US Navy Decommissions the First Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier (engadget.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Decommissions the First Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday February 6, 2017 @09:20AM from the end-of-an-era dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The Navy has decommissioned the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. The vessel launched in 1961 and is mainly known for playing a pivotal role in several major incidents and conflicts, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War and the 2003 Iraq War. However, it also served as the quintessential showcase for what nuclear ships could do. Its eight reactors let it run for years at a time, all the while making more room for the aircraft and their fuel. As you might guess, the decommissioning process (which started when the Enterprise went inactive in 2012) is considerably trickier than it would be for a conventional warship. It wasn't until December 2016 that crews finished extracting nuclear fuel, and the ship will have to be partly dismantled to remove the reactors. They'll be disposed of relatively safely at Hanford Site, home of the world's first plutonium reactor. Whatever you think of the tech, the ship leaves a long legacy on top of its military accomplishments. It proved the viability of nuclear aircraft carriers, leading the US to build the largest such fleet in the world. Also, this definitely isn't the last (real-world) ship to bear the Enterprise name -- the future CVN-80 will build on its predecessor with both more efficient reactors and systems designed for modern combat, where drones and stealth are as important as fighters and bombers. It won't be ready until 2027, but it should reflect many of the lessons learned over the outgoing Enterprise's 55 years of service.

203 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Obligatory... by lord_mike · 2017-02-06 09:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

“Let’s make sure that history never forgets the name Enterprise. Picard out”
1. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Picard is a drunk.
  "Geeeetttt oooouuuutttt offf my chaaaiiirrrr. We're not friends!" -Picard
2. Re: Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  Star Track is the bestest
3. Re:Obligatory... by Joe_Dragon · 2017-02-06 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Kirk is better!
4. Re:Obligatory... by pr0t0 · 2017-02-06 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  Nooocleeeaarrr Wessels
  
  --
  I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
5. Re:Obligatory... by the_Bionic_lemming · 2017-02-06 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe if Captain Kames Kirk does great on the Zumwalt , they'll give him Enterprise!
  
  --
  _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
6. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up! Millenials know nothing of the YTMND.
7. Re:Obligatory... by Megane · 2017-02-06 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  (some assembly required)
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
8. Re:Obligatory... by The+Real+Dr+John · 2017-02-06 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  Picard's Enterprise was not a boondoggle, and it got blown to pieces in space, eliminating any issue with radioactive waste here on earth. We are not so lucky with the real Enterprise, which did nothing for taxpayers right from the outset, except cost them lots of their hard earned money. Now we will pay more money, lots more money, to get rid of the thing we never should have made in the first place.
  
  --
  A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
9. Re:Obligatory... by MachineShedFred · 2017-02-06 14:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yeah, because the Navy wasn't going to continue building aircraft carriers after they proved invaluable in every armed conflict since World War II. Would you rather they continued to burn millions of gallons of oil to move the thing around and generate steam?
  This ship proved that nuclear propulsion works, and is far better than diesel. And since the US Navy has had a grand total of zero nuclear reactor accidents in over 50 years of operating dozens of vessels, maybe this was a good thing. Chalk it up to Admiral Rickover's insistence that every officer serving on one of his nuclear ships needed proper training, and got it before taking the post.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
10. Re:Obligatory... by Noble713 · 2017-02-06 16:58 · Score: 2
  
  While every geek in the DoD is wishing for this, it is unlikely. Apparently, the Skippers of aircraft carriers are drawn from the ranks of the naval aviation community. Considering Kirk is the CO of a destroyer, he's almost certainly a Surface Warfare Officer. At best they'll make him the senior man of CVN-80 Enterprise's escorts.
11. Re:Obligatory... by dunkelfalke · 2017-02-07 00:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  US Navy never had a reactor accident not only because of the training but also because of a quite different reactor construction, generally quite small reactors built from prohibitively expensive materials and ridiculously high fuel enrichment (nuclear submarines run on almost pure U-235).
  Naval reactors are also refueled just once or twice in their (rather short) lifetime. Nuclear propulsion works, but it is so expensive that only a military organisation with basically limitless funding can afford it. Civilian nuclear propulsion won't ever happen, icebreakers are the only exception.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
12. Re:Obligatory... by The+Real+Dr+John · 2017-02-07 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  You missed my point, none of those armed conflicts were necessary, they were almost all acts of aggression by the US. And in every case, you did not need aircraft carriers. But then again, you probably think acts of aggression are a good thing.
  
