Slartibartfast 153 Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) http://www.theregist...rprise_scapped/ After 51 years she is off to be decommissioned and then scrapped sad way to go out... and yes there is a lack of Star Trek jokes for a reason... Star Trek is too clean! Edited November 2, 2012 by Slartibartfast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 871 Posted November 2, 2012 Based on that argument, no other USN aircraft carriers are ever going to be preserved since they are all nuclear. There are two USN nuclear submarines lying on the bottom of the ocean that are considered "safe" despite not having been properly defueled and scrapped. If they really wanted to save her, they could, even if it involved leaving the reactors in place. Just like the last Enterprise CV-6, the Navy will eventually regret not turning this ship into a museum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gr.Viper 131 Posted November 2, 2012 If you sell it to China, they'll toss a coin and decide, whether to turn it into a hotel, or to return it into service. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted November 3, 2012 Well, the notion that taking out the reactors will irrevocably ruin the hull and flight deck without too-costly repairs for display is certainly understandable. The idea of leaving the reactors in and just sealing them off is likely too scary for the environmentalists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 871 Posted November 3, 2012 Well, the notion that taking out the reactors will irrevocably ruin the hull and flight deck without too-costly repairs for display is certainly understandable. The idea of leaving the reactors in and just sealing them off is likely too scary for the environmentalists. Having worked and lived on a nuclear submarine, I fail to see the problem with leaving the spent reactors on board, In fact, I would be willing to bet that it would be a superior solution to burying the spent fuel in steel drums in some unknown salt mine in Utah. As it stands, If the ships can be refueled without catastrophic damage to the hull, they can certainly be defueled without such damage, as you have to defuel to refuel ;) Money spent saving this ship wouldn't entirely be wasted. I am sure among the 8% unemployed in this country are many shipyard workers qualified to do the work. This is a "shovel-ready" job if I ever saw one. Privatize the project and turn it into a luxury cruise liner where you can fly to/from the ship mid-cruise. If the government can afford to build and operate a nuclear merchant ship, I think it can afford to turn Enterprise into a museum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Having worked and lived on a nuclear submarine, I fail to see the problem with leaving the spent reactors on board, In fact, I would be willing to bet that it would be a superior solution to burying the spent fuel in steel drums in some unknown salt mine in Utah. As it stands, If the ships can be refueled without catastrophic damage to the hull, they can certainly be defueled without such damage, as you have to defuel to refuel ;) Money spent saving this ship wouldn't entirely be wasted. I am sure among the 8% unemployed in this country are many shipyard workers qualified to do the work. This is a "shovel-ready" job if I ever saw one. Privatize the project and turn it into a luxury cruise liner where you can fly to/from the ship mid-cruise. If the government can afford to build and operate a nuclear merchant ship, I think it can afford to turn Enterprise into a museum: http://en.wikipedia....iki/NS_Savannah What would it cost? The Navy/US Govt. wants to scrap it. Who or what private venture is going to pay for the Enterprise's reactors and or spent fuel. The US Govt would never allow those reactors into private hands, they would remove the 8 reactors the cheapest way possible and that would be cutting the ship up to rip them out. How much to buy the ship then restore it? No private or commercial group has the money for a 50+ year old naval warship with 8 reactors that will need a lot of work to even be safe to tour. I think this one may end up like the Oriskany if they don't cut it up after the reactors are pulled. I thought they would use her as a training/reserve vessel for a few years before this happened, after all she is a nuclear aircraft carrier. Whoever takes her it would be a museum with a lot of big holes, thats all. Edited November 4, 2012 by MAKO69 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nesher 628 Posted November 3, 2012 sad to see an old gal says her farewell.. she served with pride! <S> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted November 4, 2012 But that's just it, the defueling IS happening. The point is the reactors themselves (which are never removed during the ship's service) are ALSO radioactive within. I don't know what they do with the old reactors, but my guess is that they're stored somewhere relatively secure, away from the threat of sinking and contaminating the water. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gepard 11,303 Posted November 5, 2012 The reactor is not only radioactive, it high radioactive. The problem is, what could happen if parts of the reactor would come into the false hands? Imagine if someone would make some 100 kg of radioactive steel into a powder and would spray it over a city like NY or LA. It would be a disaster. Of course it is sad for the ol Enterprise. But perhaps it will be a new one. After a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted November 6, 2012 Eh. I'm far more afraid of corporate neglect resulting in massive inadvertent contamination than something deliberate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted November 7, 2012 Just like all the other carriers,She served with guts and pride,because of the people who were aboard her. It's time to let her rest. I can almost guarantee that there will be another to carry on in her name. "Fair winds and Following seas". She was a great ship. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vampyre 24 Posted November 12, 2012 How about refurbishing the hull and removing the flight deck to mount Aegis, Rail Guns, directed energy weapons, Tomahawks, Harpoons and SM3's as a sort of super BCGN. I know, It'll never happen but it is a shame having this proud warship turned into razorblades. I did a two week CQ det on her back in 1999. She was laid out a lot like the Kitty Hawk between the 1st deck and the O-3... just bigger. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted November 12, 2012 Better yet Under Siege 3! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Fates 63 Posted November 13, 2012 Final Countdown 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallenphoenix1986 603 Posted November 14, 2012 Technically there already is another ship bearing the name, though not quite as impressive as the old girl: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Patrol-and-Minehunters/Ice-Patrol-and-Survey-Ships/HMS-Enterprise Craig Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted November 16, 2012 Ship's wear out and Enterprise has served her time. A great ship with great crews who served well. Almost as well as another carrier....... ;) Converting her just isn't practical. I don't know why they don't just seal the radioactive reactors though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
