Jump to content

Talk:Army Nuclear Power Program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I've removed the figures that gave the amount of heating produced because they seemed questionable.

My figures originally came from Adams Atomic Engines, but for example 107 Btu/hr for PM2A, according to this convertor is only 31.4 watts (that's not kW, it's watts). I don't know how this compares to 38,000 lb/hr heating quoted for SM-1A, a similar size station, but it compares very badly to 400kW quoted elsewhere for SL1, supposedly a smaller reactor.

So I've removed all the figures until they can be verified. Andrewa 03:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
  • I'm not sure how closely the Naval Reactors office was involved with these designs. If Rickover couldn't control something, he didn't want to be responsible for it in any way; he had the clout (even with Presidents) to get his way about this sort of thing.
  • My impression was that the Army had a reactor in Vietnam
  • Here's some text from the United States Naval reactor article that probably better belongs here (except the Russian part):
    • "Other small, easily field-deployed reactor designs have been developed but have no connection to the U.S. Naval Reactor program. A small reactor was used to supply power (1.5 MWe) and heating to McMurdo Station, a US Antarctic base, for ten years to 1972, testing the feasibility of such air-portable units for remote locations. Two others were installed in arctic locations, all constructed as part of the US Army Nuclear Power Program. A fourth mounted on a barge provided power and fresh water in the Panama Canal Zone. Russia is well advanced with plans to build a floating power plant for their far eastern territories. The design has two 35 MWe units based on the KLT-40 reactor used in icebreakers (with refueling every 4 years)."
--A. B. (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANPP veteran

[edit]

Hello- I am a veteran of this program (1968-71) and would like to try to organize this material and add extensively to it. A few years ago I had the definitive website on the ANPP (definitive because to my knowledge it was the only one!), and I have tons of material, pics, etc. I also have a copy of the only book on the program, so I can cite that instead of just my own memory. I added a link on this page today to a page with some info on the qualification badges we had. I still have my CRO badge and have good pics of all of them. That badge page needs a lot of work also. Rb88guy (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up badge page

[edit]

Put the correct qualification criteria there; what was there was wrong. Added a couple of badge pics. That page needs to be merged into an improved version of this one. Rb88guy (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit on NPPO training

[edit]

This will take much more work, but I added a few words on the NPPOC, and added a pic of the USAERG letterhead. Rb88guy (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANPP guy making lots of edits

[edit]

Trying to add info and organize it better. Not done yet, this will take a few iterations. I have lots of pics of the plants and would like to find a way to get them incorporated here. Rb88guy (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More edits; deleted stub

[edit]

Add section on nuclear-powered fuel depot; made qualifs into subsections. I have an original of the Briefing Book; my faculty advisor in grad school was in the Ad Hoc Study Group, and he gave this document to me while cleaning out old files. I've kept it for some 30 years. I'll be extracting lots of material from it. Rb88guy (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added lots of pics

[edit]

in galleries. Still need to add some more general discussion and cite Suid a zillion times. There really isn't much else to cite, other than the briefing book, which no one can get to. Moved a few things around also. Rb88guy (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added some more material and tried to get the references done. This should be about it. Rb88guy (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Grade Fuel

[edit]

Uranium-235 at 93% enrichment? That's above weapons grade material. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

93% HEU was a standard enrichment level in the 50s/60s, used in a lot of applications, such as research reactors (and submarine reactors I think) - so very plausible for Army reactor use use. In 1967 it cost $11.188/gram on the United States Atomic Energy Commission price list.[1] Rwendland (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejection of anything nuclear in Vietnam" statement

[edit]

There was the Dalat facility and the US had both nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships in Vietnamese waters. See DOE reveals Vietnam plutonium mistake. and also US Almost Blew Up A Nuclear Plant in Vietnam Johnvr4 (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Shouldn't the SM-1 photo gallery be at SM-1, with a link to it from here? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army Nuclear Power Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army Nuclear Power Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'colear' has an unclear meaning

[edit]

In the article under the section talking about reactor PM-2A, in the sentence: "It was used to provide power to a colear launch facility." The word "colear" doesn't make sense to me. Is it misspelled? I looked up the word and the definition on Wiktionary says is that it means "to wiggle." I think it would be helpful to elaborate on the meaning of that sentence to remove any ambiguity. In my opinion the word "covert" would go in that spot. I also do not have access to the referenced article to learn about the context. -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 08:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catnip cite

[edit]

I removed an irrelevant citation to a journal article on catnip, and a bot put it back. How do I remove the citation properly? Isoboroff (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Army_Nuclear_Power_Program&oldid=1213995106"