On 12/21/2015 07:04 PM, M. Stradbury wrote:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?


Yes. The main mechanism iirc is that air escaping from the sinking ship
causes enough bubbles that the swimmer can't stay afloat, and sinks too
deep to get back to the surface.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:56:26 AM UTC-6, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:59:04 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:


(Or maybe one doesn't need the rock for all of these experiements.
While the water falling into the opening would slow down resurfacing,
that water has filled in the hole within a measurable number of
seconds, and the real question is, What is the acceleration of a human
of given weight and size due to buoyancy, and how long would it take
to stop downward travel and cause upward travel, and what would the
total time be? All but the downward speed could be extrapolated just
from measurements made by releasing floating balls from an underwater
device.)

How many tours did your brother do in Nam?

Just one year. At Can Tho for about 4 months and Cu Chi for 8.

He's a doctor, and might have been drafted as an intern, but the army
encouraged people like him to enlist and then they would let you
finish your residency before you had to serve. That way the army got
a specialist instead of a GP. My brother is a radiologist (but
lately I've learned how much medicine he knows about other areas,
which isnt' surprising since he went to med school, but even things
which are new since school.) It was called the Berry Plan.

Then he did a year at Ft. Devins, near Boston.

My mother kept a map of Viet Nam and watched the news for stories
about the areas where he was. I just waited.

My oldest brother did two

Something to be proud of.

but none of the rest of us brothers wound up in the military during the Vietnam War even though two more off us were of draft age. (?'_')? BAM ?('_'?)

How did that happen.

We signed up and the service wanted us because of our high test scores but we were rejected for medical reasons and designated 4F. It was 30 years before a friend who had been a top Army recruiter told us why. It was allergies, the big secret for avoiding military service during the Vietnam War was allergies.
All these guys were running away to Canada, shooting off toes or claiming to be queer when all they had to do was tell the doctors that they had allergies. That's why it was a big secret and the doctors didn't tell us rejects why. (‹‹–‚‹Œ)

My lottery number was 17, but I had two shoulders that repeatedly
dislocated. They both got somewhat better after a summer's hard work,
but then I got 2000 volts from a TV and dislocated one of them, fell
back and dislocated the other. The first side came out 10 times that
month and I finally had surgery. I can't sleep with my arm above my
head anymore, but otherwise it's 36 years and doing fine.


I have fraking injuries that have built up over the years until I need two new knees and two new shoulders. If a stage coach robber tells me to reach for the sky, I'll get shot because I can't raise my arms over my head but I wouldn't be sacrificed for my fellow man because I can't hold my arms out from my sides so I can be crucified. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Crippled Monster

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:52:08 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 12/21/2015 07:04 PM, M. Stradbury wrote:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?


Yes. The main mechanism iirc is that air escaping from the sinking ship
causes enough bubbles that the swimmer can't stay afloat, and sinks too
deep to get back to the surface.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
The flip side of that is the air is coming up very fast and tends to
lift anything around it. Have you ever seen a pneumatic dredge pipe
work?
Your sailor is also supposed to be wearing a type 1 PFD that adds a
lot of buoyancy.

M. Stradbury wrote:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

I would think that huge bubbles of air coming out of a sinking ship could easily
drop people deeply under water. If a bubble surrounds you, you will not be
floating anymore. You will be falling.

M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:

Like toilet bowl water swirls.

A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water.../#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
might not be able to see it with your toilet water."

I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:52:08 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 12/21/2015 07:04 PM, M. Stradbury wrote:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?


Yes. The main mechanism iirc is that air escaping from the sinking
ship causes enough bubbles that the swimmer can't stay afloat, and
sinks too deep to get back to the surface.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
The flip side of that is the air is coming up very fast and tends to
lift anything around it. Have you ever seen a pneumatic dredge pipe
work?
Your sailor is also supposed to be wearing a type 1 PFD that adds a
lot of buoyancy.

If a big bubvble surrounds you, you are only going down. Lots of little bubbles,
still down. Bubbles in a pipe may carry thing up, but there is no pipe in this
circumstance.

Every bubble means that much less water floating you.

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:06:45 PM UTC-5, Tony Hwang wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22/12/2015 11:04 AM, M. Stradbury wrote:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?


Mythbusters tried it, and concluded that there was no significant
sucking sown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvU_dkKdZ0U

Sylvia.

So when ship is abandoned, crews jump off the ship, they hang around the
sinking ship, right? They always swim away from the ship as much as
they can. Ask any sailors.

