Talk:Project Azorian

I've always considered the official story of "the important half broke off for some mysterious reason and we didn't go back to get it because everyone was tired" a little fishy. I mean, they would have tracked the broken piece as it fell, which means they wouldn't even have to search for it, and its doubtful that hitting the bottom a second time did much more damage than the first time. Thats what they were there to get anyways, so why would they leave after one try? 70.70.136.240 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It does seem like a fairly obvious attempt at disinformation (why tell the Soviets just how much you did learn about their technology when you can lie about it?), but on the other hand it could be true. I doubt many people really know which is the truth. Mark Grant 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Michael White documentary now cited in this article suggests that a large portion of the piece of K-129 being recovered was lost because the "claws" that secured it suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure. (The White video shows the broken Capture Vehicle in a few places. Given the fact that AZORIAN didn't stay secret long after the first attempt, I think the CIA et al probably decided that a second attempt was infeasible from a cost and security standpoint.

Also, in the White documentary, several Lockheed and GLOMAR people said the wreck was very fragile and unstable, so it's not much of a stretch to think it could/would have crumbled after a second plunge to the depths. The Capture Vehicle very much depended on the fact that it was lifting a single, intact piece of wreckage. I doubt trying to lift thousands of little pieces would be nearly as successful or cost-effective and, if the wreck had been totally fragmented after its initial sinking, I doubt the recovery would have been attempted. Warmfuzzygrrl | Talk 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why is it stated that maraging steel is brittle compared to other steels? Maraging steels are fantastically tough, especially for their strength range. Maraging 250 is used in fencing foils specifically for its toughness and crack-resistance; many alloy steels (like 4340) in the same strength range are brittle as glass in comparison. Maraging 250 can have a Kic fracture toughness of 75-100 ksi-in, while even Maraging 350 has a decent 40 ksi-in Kic value. You can find tougher steels, but not at that strength level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.96.171 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Strength and brittleness go together. The attempt to test the soil earlier failed, and they didn't plan for such hard ground. Gah4 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

In this citation in the Conspiracy section, the Moscow Times writer, Gary E. Weir, appears to be manipulating information from The Silent War. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/arts/2008/06/06/364373.htm If we agree that is the case, then this reference should be removed.

In discussing Sewell's book Red Star Rogue, Weir says:

"The author mentions John Pina Craven, chief scientist for the American Polaris Ballistic Missile Project in the 1960s, noting the possibility of a rogue launch. However, an examination of Craven's book "The Silent War" shows that he immediately declared it unlikely and never qualified his conclusion."

This appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation. Here are quotes from The Silent War (ISBN 0-684-87213-7, Simon & Schuster, 1st edition, page 217):

"A highly probable scenario is that the submarine was a rogue and that it was probably a Golf."

"To put it succinctly, there existed a possibility, small though it might be, that the skipper of this rogue submarine was attempting to launch or had actually launched a ballistic missile with a live warhead in the direction of Hawaii. There is also a small possibility that this launch attempt doomed the sub."

These aren't passing remarks on Craven's part, the whole of Chapter 15 discusses the technical and political situation. To read that Craven "immediately declared it unlikely" and "never qualified his conclusion", is a flat out lie (unless, of course, Weir never read The Silent War, as he claims).

My opinion, having read The Silent War, Blind Man's Bluff and Red Star Rogue, is that a lot of people inside and outside the intelligence community are having just a tremendous amount of fun, story-telling and obscuring the facts (or making them up). This confusion, however, does not mean that Wikipedia should quote a questionable source such as Weir. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

From my point of view (Gary Weir) this confusion often arises from not reading the whole story and its context. Craven repeatedly asserts that overriding the defense mechanism on the weapon was small at best, and he spends more time with an accident and accident response scenario that he does dwelling on an attempt at a rogue launch. Weir's objections are well taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.28.226.228 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The link to the Lockheed engineer review has rotted, but archive.org has it. The link is here but I'm a newb here and don't know the best way to insert it. Hopefully one of yall can put it in correctly. Marthinwurer (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

People interested in Project Azorian may want to take part in a discussion I started on the talk page of the map image.

I'm suggesting that it's misleading to have range circles on the map, that they aren't relevant, and that they should be removed. TypoBoy (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply