View source for USS Scorpion (SSN-589)

{{short description|Skipjack-class nuclear-powered submarine}}
{{Other ships|USS Scorpion}}
{{Use American English|date=August 2015}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{|{{Infobox ship begin
| infobox caption = yes
}}
{{Infobox ship image
| Ship image = Uss scorpion SSN589.jpg
| Ship caption = USS ''Scorpion'', 22 August 1960, off [[New London, Connecticut]]
}}
{{Infobox ship career
| Hide header = 
| Ship country = United States
| Ship flag = {{USN flag|1960}}
| Ship name = ''Scorpion''
| Ship namesake = 
| Ship ordered = 31 January 1957
| Ship awarded = 
| Ship builder = [[General Dynamics Electric Boat]]
| Ship original cost = 
| Ship laid down = 20 August 1958<ref name="Navy">{{cite web |url=http://www.csp.navy.mil/othboats/589.htm |title=USS Scorpion (SSN 589) May 27, 1968&nbsp;– 99 Men Lost |date=2007 |publisher=[[United States Navy]] |access-date=9 April 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080312204810/http://www.csp.navy.mil/othboats/589.htm |archive-date=12 March 2008}}</ref>
| Ship launched = 29 December 1959<ref name="Navy" />
| Ship sponsor = 
| Ship christened = 
| Ship completed = 
| Ship commissioned = 29 July 1960<ref name="Navy" />
| Ship struck = 30 June 1968<ref name="Navy" />
| Ship homeport = 
| Ship identification = 
| Ship motto = 
| Ship nickname = USS Scrapiron<ref>[https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998/july/why-they-called-scorpion-scrapiron USNI Magazine July 1988]</ref>
| Ship honors = 
| Ship fate = Lost with all 99 crew on 22 May 1968; cause of sinking unknown
| Ship status = Located on the seabed of the Atlantic Ocean, {{coord|32|55|N|33|09|W|display=inline}},<ref>CINCLANTFLEET History Log June 1968 to July 1969, page 104 at 4. a.</ref> in {{convert|3000|m|abbr=on}} of water, {{convert|740|km|nmi|abbr=on}} southwest of the [[Azores]]
| Ship notes = 
| Ship badge = [[File:Uss scorpion SSN589 insigni.jpg|Insignia of USS ''Scorpion'']]
}}
{{Infobox ship characteristics
| Hide header = 
| Header caption = 
| Ship class = {{sclass|Skipjack|submarine}}
| Ship displacement = *{{convert|2880|LT|t|abbr=on|lk=in}} light
* {{convert|3075|LT|t|0|abbr=on}} full
* {{convert|195|LT|t|0|abbr=on}} [[Deadweight tonnage|deadweight]]
| Ship length = {{convert|251|ft|8|in|m|abbr=on}}
| Ship beam = {{convert|31|ft|7.75|in|m|abbr=on}}
| Ship height = 
| Ship draft = {{convert|9.1|m|ftin|abbr=on}}
| Ship depth = 
| Ship propulsion = [[S5W reactor]]
| Ship speed = 
| Ship range = 
| Ship endurance = 
| Ship test depth = 
| Ship capacity = 
| Ship complement = 8 officers, 75 enlisted
| Ship sensors = 
| Ship EW = 
| Ship armament = *6 × {{convert|21|in|mm|abbr=on|0}} torpedo tubes
* 2 × [[Mark 45 torpedo]]es
| Ship notes = 
}}
|}

'''USS ''Scorpion'' (SSN-589)''' was a [[Skipjack-class submarine|''Skipjack''-class]] nuclear-powered submarine that served in the [[United States Navy]], the sixth vessel and second submarine to carry that name.

''Scorpion'' sank on 27 May 1968. She is one of two nuclear submarines that the U.S. Navy has lost, the other being {{USS|Thresher|SSN-593|6}}.{{sfnp|Sontag|Drew|2000|p=432}} She was one of the four submarine disappearances in 1968, the others being the Israeli submarine {{Ship|INS|Dakar}}, the {{Ship|French submarine|Minerve|S647|6}}, and the {{Ship|Soviet submarine|K-129|1960|6}}.

The wreckage of the ''Scorpion'' remains in the North Atlantic Ocean with all its armaments and nuclear reactor.

== Service ==
[[File:Scorpion Launch.jpg|thumb|''USS Scorpion'' slides down the ways at the launch in Groton, Connecticut, on 19 December 1959]]
''Scorpion''{{'}}s keel was laid down 20 August 1958 by [[General Dynamics Electric Boat]] in [[Groton, Connecticut]]. She was [[ship naming and launching|launched]] 19 December 1959, sponsored by Elizabeth S. Morrison, the daughter of the last commander of the [[World War II]]-era {{USS|Scorpion|SS-278}}, Lt. Cdr. Maximilian Gmelich Schmidt (that ship was also lost with all hands, in 1944). ''Scorpion'' was [[ship commissioning|commissioned]] 29 July 1960, with Commander Norman B. Bessac in command.<ref name=DANFS>{{cite DANFS |title= Scorpion VI (SSN-589) |url= http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/s/scorpion-ssn-589-vi.html}}</ref> {{Efn|See [[USS George Washington (SSBN-598)#Construction and launching|USS ''George Washington'']] for information on how that submarine had originally been laid down with the name and hull number, USS ''Scorpion'' [[SSN (hull classification symbol)|SSN-589]], intended to be an attack submarine.}}

=== Service: 1960–1967 ===
Assigned to Submarine Squadron 6, Division 62, ''Scorpion'' departed [[New London, Connecticut]], on 24 August for a two-month European deployment. During that time, she participated in exercises with [[United States Sixth Fleet|6th Fleet]] units and [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]]-member navies. After returning to [[New England]] in late October, she trained along the Eastern Seaboard until May 1961. On 9 August 1961, she returned to New London, moving to [[Norfolk, Virginia]], a month later.<ref name=DANFS /> In 1962, she earned a [[Navy Unit Commendation]].<ref>[https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/manuscripts/c/secretary-of-the-navy-john-h-chaffee/navy-unit-commendation-naval-reconnaissance-and-technical-support-center.html  "Naval Unit Commendation"]</ref>

Norfolk was ''Scorpion''{{'}}s homeport for the remainder of her career, and she specialized in developing nuclear [[submarine warfare]] tactics. Varying roles from hunter to hunted, she participated in exercises along the Atlantic Coast, and in [[Bermuda]] and [[Puerto Rico]] operating areas. From June 1963 to May 1964, she underwent an [[Refueling and Overhaul|overhaul]] at [[Charleston, South Carolina|Charleston]]. She resumed duty in late spring, but regular duties were again interrupted from 4 August to 8 October for a transatlantic patrol. In the spring of 1965, she conducted a similar patrol in European waters.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

In 1966, she deployed for special operations. After completing those assignments, her commanding officer received a [[Navy Commendation Medal]] for outstanding leadership, foresight, and professional skill. Other ''Scorpion'' officers and crewmen were also cited for meritorious achievement.<ref name=DANFS /> ''Scorpion'' is reputed to have entered an inland Russian sea during a "Northern Run" in 1966, where the crew filmed a Soviet missile launch through her periscope before fleeing from Soviet Navy ships.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

