If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   These are the voyages of the USS Enterprise: 1964-2014   (io9.com) divider line 163
    More: Hero, USS Enterprise, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, Star Trek IV  
•       •       •

18858 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2014 at 5:04 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-16 12:04:55 AM  
It's been a long road...
 
2014-08-16 12:33:45 AM  
There are plenty of letters left in the alphabet
 
2014-08-16 12:36:02 AM  
I'm really surprised a ship that famous isn't being turned into a museum.
 
2014-08-16 12:39:09 AM  

the_sidewinder: There are plenty of letters left in the alphabet


CVN-80 is going to be an Enterprise

Ghastly: I'm really surprised a ship that famous isn't being turned into a museum.


From what I understand it just wasn't feasible given the arrangement and type of nuclear reactors in the ship.  The costs to make it safe and still keep it structurally sound were just too high.
 
2014-08-16 12:41:30 AM  

fusillade762: It's been a long road...


2.bp.blogspot.com
GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!
 
2014-08-16 12:43:48 AM  
Something I hadn't noticed before, and it's from Wikipedia so it could be wrong, but the Enterprise apparently had more horsepower and a higher top speed than the Nimitz carriers.
 
2014-08-16 12:55:53 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Something I hadn't noticed before, and it's from Wikipedia so it could be wrong, but the Enterprise apparently had more horsepower and a higher top speed than the Nimitz carriers.


jasonbyrne.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-08-16 01:13:11 AM  
Where are they planning to dock the nuclear wessel?

/can't post Chekhov pic from mobile
 
2014-08-16 01:47:33 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: From what I understand it just wasn't feasible given the arrangement and type of nuclear reactors in the ship. The costs to make it safe and still keep it structurally sound were just too high.


They essentially will need to rip the ship in half in order to get the reactor vessels out. Besides that the navy already has a nuclear powered ship on display (Nautilus). That probably was also a determining factor. A nuclear ship needs a lot of nukes just to monitor the empty reactor vessel, if only for liability concerns, then multiply that times eight. You don't want some yahoo claiming that he got the cancer from that one time he spent 15 minutes near a defueled reactor 20 years ago so they monitor it and do surveys every day before they open up to the public. The reality is that the parking lot is where the zoomies are (they carved up a big cliff when they built the museum and the exposed rock is slightly radioactive).
 
2014-08-16 01:48:39 AM  

Ghastly: I'm really surprised a ship that famous isn't being turned into a museum.


Sadly the upkeep and maintenance of it would be cost prohibitive.

In Boston and Philadelphia and Baltimore there are old wooden ships that they keep as museums and it's expensive.
 
2014-08-16 01:59:20 AM  

vernonFL: Ghastly: I'm really surprised a ship that famous isn't being turned into a museum.

Sadly the upkeep and maintenance of it would be cost prohibitive.

In Boston and Philadelphia and Baltimore there are old wooden ships that they keep as museums and it's expensive.


I don't think they have one in Philly. Just the USS Olympia which is a first generation steel cruiser. Sadly she is falling apart due to lack of funds and may be scrapped.
 
2014-08-16 02:25:27 AM  

Ghastly: I'm really surprised a ship that famous isn't being turned into a museum.


The USS Enterprise has eight nuclear reactors.  Those things are tough to deactivate.  I've been up in Washington State where they decommission nuclear subs.  They just about cut an entire section out of the sub to remove the reactor.  Cutting out eight reactors will leave massive holes in the ship, making it tough to turn into a museum.
 
2014-08-16 05:28:48 AM  
Good night power of the sea's. Sleep well.
 
2014-08-16 05:32:15 AM  
That's unfortunate.  Here's hoping we christen a new vessel with the same. Or, you know, SpaceX or Cameron does. Either way. The planet should always have a ship called Enterprise.
 
2014-08-16 05:34:21 AM  

Ghastly: I'm really surprised a ship that famous isn't being turned into a museum.


It belongs in a museum!

Oh wait wrong franchise.
 
2014-08-16 05:37:15 AM  
My brother is working on the Enterprise, and they've removed the flight deck and about half of the hanger deck. In addition, there are areas that are so radioactively "hot" that the deck painted black... they tell you just don't stand there, and walk around those areas if possible (one of his jobs is to monitor radiation levels... they check six times a day).

So to turn her into a museum ship, they'd pretty much have to rebuild her from scratch.

And yes, her top speed (which is still classified) made her one of the fastest ships of its size in the world (She was fast enough, in fact, that some support ships in her task force had problems keeping with her at speed).

www.public.navy.milwww.public.navy.mil
 
2014-08-16 05:49:36 AM  
....There is still discussion going on about saving her bridge, PriFly, and other parts of the ship for museums, but that's the best they'll be able to do.  Besides the physical challenges of digging out eight nuclear reactors, she had very real...difficulties...with some of the nuclear plumbing (one of her nicknames was 'Mobile Chernobyl') that would have eliminated any possibility of letting the public aboard.   Add to that structural problems due to age, and she started to remind you of the last few episodes of Battlestar Galactica.

And they really do need to stop this 'Dead Politician' naming crap unless they've been gone for 100 years or so.  The only reason CVN-80 is going to be JFK is because that was the price extorted by the Kennedy family and their political allies for getting CV-67 scrapped.  JFK needs to be the last one, and Enterprise needs to be followed by names like Ranger, Lexington, Hornet, Constellation, and all the others.  Thus endeth today's rant.

/A Tamarian moment:  Galactica, in the last few eps.
//Talk about mixed memes
 
2014-08-16 05:56:51 AM  
I spent a few years as a 4 plant RO. We berthed on the 2nd deck fantail. Subic bay was still a prime stop on the westpac.  With a clean hull and all 8 burning  and 4 churning we hauled. Lots of memories there. not all of them plesant.
 
2014-08-16 06:09:27 AM  
i280.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-16 06:17:14 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: CVN-80 is going to be JFK


AFAIK CVN-80 = Enterprise,coont9 = JFK
 
2014-08-16 06:18:41 AM  
wellbye.jpg

Another symbol of Americas aggressive foreign policy gone.

grumpycatgood.jpg
 
2014-08-16 06:19:24 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Something I hadn't noticed before, and it's from Wikipedia so it could be wrong, but the Enterprise apparently had more horsepower and a higher top speed than the Nimitz carriers.


it did. 8 reactors compared to nimitz's two... and i believe larger as well. pity they never built her sisters.
 
2014-08-16 06:21:57 AM  
Sell it to China.
 
2014-08-16 06:22:17 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: ....There is still discussion going on about saving her bridge, PriFly, and other parts of the ship for museums, but that's the best they'll be able to do.  Besides the physical challenges of digging out eight nuclear reactors, she had very real...difficulties...with some of the nuclear plumbing (one of her nicknames was 'Mobile Chernobyl') that would have eliminated any possibility of letting the public aboard.   Add to that structural problems due to age, and she started to remind you of the last few episodes of Battlestar Galactica.

And they really do need to stop this 'Dead Politician' naming crap unless they've been gone for 100 years or so.  The only reason CVN-80 is going to be JFK is because that was the price extorted by the Kennedy family and their political allies for getting CV-67 scrapped.  JFK needs to be the last one, and Enterprise needs to be followed by names like Ranger, Lexington, Hornet, Constellation, and all the others.  Thus endeth today's rant.

/A Tamarian moment:  Galactica, in the last few eps.
//Talk about mixed memes


Yep agreed. The just-recently-dead politician naming always bothered me too. We need a new Saratoga or Yorktown more.
 
2014-08-16 06:23:45 AM  

kendelrio: wellbye.jpg

Another symbol of Americas aggressive foreign policy gone.

grumpycatgood.jpg


Star Wars fan-like typing detected.
 
2014-08-16 06:34:04 AM  
 
2014-08-16 06:36:50 AM  
ufodc.com

"it should be recycled AS garbage"


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-16 06:40:38 AM  

Hardy-r-r: AtlanticCoast63: CVN-80 is going to be JFK

AFAIK CVN-80 = Enterprise,coont9 = JFK



Dont forget the John C Stennis , or coont4.

Another great ship in a long like of coonts.
 
2014-08-16 06:43:33 AM  
I still kick myself for not bringing my camera the day the Enterprise pulled in from its last deployment in 2012. I was on duty on the Abraham Lincoln, which was across the pier. I went up to the flight deck and watched (damn good view) as they threw the mooring lines across and moored. That would last time they'd announce "Moored. Shift Colors." while under their own power. Huge crowd at the foot of the pier.
 
2014-08-16 06:46:02 AM  
The Enterprise will remain in Newport News until 2016. Eventually, it will be towed from Hampton Roads around the tip of South America to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Bremerton, Wash.

Jeezus! How long is THAT going to take?
 
2014-08-16 06:54:42 AM  

siennaskye: pity they never built her sisters.


It was an unwieldy design. Rickover wanted to have something that was very redundant in such a nice juicy target and naval reactors on a surface ship were still a relatively new technology.The prototype for it went online in 1958 just three years after the Nautilus had proven that it was doable in a submarine.
 
2014-08-16 06:58:02 AM  

Smashed Hat: Jeezus! How long is THAT going to take?


Probably a couple of months. They aren't going to be in a hurry.
 
2014-08-16 07:05:24 AM  

robohobo: That's unfortunate.  Here's hoping we christen a new vessel with the same. Or, you know, SpaceX or Cameron does. Either way. The planet should always have a ship called Enterprise.


Given that there's been an Enterprise in the US Navy off and on since 1775, and almost a hundred years prior in the UK Navy, I'd say it's a good bet.
 
2014-08-16 07:15:37 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Smashed Hat: Jeezus! How long is THAT going to take?

Probably a couple of months. They aren't going to be in a hurry.


Put Michael Palin on that boat and he could get an 8-part travel documentary out of it.
 
2014-08-16 07:16:42 AM  
trekazoid.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-08-16 07:17:27 AM  

Nofun: Yep agreed. The just-recently-dead politician naming always bothered me too. We need a new Saratoga or Yorktown more.


Also agreed. There are plenty of old battle names for carriers that should be honored again, including also Ticonderoga, Midway, Bunker Hill, Bennington, Belleau Wood, Leyte, Valley Forge, Chosin, Tet, Fallujah... ok, maybe I'd think about those last three.
 
2014-08-16 07:17:59 AM  
deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com


USS Enterprise (1799), a sailing vessel that fired the first shots in the First Barbary War

USS Enterprise (1831), a sailing vessel

USS Enterprise (1874), a sailing vessel

Enterprise (SP-790), a motorboat (1917-1919)

USS Enterprise (CV-6), an aircraft carrier (1938-1947) that served in World War II

USS Enterprise (CVN-65), a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (1961-2013)

USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115), a commissioned building (2005-2011), the orientation "ship" for students at Great Lakes

USS Enterprise (CVN-80), third ship of the Ford class of aircraft carriers. Scheduled to be constructed and in operation by 2025.
www.jeffhead.com
 
2014-08-16 07:28:57 AM  
I have always had an interest in things nuclear, including wessels. After seeing my ASVAB scores, the Navy recruited me hard for nuclear propulsion, but I resisted the siren call of basic training, sub school in Groton, and reactor school in Idaho Falls.

I learned a lot in this thread about Navy ships. Eight reactors, holy cow.
 
2014-08-16 07:46:08 AM  

kendelrio: wellbye.jpg

Another symbol of Americas aggressive foreign policy gone.

grumpycatgood.jpg


You do realize we're building more, right?
 
2014-08-16 07:49:37 AM  
www.cygnus-x1.netNice lines on these vessels
https://www17.corecommerce.com/~sierrahotel/uploads/image/_AircraftC ar rier_USS_Enterprise_CVN-65.gif

Enterprise evolution
laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com

As for turning it into a museum it seems simple enough to me. Simply disassemble, clean out the reactor core and reassemble. How long could it take?
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2014-08-16 07:55:39 AM  
Was just at NNS and she was a sight to see. The oldest and newest nuclear carriers side-by-side. I'm glad I got a tour as a scout.
 
2014-08-16 08:02:05 AM  

T-Servo: Nofun: Yep agreed. The just-recently-dead politician naming always bothered me too. We need a new Saratoga or Yorktown more.

Also agreed. There are plenty of old battle names for carriers that should be honored again, including also Ticonderoga, Midway, Bunker Hill, Bennington, Belleau Wood, Leyte, Valley Forge, Chosin, Tet, Fallujah... ok, maybe I'd think about those last three.


Only one current Royal Navy ship in service named after a person and it's called HMS Iron Duke as apposed to the USS Lets Get Congress to Green Light our Ship buy Pandering to Their Egos
 
2014-08-16 08:05:51 AM  
My buddy was reading a magazine when he said to me, "I'd give my right arm to go to this Star Trek convention."

I said, "Yeah, but then you'd have no sex life at all, would you?"
 
2014-08-16 08:06:03 AM  

robohobo: That's unfortunate.  Here's hoping we christen a new vessel with the same. Or, you know, SpaceX or Cameron does. Either way. The planet should always have a ship called Enterprise.


Royal Navy Survey ship HMS Enterprise remains in commission, currently evacuating British citizens from Libya.
 
2014-08-16 08:07:13 AM  

Nofun: AtlanticCoast63: ....There is still discussion going on about saving her bridge, PriFly, and other parts of the ship for museums, but that's the best they'll be able to do.  Besides the physical challenges of digging out eight nuclear reactors, she had very real...difficulties...with some of the nuclear plumbing (one of her nicknames was 'Mobile Chernobyl') that would have eliminated any possibility of letting the public aboard.   Add to that structural problems due to age, and she started to remind you of the last few episodes of Battlestar Galactica.

