Talk:Philip Abelson

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

(William M. Connolley 19:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)) http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm

"Father of the Nuclear Submarine"

edit

Rightly or wrongly, Hyman G. Rickover is thought by most| [1] [2] [3] to be the "Father of the Nuclear Submarine" as he is the person who pushed and struggled to make Abelson's concept a reality.

Google's hardly the reliable-source arbitrer of intellectual paternity, but I think it gives a measure of the relative differences in public opinion. In any event, rightly or wrongly, "Father of" statements are dubious honorifics more about media, PR, and public opinion, than some objective truth. Both men deserve significant places in naval reactor history, but on the PR front, I think Rickover is the "Father". he certainly had a lot more to do with the Nautilus' reactor than Abelson. --A. B. (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Jeffries, John (2001). Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Fordham Univ Press. ISBN 0-8232-2110-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), p.162: "'Admiral Rickover', said Powell, '"father of the atomic submarine", is a a great naval officer... It is not equally clear that he is a careful and thorough student of American education.'"
  2. ^ "Submarine Range Called Unlimited; Rickover Says Atomic Craft Can Cruise Under Ice To North Pole and Beyond," The New York Times, December 6, 1957, p.33: "The admiral, who is often called the 'Father of the Atomic Submarine'..."
  3. ^ Galantin, I. J. (1997). Submarine Admiral: From Battlewagons to Ballistic Missiles. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-06675-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help),p. 217: "Chet Holifield... member of the JCAE... said 'Of all the men I dealt with in public service, at least one will go down in history: Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy.'"

See Talk:S-50 (Manhattan Project)

edit

See Talk:S-50 (Manhattan Project) for a discussion of pre-Rickover navy nuclear work. There's probably some editorial research on that page that would help here and vice-versa.

The S-50 article was merged into K-25, but the S-50 talk page remains. The S-50 article will probably get resurrected soon. --A. B. (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ideation & Creation

edit

Abelson certainly deserves the current credit he is receiving for creating an appropriate reactor design and fostering the notion of a nuclear-powered submarine, but make no mistake: Rickover was without question the driving force that made these ideas real. He was the deliberately chosen, highly determined bull-in-a-china-closet that brought the thought into reality.

See what the military head of the Manhattan Project, Leslie R. Groves, said on this point here.

Another great read: a 1954 Time Magazine cover story on Rickover's role. --24.28.6.209 13:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Couple of additional points to ponder in this philosophical discussion:

  • What fate for Abelson (in terms of "fatherhood") if Rickover had chosen a different design (and there were several to choose from...witness USS Seawolf, the 2nd nuclear submarine) for Nautilus? Without any doubt whatsoever, this was absolutely Rickover's choice to make.


Added link today regarding Ross Gunn, who both preceded and led Abelson in developing nuclear submarine concepts. Abelson is certainly *not* the Father of Nuclear Submarines. An honest man, I very much doubt he would welcome the title.--24.28.6.209 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject class rating

edit

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Break into sections

edit

The current article is a single narrative, but it's getting long and contains a lot of different themes. I suggest breaking off an "opinions" section. Abelson had a lot of opinions and I think they are fairly cohesive, and to some degree distinct from the rest of his professional and academic work...enough that I think we could improve the readability of the article by putting such things in a separate section. Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip Abelson. 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) 22:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply