The following is provided by Jim Reeb:
50 Years today the USS SCORPION was lost with 99 crewmen dying in the incident. The following is analysis of what caused the loss of the USS SCORPION by Mr. Bruce Rule. Mr.
Bruce Rule is an acknowledged acoustics expert. You can judge for yourself. Ref: (a) Originator s ltr of 14 Mar 2009 (b) SCORPION SAG Report: “EVALUATION OF DATA AND ARTIFACTS RELATED TO THE USS SCORPION (SSN-589) (U)” of 29 June 1970, prepared for presentation to the CNO SCORPION Technical Advisory Group by the Structural Analysis Group: Peter Palermo, CAPT Harry Jackson, Robert Price, et al. (c) Originator s ltr of 28 Oct 2009
Encl: (1) Enclosure (1) to Originator s ltr of 14 March 2009
ASSESSMENT
The USS SCORPION was lost because hydrogen produced by the 65-ton, 126-cell TLX-53-A main storage battery exploded in two-stages one-half second apart at 18:20:44Z on 22 May 1968. These events, which did not breach the pressure-hull, prevented the crew from maintaining depth-control. As discussed by reference (a), the SCORPION pressure-hull collapsed at 18:42:34Z at a depth of 1530-feet. Noted times are actual event times on board SCORPION.
This assessment is NOT the generic attribution of the loss of a submarine to a battery-explosion advanced as a default explanation in the absence of any more likely construct. This assessment is based on (1), the results of examination and microscopic, spectrographic and X-ray diffraction analyses of recovered SCORPION battery material that confirm an explosion occurred, and (2), the July 2008 reanalysis of the SCORPION precursor acoustic signals that identified these signals as explosions contained within the SCORPION pressure-hull. Collectively, these findings indicate battery explosions were the initiating events responsible for the loss of SCORPION on 22 May 1968.
DISCUSSIONS: EXAMINATION AND METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF A RECOVERED SCORPION BATTERY COMPONENT Section 7.1.3, page 7.2 of reference (b) states: (quote) ….the general battery damage is violent. The high velocity intrusion of pieces of the flash arrestor into both inside and outside surfaces of the retrieved plastisol cover attest to violence in the battery well. The damage to the terminal battery post coupled with the violent tearing of the plastisol covers indicates the possibility of a battery explosion. While it is possible that this damage could have been an after-effect of hull implosion, the SAG (Structural Analysis Group) feels that the intrusion of particles into the plastisol cover would have been much less severe had water been in the battery well at the time. (end quote) Section 5.3.6, page 5.17 of reference (b) states: (quote) The battery installed in SCORPION was a TLX-53-A, manufactured by Gould-National Battery, Inc. Battery cell debris is in evidence over the entire debris field. Table 5-2, page 5.38 provides a list of the battery debris identified by the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard analysis team. (end quote) Comment: Table 5-2 notes damage from heat and melting. The presence of melting eliminates the possibility that such damage occurred as a result of pressure-hull collapse (implosion) because analysis of acoustic data discussed by Section IV of reference (c), confirms SCORPION was fully-flooded within 0.112-seconds of pressure-hull and bulkhead collapse; hence, the melting damage (and the battery explosion) had to have occurred within the still-intact SCORPION pressure-hull.
