,800 tons
Number of crew: 110
Number of passengers: 60
Service power: 20,000 s.h.p.
Service speed 21 knots

Forward of the bridge, there were four cargo holds, no different in size from any other similar sized merchant vessel of the time. At the after end of the accommodation, there was a trunked cargo hold, followed by two more standard size holds.

The reactor space was aft of number four hold. It did not extend the full with of the ship. The laundry & clean linen rooms were to port, whilst the butchers shop, chill room and passenger baggage were to starboard. The height of the reactor unit was from the tank top to just below the promenade deck. The reactor was 70 ft long and 55 ft high.

Shaft speed: 107 rpm. Steam pressure at drum (dry saturated) 490 p.s.i.
Main condenser vacuum: 28.5 Hg.
Feed water temperature: 347F.
Steam consumption per hour main turbines 186,610 lb.
Steam consumption per hour for other uses 55,590 lb.
Total electrical load 2,200 kW.

The weight of the propulsion system was an estimated 1,265 short tons and the reactor was 665 short tons. With the containment vessel, the total weight was about 4,348 tons.

As I am not an engineer, it is no use asking me any technical questions about the SAVANNAH, but I do hold a profile plan, reactor system flow diagram, arrangement of the reactor system, cut away drawing of the pressurized water reactor, photographs of a full-scale mock-up of the power plant & containment vessel.

Bob

Bruce Carson
23rd July 2008, 13:11
Perhaps "nuclear fueled" rather than "nuclear powered" would be a more accurate description of the ship.

Bruce

Shipbuilder
23rd July 2008, 13:59
You are probably correct, but as I said, I am no engineer. I took the title "Nuclear-powered" direct from the official review in THE MOTOR SHIP, 1959 volume.
Bob

surfaceblow
23rd July 2008, 14:30
The Savannah was not very economical. "Savannah's cargo space was limited to 8,500 tons of freight in 652,000 cubic feet (18,000 m³). Many of her competitors could accommodate several times as much. Her streamlined hull made loading the forward holds laborious, which became a significant disadvantage as ports became more and more automated. Her crew was a third larger than comparable oil-fired ships and received special training after completing all training requirements for conventional maritime licenses. Her operating budget included the maintenance of a separate shore organization for negotiating her port visits and a personalized shipyard facility for completing any needed repairs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

mrcanoehead
24th July 2008, 05:21
For all concerned the Savannna was this spring at Norshipco( BAE), in Norfolk Va. usa For a complete blast off on the outside, spent time on the lift for inspection & was completely repainted outside, then lovingly towed to a terminal up in Baltimore, & parked next to the Hospital ship Comfort, Might I add the dock in this area of Fairfield Baltimore,( viewable from hwy 95), also in close proximity of CSX Coal Teminal & a Gypsum Dock for a local Manufacter. Yes Both White Ships, amazing, all that money & park them at these locations.

jimmys
24th July 2008, 08:47
I saw her in Manila a few times. I dont know whether she was working there or it was a layup. No one was allowed near her.

regards
jimmys

Keckers
24th July 2008, 09:36
Saw her in either Charleston or Savanah in the late 70's early 80's. White hull and superstructure - looked a bit like a fridge boat but smaller and not so sleek lines.

Jan Hendrik
24th July 2008, 10:32
A variety of threads already exist on this vessel.
Just use the search engine in both the forum and the gallery as :
ns savannah.
For any additional information it is suggested this is added to the already existing threads.
Jan

Some threads as follows:
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=1466&highlight=otto+hahn

https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=14740&highlight=savannah

Burntisland
28th December 2008, 01:13
I just read in The Port of Baltimore magazine that SAVANNAH is now in Baltimore for "pre-decommisioning" which is expected to take 5 years and will include removing all nuclear components and "scrubbing" her down so she can someday be used as a museum. We'll wait to see if there's anything left of the USA after this Obama term. Whole damn country may be sold for scrap once that idiot gives everything away.

spongebob
28th December 2008, 02:18
Give the man a chance Burntisland, he has not started the job yet and surely can't be worse than the incumbent at running the USA, or the rest of the world.

Bob

surfaceblow
28th December 2008, 02:21
http://www.seafarers.org/log/2008/112008/savannah.xml

The Seafarers International Union paper had a article on the Savannah in Baltimore. The paper version of the article had more interior pictures.

Burntisland
28th December 2008, 02:52
Give the man a chance Burntisland, he has not started the job yet and surely can't be worse than the incumbent at running the USA, or the rest of the world.

