Say Goodbye to the USS Enterprise... Forever

Clowndoe

New member
Aug 6, 2012
395
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
Don't play dumb. You knew exactly how that title could be misinterpreted when you wrote it. In fact, I'm sure you banked on the confusion to draw more people to click the article thinking it was either Star Trek related, or pertained to the name itself being permanently retired.
But that's the name of the ship. How would you have written it?
 

Avaholic03

New member
May 11, 2009
1,520
0
0
Clowndoe said:
Avaholic03 said:
Don't play dumb. You knew exactly how that title could be misinterpreted when you wrote it. In fact, I'm sure you banked on the confusion to draw more people to click the article thinking it was either Star Trek related, or pertained to the name itself being permanently retired.
But that's the name of the ship. How would you have written it?
How about "Legendary aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to be scrapped". Or something to that effect.
 

Zipa

batlh bIHeghjaj.
Dec 19, 2010
1,489
0
0
Dalisclock said:
MorganL4 said:
I thought they would just remove the nuclear core and put it into a maritime museum. I mean it is a huge part of our nation's history.
The tricky part with that being the Enterprise has 8 (small) nuclear cores. There's a lot more area affected by the removal. Not to mention the 8 seperate holes from the hanger down into reactor compartment to get it out of there.

It's not just the Cores either. All the cooling pumps have to be removed(and those things tend to be pretty big as well), not to mention filters, valves, piping, pressurizing tanks, etc. Pretty much the entire reactor compartment needs to be stripped out, and the enterprise has a very unique design in this regards so it wouldn't be easy.
The ship has to be torn up pretty extensively as well to remove the reactors so its going to be extremely difficult to have to basically rebuild it again.
 

urlorjkron

New member
Dec 19, 2013
7
0
0
Clowndoe said:
Avaholic03 said:
Don't play dumb. You knew exactly how that title could be misinterpreted when you wrote it. In fact, I'm sure you banked on the confusion to draw more people to click the article thinking it was either Star Trek related, or pertained to the name itself being permanently retired.
But that's the name of the ship. How would you have written it?
Say Goodbye to the USS Enterprise (CVN-65)... Forever

Suddenly no confusion.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
A pity it won't be converted into a museum like many other carriers. But if its an issue with the reactors, I can see why. Still, I salute that ship and everyone who was on its crew for their service.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
They should just remove the reactor, and put 4 HUGE turbines on it...

Hell USS Enterprise Helicarrier!
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
Baresark said:
We'll send the scrap to China on the cheap. Then they can use it to make goods to sell back to us!
US carriers are scrapped in country to preserve their design from being picked apart and studied, hence why Saratoga was recently sold for scrap for the price of $1.

Don't play dumb. You knew exactly how that title could be misinterpreted when you wrote it. In fact, I'm sure you banked on the confusion to draw more people to click the article thinking it was either Star Trek related, or pertained to the name itself being permanently retired.
How is the title misleading when it states exactly the article is about? The only issue here is hook to lure people in, but it's still on the ball.

Compare it to a NASA article posted on here a few months back where the title was a rock found on Mars that moved on its own only for the article then sheepishly explain that the rover bumped into it and it took its crew a few minutes to figure that out.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
Don't play dumb. You knew exactly how that title could be misinterpreted when you wrote it. In fact, I'm sure you banked on the confusion to draw more people to click the article thinking it was either Star Trek related, or pertained to the name itself being permanently retired.
Who in their right mind would think that the Starship Enterprise was being retired?
 

Akisa

New member
Jan 7, 2010
493
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Avaholic03 said:
Don't play dumb. You knew exactly how that title could be misinterpreted when you wrote it. In fact, I'm sure you banked on the confusion to draw more people to click the article thinking it was either Star Trek related, or pertained to the name itself being permanently retired.
Who in their right mind would think that the Starship Enterprise was being retired?
Well it could've been a promotional event that the next tv/movie was about the Enterprise being destroyed. Kind of like the death of superman, or any other super hero movie.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Akisa said:
Well it could've been a promotional event that the next tv/movie was about the Enterprise being destroyed. Kind of like the death of superman, or any other super hero movie.
That seems like quite the stretch.

I'd also note the example of Superman is the last time I've seen the promotion that someone would be killed off forever, and that was 22 years ago. Part of that was the backlash behind it.
 

Akisa

New member
Jan 7, 2010
493
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Akisa said:
Well it could've been a promotional event that the next tv/movie was about the Enterprise being destroyed. Kind of like the death of superman, or any other super hero movie.
That seems like quite the stretch.

I'd also note the example of Superman is the last time I've seen the promotion that someone would be killed off forever, and that was 22 years ago. Part of that was the backlash behind it.

How is it a stretch? This publicity stunt has gone on forever. Last one I seen was the death of Starbuck in BSG, but she came back. Another one I head about was dead of Captain America (he came back).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Captain_America
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Akisa said:
How is it a stretch? This publicity stunt has gone on forever. Last one I seen was the death of Starbuck in BSG, but she came back. Another one I head about was dead of Captain America (he came back).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Captain_America
And if you can show me some evidence that they marketed that Captain America would be gone "forever," you might have something. To the contrary, they almost immediately brought out a non-Steve Rogers Captain America, rumoured almost from the very point of the comic.

Like I said, The Death of Superman was the last time I can name where there was a parallel to what would reasonably apply here: that a property would be permanently removed.

The more reasonable assessment would be to the real-world Enterprise.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Akisa said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Akisa said:
Well it could've been a promotional event that the next tv/movie was about the Enterprise being destroyed. Kind of like the death of superman, or any other super hero movie.
That seems like quite the stretch.

I'd also note the example of Superman is the last time I've seen the promotion that someone would be killed off forever, and that was 22 years ago. Part of that was the backlash behind it.

How is it a stretch? This publicity stunt has gone on forever. Last one I seen was the death of Starbuck in BSG, but she came back. Another one I head about was dead of Captain America (he came back).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Captain_America

Well technically Starbuck didn't come back as you find out later.

-

As far as the article here goes, I don't much care for this to be honest. I don't think we should be decommissioning Aircraft carriers, especially with so many nations getting their hands on them, until the replacements are actually ready to go. I keep hearing things about how they want to decommission the Nimitz (I think that's the one) as well. The thing is with Carriers that any Carrier is pretty effective given that there are so few of them out there still, and even our older ones are more effective than some of the "newer" ones being put out there. I can understand why we don't want to keep paying for older ships in service, and want to cycle them out to replace them with newer ones, but to me it seems foolish, especially with current tensions, and expanding foreign navies, to be cutting ourselves short at this moment of any time it could be done. Basically when the new carrier rolls out, then it's okay to decommission an old one. That's my thoughts. If things were a lot more stable globally my thoughts would be different.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,749
6
43
Country
USA
bdcjacko said:
My uncle served on that ship.
Well then, if this article is anything to go by, it's safe to say that your uncle lived.
 

K-lusive

New member
May 15, 2014
75
0
0
Minor inconsistency spotted in the article:

The USS Enterprise US Navy aircraft carrier has been undergoing decommissioning since 2012.
(...)
In service since 1962, the USS Enterprise has been undergoing decommissioning since 2013.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,229
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Therumancer said:
As far as the article here goes, I don't much care for this to be honest. I don't think we should be decommissioning Aircraft carriers, especially with so many nations getting their hands on them, until the replacements are actually ready to go. I keep hearing things about how they want to decommission the Nimitz (I think that's the one) as well. The thing is with Carriers that any Carrier is pretty effective given that there are so few of them out there still, and even our older ones are more effective than some of the "newer" ones being put out there. I can understand why we don't want to keep paying for older ships in service, and want to cycle them out to replace them with newer ones, but to me it seems foolish, especially with current tensions, and expanding foreign navies, to be cutting ourselves short at this moment of any time it could be done. Basically when the new carrier rolls out, then it's okay to decommission an old one. That's my thoughts. If things were a lot more stable globally my thoughts would be different.
A lot of it is Money. For some reason *CoughIraqAfganistanCough* we're kind of up to our asses in debt and the DoD being asked to bear a bit of cost cutting. Cutting a carrier(and not one that's at the end of it's lifespan) has been talked about a lot lately.

If Sequestration continues, then it's likely going to happen regardless. There won't be any choice. Blame congress for not doing their job and passing a budget like they're supposed to. Or the tea party for being obsessed with cutting the government budget.

Frankly, I'm glad they retired the Enterprise finally. I've heard from a lot of people who served on the ship that she had a ton of maintenance issues, both from being that old and from being a prototype(there's a reason she's the only ship of the Enterprise class). By the end of her life, she was breaking and having to go back into the yards a bit more then the average carrier(which means another carrier has to go cover her assignment. Too bad if that happens to be you).
 

go-10

New member
Feb 3, 2010
1,557
0
0
I served on the USS Reagan most of the time but I did get all of my ABH training on the Enterprise, because the damn thing spend more time on the pound than out at sea which made it perfect for NUBs to learn the ins and out of repairing a ship and it was an old stinky to boot, about time it got put out of its misery.

just hope whatever they build with it's scrap can go faster than the Enterprise, I bet there's a high probability most of it will go into the construction of the Enterprise-II
 

Miles Maldonado

New member
Oct 11, 2011
66
0
0
My father served on the USS Enterprise back in the 1970s, as an E-5 performing maintenance on the F-14 Tomcats of VF-1, the "Wolfpack". He was immensely surprised to hear that she was being scrapped; I'm actually a bit emotionally distraught by it as well since I might not exist were it not for this carrier - that's a story unto itself for another time.

They are going to cut out the reactors, scrap those, bury the fission materials out in the desert somewhere, and from what I heard they are going to take the cutter's torch to the rest of her. A sad way to go, but not every ship in the world can become a museum. A similar fate probably waits for any other nuclear ships that are decommissioned.