You are assuming that they have time to swim away from a rapidly sinking
vessel, that they are not injured, that they are not helping a ship mate
or a loved one, etc.

I'm not saying that they will get sucked down or that they won't, merely
responding to your statement that they "always swim away from the ship
as much as they can". That doesn't address the question as to whether
they would get sucked down or not, it avoids the question all together.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per M. Stradbury:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

Dunno what a capital ship is but am guessing it's big.


This is a ship: ship

This is a capital ship: SHIP

Per M. Stradbury:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Bob F:
If a big bubvble surrounds you, you are only going down. Lots of little bubbles,
still down. Bubbles in a pipe may carry thing up, but there is no pipe in this
circumstance.

Every bubble means that much less water floating you.

Long, long ago and far, far away part of my misspent youth involved
surfing fairly large waves.

My experience was that the best thing to do while you're in the white
stuff underwater is to relax as completely as possible to conserve air
and swim for the surface only after the white stuff has passed - because
there just is not enough buoyancy or purchase in the white stuff.
--
Pete Cresswell

Dne 22/12/2015 v 17:19 Bob F napsal(a):
M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:

Like toilet bowl water swirls.

A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water.../#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
might not be able to see it with your toilet water."

I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.


There are too strong forces, fast current speeds
and random turbulent processes
for Coriolis force to have any effect.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:17:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:06:35 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22/12/2015 11:04 AM, M. Stradbury wrote:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?


Mythbusters tried it, and concluded that there was no significant
sucking sown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvU_dkKdZ0U

Sylvia.

So when ship is abandoned, crews jump off the ship, they hang around the
sinking ship, right? They always swim away from the ship as much as
they can. Ask any sailors.

I was a sailor (blue water USCG) and there are lots of reasons to get
away. For one, you really don't want to get caught in the oil slick.
That is plenty of reason, right there.
The oil can be on fire or catch fire.
On a war ship, there might be some ordinance that will go off.
If you are close you might also get snagged in the rigging. That will
drag you down for sure.

If I may ask, what did you do in the USCG?

I was a LORAN-C technician. One year at LORSTA Sylt, Germany and one
year at LORSTA Port Clarence, AK. The remainder of my 4-year enlistment
was spent as a LORAN instructor at the USCG Training Center on
Governors Island, NY.

My total sea time consisted of a few thousand 7 minute ferry crossings
between Governors Island and Manhattan. Countless times I missed the last
(3 AM) ferry to the island and had to sleep in my car until the 6 AM
crossing.

"Poutnik" wrote in message
...
Dne 22/12/2015 v 17:19 Bob F napsal(a):
M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:

Like toilet bowl water swirls.

A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water.../#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
might not be able to see it with your toilet water."

I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.


There are too strong forces, fast current speeds
and random turbulent processes
for Coriolis force to have any effect.



When I was in Ecuador, I did my own test. Quite a bit north of the equator,
I filled a wash basin with water and pulled the plug. The water swirled one
way.

AT the equator, I did the same thing, and the water just drained.

A bit south of the equator, I did the same thing, and there wasn't much of
interest.

Further south of the equator, I did the same thing, and the water swirled
the opposite way.

I eliminated water current, toilet bowl rim jet patterns, etc.

Q.E.D.

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:04:27 PM UTC-6, M. Stradbury wrote:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

Only if it's a homosexual ship. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Water Monster

In sci.physics Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22/12/2015 9:06 PM, Poutnik wrote:
Dne 22/12/2015 v 08:58 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
On 22/12/2015 4:19 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:

Do you have any maritime experience? Worked on any kind of ocean
going vessel(s)? Possess any knowledge gained from real life
experience?

Experience of ships? No. How would any of that help in deciding whether
the vessel would suck me down if it sank?

Or do you think there's some sort of mechanism that allows enlightenment
by osmosis?


Nautical society has advantage of collective experience
of huge number of people, surviving the ship sinking.

Even if I had been Nobel laureate for physics,
sailors would know more about surviving on sea than me.

For most things, perhaps. But how many sailors have experience of a
sinking, much less such experience from the the immediate vicinity of
the ship. Those who got sucked down, if any, won't be around to tell the
tale. Those who didn't get sucked down, and survived, would be
counter-examples.

Sylvia.

Ever heard of WWI and WWII?

Lots of ships sunk and lots of detailed records.


--
Jim Pennino

DerbyDad03 posted for all of us...



On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per M. Stradbury:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

Dunno what a capital ship is but am guessing it's big.