Bob

Unfortunately we have NO CHOICE but give him a chance. I get the feeling that Europe has been sold a bunch of B/S about this clown and soon we're all going to see how weak and indecisive he is but let us all remind him when he starts to whine........HE ASKED FOR THIS JOB!
By the way.........If you're getting your news from CNN or BBC you won't get the whole story. He hasn't even taken office yet and already there's is scandal looming. He took a week to come up with a lie about his involvment with the whacko mayor of Chicago but OBAMA came up and declared he and his staff "Cleared". Just wait. You're going to see that this goofball is an empty suit. Putin and the Chinese will chew him up and spit him out like yesterdays tobacco!
Bob, I honestly think that in a couple of years.........the Bush terms are going to seem like "the good old days". I hope I'm wrong, but I think I'm not.
Regards,
Milt

spongebob
28th December 2008, 04:21
OK Milt, I hope your wrong, but down here we must base our views on the media information as presented. I don't get CNN or BBC but I do look at the internet editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post from time to time. Latest poll figures suggest over 70% satisfaction with the man but then polls are often made inaccurate by the poll voter opting for the perceived winner to suit his own ego.
Time will tell and it should not take to long to see which is wheat and which is chaff.

Bob

non descript
28th December 2008, 08:47
One of the very important facts about the Savannah is of course that she was the object of a Tongan Quiz (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=21718)

Not many ships can claim that accolade. (Jester)

Tony D
28th December 2008, 09:41
I saw her once in Norfolk Virginia I think it was,a neat well kept vessel she looked,what struck me years later when I read something about her was that she did a few hundred thousand sea miles powered by what amounted to a lump of metal that weighed only a couple of hundred lbs,it may not be a economical or sensible way to power a Merchant Vessel but we have to be insane to ignore a power source like that for our energy needs especially in these days of dwindling fossil fuel.

Philthechill
28th December 2008, 11:37
The BIG problem with anything that has the label "nuclear" attached to it is ignorance about the subject.

I don't make any claims about being an "expert" ( a much maligned term these days I'm afraid!!) on things nuclear but I do try to look at things pragmatically and, in my view, there is nothing wrong with the harnessing of nuclear reactions for electricity-generation or for propulsion purposes.

Unfortunately there have been nuclear accidents/incidents (invariably human-error caused) and the idiot scare-mongers leap onto these as the latest way of terrifying the general public who, unfortunately, rarely look into the why's and wherefore's of the great benefits which can be gained from the harnessing of nuclear energy. Which is rather strange, really, as they (the general public) unquestioningly embrace the use of nuclear energy when it's used in its medical context ( e.g. radiation treatment of cancer).

Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth, and all the other doom-and-gloomers, demonise nuclear-energy to the point of parnoia invariably using the, "think of our children, and their children and what an inheritance we are going to leave them if we build nuclear power-stations all over the place!", cudgel to persuade everyone that nuclear-energy is the tool of Satan!! They don't mention what an inheritance will be left if there aren't any power-staions when ALL the fossil-fuels are gone though-----do they? Oh, apart from whittering on about "sustainable power" and advocating covering the country with windmills which, unsurprisingly, don't work when there's no wind (the hint is in the name of them!!) so would need "unsustainable-powered" generators to back them up!!! Luckily (and quite surprisingly considering they were quite adamant about NOT building them), the current (Ha! No pun intended!!!) Labour Government has put forward a plan to build a whole raft of new nuclear power-stations. A bit too late, probably, but a step in the right direction.

So for my money I think it is high time we started building nuclear-powered cargo ships too, explaining to the general-public, first, that they aren't potential bombs, and the sooner the building starts, the better.

Savannah was, unfortunately, built forty years too soon! Salaams, Phil(Hippy)

NoMoss
28th December 2008, 11:47
One of the very important facts about the Savannah is of course that she was the object of a Tongan Quiz (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=21718)

Not many ships can claim that accolade. (Jester)

Another accodalde was that I made a Revell model of her once and very smart it looked too. At the same time I had one of the United States and they made a fine pair - must see if I still have a photo somewhere.

Burntisland
28th December 2008, 13:50
OK Milt, I hope your wrong, but down here we must base our views on the media information as presented. I don't get CNN or BBC but I do look at the internet editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post from time to time. Latest poll figures suggest over 70% satisfaction with the man but then polls are often made inaccurate by the poll voter opting for the perceived winner to suit his own ego.
Time will tell and it should not take to long to see which is wheat and which is chaff.