And they really do need to stop this 'Dead Politician' naming crap unless they've been gone for 100 years or so.  The only reason CVN-80 is going to be JFK is because that was the price extorted by the Kennedy family and their political allies for getting CV-67 scrapped.  JFK needs to be the last one, and Enterprise needs to be followed by names like Ranger, Lexington, Hornet, Constellation, and all the others.  Thus endeth today's rant.

/A Tamarian moment:  Galactica, in the last few eps.
//Talk about mixed memes

Yep agreed. The just-recently-dead politician naming always bothered me too. We need a new Saratoga or Yorktown more.


THIS...oh so this. USS Gabrielle Giffords? Really? I could think of a few MoH Marines and Sailors who deserve the honor.
 
2014-08-16 08:08:03 AM  

Norfolking Chance: T-Servo: Nofun: Yep agreed. The just-recently-dead politician naming always bothered me too. We need a new Saratoga or Yorktown more.

Also agreed. There are plenty of old battle names for carriers that should be honored again, including also Ticonderoga, Midway, Bunker Hill, Bennington, Belleau Wood, Leyte, Valley Forge, Chosin, Tet, Fallujah... ok, maybe I'd think about those last three.

Only one current Royal Navy ship in service named after a person and it's called HMS Iron Duke as apposed to the USS Lets Get Congress to Green Light our Ship buy Pandering to Their Egos


I'm not a fan of the queen, either, but we should at least admit she's still human.

/HMS Queen Elizabeth launched last month
//also pretty sure HMS Scott was a person
///they cleverly launched HMS Middleton only two years after she was born
 
2014-08-16 08:10:35 AM  

Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: From what I understand it just wasn't feasible given the arrangement and type of nuclear reactors in the ship. The costs to make it safe and still keep it structurally sound were just too high.

They essentially will need to rip the ship in half in order to get the reactor vessels out.


Can't they just hit the emergency jettisoning charges?

/It's possible I've read too much David Weber
 
2014-08-16 08:14:31 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: ....There is still discussion going on about saving her bridge, PriFly, and other parts of the ship for museums, but that's the best they'll be able to do.  Besides the physical challenges of digging out eight nuclear reactors, she had very real...difficulties...with some of the nuclear plumbing (one of her nicknames was 'Mobile Chernobyl') that would have eliminated any possibility of letting the public aboard.   Add to that structural problems due to age, and she started to remind you of the last few episodes of Battlestar Galactica.


Dang...never heard that.

Agreed on the naming thing.
 
2014-08-16 08:22:39 AM  

T-Servo: Norfolking Chance: T-Servo: Nofun: Yep agreed. The just-recently-dead politician naming always bothered me too. We need a new Saratoga or Yorktown more.

Also agreed. There are plenty of old battle names for carriers that should be honored again, including also Ticonderoga, Midway, Bunker Hill, Bennington, Belleau Wood, Leyte, Valley Forge, Chosin, Tet, Fallujah... ok, maybe I'd think about those last three.

Only one current Royal Navy ship in service named after a person and it's called HMS Iron Duke as apposed to the USS Lets Get Congress to Green Light our Ship buy Pandering to Their Egos

I'm not a fan of the queen, either, but we should at least admit she's still human.

/HMS Queen Elizabeth launched last month
//also pretty sure HMS Scott was a person
///they cleverly launched HMS Middleton only two years after she was born


HMS Queen Elizabeth hasn't commissioned yet and is named after the first Queen Elizabeth not the current one.
 
2014-08-16 08:31:05 AM  

Frothy Panties: Nofun: AtlanticCoast63: ....There is still discussion going on about saving her bridge, PriFly, and other parts of the ship for museums, but that's the best they'll be able to do.  Besides the physical challenges of digging out eight nuclear reactors, she had very real...difficulties...with some of the nuclear plumbing (one of her nicknames was 'Mobile Chernobyl') that would have eliminated any possibility of letting the public aboard.   Add to that structural problems due to age, and she started to remind you of the last few episodes of Battlestar Galactica.

And they really do need to stop this 'Dead Politician' naming crap unless they've been gone for 100 years or so.  The only reason CVN-80 is going to be JFK is because that was the price extorted by the Kennedy family and their political allies for getting CV-67 scrapped.  JFK needs to be the last one, and Enterprise needs to be followed by names like Ranger, Lexington, Hornet, Constellation, and all the others.  Thus endeth today's rant.

/A Tamarian moment:  Galactica, in the last few eps.
//Talk about mixed memes

Yep agreed. The just-recently-dead politician naming always bothered me too. We need a new Saratoga or Yorktown more.

THIS...oh so this. USS Gabrielle Giffords? Really? I could think of a few MoH Marines and Sailors who deserve the honor.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of naming ships after recently deceased.  Naming ships after the still living?  Fark that.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report