This is a ship: ship

This is a capital ship: SHIP

What about UPS or FedEx, they Ship!

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far we

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.

Dne 22/12/2015 v 22:50 M. Stradbury napsal(a):
But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

Be aware of surface tension.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

In article , says...

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

Mike.

M. Stradbury wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far we

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.

Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:07 MJC napsal(a):
In article , says...

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sputnik

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
"artificial satellite," extended from the name of the one launched
by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik "satellite,"
literally "traveling companion" (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi,
"traveling companion of the Earth") from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku,
from Russian so-, s- "with, together" + put' "path, way," from Old
Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- "to tread, go" (see find (v.)) +
agent suffix -nik.






--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:25 Tony Hwang napsal(a):


If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

That is not needed
but it is very difficult to maintain similarity.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:19:12 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:

Like toilet bowl water swirls.

A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water.../#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
might not be able to see it with your toilet water."

I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.

Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.

On 12/23/2015 3:08 AM, Micky wrote:
On 22 Dec 2015 "Bob F" wrote:
M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:

Like toilet bowl water swirls.

A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water.../#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
might not be able to see it with your toilet water."

I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.

Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.

I have never heard anything like that in all my years (50 of them) of
construction, nor have I heard it from the plumbers to whom I have
talked. If flushing a toilet can damage "connections" we better start
building things a lot better.

--
dvus

Dne 23/12/2015 v 11:23 dvus napsal(a):
On 12/23/2015 3:08 AM, Micky wrote:


Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.

I have never heard anything like that in all my years (50 of them) of
construction, nor have I heard it from the plumbers to whom I have
talked. If flushing a toilet can damage "connections" we better start
building things a lot better.

It rather looks like you became a joke victim.
Due random turbulent effects, the result of the toilet splash
is random as well.

What may be the issue
is the design of plumbing wrt the capacity.

If all guests of multi floor hotel
got diarrhea after eating "salmonellized" dinner...

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Micky wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:19:12 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:

Like toilet bowl water swirls.

A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water.../#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium
and Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show
that water (and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you
just might not be able to see it with your toilet water."

I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.

Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.

LOL! Really.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Bob F:
If a big bubvble surrounds you, you are only going down. Lots of
little bubbles, still down. Bubbles in a pipe may carry thing up,
but there is no pipe in this circumstance.

Every bubble means that much less water floating you.

Long, long ago and far, far away part of my misspent youth involved
surfing fairly large waves.

My experience was that the best thing to do while you're in the white
stuff underwater is to relax as completely as possible to conserve air
and swim for the surface only after the white stuff has passed -
because there just is not enough buoyancy or purchase in the white
stuff.

Ditto from my whitewater kayaking days.

"Poutnik" wrote in message
...
Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:07 MJC napsal(a):
In article , says...

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sputnik

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
"artificial satellite," extended from the name of the one launched
by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik "satellite,"
literally "traveling companion" (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi,
"traveling companion of the Earth") from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku,
from Russian so-, s- "with, together" + put' "path, way," from Old
Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- "to tread, go" (see find (v.)) +
agent suffix -nik.

How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?

--
bg

Dne 23/12/2015 v 19:31 Robert Green napsal(a):

How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?

I do not think it has Slavic origin.
It is probably related to kaput .

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...0&search=kaput

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

On 12/22/2015 10:33 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per M. Stradbury:
Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

Dunno what a capital ship is but am guessing it's big.


This is a ship: ship

This is a capital ship: SHIP


An extra-large capital ship: SSHHIIPP

An extra-large capital ship that sprung a leak: SSHHIIPPpppppppppppppppp

--
2 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

"[O]ld beliefs die hard even when demonstrably false." Edward O. Wilson,
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, (First edition, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1998), p. 256.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:31:36 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?

--
bg


It refers to the ill fated US Vanguard program where the US Navy tried
to build a rocket to launch a satellite that was NOT an ICBM design
Sputnik was circling the globe while Vanguard rockets were blowing up
on the pad. They finally got it going after a few highly publicized
failures on TV. In the mean time they dusted off a Redstone missile,
painted NASA colors on it and lobbed one up there.

hah wrote: "An extra-large capital ship: SSHHIIPP "

Yeh, let's define the orig. post "capital ship".

Minimum 500' long, 30,000 gross registered
tons? Or over 1,000' and 80,000GRT?

Titanic was 880'x92', 46,000GRT - rather
narrow for her size, and mostly all hull -
compared to the floating projects circling
the Caribbean today. The fears of being
sucked down with her proved unfounded.