Bob

You are correct in your assessment of some American voters and poll participants. There is a certain ilk here who always wants to be on the winning side. The media in this country purposely manipulated this election and the celebrity worshippers, gays, illegal aliens, minorities and uneducated first time voters are now going to get the "change" they so desparately sought. With all the Clinton people Obama is appointing it appears there won't be much "change".
The New York Times is probably one of the most liberal rags printed in this nation. If you want lies and bias.........that's the one to read.
I appologize for tainting this forum with my opinion of this Obama fool but I suppose it's easy to see I'M PISSED OFF.........I AM however very glad to see that no one on here has yet called me a racist.........Color has nothing to do with my opinion of how he'll perform as President. In this country, if you question anything he says.........the pathetic left jumps in and calls you racist and bigoted.........That's when I start frothing at the mouth.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE! I need to shut up now.

frogger
19th March 2009, 03:15
Seems Obama has done okay afterall!

Jeff Taylor
20th March 2009, 20:48
Compared to what?

Blackal
23rd March 2009, 05:24
The BIG problem with anything that has the label "nuclear" attached to it is ignorance about the subject.

I don't make any claims about being an "expert" ( a much maligned term these days I'm afraid!!) on things nuclear but I do try to look at things pragmatically and, in my view, there is nothing wrong with the harnessing of nuclear reactions for electricity-generation or for propulsion purposes.

Unfortunately there have been nuclear accidents/incidents (invariably human-error caused) and the idiot scare-mongers leap onto these as the latest way of terrifying the general public who, unfortunately, rarely look into the why's and wherefore's of the great benefits which can be gained from the harnessing of nuclear energy. Which is rather strange, really, as they (the general public) unquestioningly embrace the use of nuclear energy when it's used in its medical context ( e.g. radiation treatment of cancer).

Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth, and all the other doom-and-gloomers, demonise nuclear-energy to the point of parnoia invariably using the, "think of our children, and their children and what an inheritance we are going to leave them if we build nuclear power-stations all over the place!", cudgel to persuade everyone that nuclear-energy is the tool of Satan!! They don't mention what an inheritance will be left if there aren't any power-staions when ALL the fossil-fuels are gone though-----do they? Oh, apart from whittering on about "sustainable power" and advocating covering the country with windmills which, unsurprisingly, don't work when there's no wind (the hint is in the name of them!!) so would need "unsustainable-powered" generators to back them up!!! Luckily (and quite surprisingly considering they were quite adamant about NOT building them), the current (Ha! No pun intended!!!) Labour Government has put forward a plan to build a whole raft of new nuclear power-stations. A bit too late, probably, but a step in the right direction.

So for my money I think it is high time we started building nuclear-powered cargo ships too, explaining to the general-public, first, that they aren't potential bombs, and the sooner the building starts, the better.

Savannah was, unfortunately, built forty years too soon! Salaams, Phil(Hippy)

I’m afraid that they are potential bombs…………….

I don’t claim to be an expert either, but have experience of both industries at a reasonably technical level.

Before a nuclear reactor is built on land in the UK – the plant must have a “safety case” which proves according to Probabilistic Risk Assessment – that the plant is/will be safe.
The design and location of the plant is chosen such that it is safe (according to the calculations of the PRA) in regard to design, materials, location, human operation, threat by aircraft collision, earthquake, fire etc.
I know from experience how much work is involved in justifying a reactor on land – it is immense.

Commercial ships are still colliding and sinking – so I think the Safety Case for a commercial nuclear ship would be a very difficult thing to achieve.
I also think underwriters would be a bit more jittery (a bit of an understatement) - if they had a nuclear core to deal with in addition to 300,000 tonnes of spilled oil.

Sea going nuclear plants tend to fall into the Boiling Water Reactor/Presurised Water Reactor designs (the PWR being the higher integrity, and has superseded the BWR ).

The advantage for ships, is that the power density of that (PWR) system is very high. A gas-cooled reactor would not have the same high density and would prove difficult to facilitate within the confines of a hull.

The big problem with the PWR (and BWR) is that things happen so fast, when things go wrong. In a Gas Cooled Reactor – the operators generally have a 20 minute “hands-off” rule – where they don’t touch anything for 20 minutes – while they gather data and pick the correct course of action. The nature of the plant allows them this “luxury”.
PWR operators undergo regular “drills” so that problems can be reacted to instantaneously – because the nature of the plant demands it.

I don’t feel that nuclear propulsion is right for commercial (as opposed to military) shipping ....................in the same way that I don’t feel that helicopters are right for private owner/operators – once away from an ultra-strict regime of maintenance/operation …………. Things start to go tragically wrong.

I'm all for nuclear power - just not in commercial ships.

Al (Thumb)

Klaatu83
31st March 2009, 19:20
The Savannah was a beautiful looking ship but I doubt if she would have been commercially competitive even if she'd had a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The engineering was revolutionary, but the rest of the ship was already approaching obsolescence. The container revolution took off during the 1960s, which meant that by 1970 the Savannah was already an antique.

One big problem was labor costs. All the engineers had to have nuclear engineering licenses, which meant that they got paid a lot more than regular marine engineers. Needless to say, the Masters, Mates, Radio Officers and Unlicensed Personnel all demanded proportionally higher wages as well.

billyboy
1st April 2009, 02:02
IF she were fully restored and put to work again. Would she not run into problems in many ports by Nuclear protesters?

mikedavis
1st April 2009, 18:57
From a postcard I have from the early 60s of
N.S Savannah passing through the Panama Canal

Klaatu83
11th April 2009, 14:30
On the Mikedavis photo:

I notice that she has two tugs escorting her, and there isn't another ship in sight. I'll bet they cleared the entire canal when the Savannah went through, as a safety precaution. They used to do the same thing when they first began moving LNG tankers in and out of ports.

Blackal
11th April 2009, 15:41
IF she were fully restored and put to work again. Would she not run into problems in many ports by Nuclear protesters?


I think you could garantee that.

You would also get significant resistance from local port authorities and communities. A lot of nuclear establishments are only tollerated by the local community because of the benefit to the community.

I can't see the people of Southampton or Tilbury seeing much of a benefit.

Al

tbates
12th June 2009, 03:44
Hi, i had the chance to tour her yesterday, i took many photos, if any one wants to visit her it would be open to the public on July 18-19, 2009, if any one want to see photos i could post them. Tom

Philthechill
12th June 2009, 22:19
I’m afraid that they are potential bombs…………….

I don’t claim to be an expert either, but have experience of both industries at a reasonably technical level.

Before a nuclear reactor is built on land in the UK – the plant must have a “safety case” which proves according to Probabilistic Risk Assessment – that the plant is/will be safe.
The design and location of the plant is chosen such that it is safe (according to the calculations of the PRA) in regard to design, materials, location, human operation, threat by aircraft collision, earthquake, fire etc.
I know from experience how much work is involved in justifying a reactor on land – it is immense.

Commercial ships are still colliding and sinking – so I think the Safety Case for a commercial nuclear ship would be a very difficult thing to achieve.
I also think underwriters would be a bit more jittery (a bit of an understatement) - if they had a nuclear core to deal with in addition to 300,000 tonnes of spilled oil.

Sea going nuclear plants tend to fall into the Boiling Water Reactor/Presurised Water Reactor designs (the PWR being the higher integrity, and has superseded the BWR ).

The advantage for ships, is that the power density of that (PWR) system is very high. A gas-cooled reactor would not have the same high density and would prove difficult to facilitate within the confines of a hull.

The big problem with the PWR (and BWR) is that things happen so fast, when things go wrong. In a Gas Cooled Reactor – the operators generally have a 20 minute “hands-off” rule – where they don’t touch anything for 20 minutes – while they gather data and pick the correct course of action. The nature of the plant allows them this “luxury”.
PWR operators undergo regular “drills” so that problems can be reacted to instantaneously – because the nature of the plant demands it.

I don’t feel that nuclear propulsion is right for commercial (as opposed to military) shipping ....................in the same way that I don’t feel that helicopters are right for private owner/operators – once away from an ultra-strict regime of maintenance/operation …………. Things start to go tragically wrong.

I'm all for nuclear power - just not in commercial ships.

Al (Thumb) Al! You're obviously very much up-to-speed on the nuclear front but I stick by my original statement of they're not potential bombs-------------not in the explosive sense anyway.

Getting the necessary criticallity to cause a nuclear weapon to detonate is quite difficult and the very nature of a nuclear reactor, (in a steam-raising plant such as there is in a power-station or a ship), would not lend itself to be able to achieve that stage of instant criticallity necessary.

There is no doubt a nuclear-plant could get into a very parlous state (witness the Windscale incident in 1957) but a nuclear explosion-------no.Salaams Phil(Hippy)

Klaatu83
13th June 2009, 14:10
"IF she were fully restored and put to work again. Would she not run into problems in many ports by Nuclear protesters?"

Apart from all other considerations, the Savannah was never a very efficient type of cargo ship to begin with. At the time she was built the days of conventional break-bulk freighters were already numbered. Even if she were conventionally powered she wouldn't make money for her owners in her present configuration. It would cost way too much to convert her into a modern container ship, and the result would be too small to be competitive in today's container ship market.

steamer659
13th June 2009, 21:31
A very unique ship indeed- to my knowledge there were only a handful of nuclear /steam powered merchant vessels- the German "Otto Hahn" was the other, and I believe a couple of old russkies. A VERY close collegue and lont time friend was the Superintendent on some of the work or rather "decomissioning" work which recently took place in Norfolk- he was also one the first proposed crew when the battle between States Marine and American Export Lines and the unions ocurred in the 60's....As stated above, a VERY inefficient cargo liner- however- this was the baby steps in a much larger plan which later fizzled....

Philthechill
14th June 2009, 16:32
It's all well-and-good saying that nuclear-fuelled cargo-ships would be too dangerous to have them trolling round the Seven Seas (and I DON'T mean Cod-liver oil!!!) but when one considers the numbers of a/c carriers and submarines, with nuclear-fuelled power-plants, it makes THAT particular argument a non-starter. After all as these vessels are involved in aggression, of one kind or another, they are far more likely to be involved in a nuclear accident when another nation decides to bomb, or otherwise decimate, their enemies ships than a merchant-ship being in a collision!

Personally I think nuclear-fuelled power-plants would be ideal for oil-tankers and container-ships as they would have the space necessary for a reactor and all its containment. Salaams, Phil(Hippy)

Klaatu83
15th June 2009, 14:17
The biggest problem with developing nuclear-powered merchant shipping is not with the technology but with the personnel. All the Engineers have to be Licensed Nuclear Engineers, and those guys cost a lot more money to hire than Conventional Marine Engineers. In addition, of course, the Licensed Deck Officers and Unlicensed Crew-members invariably demand pay parity with the Engineers. The result is that operating costs go way up, and away goes the operational savings over a conventional power plant. That was basically what happened with the Savannah, and I guarantee that the result wouldn't be any different in Britain, Japan, Germany, Australia or any other developed country.

Naytikos
16th June 2009, 07:21
I believe Ravi Tikoo had a proposal for a nuclear-powered VLCC in the late 70's. The vice-president of the company I then worked for took a year's leave to go and participate in the project. He came back minus a finger he had lost to a pump on the Globtik Venus. No, No-one else could ever get the connection with nuclear power either!

Blackal
17th June 2009, 21:58
Al! You're obviously very much up-to-speed on the nuclear front but I stick by my original statement of they're not potential bombs-------------not in the explosive sense anyway.

Getting the necessary criticallity to cause a nuclear weapon to detonate is quite difficult and the very nature of a nuclear reactor, (in a steam-raising plant such as there is in a power-station or a ship), would not lend itself to be able to achieve that stage of instant criticallity necessary.

There is no doubt a nuclear-plant could get into a very parlous state (witness the Windscale incident in 1957) but a nuclear explosion-------no.Salaams Phil(Hippy)

Don't read "bomb" too literally....... (well - in the sense that it "goes bang")

The problem with BWR/PWR design is that, once criticality is achieved (not "source-critical") then the reactivity in the core is self-modulating according to the power take-off at the turbines. This is a fascinating process to watch, but if you have a steam rupture in the secondary circuit of the PWR - it simulates full-throttle power off-take (and the rest (EEK) ).

The modulation of neutrons in the core increases dramatically - and the reactivity increases at the same rate - this can cause rupture of fuel plate cladding and release of fission products into the primary circuit, over-pressure and ultimately - the redistribution of fissile material in an area not controlled by the control-rods.

In the most severe case - there can be a release of radioactive gasses and particulate into the atmosphere - in essence, what is regarded as the result of a terrorist "dirty bomb" (a conventional explosion - distributing lethal radioactive material).

So, no - you will not produce an atomic or nuclear explosion, but that is of little comfort other than to save your ears from damage........... (Thumb)

Al :)

Satanic Mechanic
17th June 2009, 23:47
Just as wee aside to a more innocent time. Can anyone remember the Thunderbirds episode where Old Mother Tracey cooked (to much head shaking) the christmas/ thanksgiving turkey in a conventional oven because she

"just can't get the hang of those new nuclear ovens" (EEK)

I won't let my mum near a stereo for Gods sake !!!!!!!!

Billieboy
18th June 2009, 09:18
I seems to me that some posters have forgotten the series of automatic safety systems included, by international law, for the operation and containment, of any nuclear system. It runs through a series of extra cooling, quenching and scramming operations, in case of emergency. The trigger for the safety system initiation is usually when the reaction reaches 20% of critical, in other words a long, long, way, from the possibility of a nuclear explosion!

Of course, the human error factor, (or, as some say, the Criminal mal-operation of Chernobyl), is very difficult to avoid, unless controllers and systems are not correctly alarmed and backed up, in such a way that incorrect, or illegal, human intervention is made impossible.(Thumb)

shamrock
10th July 2009, 11:29
When the first nuclear-powered merchant ship N.S. Savannah was christened and launched on July 21, 1959, First Lady Mamie Eisenhower served as the sponsor. Plans are being made to replicate those events this year on Saturday and Sunday, July 18-19. The 50th anniversary events will occur at N.S. Savannah's layberth at Canton Marine Terminal Pier 13, Baltimore, Maryland. This will be the first time the 596-ft. ship will be open for general tours since she sailed from Patriots Point, Charleston, SC, in 1994.