In consonance with this conclusion, Section 5.3.6, page 5.17 of reference (b) also states: (quote) the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Analysis Group reports that the available evidence indicates the battery probably exploded at some time before flooding of the battery well occurred. Review of Figure 5-13 indicates that the threads on the terminal posts were sheared off and there are no cover seal nuts remaining. This indicates that an explosion took place on the inside of the cells. The covers were completely blown off. Had the pressure been applied on the outside of the covers, the cover support flange on the terminal posts would have held pieces of the covers and it is expected that the cover seal nuts would have remained in place in at least some instances. (End quote) Further, Section 5.3.6c, page 5.18 of reference (b) states: (quote) the (battery cover) sample from SCORPION had been violently, but locally, torn, particularly at the location of the bus connection bolts and nuts. The deformation in this region appears to have started on the inside, or battery side of the cover. (End quote) And finally, Section 5.3.6e, page 5.18 of reference (b) states: (quote) Some 20 equally small (nearly sub-visible) fragments of material were imbedded at high velocity in both the inside and outside of the sample. The trajectories of the fragments were essentially random, ranging from grazing to vertical incidence. Microscopic, spectrographic and X-ray diffraction analyses reveal that these fragments are identical in composition and structure to the alumina flash arrestors used on the batteries in SCORPION. (End quote)
DISCUSSIONS: SCORPION ACOUSTIC DATA
Enclosure (1) to reference (a), forwarded as enclosure (1) to this letter, provides detailed discussions of four independent lines of evidence that, collectively, established, for the first time, that the two precursor acoustic events that occurred at 18:20:44Z, 21-minutes and 50-seconds before hull-collapse, were explosions from then unidentified sources that were contained within the SCORPION pressure-hull. The energy yield of these explosive events, now assessed to have been battery-associated, is estimated to have been no more than about 20-lbs of TNT each.
The July 2008 identification of the precursor acoustic events as explosions contained within the SCORPION pressure-hull strongly supports the battery explosion conclusion advanced by reference (b), i.e., the acoustic data identifies the actual explosive events previously assumed by the authors of reference (b), the SAG Report, to have occurred based on the observed damage to a recovered battery component discussed above.
CONCLUSION
Collectively, the above information indicates the two acoustic events that occurred 0.5-seconds apart at 18:20:44Z were produced by explosions associated with the SCORPION TLX-53-A battery, and were the initiating events responsible for the loss of SCORPION on 22 May 1968. Additional information will be provided as developed.
B Rule
Copy to (w/ encl): COMSUBFOR
23 May 2018 at 00:31
Extremely interesting information. As the son of the commissioning medical officer aboard USS Swordfish (SSN-579), I’ve long felt the losses of both Thresher and Scorpion. Long ago I heard from a non-official source that Scorpion’s loss was due to an external explosion. Years later I read somewhere that Scorpion had had many problems. My late father’s boat, Swordfish, was also built at Portsmouth. Thanks very much, Mario, for posting this latest blog entry! Please thank the author of this account for me. Andy McKane, Springville, Utah.
LikeLike
27 November 2020 at 23:26
George Spalding
On or about 15 May 1968 I saw the USS Scorpion (SSN 589) from my sub the USS George Washington Carver SSBN 656 in Rota, Spain being brought along side of the sub tender by 2 tug boats about 2:30 am with her bow and sail completely covered in white canvas. It appeared she was somewhere where she shouldn’t have been and got caught. The next morning she was in the ARD for inspection and repairs. On her way back to Norfolk a few days later she sunk. I believe two men had refused to ride her back to Norfolk, VA.
LikeLike
28 November 2020 at 00:47
George Spalding
On or about 15 May 1968 I saw the USS Scorpion (SSN 589) from my sub the USS George Washington Carver SSBN 656 in Rota, Spain being brought along side of the sub tender by 2 tug boats about 2:30 am with her bow and sail completely covered in white canvas. It appeared she was somewhere where she shouldn’t have been and got caught. The next morning she was in the ARD for inspection and repairs. On her way back to Norfolk a few days later she sunk. I believe two men had refused to ride her back to Norfolk, VA.
Cheers, George Cell: 804 385 1611 Email: g.spalding47@gmail.com
LikeLike
13 September 2021 at 00:13
The Scorpion accident is a example of a SOP during a collision and a event at outside San Francusco to the Scamp in 1963.
The debri field starts the story and final condition of hull connects the dots.
LikeLike
2 November 2021 at 00:43
My name is Tom Conway and I was the last non crew member to leave the Scorpion; before she got under way the following morning in May of 1968.
I assigned to a navy destroyer and I went to the Scorpion to pick up charts that I need for a a navy excuse coming up in a few days
My E-mail is tjcom44@comcast.net and I know exactly the real circumstances concerning this tragic affair.
At this time I was acting navigator on board the USS Willis A Lee DL 4 and I do know what I am talking about. All inquires are welcome
I
LikeLike