I visited the USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear-powered submarine. Take a look inside.
It was the first ship to visit the North Pole and participated in the Cuban missile crisis blockade.
Nautilus is now an exhibit at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut.
On January 17, 1955, the USS Nautilus transmitted a historic message: "Underway on nuclear power."
As the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, Nautilus could remain submerged for two weeks at a time and travel at speeds of over 20 knots, or about 23 miles per hour.
Previously, World War II submarines powered by diesel engines and electric batteries could stay underwater for just 12 to 48 hours at a time. Since their batteries only charged while surfaced, diesel-electric US Navy vessels like the USS Cobia had to move at around 2 or 3 miles per hour to conserve power and hit maximum speeds of 9 knots, or about 10 miles per hour.
Nautilus is now part of the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut. Visitors can walk through the historic nuclear submarine and see how its crew members lived and worked while submerged up to 700 feet below the surface.
I visited the museum in March to tour Nautilus. Take a look inside.
Between 1954 and 1980, the USS Nautilus participated in scientific and military operations around the world.
Nautilus, which was commissioned in 1954, hosted the first-ever underwater legislative meeting when 13 members of Congress rode Nautilus in 1955.
Its nuclear power allowed Nautilus to sail under the polar ice cap and become the first ship to traverse the North Pole in 1958 in an expedition known as Operation Sunshine.
Nautilus also participated in the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
The submarine is now a museum operated by the US Navy in Groton, Connecticut, a short distance from the shipyard where it was built.
After 26 years of service, Nautilus was decommissioned in 1980 and recognized as a National Historic Landmark in 1982. It opened to the public as part of the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut, in 1986.
In 2021, Nautilus underwent $36 million of preservation work and reopened in 2022.
The Submarine Force Museum is open Wednesday through Monday and is free to visit.
Measuring 3,400 tons with a length of 319 feet, Nautilus is longer than a football field.
I was amazed by the size of the submarine. As I climbed aboard, the deck provided gorgeous views of the Thames River.
The first stop on my self-guided tour was the forward torpedo room, which featured two torpedo tubes with bronze doors.
Here, crew members loaded torpedoes for firing.
Mannequins depicted crew members working in the forward torpedo room.
After the torpedoes were loaded, the tubes were flooded with water. When the command to fire was issued, high-pressure air from the submarine's ejection pump then forced the water and the torpedoes out of the tubes.
The space also included crew bunks.
Signs on the sink and mirror indicated that they were part of the submarine's original equipment.
Doorways on the USS Nautilus were narrow hatches that sailors had to step through.
Handles on top of the doorways provided a grip to hold on to while stepping through.
The next stop on the tour was the wardroom, which functioned as the living and working space for Nautilus' officers.
Nautilus had a crew of 11 officers and 105 enlisted service members.
A panel of instruments along the wardroom's wall indicated Nautilus' depth and speed.
The officers' meals were served from the officers' pantry next to the wardroom.
Officers ate the same meals as the rest of the crew members, but their food was brought up to the officers' pantry via a dumbwaiter to be reheated and served on Navy china.
Past the wardroom, a hallway led to the officers' quarters.
The walls of the narrow hallway were covered in wood paneling.
The hallway featured a display of an 1892 edition of "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea," a novel by Jules Verne.
The book was gifted to Nautilus' commanding officer, Commander William R. Anderson, in 1957 by the French Navy's chief of staff, Adm. Henri Nomy. The fictional submarine in the book is also named Nautilus.
The officers' staterooms included sinks, small desks, and storage areas.
Fewer beds in a room indicated a higher rank.
The executive officer's stateroom contained another bunk that folded down.
The executive officer, also known as the "XO," was the ship's second-in-command.
The commanding officer enjoyed the privacy of the ship's only private room.
The commanding officer used the stateroom as a workspace and living quarters.
A crew member known as the yeoman managed all of Nautilus' paperwork from a small office.
The yeoman managed the ship's correspondence and personnel records.
The attack center was Nautilus' battle station.
The attack center contained periscopes to spot enemy ships and the controls to aim and fire torpedoes.
Crew members used a line-of-sight diagram to calculate the range and direction for firing torpedoes.
On the diagram, Nautilus is represented by the bottom ship, and the top ship represents the target.
Torpedoes were fired using this firing panel next to the line-of-sight diagram.
The torpedo firing key, which was used to deploy the torpedoes, was indicated with a blue sign on the firing panel.
An alarm panel in the attack center had various alerts for different emergencies.
The alarms were color-coded for different scenarios:
Yellow: a fire or casualty
Red: flooding or a collision
Green: submerging or emergency surfacing
Pink: a power plant casualty
A small arms locker contained guns kept under lock and key.
The guns were used for security while the submarine was in port.
The sonar room featured equipment used to listen for and detect other vessels.
Sonar stands for "sound navigation and ranging." Active sonar emitted sound pulses to locate targets, while passive sonar listened for underwater activity.
Nautilus featured the first-ever set of stairs on a submarine.
Before that, ladders were used to climb from one level to another.
In the control room, sailors controlled the ship's depth, tilt, and speed.
Commands were issued in the control room by a crew member known as the diving officer of the watch, who received orders from the attack center.
These levers controlled the flow of water and air in the submarine's main ballast tanks.
When the main ballast tanks filled with water, the submarine would submerge. When filled with air, the submarine would surface.
A crew member worked in the ESM bay, which stands for "electronic surveillance measures."
The ESM bay's instruments could detect other ships' radars.
Nautilus communicated with other ships from the radio room.
The radio room was located just off the control room on the right.
The crew's mess was the largest common space on the submarine.
Here, crew members ate meals, worked, and spent their recreational time.
One of the museum's displays featured a mannequin wearing an oxygen breathing apparatus, or OBA.
Damage control personnel used OBAs if fires broke out on board while submerged. The hoses on the masks could be attached to the submarine's reserve air supply.
The crew's mess also included a lay services box, which crew members used to celebrate religious holidays.
Since there was no Navy chaplain on board the submarine, crew member volunteers conducted services for various faiths with items from the lay services box.
A window in the floor of the crew's mess provided a look into Nautilus' battery well.
Nautilus was mainly powered by its nuclear reactor, but the battery served as an auxiliary source of power in case of an emergency.
Chief petty officers had the privilege of their own private lounge and living area.
Chief petty officers acted as liaisons between officers and crew members. Their living quarters were sometimes known as the "goat locker." There are a few possible explanations for the nickname:
Chief petty officers used to be in charge of goats that were kept on ships to produce fresh milk
Chief petty officers were nicknamed "old goats" because they were senior officers who had been in the Navy for a long time
All meals on board Nautilus were cooked in the galley.
A window connected the galley to the scullery, where crew members washed dishes.
The tour ended with more crew bunks.
Nautilus had two crew quarters, one at the front of the submarine and one at the back.
Inside the museum building, I perused exhibits about Nautilus and submarine history, including real working periscopes.
I swiveled the periscope until I could see my car sitting in the museum's parking lot, which was pretty cool.
Nautilus' notable history serves as a reminder of how quickly maritime technology has continued to advance.
Just over 70 years after Nautilus was commissioned as the first nuclear-powered submarine in the world, all of the US Navy's submarines are now nuclear-powered, according to the Department of Defense.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Samples before space suits: America must be smart about its mission to Mars
On day one of this administration, the president included his ambitions for Mars in his inaugural address, and again several weeks later to a joint session of Congress: 'We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars, and even far beyond.' President Trump's vision for Mars is correct, and now there is a plan for the next steps in how he achieves it. The U.S. has led the world in the exploration of Mars since Vikings I and II landed in 1976. We now stand on the precipice of two ultimate achievements: the return of samples from Mars to Earth, and sending the first humans — Americans — to the Martian surface. The fiscal 2026 presidential budget request proposed 'to terminate the Mars Sample Return Program given that current architecture options remain unaffordable.' But, it adds: 'It is anticipated that future missions to Mars will return samples for study on Earth.' We need those samples robotically returned for study on Earth. Delaying Mars Sample Return or waiting for astronauts to pick them up will make the human exploration of Mars significantly more expensive and dangerous — and for the first time ever, almost certainly cede decades of U.S. space exploration leadership to China. A lower-cost robotic Mars Sample Return would more than pay for itself from savings realized by simplified human missions. Martian soil has substances known to be toxic, as well as uncharacterized biological potential. Without Mars Sample Return, human mission designs must account for the full range of possibilities and the most demanding scenarios. Laboratory tests are needed to make direct measurements of the Mars samples to determine concentrations and forms of toxic materials to understand threats and develop solutions. This will be needed to design spacesuits and protect astronauts from the fine martian dust. It allows risk mitigation to shift from large and expensive requirements to quantifiable ones with reduced uncertainties. While no martian life has been detected yet, our exploration has shown that much of Mars would previously have been habitable, and parts of Mars may currently still be habitable. In advance of humans to Mars, we need to robotically return samples in a highly controlled manner to satisfy planetary protection back-contamination requirements to ensure that Mars does not have organisms that might impact human health or have adverse effects on Earth's biosphere. Mars Sample Return will accelerate U.S. leadership in space. Mars is several hundred times farther from Earth than the Moon. Using current propulsion technologies, a Mars round trip will take up to three years, with minimal abort opportunities, as compared to Apollo's round trip of days. Even then, there were three uncrewed and four crewed missions before Apollo 11, the first Moon landing. Completing Mars Sample Return supports technology demos needed for human missions, such as advancing from the current precision landing (7-10 km) to pinpoint landing (~100 m) to put astronauts in proximity to safe sites and pre-positioned supplies. Mars Sample Return also achieves a profound international first: the first samples — with potential for evidence of life — returned from Mars. These samples might once and for all answer the fundamental question of 'Are we alone in the universe,' and that is a question we most certainly want the United States to answer first. Lockheed Martin, my former employer, has been studying Mars Sample Return missions for more than 50 years, and is confident it can deliver an end-to-end architecture for under $3 billion — less than half of previous estimates — by leveraging heritage components, reducing design complexity, and streamlining the program structure. They have built and flown four highly successful Mars landers and four highly successful Mars orbiters, as well as pioneered all three of NASA's previous sample return missions (returning material from a comet, the solar wind and an asteroid), and have established credibility and mission success across a wide variety of additional deep space missions, from Venus to Saturn. NASA's Mars 2020 rover, Perseverance or 'Percy,' at Jezero Crater has been caching an unparalleled set of samples that will shed more light on the history of Mars than all previous Mars missions combined. China has announced it plans to launch a sample return mission to Mars in 2028, with an Earth return likely in 2031. If we forgo the timely return of Percy's superior set of samples, it will be China that leaps ahead. Mars soil and dust are uniquely different, and potentially dangerous — returning samples should precede astronauts going to Mars, while also maintaining our nation's pre-eminence in Mars exploration as NASA lays the groundwork for the next giant leap. Ben Clark has been a member of the science teams of every NASA mission to explore the surface of Mars, and designed the instrument on Viking that made the first analysis of martian soil. He was chief scientist for deep space exploration at Lockheed Martin. Currently, he helps analyze chemical compositions of the diverse samples the Perseverance rover has been acquiring during its multi-year trek on Mars.
Engadget
3 days ago
- Engadget
Why on Earth would NASA build a nuclear reactor on the Moon?
" Duffy to announce nuclear reactor on the moon " is not a headline I imagined reading before last week. Sure, as a sci-fi loving nerd, I could see a future where nuclear power played a role in permanent Moon settlements. But the idea of NASA building a 100 kilowatt microreactor there in the next five years seemed ridiculous. Not so, according to scientists. "I have no idea why this is getting so much play," Professor Bhavya Lal tells me over the phone, with a hint of exasperation in her voice. Lal's response makes sense once you understand the arc of her career; she has spent much of her professional life thinking about how the US should use nuclear power to explore space. At NASA, she served as the acting chief technologist, and was awarded the agency's Distinguished Service Medal. Among her other qualifications, she also testified before Congress on the subject of nuclear propulsion, and even helped rewrite the rules governing launches involving radioactive materials. Most recently, she wrote a paper titled Weighing the Future: Strategic Options for US Space Nuclear Leadership where she and her co-author, Dr. Roger Myers, examine the past failures of US policy as it relates to nuclear power in space and argue the country should test a small nuclear system on the Moon by 2030. The way Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society — a nonprofit that advocates for the exploration and study of space — tells it, many aspects of Secretary Duffy's plan are "pretty much straight out" of that report. Lal is more modest and describes the directive Duffy issued as "accelerating ongoing work" at NASA. According to her, the agency has been "funding [space] fission power for years," adding that the only new thing here is that there's a date. "We've done this for more than 60 years," she tells me, and if NASA ends up delivering on Duffy's plan, it wouldn't even be the first nuclear reactor the US has sent into space. That distinction goes to SNAP-10A in 1965. The reason the US has spent decades exploring space-capable nuclear reactors is simple. "You can get massive amounts of power from very little mass," explains Nick Touran, reactor physicist, nuclear advocate and the founder of What is Nuclear . And for launches to space, keeping payload amounts low is critical. Just how much power are we talking about? "When fully fissioned, a softball-sized chunk of Uranium-235 offers as much energy as a freight train full of coal," says Dr. Lal. Combined with the limitations of solar power, particularly the farther a spacecraft travels away from the sun, nuclear is a game changer. An artist concept of a fission power system on the lunar surface (NASA) Dr. Lal points to the New Horizons probe as an example. In 2015, the spacecraft flew past Pluto, in the process capturing stunning photos of the dwarf planet . If you followed the mission closely, you may remember New Horizons didn't make a stop at Pluto. The reason for that is it didn't have enough power to enter orbit. "We had about 200 watts on New Horizons. That's basically two light bulbs worth of power," said Dr. Lal. It subsequently took New Horizons 16 months to send all of the 50-plus gigabytes of data it captured back to Earth. Had the probe had a 20-kilowatt microreactor, Dr. Lal says it could have streamed that data in real-time, on top of entering orbit and operating all of its instruments continuously. When it comes to the Moon, nuclear would be transformational. On our only natural satellite, nights last 14 Earth days, and there are craters that never see any sunlight. Solar energy could power a permanent NASA outpost on the Moon, but not without a "huge" number of batteries to bridge the two-week gap in power generation, and those batteries would need to be ferried from Earth. "At some point, we will want to do industrial-scale work on the Moon. Even if we want to do 3D printing, it requires hundreds of kilowatts of power – if not more," said Dr. Lal. "If you're going to do any kind of commercial activity on the Moon, we need more than solar can provide." On Mars, meanwhile, nuclear power would be absolutely essential. The Red Planet is home to dust storms that can last weeks or months, and cover entire continents. In those conditions, solar power is unreliable. In fact, when NASA finally ended Opportunity's nearly 15-year mission on Mars, it was a planet-wide dust storm that left the rover inoperable. As such, if the US wants to establish a permanent presence on Mars, Dr. Lal argues it would make the most sense to perfect the necessary reactor technology on the Moon. "We don't want our first-ever nuclear reactor operating on Mars. We want to try it out on the Moon first. And that is what I think NASA is trying to do." Of course, there are many technical hurdles NASA will need to overcome before any of this is anywhere close to reality. Surprisingly, the most straightforward problem might be finding a 100-kilowatt microreactor. Right now, there's no company in the US producing microreactors. Atomics International and North American Aviation, the companies that built SNAP-10A, went defunct decades ago. NASA and NNSA engineers lower the wall of the vacuum chamber around KRUSTY system. (Los Alamos National Laboratory) "There are many that are in development, but almost none that are even in the prototype stage," said Touran. As he explains, that's an important detail; most nuclear reactors don't work at all when they're first turned on. "It takes a few iterations to get a reactor up to a level where it's operable, reliable and cost effective," he said. The good news is Touran believes there's more than enough time for either NASA or a private company to build a working reactor for the project. "I think we're in a great spot to take a good swing at this by 2030," said Touran. In 2018, NASA and the Department of Energy demoed KRUSTY , a lightweight, 10-kilowatt fission system. "That was one of the only newish reactors we've turned on in many decades, and it was done on a shoestring budget," he said. In the end, deploying a reactor on the Moon may prove more difficult than building one. Based on some rough math done by Dr. Myers, a 100-kilowatt reactor would weigh between 10 to 15 metric tons, meaning no current commercial rocket could carry it to space. NASA will also need to find a way to fit the reactor's radiator inside a rocket. Unfolded, the component will be about the size of a basketball court. According to Dr. Lal, the 2030 timeline for the project is likely based on the assumption Starship will be ready to fly by then. But Elon Musk's super heavy-lift rocket has had a bad 2025. Of the three test flights SpaceX has attempted this year, two ended in the spacecraft exploding. One of those saw Starship go up in flames during what should have been a routine ground test . SpaceX's Starship as seen during its eighth test flight (Reuters) If Starship isn't ready by 2030, NASA could conceivably fly the reactor separately from all the other components needed to make a functioning power system, but according to Lal, "that comes with its own set of challenges." Primarily, the agency doesn't have a great way of assembling such a complex system autonomously. In any case, Starship is at least a tangible work in progress. The same can't be said for the lander that would be needed to bring the reactor to the surface of the Moon. In 2021, NASA contracted SpaceX to build a lander for the Artemis missions, but the latest update the two shared on the spacecraft was a pair of 3D renderings. Similarly, Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander has yet to fly, despite promises it could make its first trip to the Moon as early as this spring or summer. Another question mark hangs over the entire project. As of the end of July, NASA is on track to lose approximately 4,000 employees who have agreed to leave the agency through either early retirement, a voluntary separation or a deferred resignation — all as part of the Trump administration's broader efforts to trim the number of workers across the entire federal government. All told, NASA is on track to lose about a fifth of its workforce, and morale at the agency is at an all-time low . Even with the Department of Energy and private industry providing support, there's good reason to believe the reductions will affect NASA's ability to deliver the project on time. "The contradiction inherent in this proposal is that the White House is directing NASA to do the two most ambitious and difficult projects any space program can do, which is to send humans to the Moon and Mars, but to do so with a resource level and workforce equivalent to what the agency had before the first humans went to space in 1961," said Dreier. A NASA spokesperson declined to share specifics on the reductions — including the number of employees set to leave the Glenn Research Center , the facility that built the KRUSTY reactor, and where much of the agency's nuclear engineering talent is concentrated. "As more official information becomes available, we anticipate answering more of your questions," the spokesperson said. "I wish there was some inventory of the 4,000 people who left. What gaps are left? We have no idea if the departures were systematic," said Dr. Lal. "NASA has not been open or transparent about what types of employees have taken the deferred resignation program, where those skills are and where they're departing from," Drier added. "Nuclear engineering is not a common field for most people. [The reductions] certainly can't help." Still, both Lal and Touran believe the involvement of the Department of Energy is likely to swing things in NASA's favor. In a statement NASA shared with Engadget, Secretary Duffy downplayed the workforce concerns. 'NASA remains committed to our mission, even as we work within a more prioritized budget and changes with our workforce. NASA retains a strong bench of talent. I am confident that our exceptional team remains capable of executing upon my directives safely and in a timely manner and will continue to carry our work forward," he said. "We will continue to ensure America continues to lead in space exploration, advancing progress on key goals including returning Americans to the Moon and planting the Stars and Stripes on Mars, as we usher in the Golden Age of American innovation.' In their report, Lal and Myers estimate it would cost about $800 million annually for five years to build and deploy a nuclear reactor on the Moon. Even if DoE support can prevent NASA's staffing cuts from kneecapping the project, its feasibility will hinge on if the Trump administration ponies up the cash to execute on its own bold claims. Have a tip for Igor? You can reach him by email , on Bluesky or send a message to @Kodachrome.72 to chat confidentially on Signal.
CBS News
3 days ago
- CBS News
31 shipwrecks found in Germany, including one believed to be steamer destroyed in WWII air raid
More than 30 shipwrecks have been discovered hidden in a lake in Germany, officials announced this week, including one vessel believed to be a steamer that was destroyed by an air raid in World War II. The ships were uncovered on the floor of Lake Constance during a project launched in 2022 called "Wrecks and Deep Sea," according to the State Office for Monument Preservation. The office said scientists have dispatched divers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to discover a wide array of vessels — from century-old paddle steamers to a fully intact cargo sailing ship. Scientists had identified more than 250 potential anomalies in Lake Constance, which is up to 800 feet deep. Of these, 31 locations were determined to be wrecks, "including both objects of cultural and historical significance as well as modern recreational boats and watercraft of recent times," the State Office for Monument Preservation said in a news release. Among the notable discoveries were two large metal ship hulls, which were discovered and surveyed using ROVs. Based on their size, characteristics and location, researchers believe these wrecks are the hulls of two paddle steamers — SD Baden and the SD Friedrichshafen II. According to the archeology site Arkeonews, the Friedrichshafen II was destroyed by an air raid during World War II, while the Baden was decommissioned in 1930 and eventually sunk. Both ships could carry up to 600 passengers. Images show the handwheel of the Friedrichshafen as well as the hulls and bows of both ships lying on the lake floor shrouded by marine life. Researchers also announced another "special discovery" — a nearly fully intact cargo sailing ship with its mast and yardarm preserved. The team did not estimate how old the vessel is but noted that its excellent condition is a "rarity in underwater archaeology" considering its depth and age. Experts noted that because the growth of invasive quagga mussels has been sparse, scientists were able to clearly view the ship's intricate details, including clamps in the bow, mooring pins and a gear ring with a ratchet. "The find offers unique insights into the sailing technology and shipbuilding of historic Lake Constance ships and represents an important reference object for research," said Alexandra Ulisch, a scientific associate on the project. The project marked the first detailed investigation of the Lake Constance bed to identify underwater monuments, officials said. To complete the mission, scientists first analyzed data from bathymetry, which is the topographical surveying of water, using multibeam echo sounders. After that, researchers used side-scan sonar to examine anomalies that were detected underwater. After the sonar inspection, divers and ROVs examined potential locations of interest, which resulted in the discovery of the 31 shipwrecks. The team conducted detailed analyses of objects deemed "cultural monuments" but researchers said there was no plan to salvage individual objects, a process that is costly. The focus, researchers said, is on preserving the documentary value. "Wrecks are much more than just lost vehicles — they are real time capsules that preserve the stories and craftsmanship of days long past," Ulisch said. Lake Constance (known as Bodensee in German) borders Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Fed by the Rhine River, it's the largest lake in Germany and is a popular tourist destination.