Savannah's gangway will be open at 9:30 on Saturday morning in Baltimore Harbor with morning colors conducted at 10:00 at number 6 hatch (main mast) with the National Anthem, and the raising of the ship's 1959 ceremonial 49-star flag to the gaff. The launching ceremony will be repeated from 3:00 – 4:00 pm. A harbor salute of whistles and artillery is being arranged to coincide with the actual launch time of 3:55 pm – keyed by Savannah’s own recently restored air horn. With replacement part recently arrived, the ship's horn, a Leslie SuperTyfon, will sound for the first time in over 35 years.

A tugboat parade will form a procession past the Savannah at noontime on Saturday. The 1902 vintage Tug JUPITER from Philadelphia, present in the port when Savannah was launched, will take to the head of the column as the guest of honor and will lead the parade of over 20 boats. The 450 foot long Baltimore-based liberty ship JOHN W. BROWN will moor across from N. S. Savannah while Tug JUPITER will nestle near Savannah's bow. Attendees may partake in free-admission tours at Canton Marine Terminal Pier 13 on Newgate St. General public times for the BROWN are the same as for N.S. Savannah: 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. on Saturday and 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. on Sunday. This is a rain-or-shine event.

http://marinelink.com/en-US/News/Article/N-S-Savannah-Celebrates-50th-Anniversary/331169.aspx

Derek Roger
10th July 2009, 13:54
I wonder how many times she took bunkers ? How many pounds of uranium does the Chief have up his sleeve ?

Steve Woodward
10th July 2009, 13:56
No idea Derek,
But which sleeve it is will be easy to ID - it's the one that glows in the dark !

makko
10th July 2009, 17:21
Imagine with the state of the world, the price you could get for your "excess bunkers"! Timely remarks gents! Cheers.
Dave

Davesdream
10th July 2009, 22:15
The last article I read on this ship was the Maritime Administration was considering her for preservation. The article went on to explain the shielding in around the nuclear power plant was not up to standards in certain areas of the interior ship. At that time they were looking into possible solutions. She had schedule for this in advance and was repainted.

Has anyone heard any other news?

Regards

John.H.Clark
20th July 2009, 08:48
saw her in Charleston 1993 ( my first US trip ) but visited a carrier instead. I have a vague recollection of seeing her many years earlier in Southampton. Can anybody confirm
John

jim garnett
31st October 2009, 02:10
On the Mikedavis photo:

I notice that she has two tugs escorting her, and there isn't another ship in sight. I'll bet they cleared the entire canal when the Savannah went through, as a safety precaution. They used to do the same thing when they first began moving LNG tankers in and out of ports.

I remember that all movements on the Hudson stopped when either of the two Queens were entering or leaving.back in the 1950,s.
Jim Garnett

J Boyde
31st October 2009, 07:07
Do we not have two issues at the present time. One, we do need some seem of energy to drive the growing demand for shipping around the world, and second, what sort of energy be we need to move all these empty boxes aroumd the world.
Jim B

needadditionalinformation
4th September 2010, 22:14
You can take a tour of the inside of the Savannah by following the link at the end of this message. There is also interesting written information about the present status of the Ship and her power plant. I would suggest selecting "HD Flash" or "HD Quicktime" from the "Start the tour with" pull down menu. You can then left click on the photo, and then hold down the "left click" button on your mouse, moving the mouse right, left, and up & down, seeing all around, as if you were there yourself. Most interior portions of the ship are represented. These appear to be very recent photos, and she's held up well, since she went out of service 39 years ago! Also, you can zoom in by holding in the shift key and zoom out by holding the Ctrl (Control) key. Most of the pictures start a bit zoomed in to begin with.

The link:
http://www.hnsa.org/savannah/

needadditionalinformation
4th September 2010, 22:51
Attached is a PDF of (period?) technical info on hull & outfit; also there's another great one on the power plant, lots of details, but evidently too big to attach, so there's a link:
https://voa.marad.dot.gov/programs/ns_savannah/docs/Part%20II-B%20Propulsion%20Plant.pdf

kewl dude
26th October 2010, 05:05
I thought there was a Preserved/Museum ship forum but if there is I cannot find it?

http://hnsa.org/savannah/index.php?pano=fl

Nuclear Ship Savannah

I have had this link on my machine since 2009 but with my dialup this site was impossible. October 21, 2010 I got my first ever broad band connection and I have been looking at things I was not able to before.

Attached are three collages of images gleaned from this site.

ns savannah.jpg are fifteen JPG’s. Details of the reactor including its position in the hull. In the center of the middle row the 90 seat Dining Room. Far right in the middle row and far right in the bottom row the 75 seat Bar, including the dance floor in the lower picture. Second from the left and center of the bottom row a typical Passenger Stateroom. Note there is a bunk installed fore and aft next to the bulkhead adjoining the ensuite head another adjacent to a cabin divider.