=== Overhaul: 1967 ===
On 1 February 1967, ''Scorpion'' entered [[Norfolk Naval Shipyard]] for a refueling overhaul. Instead of a much-needed complete overhaul, though, she received only emergency repairs to get quickly back on duty. The preferred [[SUBSAFE]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gdeb.com/suppliers/10_quality/SQ_Qual_Conf_2008/1-2%2520Supplier%2520Training%2520-%2520SUBSAFE%2520ProgramRev1.ppt |title=''Submarine Safety Program'' (SUBSAFE) |website=Electric Boat Corporation |access-date=23 February 2019 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528155633/http://www.gdeb.com/suppliers/10_quality/SQ_Qual_Conf_2008/1-2%20Supplier%20Training%20-%20SUBSAFE%20ProgramRev1.ppt |archive-date=28 May 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navsea.navy.mil/NAVINST/04855-034A.pdf |title=Procedures for Qualification and Authorization of Activities to Perform SUBSAFE Work |date=6 November 2006 |website=[[NAVSEA]] |access-date=23 February 2019 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130228150132/http://www.navsea.navy.mil/NAVINST/04855-034A.pdf |archive-date=28 February 2013}}</ref> program required increased submarine overhaul times, from 9 to 36 months. SUBSAFE required intensive vetting of submarine component quality, coupled with various improvements and intensified structural inspections&nbsp;– particularly of hull welding, using ultrasonic testing.

Cold War pressures had prompted U.S. Submarine Force Atlantic ([[ComSubLant|SUBLANT]]) officers to cut corners. The last overhaul of the ''Scorpion'' cost one-seventh of those performed on other nuclear submarines at the same time. This was the result of concerns about the "high percentage of time offline" for nuclear attack submarines, estimated at 40% of total available duty time.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

''Scorpion''{{'}}s original "full overhaul" was reduced in scope. Long-overdue SUBSAFE work, such as a new central valve control system, was not performed. Crucially, her emergency system was not corrected for the same problems that destroyed ''Thresher''. While [[Charleston Naval Shipyard]] claimed the emergency main ballast tank blow (EMBT) system worked as-is, SUBLANT claimed it did not, and their EMBT was "tagged out" (listed as unusable). Perceived problems with overhaul duration led to a delay on all SUBSAFE work in 1967.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

[[Chief of Naval Operations]] Admiral [[David Lamar McDonald]] approved ''Scorpion''{{'}}s reduced overhaul on 17 June 1966. On 20 July, McDonald deferred SUBSAFE extensions, otherwise deemed essential since 1963.{{verify source|date=December 2015}}
<!-- In December 1968, the Pentagon stated that Scorpion was due another overhaul in 1969. [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19681217&id=FxwzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tugFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3611,533836] -->

=== Service: 1967–1968 ===
[[File:Tallahatchie County AVB-2 and USS Scorpion.jpg|thumb|{{USS|Tallahatchie County|LST-1154|2}} with ''Scorpion'' alongside, outside [[Claywall Harbor]], [[Naples]], Italy, in April 1968 (shortly before ''Scorpion'' departed on her last voyage). This is one of the last photographs taken of ''Scorpion'' before her loss.]]

In late October 1967, ''Scorpion'' started refresher training and weapons-system acceptance tests, and was given a new commanding officer, Francis Slattery. Following type training out of Norfolk, Virginia, she got underway on 15 February 1968 for a Mediterranean Sea deployment. She operated with the 6th Fleet into May and then headed west for home.<ref name=DANFS />

''Scorpion'' suffered several mechanical malfunctions, including a chronic problem with [[freon]] leakage from refrigeration systems. An electrical fire occurred in an escape trunk when a water leak shorted out a shore power connection. No evidence was found that ''Scorpion''{{'}}s speed was restricted in May 1968, although it was conservatively observing a depth limitation of {{convert|500|ft|m}}, due to the incomplete implementation of planned post-''Thresher'' safety checks and modifications.{{sfnp|Sewell|Preisler|2008}}

After departing the Mediterranean on 16 May, ''Scorpion'' dropped two men at [[Naval Station Rota Spain|Naval Station Rota]] in Spain, one for a family emergency and one for health reasons. Some U.S. [[ballistic missile submarine]]s (SSBNs) operated from the U.S. Naval base Rota; USS ''Scorpion'' is thought to have provided noise cover for {{USS|John C. Calhoun|SSBN-630|6}} when they both departed to the Atlantic. Along with Soviet intelligence trawlers, Soviet fast nuclear attack submarines{{sfnp|Offley|2007}} were attempting to detect and follow the U.S. submarines going out of Rota, in this case, two fast 32-knot Soviet {{sclass2|November|submarine|0}} hunter-killer subs.{{sfnp|Sewell|Preisler|2008}}

''Scorpion'' was then detailed to observe Soviet naval activities in the Atlantic in the vicinity of the Azores. An [[Echo-class submarine|''Echo II''-class submarine]] was operating with this Soviet task force, as well as a Russian guided-missile destroyer.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-07/why-they-called-scorpion-scrapiron |title=Why they called the Scorpion 'Scrapiron' |last=Bradley |first=Mark A. |date=July 1998 |journal=[[Proceedings (magazine)|Proceedings]] |publisher=[[United States Naval Institute]] |location=[[Annapolis]] |volume=124 |pages=30–38 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Having observed and listened to the Soviet units, ''Scorpion'' prepared to head back to Naval Station Norfolk.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

== Disappearance: May 1968 ==
''Scorpion'' attempted to send radio traffic to Naval Station Rota for an unusually long period beginning shortly before midnight on 20 May and ending after midnight on 21 May, but was only able to reach a Navy communications station in [[Nea Makri]], Greece, which forwarded the messages to [[Commander, Submarine Force Atlantic|COMSUBLANT]].{{sfnp|Sewell|Preisler|2008}} Lt. John Roberts was handed Commander Slattery's last message that he was closing on the Soviet submarine and research group, running at a steady {{cvt|15|kn|km/h mph||}} at a depth of {{cvt|350|ft|}} "to begin surveillance of the Soviets."{{sfnp|Sewell|Preisler|2008}} ''Scorpion ''was expected to arrive at her homeport of Norfolk, Virginia, on 27 May at 1300 local time. After she was overdue for several hours, the Atlantic fleet launched a sea and air search during the peak search period from 28 to 30 May involving as many as 55 ships and 35 search aircraft. A brief radio message including ''Scorpion's'' codename ''Brandywine'' was received by several search parties on the evening of 29 May. The source could not be identified in the search area derived from the bearings of the radio message.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/CaseFiles/Scorpion%20Submarine/USS%20Scorpion%20search%20messages_FINAL.pdf |title=USS Scorpion search messages FINAL|access-date=2021-10-28 |date=3 June 1968|publisher=Department of Defence, CINTLANT}}</ref><ref name=baltimore93>{{Cite news |url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/1993/11/21/after-25-years-of-loss-families-resent-navys-silence-about-sub/ |title=After 25 years of loss, families resent Navy's silence about sub |first=Tom |last=Keyser |date=21 November 1993 |newspaper=[[The Baltimore Sun]] |access-date=7 January 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141214015649/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-11-21/news/1993325004_1_scorpion-related-to-mrs-cold-war |archive-date=14 December 2014}}</ref>