NSS1.jpg the bottom row two views of a passenger stateroom today. Note that the bunks are gone as are the overhead finishing panels. I noted this throughout the ship, in the Galley, on the Bridge, often the overhead is open just like this.

About the only thing evident being maintained are light bulbs. In many spaces paint has long since fallen off the overhead and litters the decks. You can see crazed paint falling off everywhere. These images are screen captures from the Flash images. These Flash images are neat in that you can turn around 360 degrees viewing all parts of a space. You also can look down at the deck at your feet and up at the overhead. These Flash images moved SO slow and took forever to redraw with my old dialup that I just gave up.

These Flash images cannot be copied or saved in the usual manner by clicking on them. It is necessary to utilize a screen capture, usually noted as Print Screen on your keyboard, then open the captured image in software where you can manipulate and save it. I use my ancient PhotoShop 6.0 – that runs REALLY fast on my new whiz bang computer – but any number of, even available online for a free download, image manipulation software can be used.

The Crew’s Berthing looks comfortable with the exception of the bunks oriented athwartship. MOST ships I sailed crew bunks were oriented fore and aft. Bunks oriented athwartship, when the ship is in any kind of weather, first you are sliding down until you are standing on your toes, then you slide up until you are standing on your head; making sleep VERY difficult. The NS Savannah had stabilizers that I assume reduced rolling?

Ships with bunks oriented fore and aft next to a bulkhead, when in heavy weather with the ship rolling violently, we would take our Life Jacket and fold them so the two front panels and the back panel were stacked three high. Then lift the off side of the mattress and place the Life Jacket under the edge of the mattress, to create a snug space enclosed on both sides. Lots easier sleeping when you are constrained from moving. Oh, sure, I recall violent rolls when even sleeping in my cocoon I was suddenly bodily tossed out of my bunk and awoke standing up trying to catch my balance on a heaving deck.

I assume that there is a shower and a toilet in that narrow space between behind the sink and the passageway? The crew lockers are large and spacious. There is a standard combination drawer dresser and desk with a hinge down writing surface with writing supplies storage. A settee long enough to lie down on, with what looks like a vinyl covering, occupies the bulkhead opposite the bunks. Altogether comfortable albeit normally austere crew accommodations not unlike most I experienced. Although just two people in a cabin was pretty much unheard of in the 1940’s, this ship was built in the 1950’s and ships I sailed built in the 1950’s had two person crew cabins with an ensuite head. Note that the overhead finish panels are intact in this crew cabin.

NSS2.jpg top left is the Control Room. Somewhere here in my home I hope I still have all the pictures I took at Kings Point -- United States Merchant Marine Academy for those not aware what Kings Point means to an American sailor. I have SO much “stuff” stored away in cardboard boxes in my attic, in my basement and my junk room. I am a disorganized organizer. I always envied Kings Point graduates, I came up from the Fcsle, the old fashioned On the Job Training way.

When I was in New York license upgrade school going for my C/E license, MEBA had a deal with Kings Point where every day for a week we would be bussed to Kings Point early in the morning. Each day was spent in one or another of their many laboratories.

We took an indicator card on a large diesel engine, I saw -- and witnessed it run -- my first ever Gas Turbine propulsion engine. There was a lab with a pair of small Motor Generator powered A/C generators and a switchboard. We got to try our hand changing over from one generator to another. Synchronizing the two sets then shifting the load from one to the other. There was an electrical lab where students learned to trouble shoot electrical panels. They made it so clear and easy to learn what had taken me quite a long while, looking at small black and white pictures in a book and reading written descriptions.

At each of these labs there were professors or instructors to demonstrate everything to us. We did not leave each day until 1700 to get into our bus and join the New York traffic rush hours back to our school.

When the NS Savanna was built an exact duplicate of the engine control room was installed at Kings Point. I took many, many pictures of that control room. I recall that the control panels were painted this weird light green color. I recall taking a couple close-up pictures of the SCRAM button, the button that shuts everything down RIGHT NOW, in the event of an emergency. Like a collision with another ship or the ship in danger of sinking.

Marine Engineers assigned to NS Savannah were trained in the operation of this control room at Kings Point before stepping a foot in the real one onboard. There were various things including simulated sounds attached to all these buttons and switches, indicator lights and gage panels that simulated actual operation. No wonder Kings Point graduates were so smart. If only I had known.

The other three images are of the engine room, standard 1950’s hardware. The top right picture is what opens on this page, a side view of the main turbines and shaft to the reduction gear.

The lower left picture shows the glass enclosed control room aft of the turbines above the main shaft. While I never sailed a ship with a control room I would think that they would be on one side or the other of the engine room or ahead of the turbine sets, just seems to me ergonomically that would make more sense?

Ships I sailed things like engine order telegraphs were installed so that ahead commands the telegraph handle pointed forward and of course pointed aft for astern orders. Things like that, throttle hand wheels, etc were installed forward of the engine so you were facing forward. I was under the impression all of this had been learned over the ages as methods to try and attempt to prevent wrong accidental engine movements? You can see back in there the dark green painted main unit turning gear electric motor. On your computer screen of course these images are larger and easier to see.

In the lower right picture you can see that all the steam lines to the turbines have been unbolted at flanges and blanked on both sides. I wonder why they did that?

Text on one page describes how one hatch there was a swimming pool in the square of the hatch on deck, with access to the holds below only through narrow openings around the outboard edges of the swimming pool. Looking at this online tour it is easy to realize that this ship was not built to be an economically feasible cargo carrier. One page describes that the cargo gear was light, not capable of picking up anything very heavy. This was done to fit in with the “Super Modern look” of this vessel.

A LOT of the spaces on this ship were given over to Passenger Staterooms and huge public spaces. Like an astonishingly large Pursers Office that would have fit right in with the gate at your local passenger airport. And the bulkheads of this spacious Pursers Office, as well as other public spaces, were decorated with large original oil paintings especially commissioned for this ship.

There are a LOT more images on the site, being an engineer of course I was most interested in the machinery spaces. There are colorful pictures of the insides of the decommissioned reactor containment vessel and the insides of the reactor itself. They show a man hole cover on the bottom of the reactor designed to blow off the external holding brackets to automatically open if the reactor sank to 100 feet underwater, to fill the reactor with seawater. When the reactor space was full of water this manhole was supposed to automatically close so no radioactive materials could leak out. This ship tour is very complete and helps me to more fully understand why the ship could never be a commercial success. A page said that the NS Savannah was President Eisenhower’s idea to show the world the practical peaceful uses of Nuclear Power.

The galley is HUGE, but of course it was designed not only to feed the crew and passengers but also the many visitors who were invited onboard for dinner and dancing events wherever this ship berthed. There is a picture of one of the first Microwave Ovens, a stainless steel Radar Range, that is the size of a LARGE side by side refrigerator. The site quotes the cost of this microwave oven at $5,000 equivalent to $35,000 in 2008 dollars.

If you have a broad band internet connection go look at this site, if no one else I suspect marine engineers will be interested?

Getting back to Kings Point. Friday of that week at the 1700 conclusion of instruction all of the professors and instructors we had met that week joined us in Kings Point’s spacious executive dining room. MEBA officials also came over and we all participated in a cocktail party, followed by a delicious banquet. The instructors and professors were scattered at the round tables where we students sat, so we all got a chance to talk in a less formal atmosphere. Somewhere here hopefully I still have the pictures I took of everything I have described here, and more, at Kings Point.

If you infer that I was impressed with Kings Point you are correct.

Greg Hayden

NAUCLER
21st March 2012, 02:31
NOTE! The merchant ship LENIN was the very first nuclear powered surface ship already delivered in 1959. She was three years before the SVANNAH. But America was as usual always the No 2 in those days, after the Sputnik in 1957...

jamesgpobog
21st March 2012, 03:19
But America was as usual always the No 2 in those days,

Why the derisive editorializing? (Cloud)

And Lenin was an icebreaker. I can source that, can you source your b.s. assertion?

GWB
21st March 2012, 03:22
Here is a couple of photos of the Lenin taken in Murmansk.

kewl dude
19th July 2012, 01:37
Today I found the Polaroids I took of NS Savannah Engine Room Reactor control board mock-up, installed at Kings Point

http://www.usmma.edu/

prior to the Savannah commissioning and used to train engineers throughout NS Savannah period of operation.

The pictures are in order left to right, the fifth picture shows the SCRAM Button see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram

"A scram or SCRAM is an emergency shutdown of a nuclear reactor"

Greg Hayden

Jan Hendrik
20th July 2012, 02:02
There are several threads about this vessel, perhaps these can be merged by one of the moderators.

jaigee
25th July 2014, 10:52
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28439159

A.D.FROST
25th July 2014, 13:03
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28439159

OTTO HANN was an ore-carrier!

Binnacle
30th July 2014, 21:03
"Fifty years ago the world's first nuclear-powered cargo-passenger ship sailed from the US to Europe on a publicity tour to persuade the world to embrace the atomic age. It didn't quite work out like that."

(Read)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28439159

A.D.FROST
30th July 2014, 21:16
OTTO HANN is aore-carrier