=== Search: 1968 ===
[[File:USS Scorpion (SSN-589);U136658.jpg|thumb|1968 U.S. Navy photo of the bow section of ''Scorpion'', by the crew of [[bathyscaphe]] [[Bathyscaphe Trieste II|''Trieste II'']]]]

The Navy suspected possible failure and launched a search, but ''Scorpion'' and her crew were declared "presumed lost" on 5 June. Her name was struck from the [[Naval Vessel Register]] on 30 June. The search continued with a team of mathematical consultants led by [[John Piña Craven]], the chief scientist of the Navy's Special Projects Division. They employed the methods of [[Bayesian search theory]], initially developed during the search for a hydrogen bomb lost off the coast of Palomares, Spain, in January 1966 in the [[1966 Palomares B-52 crash|Palomares B-52 crash]].<ref name="mcgrayne">{{cite book |last1=McGrayne |first1=Sharon Bertsch |title=The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines & Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy |pages=97– | date=2011 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-18822-6 }}</ref>

Some reports indicate that a large and secret search was launched three days before ''Scorpion'' was expected back from patrol. This and other declassified information led to speculation that the Navy knew of ''Scorpion''{{'}}s destruction before the public search was launched.{{sfnp|Offley|2007|pp=241–}}

At the end of October 1968, the Navy's oceanographic research ship {{USNS|Mizar|AGOR-11|2}} located sections of the hull of ''Scorpion'' on the seabed, about {{convert|400|nmi|km|abbr=on|}} southwest of the [[Azores]]<ref name=pshow>{{cite magazine |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EyoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66 |title=Strange Devices That Found the Sunken Sub Scorpion |magazine=[[Popular Science]] |date=April 1969 |publisher=Bonnier Corporation |pages=66–71 |issn=0161-7370 |access-date=23 February 2019}}</ref> under more than {{convert|3000|m|ft|abbr=on||order=flip}} of water. This was after the Navy had released sound tapes from its underwater [[SOSUS]] listening system, which contained the sounds of the destruction of ''Scorpion''.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/1968-us-nuclear-submarine-went-russia-super-secret-spy-18379|title=In 1968, A US Nuclear Submarine Went On a Russia Super Secret Spy Mission (And It Never Came Back)|last=Mizokami|first=Kyle|date=2016-11-13|website=The National Interest|language=en|access-date=2019-07-23}}</ref> The court of inquiry was subsequently reconvened, and other vessels, including the [[bathyscaphe]] [[Trieste II (Bathyscaphe)|''Trieste II'']], were dispatched to the scene to collect pictures and other data.

Craven received much credit for locating the wreckage of ''Scorpion'', although Gordon Hamilton was instrumental in defining a compact "search box" wherein the wreck was ultimately found. He was an acoustics expert who pioneered the use of [[hydroacoustics]] to pinpoint Polaris missile splashdown locations, and he had established a listening station in the Canary Islands, which obtained a clear signal of the vessel's pressure hull imploding as it passed [[Submarine depth ratings#Crush depth|crush depth]]. Naval Research Laboratory scientist Chester Buchanan used a towed camera sled of his own design aboard ''Mizar'' and finally located ''Scorpion''.<ref name="pshow" />

=== Observed damage ===
{{unreferenced section|date=September 2016}}
[[File:Skipjack class submarine 3D drawing.svg|thumb|Skipjack-class submarine drawing:<br />1. Sonar arrays<br />
 2. Torpedo room<br />3. Operations compartment<br />4. Reactor compartment<br />5. Auxiliary machinery space<br />6. Engine room]]
The bow of ''Scorpion'' appears to have skidded upon impact with the [[Globigerina#Globigerina ooze|globigerina ooze]] on the sea floor, digging a sizable trench. The [[Sail (submarine)|sail]] had been dislodged, as the [[Teardrop hull|hull]] of the operations compartment upon which it perched disintegrated, and was lying on its [[port side]]. One of ''Scorpion''{{'}}s running lights was in the open position, as if it had been on the surface at the time of the mishap, although it may have been left in the open position during the vessel's recent nighttime stop at Rota. One ''Trieste II'' pilot who dived on ''Scorpion'' said that the shock of the [[implosion (mechanical process)|implosion]] might have knocked the light into the open position.

The secondary Navy investigation&nbsp;– using extensive photographic, video, and eyewitness inspections of the wreckage in 1969&nbsp;– suggested that ''Scorpion''{{'}}s hull was crushed by implosion forces as it sank below crush depth. The Structural Analysis Group, which included [[NAVSEASYSCOM|Naval Ship Systems Command]]'s Submarine Structures director [[Peter Palermo]], plainly saw that the torpedo room was intact, though it had been pinched by excessive sea pressure. The operations compartment collapsed at frame 33, this being the king frame of the hull, reaching its structural limit first. The conical/cylindrical transition piece at frame 67 followed instantly. The boat was broken in two by massive [[hydrostatics|hydrostatic]] pressure at an estimated depth of {{convert|1530|ft|m|abbr=on}}. The operations compartment was largely obliterated by sea pressure, and the engine room had telescoped {{convert|50|ft|m|abbr=on}} forward into the hull due to collapse pressure, when the cone-to-cylinder transition junction failed between the auxiliary machine space and the engine room.

The only damage to the torpedo room compartment appeared to be a hatch missing from the forward escape trunk. Palermo pointed out that this would have occurred when water pressure entered the torpedo room at the moment of implosion.

The sail was ripped off, as the hull beneath it folded inward. The propulsion shaft came out of the boat; the engineering section had collapsed inward in a telescoping fashion. The broken boat fell another {{convert|9000|ft|m|abbr=on}} to the ocean floor.

Photos taken in 1986 by [[DSV Alvin|''Alvin,'']] released by the Navy in 2012, show the broken inboard end of the propulsion shaft.
[[File:Shaft end still.jpg|thumb|Broken inboard end of ''Scorpion'' shaft lying on ocean bottom]]
[[File:Bow part Scorpion.jpg|thumb|Bow section of the ''Scorpion'']]
<!-- '''That doesn't belong here:'''
He also pointed out that the aft escape trunk hatch was open and the fairing was slightly dislodged, though it was still on its hinges. This conclusion was drawn by Palermo eighteen years after ''Scorpion'' was lost, when he reviewed new images taken by ''[[Jason Junior]]'' and [[DSV Alvin|''Alvin'']] as part of a Navy-[[Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution]] survey of ''Scorpion''{{'}}s wreck site.

Palermo could not rule out sabotage or collision as "plausible" causes of destruction. He writes that the position of the masts and other evidence possibly indicate ''Scorpion'' was near the surface "just prior to sinking". However, other analysis in the COI concludes the damage to masts, antennas and hoists is mere consequential damage from detachment of the sail and parting of the hydraulic piping. Palermo admits that a precursor signal that occurred some 22 minutes prior to the acoustic train left by the sinking "could have been the results of an internal explosion". He further states that "some of the remaining 14 acoustic events do have some of the characteristics of explosions", though he qualifies this by writing that such characteristics "may" also be attributed to other sources.

The submersible ''Alvin'' did take pictures of the inboard end of the propulsion shaft in 1986. However, the Navy kept this classified for many years and only recently revealed its existence. The picture shows that the locking lip has gone. This lip was required to keep the shaft connected to the drive train in the bolted coupling. Cracking or shear of this lip is the root cause of the detachment of the shaft. -->

== Navy investigations ==

=== Court of inquiry report: 1968 ===
Shortly after her sinking, the Navy assembled a [[Naval Board of Inquiry|court of inquiry]] to investigate the incident and to publish a report regarding the likely causes for its loss. The court was presided over by Vice Admiral [[Bernard L. Austin]], who had presided over the inquiry into the loss of {{USS|Thresher|SSN-593|2}}. The report's findings were first made public on 31 January 1969. While ruling out sabotage, the report said: "The certain cause of the loss of the ''Scorpion'' cannot be ascertained from evidence now available."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1969/02/01/archives/loss-of-scorpion-baffles-inquiry-navy-rules-out-sabotage-in-subs.html |title=Loss of Scorpion Baffles Inquiry |date=1 February 1969 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |pages=1, 14}}</ref>

In 1984, the ''[[The Virginian-Pilot|Norfolk Virginian-Pilot'' and ''The Ledger-Star]]'' obtained documents related to the inquiry, and reported that the likely cause of the disaster was the detonation of a [[torpedo]] while the ''Scorpion''{{'}}s own crew attempted to disarm it.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/17/us/navy-indicates-cause-of-1968-sub-sinking.html |title=Navy Indicates Cause Of 1968 Sub Sinking |agency=[[United Press International]] |date=17 December 1984 |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=22 May 2017}}</ref> The U.S. Navy declassified many of the inquiry's documents in 1993.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://pilotonline.com/news/military/local/new-evidence-suggests-soviets-may-have-sunk-the-sub-scorpion/article_7f381586-7267-550e-895a-93b6335e2a93.html |title=New evidence suggests Soviets may have sunk the sub Scorpion 40 years ago |last=Wiltrout |first=Kate |date=18 May 2008 |work=The Virginian-Pilot |access-date=22 May 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160521122948/http://pilotonline.com/news/military/local/new-evidence-suggests-soviets-may-have-sunk-the-sub-scorpion/article_7f381586-7267-550e-895a-93b6335e2a93.html |archive-date=21 May 2016}}</ref>

=== Naval Ordnance Laboratory report: 1970 ===
An extensive, year-long analysis of Gordon Hamilton's hydroacoustic signals of the submarine's demise was conducted by Robert Price, Ermine Christian, and Peter Sherman of the [[Naval Ordnance Laboratory]] (NOL). All three physicists were experts on undersea explosions, their sound signatures, and their destructive effects. Price was also an open critic of Craven. Their opinion, presented to the Navy as part of the phase II investigation, was that the death noises likely occurred at {{convert|2000|ft|m|abbr=on}} when the hull failed. Fragments then continued in a free fall for another {{convert|9000|ft|m|abbr=on}}. This appears to differ from conclusions drawn by Craven and Hamilton, who pursued an independent set of experiments as part of the same phase II probe, demonstrating that alternate interpretations of the hydroacoustic signals were possibly based on the submarine's depth at the time it was stricken and other operational conditions.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

The Structural Analysis Group (SAG) concluded that an explosive event was unlikely and was highly dismissive of Craven and Hamilton's tests. The SAG physicists argued that the absence of a bubble pulse, which invariably occurs in an underwater explosion, is absolute evidence that no torpedo explosion occurred outside or inside the hull. Craven had attempted to prove that ''Scorpion''{{'}}s hull could "swallow" the bubble pulse of a torpedo detonation by having Gordon Hamilton detonate small charges next to air-filled steel containers.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

The 1970 Naval Ordnance Laboratory "Letter",<ref name=2013MFScorpion>{{cite web |last1=Potts |first1=J. R. |title=Our continuation of the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) Nuclear Attack Submarine story |url=http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail-page-2.asp?ship_id=USS-Scorpion-SSN589 |website=Military Factory |access-date=17 August 2014 |archive-date=19 August 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819084413/http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail-page-2.asp?ship_id=USS-Scorpion-SSN589 |url-status=dead }}</ref> the acoustics study of ''Scorpion'' destruction sounds by Price and Christian, was a supporting study within the SAG report. In its conclusions and recommendations section, the NOL acoustic study states: "The first SCORPION acoustic event was not caused by a large explosion, either internal or external to the hull. The probable depth of occurrence&nbsp; ... and the spectral characteristics of the signal support this. In fact, it is very unlikely that any of the ''Scorpion'' acoustic events were caused by explosions."<ref name="2013MFScorpion" />

The NOL based many of its findings on an extensive acoustic analysis of the torpedoing and sinking of the decommissioned submarine {{USS|Sterlet|SS-392|2}} in the Pacific in early 1969, seeking to compare its acoustic signals to those generated by ''Scorpion''. Price found the Navy's scheduled sinking of ''Sterlet'' fortunate. Nonetheless, ''Sterlet'' was a small World War II-era diesel-electric submarine of a vastly different design and construction from ''Scorpion'' with regard to its pressure hull and other characteristics. Its sinking resulted in three identifiable acoustic signals, as compared to ''Scorpion''{{'}}s 15.<ref name="2013MFScorpion" />{{better source needed|date=June 2018}}

The NOL acoustics study provided a highly debated explanation as to how ''Scorpion'' may have reached its crush depth by anecdotally referring to the near-loss incident of the diesel submarine {{USS|Chopper|SS-342|2}} in January 1969, when a power problem caused her to sink almost to crush depth, before surfacing.<ref>{{Cite web |title=H-019-3 Navy Non-Combat Submarine Losses |url=https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-019/h-019-3.html |access-date=2023-07-20 |website=NHHC |language=en-US}}</ref>

In the same May 2003 N77 letter excerpted above (see 1. with regard to the Navy's view of a forward explosion), however, the following statement appears to dismiss the NOL theory, and again unequivocally point the finger toward an explosion forward:{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

{{blockquote|The Navy has extensively investigated the loss of ''Scorpion'' through the initial court of inquiry and the 1970 and 1987 reviews by the Structural Analysis Group. Nothing in those investigations caused the Navy to change its conclusion that an unexplained catastrophic event occurred.}}

=== Wreck site ===
[[File:Bow Scorpion.jpg|thumb|300px|The bow section of the ''Scorpion'' contains two nuclear [[Mark 45 torpedo|Mark 45 antisubmarine torpedo]]es]]
[[File:USS Scorpion (SSN-589) H97221k.jpg|thumb|A 1985 image of the submarine's fractured stern section]]

The remains of the ''Scorpion'' are reportedly resting on a sandy seabed at {{nowrap|{{coord|32|54.9|N|33|08.89|W|type:event_scale:20000000_region:XA}}}} in the North Atlantic Ocean.<ref name=opnav>Command History of the Commander in Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet, OPNAV REPORT 5750-1, July 1968 – June 1969, p. 104 at 4. a.</ref> The wreck lies at a depth of {{convert|3000|m|ft|abbr=on|order=flip}} about {{convert|400|nmi|km|abbr=on}} southwest of the Azores on the eastern edge of the [[Sargasso Sea]].<ref name=opnav/>

The U.S. Navy periodically revisits the site to determine whether wreckage has been disturbed and to test for the release of any fissile materials from the submarine's nuclear reactor or two nuclear weapons. Except for a few photographs taken by deep-water submersibles in 1968 and 1985, the U.S. Navy has never made public any physical surveys it has conducted on the wreck. The last photos were taken by [[Robert Ballard]] and a team of oceanographers from Woods Hole using the [[submersible]] Alvin in 1985. The U.S. Navy secretly lent Ballard the submersible to visit the wreck sites of the ''Thresher'' and ''Scorpion''. In exchange for his work, the U.S. Navy then allowed Ballard, a USNR officer, to use the same submersible to search for {{RMS|Titanic}}.<ref>[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]], 2 June 2008</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title='TITANIC' DISCOVERY WAS BYPRODUCT OF MILITARY QUEST |url=https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2008/11/24/titanic-discovery-was-byproduct-of-military-quest/ |access-date=2023-06-23 |website=Tampa Bay Times |language=en}}</ref>

Due to the radioactive nature of the ''Scorpion'' wreck site, the U.S. Navy has had to publish what specific environmental sampling it has done of the [[sediment]], water, and marine life around the sunken submarine to establish what impact it has had on the [[Abyssal plain|deep-ocean environment]]. The information is contained within an annual public report on the U.S. Navy's [[environmental monitoring]] for all U.S. nuclear-powered ships and boats. The reports explain the methodology for conducting deep-sea monitoring from both surface vessels and submersibles. These reports say the lack of radioactivity outside the wreck shows the nuclear fuel aboard the submarine remains intact and no [[uranium]] in excess of levels expected from the fallout from past atmospheric testing of [[nuclear weapon]]s has been detected during naval inspections. Likewise, the two nuclear-tipped Mark 45 torpedoes that were lost when the ''Scorpion'' sank show no signs of instability.{{citation needed|date=May 2024}} The plutonium and uranium cores of these weapons likely corroded to a heavy, insoluble material soon after the sinking. The materials remain at or close to their original location inside the boat's torpedo room. If the corroded materials were released outside the submarine, their density and insolubility would cause them to settle into the sediment.<ref>[https://www.thoughtco.com/table-of-densities-of-common-substances-603976  "Density of Uranium is 18.7; Plutonium 19.8 -- as compared to sea water at 1.03"]</ref>{{synthesis inline|date=May 2024|reason= Needs reliable source that says this in relation to this incident and not an OR/SYN interpretations of element densities.}}

=== Call for inquiry: 2012 ===
In November 2012, the [[United States Submarine Veterans Inc. (USSVI)|U.S. Submarine Veterans]], an organization with over 13,800 members, asked the U.S. Navy to reopen the investigation on the sinking of USS ''Scorpion''. The Navy rejected the request. A private group including family members of the lost submariners stated they would investigate the wreckage on their own, since it was located in international waters.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2012/11/10/scorpion-expedition-navy/1692343/ |title=Submarine vets call for USS Scorpion investigation |first=Dan |last=Vergano |date=16 November 2012 |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |access-date=17 March 2014}}</ref>

== Theories about the loss ==
=== Hydrogen explosion during battery charge ===
Retired acoustics expert Bruce Rule, a long-time analyst for the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS), wrote that a [[Hydrogen safety|hydrogen explosion]] sank ''Scorpion.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iusscaa.org/articles/brucerule/ |title=The Commentaries of Bruce Rule |website=IUSSCAA.org |access-date=23 February 2019}}</ref>

Dave Oliver, a retired rear admiral who served in both diesel boats and nuclear submarines, wrote in his book ''Against the Tide'' that ''Scorpion'' was lost as a result of hydrogen build-up due to changes in the ventilation lineup while proceeding to periscope depth. After analysis of the ship's battery cells, this is the leading theory for the loss of ''Scorpion.''<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.navalsubleague.com/assets/tsr%20august%20issue%20web%202015.pdf |title=Respect For Authority – Overrated? |first=Dave |last=Oliver |author-link=David R. Oliver Jr. |date=August 2015 |journal=The Submarine Review |pages=116–124 |access-date=19 January 2018 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170531225941/http://www.navalsubleague.com/assets/tsr%20august%20issue%20web%202015.pdf |archive-date=31 May 2017 }}</ref> This is consistent with two small explosions aboard the submarine, a half-second apart, that were picked up by [[hydrophone]]s.<ref name=":0" />

=== Accidental activation of torpedo ===
The classified version of the U.S. Navy's court of inquiry's report, released in 1993, listed accidents involving the [[Mark 37 torpedo]] as three of the most probable causes for the loss of submarine,<ref>N.Polmar ' Another Submarine is Missing, in 'The death of USS Thresher'. 2nd ed. Chilton Books (2001). First Lyons.(2017), p166-168</ref> including a hot-running torpedo, an accidentally or deliberately launched weapon, or the inadvertent activation of a torpedo by stray voltage. The acoustic homing torpedo, in a fully ready condition and lacking a propeller guard, is theorized by some to have started running within the tube. Released from the tube, the torpedo then somehow became fully armed and engaged its nearest target: ''Scorpion'' herself.<ref name="friedman 20-21">{{cite book |last1=Friedman |first1=Norman |title=U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History |url=https://archive.org/details/ussubmarinessinc1945frie |url-access=limited |date=1994 |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |isbn=1-55750-260-9 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/ussubmarinessinc1945frie/page/n31 20]–21}}</ref>

=== Explosion of torpedo inside sub ===
A later theory was that a fire in the torpedo room had caused a torpedo to explode in the tube. The book ''[[Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage|Blind Man's Bluff]]'' documents findings and investigation by John Craven, who was the chief scientist of the Navy's Special Projects Office, which had management responsibility for the design, development, construction, operational test and evaluation, and maintenance of the [[UGM-27 Polaris]] fleet missile system. Craven surmised that a faulty battery had overheated.{{sfnp|Sontag|Drew|2000|p=432}} The Mark 46 [[silver–zinc battery]] used in the Mark 37 torpedo had a tendency to overheat, and in extreme cases could cause a fire that was strong enough to cause a low-order detonation of the warhead. If such a detonation had occurred, it might have opened the boat's large torpedo-loading hatch and caused ''Scorpion'' to flood and sink. However, while Mark 46 batteries have been known to generate so much heat that the torpedo casings blistered, none are known to have damaged a boat or caused an explosion.<ref>{{cite book |first=Stephen |last=Johnson |title=Silent Steel: The Mysterious Death of the Nuclear Attack Sub USS Scorpion |location=[[Hoboken, NJ]] |publisher=[[John Wiley & Sons]] |year=2006 |page=304 |isbn=978-0-471-26737-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780471267379 |url-access=limited }}</ref>

Craven mentions that he did not work on the Mark 37 torpedo's propulsion system and became aware of the possibility of a battery explosion only 20 years after the loss of ''Scorpion''. In his book ''The Silent War'', he recounts a simulation run by former ''Scorpion'' [[executive officer]] Lieutenant Commander Robert Fountain Jr. Fountain was told he was headed home at 18 knots (33&nbsp;km/h) at a depth of his choice, then there was an alarm of "hot-running torpedo". Fountain responded with "right full rudder", a quick turn that would activate a safety device and keep the torpedo from arming. Then, an explosion in the torpedo room was introduced. Fountain ordered emergency procedures to surface the boat, Craven wrote, "but instead, she continued to plummet, reaching collapse depth and imploding in 90 seconds&nbsp;– one second shy of the acoustic record of the actual event."{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

Craven had long believed ''Scorpion'' was struck by her own torpedo, but revised his views during the mid-1990s, when he learned that engineers testing Mark 46 batteries at [[Keyport, Washington]], just before the ''Scorpion's'' loss, said the batteries leaked electrolyte and sometimes burned while outside their casings during lifetime shock, heat, and cold testing. Although the battery manufacturer was accused of building bad batteries, it was later able to successfully prove its batteries were no more prone to failure than those made by other manufacturers.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

=== Intentional firing of defective torpedo ===
Twenty years later, Craven learned that the boat could have been destroyed by a "hot-running torpedo." Other subs in the fleet had replaced their defective torpedo batteries, but the Navy wanted ''Scorpion'' to complete its mission first. If ''Scorpion'' had fired a defective torpedo, it could have sought out a target and turned back to strike the sub that launched it.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Sharon |last1=McGrayne |title=The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines & Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy |url=https://archive.org/details/theorythatwouldn0000mcgr |url-access=registration |location=New Haven & London |publisher=[[Yale University Press]] |year=2011 |page=[https://archive.org/details/theorythatwouldn0000mcgr/page/203 203] |isbn=978-0-300-16969-0}}</ref>

=== Structural damage ===
Photographs of the ''Scorpion'' wreck show the submarine's detached shaft and propeller, missing a rotor blade. Some experienced U.S. submariners attribute the loss of the submarine to flooding caused by the detached shaft.<ref>N. Polmar. Another Submarine is Missing in Norman Polmar the Death of USS Thresher.  First Lyon Press (Globe Pequot) 2001, 2017) p 161-172</ref><ref>N. Polmar; The death of USS Thresher, 2nd ed; First Lyon, (2004, 2017) p. 167</ref> Given that antisubmarine torpedoes were designed to seek the sound of the cavitation of the target submarine's propeller, this could be damage caused by such a weapon.<ref>N. Friedman. Naval Institute to US Naval Weapons. fifth edition USNI Annapolis & D.Owen. History of anti submarine warfare (2007) p. 208.</ref>

=== Malfunction of trash disposal unit ===
During the 1968 inquiry, Vice Admiral Arnold F. Shade testified that he believed that a malfunction of the trash disposal unit (TDU) caused the disaster. Shade theorized that the boat was flooded when the TDU was operated at [[periscope depth]] and that other subsequent failures of material or personnel while dealing with the TDU-induced flooding led to the submarine's demise.<ref name="HoustonChronicle 1993-05-21 #1">{{cite news |url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1993_1130936 |title=A long and deep mystery/Scorpion crewman says sub's '68 sinking was preventable |first=Stephen |last=Johnson |date=23 May 1993 |newspaper=[[Houston Chronicle]] |publisher=[[Hearst Corporation]] |access-date=27 June 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090208230717/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1993_1130936 |archive-date=8 February 2009 }}</ref>

=== Soviet attack ===
The book ''All Hands Down'' by Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler (Simon and Schuster, 2008) concludes that ''Scorpion'' was destroyed while en route to gather intelligence on a Soviet naval group conducting operations in the Atlantic.{{sfnp|Sewell|Preisler|2008|p=288}}

Ed Offley's book ''Scorpion Down'' promotes a hypothesis suggesting that ''Scorpion'' was sunk by a Soviet submarine during a standoff that started days before 22 May. Offley also cites that it occurred roughly at the time of the submarine's intelligence-gathering mission, for which she was redirected from her original heading for home. According to Offley, the Soviet flotilla had just been harassed by {{USS|Haddo|SSN-604|6}}, another U.S. submarine.{{sfnp|Offley|2007|p=480}} 

Both ''All Hands Down'' and ''Scorpion Down'' point toward involvement by the [[KGB]] spy ring led by [[John Anthony Walker Jr.]] in the heart of the U.S. Navy's communications, stating that it could have known that ''Scorpion'' was coming to investigate the Soviet flotilla. According to this theory, both navies agreed to hide the truth about both USS ''Scorpion'' and [[Soviet submarine K-129 (1960)|K-129]] incidents. Several USN and RN submarines collided with Soviet ''Echo''-class subs in Russian and British waters in this period, showing greatly enhanced aggression in Soviet Navy sub operations in 1968. The navy Minister in the British Labour government noted 11 such deliberate collisions.<ref>D. Owen. History of Anti-Sub Warfare.USNI. Annapolis (2007) p 207-208.</ref> Commander Roger Lane Nott, Royal Navy commander of {{HMS|Splendid|S106|6}} during the 1982 [[Falklands War]], stated that a Soviet submarine entered the [[Firth of Clyde]] channel in Scotland in 1972, and ''Conqueror'' was given the order to "chase it out". The Soviets realized that they were being followed, and "a very aggressive Soviet captain turned his submarine and drove her straight at HMS ''Conqueror''. It had been an extremely close call."{{sfnp|White|2006|p=39}}

According to a translated article from ''[[Pravda]]'', Moscow never issued a "fire" command during the Cold War.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://rusnavy.com/history/events/scorpion.htm |title=Has the "Fire!" Command Sounded in the Compartments of the Cold War? |newspaper=[[Pravda]] |via=RusNavy.com}}</ref> This is disputed by Royal Navy officers: "there had been other occasions when harassed Russians had fired torpedoes to scare off trails".{{sfnp|White|2006|p=39}}

=== U.S. Navy conclusions ===
The results of the U.S. Navy's various investigations into the loss of ''Scorpion'' are inconclusive. While the court of inquiry never endorsed Craven's torpedo theory regarding the loss of ''Scorpion'', its "findings of facts" released in 1993 carried Craven's torpedo theory at the head of a list of possible causes of ''Scorpion''{{'}}s loss.<ref name="SubVets">{{cite web |last1=Staff |title=USS Scorpion – US Navy Investigation and Conclusions |url=http://coloradosubvets.org/uss-scorpion/ |website=Southern Colorado Submarine Veterans |access-date=October 21, 2022 |quote=... the Navy continues to attach strong credence to Craven’s view that an explosion destroyed her, as is evidenced by this excerpt from a May 2003 letter from the Navy’s Submarine Warfare Division (N77), specifically written by Admiral P.F. Sullivan on behalf of Vice Admiral John J. Grossenbacher (Commander Naval Submarine Forces), the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Reactors, and others in the US Navy regarding its view of alternative sinking theories: “The first cataclysmic event was of such magnitude that the only possible conclusion is that a cataclysmic event (explosion) occurred resulting in uncontrolled flooding (most likely the forward compartments).”}}</ref><ref name="Together We Served">{{cite web |last1=Slattery (Keebs/Slatts), CSC |first1=Michael |title=Slattery, Francis Atwood, CDR |url=https://navy.togetherweserved.com/usn/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=BattleMemoryExt&ID=166359 |website=Together We Served |access-date=October 22, 2022 |quote=Craven, who was the Chief Scientist of the Navy's Special Projects Office, which had management responsibility for the design, development, construction, operational test and evaluation and maintenance of the UGM-27 Polaris Fleet Missile System had long believed Scorpion was struck by her own torpedo, but revised his views during the mid-1990s when he learned that engineers testing Mark 46 batteries at Keyport, Washington just before the Scorpion's loss, said the batteries leaked electrolyte and sometimes burned while outside their casings during lifetime shock, heat and cold testing. Although the battery manufacturer was accused of building bad batteries, it was later able to successfully prove its batteries were no more prone to failure than those made by other manufacturers.}}</ref>

{{blockquote|The first cataclysmic event was of such magnitude that the only possible conclusion is that a cataclysmic event (explosion) occurred resulting in uncontrolled flooding (most likely the forward compartments).<ref name="SubVets" /><ref name="Together We Served" />}}

== Books ==

=== ''Blind Man's Bluff'' ===
In 1998, two ''[[New York Times]]'' reporters published ''[[Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage]]''{{sfnp|Sontag|Drew|2000}} discussing [[espionage]] during the [[Cold War]]. One lengthy chapter deals extensively with ''Scorpion'' and her loss. The authors report that concerns were raised in 1967 and 1968 about the [[Mark 37 torpedo|Mk 37]] torpedo carried aboard ''Scorpion''—before ''Scorpion'' left Norfolk for her last mission. The concerns focused on the battery that powered the torpedoes. The battery had a thin metal-foil barrier separating two types of volatile chemicals. The chemicals generated heat and electricity when mixed slowly and in controlled conditions, powering the motor that pushed the torpedo through the water; but vibrations normally experienced on a nuclear submarine were found to cause the thin foil barrier to break down, allowing the chemicals to interact intensely. This interaction generated excessive heat, which could have caused an inadvertent torpedo explosion. The authors highlight information discovered during the investigation which contradicts the investigation's findings. They cite a hot-running torpedo incident on the [[USS Sargo (SSN-583)|USS ''Sargo'' (SSN-583)]] prior to the loss of ''Scorpion'', although ''Sargo'' was moored at the time and not lost.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Sontag|first=Sherry|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44015138|title=Blind man's bluff : the untold story of Cold War submarine espionage|date=2000|publisher=Arrow|others=Christopher Drew|isbn=0-09-940998-4|location=London|pages=118|oclc=44015138}}</ref>

=== ''Red Star Rogue'' ===
In 2005, the book ''Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S.'',<ref>{{cite book |last1=Sewell |first1=Kenneth |last2=Richmond |first2=Clint |title=Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S. |date=2006 |location=New York |publisher=Pocket Star |isbn=978-1-4165-2733-6}}</ref> by former American submariner Kenneth Sewell in collaboration with journalist Clint Richmond, claimed that Soviet submarine {{ship|Soviet submarine|K-129|1960|2}} was sunk {{convert|300|nmi|km|abbr=on}} northwest of [[Oahu]] on 7 March 1968 while attempting to launch her three ballistic missiles, in a rogue attempt to destroy [[Pearl Harbor]].{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

Sewell claims that the sinking of ''Scorpion'' was caused by a retaliatory strike for the sinking of ''K-129'', which the Soviets had attributed to a collision with {{USS|Swordfish|SSN-579|6}}.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

In 1995, when [[Peter Huchthausen]] began work on a book about the Soviet underwater fleet, he interviewed former Soviet Admiral Victor Dygalo, who stated that the true history of ''K-129'' has not been revealed because of the informal agreement between the two countries' senior naval commands. The purpose of that secrecy, he alleged, is to stop any further research into the losses of either ''Scorpion'' or ''K-129''. Huchthausen states that Dygalo told him to "forget about ever resolving these sad issues for the surviving families."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/awards/scorpion/scorpion1.html |title=Navy says sinking of the ''Scorpion'' was an accident; revelations suggest a darker scenario |last=Offley |first=Ed |date=21 May 1998 |newspaper=[[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]] |access-date=9 February 2008 |archive-date=28 May 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080528173731/http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/awards/scorpion/scorpion1.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== ''All Hands Down'' ===
''All Hands Down''{{sfnp|Sewell|Preisler|2008}} was written by Kenneth R. Sewell, a nuclear engineer and a U.S. Navy veteran who spent five years aboard {{USS|Parche|SSN-683|2}}, a fast attack submarine. It attempts to link the sinking of ''Scorpion'' with the ''Pueblo'' incident, the [[John Anthony Walker]] spy ring, and [[Cold War]] Soviet aggression. The thesis of this book is that action off the [[Canary Islands]] was the direct cause of the sinking. The author purports that this is supported by motives in the Soviet Navy following the sinking of ''K-129'', which caused the Russian Navy to trap a U.S. submarine. The bait for this trap would be strange military operations and furtive naval manoeuvres in the Atlantic, accompanied by countermeasures that would seemingly be defeated only by the deployment of a nuclear submarine. With information from spying by Walker, the position and arrival time of ''Scorpion'' was known by the Russians, and its sinking followed the springing of the trap. The book claims ''Scorpion'' was sunk by a [[Ka-25]] helicopter equipped with antisubmarine torpedoes, which took off from one ship and landed on a different one. This was so that no one, other than the aircrew of the helicopter, would notice one torpedo missing.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

The book then purports a cover-up by American and Soviet officials, to avoid public outrage and an increase in Cold War tension.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

=== ''Scorpion Down'' ===
Ed Offley, a reporter on military affairs, has closely followed developments in information concerning the sinking of the ''Scorpion''. His most recent article on the subject is "Buried at Sea" published in the Winter 2008 issue of the ''Quarterly Journal of Military History''. This article summarizes the facts in the case as presented in his 2007 book ''Scorpion Down: Sunk by the Soviets, Buried by the Pentagon: The Untold Story of the USS Scorpion''.{{sfnp|Offley|2007}} In the book, Offley, gathering decades of his own research, hypothesizes that ''Scorpion'' was sunk by the Soviets, possibly in retaliation for the loss of ''K-129'' earlier that year. The book paints a picture of increasing Soviet anger at U.S. Navy provocations&nbsp;— specifically, close-in monitoring of Soviet naval operations by almost every U.S. nuclear submarine. Around the same time, the Soviet intelligence community scored a huge boon in receiving the mechanical cryptologic devices (TSAC/KW- 7) from {{USS|Pueblo|AGER-2|2}}. These machines, combined with daily crypto keys from the Walker spy ring, likely allowed the Soviets to monitor U.S. Navy ship dispositions and communications.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

Offley contends that the ''Scorpion'' was tracked by several Soviet Navy assets from the Mediterranean to its final operational area south of the Azores, where it was then sunk by a Soviet torpedo. He claims the U.S. Navy was aware of the loss of the ''Scorpion'' on 21 May 1968, and by the night of 22 May 68, deep concern had arisen over the ''Scorpion'' after not receiving the required 24-hr, four-word communication check required on operational duty, in the SUBCOMLANT communication center at Norfolk on the evidence of two 2nd-class radiomen on the deck that night, among junior USN officers, and the unit supervisor, Warrant Officer J. Walker, confirmed to interested staff that no check transmission from ''Scorpion'' was received that night, and by the morning of 23 May 1968, the SUBCOMLANT center was full of admirals and a Marine general, and no doubt interested about the loss of ''Scorpion'',<ref>E.Offley.Quarterly Journal of Military History, 2018, V30, No 4.Reprinted Navy Times 22 May 2019. Retrieved 3.00-3.30 GMT 20 May 2022</ref> and the US government and Navy were engaged in a massive cover-up, within days destroying much of the sound and communication data at SOSUS ground stations in the U.S. and Europe,<ref>{{cite journal |title=Buried at Sea |last=Offley |first=Ed |date=2008 |journal=MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History |volume=20 |number=2 |pages=8–16}}</ref> and delaying any public indication of the loss until the ship's scheduled arrival at Norfolk, Virginia, five days later, partly to disguise the fact that U.S. nuclear subs were in constant or frequent communication with U.S. naval communication bases and that the subsequent search for the ''Scorpion'' was a five-month-long deception to pretend they had no idea of the hull's location.<ref>Ed Offley. The last Secret of the Scorpion in the 'Quarterly Journal of Military History, No4, v36, 2018' & 'Navy Times, 22 May 2019'</ref>

The oral testimony Offley relied upon are recollections of surviving SOSUS recordings documenting torpedo sounds, evasion sounds, an explosion, and eventually the sounds of implosions as ''Scorpion'' plunged past crush depth.{{citation needed|date=August 2019}}

=== ''Against the Tide: Rickover's Leadership Principles and the Rise of the Nuclear Navy'' ===
In a section from this 2014 book titled "The Danger of Culture", retired U.S. Navy [[Rear admiral (United States)|Rear Admiral]] [[David R. Oliver Jr.|Dave Oliver]] offers the theory based on his own experiences that a hydrogen explosion, either during or immediately following a battery charge, possibly destroyed USS ''Scorpion'' and killed her crew. The proximate cause in that scenario would have been the procedural carryover from diesel-boat days wherein the boat was effectively rigged for collision—with subsequent changes in ventilation flow and watertight condition—before proceeding to periscope depth by way of setting "Condition Baker".  Oliver had personally witnessed dangerously high hydrogen level spikes under such conditions aboard a nuclear submarine, specifically while going to periscope depth and setting Condition Baker during a battery charge. Diesel boats, in contrast, were not capable of doing a battery charge while deeply submerged, but were instead dealing with the risk of collision while on antisurface-ship operations when proceeding to periscope depth while in or near shipping lanes. In regard to [[NAVSEA]] responsibility, he further states: "I always felt that the investigators closed their eyes to the most likely cause because they did not want to acknowledge their own involvement in this tragedy. I had forwarded my letter about Condition Baker via some of the same people responsible for the ''Scorpion'' investigation."<ref name="Oliver">{{cite book |last=Oliver |first=Dave |title=Against the Tide |year=2014 |publisher=Naval Institute Press |location=Annapolis, MD |page=43 |isbn=978-1-61251-797-1}}</ref>

== In popular culture ==
[[Phil Ochs]] released a song on his album ''[[Rehearsals for Retirement]]'' (1969) titled "The Scorpion Departs but Never Returns".<ref>{{cite web |title=Youtube: The Scorpion Departs but Never Returns |website=[[YouTube]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKaNxA |date=11 June 2023}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author= Phil Ochs |title= The Scorpion Departs but Never Returns |url=https://genius.com/Phil-ochs-the-scorpion-departs-but-never-returns-lyrics |publisher=[[Genius (company)|Genius]] |date=11 June 2023}}</ref>

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== See also ==
* [[List of lost United States submarines]]
* [[List of sunken nuclear submarines]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Sources ==
*{{cite book |last=Offley |first=Ed |date=2007 |title=Scorpion Down: Sunk by the Soviets, Buried by the Pentagon: The Untold Story of the USS Scorpion |location=New York |publisher=Perseus Books Group |isbn=978-0-465-00884-1}}
*{{cite book |last1=Sewell |first1=Kenneth |last2=Preisler |first2=Jerome |date=2008 |title=All Hands Down: The True Story of the Soviet Attack on the USS Scorpion |location=New York |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-1-4391-0454-5 |url=https://archive.org/details/allhandsdowntrue00sewe }}
*{{cite book |last1=Sontag |first1=Sherry |last2=Drew |first2=Christopher |date=2000 |title=Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage |location=New York |publisher=Harper Paperbacks |isbn=978-0-06-097771-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/blindmansbluffun00sher }}
*{{cite book |last=White |first=Rowland |date=2006 |title=Vulcan 607 |location=London |publisher=Bantam Press |isbn=978-0-593-05391-1}}

== Further reading ==
*{{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/s/scorpion-ssn-589-vi.html}}
* {{cite book |first=Robert W. |last=Love |title=History of the U.S. Navy, Vol. 2, 1942–1991 |year=1992 |edition=October 1992 |page=912 |publisher=Stackpole Books |isbn=0-8117-1863-8}}
* {{cite book |first=Bruce |last=Rule |title=Why the USS Scorpion (SSN 589) Was Lost: The Death of a Submarine in the North Atlantic |date=October 2011 |edition=31 October 2011 |page=74 |publisher=Nimble Books LLC |isbn=978-1-60888-120-8}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.iusscaa.org/articles/brucerule/rebutting_conjecture.htm |title=Rebutting Conjecture: Scorpion Reversed Course Just Before Being Lost |last=Rule |first=Bruce |date=22 September 2013 |website=IUSSCAA.org}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070624044345/http://www.txoilgas.com/589.html USS ''Scorpion'' SSN-589]
* [http://www.decklog.com/SSN-589.asp Memorial for 99 crew] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091223102559/http://www.decklog.com/SSN-589.asp |date=23 December 2009 }}
* {{navsource|08/08589}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110927013845/http://www.submarinehistory.com/WWIISubmarineMemorial.html World War II National Submarine Memorial&nbsp;– West]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110927013857/http://www.submarinehistory.com/WWIISubmarineMemorial-East.html World War II National Submarine Memorial&nbsp;– East]
* [https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/search.html?q=SSN-589&start=0 U.S. Navy photographs of USS ''Scorpion'']
* [http://www.oneternalpatrol.com/uss-scorpion-589.htm On Eternal Patrol: USS ''Scorpion'']
* [https://vimeo.com/68093139 Search Operation Video]

{{Skipjack class submarine}}
{{1968 shipwrecks}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Scorpion (SSN-589)}}
[[Category:Cold War submarines of the United States]]
[[Category:Lost submarines of the United States]]
[[Category:Maritime incidents in 1968]]
[[Category:Nuclear submarines of the United States Navy|Scorpion, USS]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks in the Atlantic Ocean]]
[[Category:Ships built in Groton, Connecticut]]
[[Category:Skipjack-class submarines]]
[[Category:Sunken nuclear submarines]]
[[Category:United States submarine accidents]]
[[Category:1959 ships]]
[[Category:1968 in the United States]]
[[Category:Warships lost with all hands]]
[[Category:Submarines lost with all hands]]
[[Category:May 1968 events]]