  --
  A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
13. Re:Obligatory... by Talderas · 2017-02-07 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  The odds of it are hilariously low. The first captain of CVN-80 will likely be someone who is currently ranked Commander or Lt Commander.
  CVN-80 isn't scheduled for commission until 2027. There is a statutory retirement of 30 years of commissioned service. It requires a minimum of 21 years of commissioned service before you're eligible to be promoted to Captain. It is impossible for Captain James Kirk to still be a commissioned officer in the navy and have the rank of Captain because he would have hit the mandatory retirement no later than 2026.
  The slim chance comes from him being promoted to the admiralty at which point if the US Navy thought it might be good press they could give him the Enterprise to command for a small period of time. It would be abnormal as admirals aren't typically given commands of individual ships as they are below their rank and it wouldn't be for a long period of time. Just for the sea trials at best and I wouldn't even expect more than a day or two.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
14. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Nooocleeeaarrr Wessels
  I'm so glad someone said it.
  This was the wessel in question too, wasn't it?
15. Re:Obligatory... by Talderas · 2017-02-07 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, found out James Kirk was commissioned in 1990, which means he'll hit 30 years of commissioned service in 2020 so even if the Enterprise is commissioned in 2025 when it's scheduled to be completed Captain Kirk will be an admiral or retired.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
16. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  You sure make a lot of bad assumptions.
17. Re: Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Blake's 7 is. Star trek is a Communist utopia.
18. Re:Obligatory... by NoSalt · 2017-02-07 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Chalk it up to Admiral Rickover's insistence that every officer serving on one of his nuclear ships needed proper training, and got it before taking the post.
  What training?
Defueling by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2017-02-06 09:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Enterprise had 8 A2W reactors so there was a lot of cutting and fuel removal that had to take place. In contrast, the next Enterprise will have 2 propulsion reactors. It would be nice if they can turn he into a museum somewhere, much like was done with the Nautilus.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
1. Re:Defueling by FireballX301 · 2017-02-06 09:40 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I heard once that if Enterprise had ever operated with all four propulsion plants in dual reactor mode, the ship would easily be the fastest capital ship in the world, and that the Nimitz classes are all much slower than the Enterprise was if taken to flank speed.
2. Re: Defueling by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-06 09:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You'd think so, but apparently Entreprise is to be entirely scrapped, and not even a significant piece of her such as her island will be placed in a museum:
  
  http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/10/22/enterprise-nimitz-class-carriers-wont-be-museums.html
3. Re:Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder how much it cost to take all the radioactive parts from the ship and store them until they are no longer radioactive. I'm guessing that's quite a long time, as spent nuke fuel has a half life of 10,000 years.
  What's the cost of just one night watchman for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10,000 years? I hope that was included in the costs/benefits analysis.
4. Re:Defueling by lazy+genes · 2017-02-06 10:50 · Score: -1
  
  Let's first invent a way to store the waste. It' seems a flaw in human evolution, never care about future generations .
5. Re:Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  because there is nothing else that "used" fuel can be used for now or in the future???
6. Re:Defueling by FatdogHaiku · 2017-02-06 10:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I wonder how much it cost to take all the radioactive parts from the ship and store them until they are no longer radioactive. I'm guessing that's quite a long time, as spent nuke fuel has a half life of 10,000 years. What's the cost of just one night watchman for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10,000 years? I hope that was included in the costs/benefits analysis.
  To be fair, the costs drop considerably after civilization ends...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
7. Re:Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  The visible surfaces and supports can be replicated for museum use. If only we had replicators to do the job..
8. Re:Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I heard that she has Transwarp(TM) drive.
9. Re:Defueling by tomhath · 2017-02-06 12:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The limiting factor with nuke powered ships is the propellers; you can only spin them so fast before they start to cavitate (usually somewhere around 100 knots for a big surface ship, somewhat higher for a submarine), The engines can deliver the horsepower.
10. Re:Defueling by baker_tony · 2017-02-06 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Good idea!
  Hmm, what about somewhere geologically safe... and under a mountain... Yucca mountain looks good! Oh wait...
11. Re: Defueling by slick7 · 2017-02-06 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  The limiting factor to speed is a concern with months out of dry dock due to barnacle build up. I could tell you more, but then I would have to kill you. A former CMO of 3 MMR.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
12. Re: Defueling by slick7 · 2017-02-06 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  They have. With air ops.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
13. Re: Defueling by slick7 · 2017-02-06 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  The only geologically safe concept is to never dig up the uranium in the first place.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
14. Re: Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  > I could tell you more, but then I would have to kill you.
  Not necessarily. You could tell us, then kill yourself. ^_^
15. Re: Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  No, you fucking moron. He's talking about top secret shit, not rehashing tired Dane Cook memes.
16. Re:Defueling by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-02-06 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  What about wave drag? You can deliver all the horsepower you want and the ship might still not like that.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
17. Re:Defueling by hackertourist · 2017-02-06 20:50 · Score: 2
  
  The USN has never published a top speed (just "at least 30 knots"), I wonder if they'll declassify the data now that the ship's been decommissioned.
  This article makes a good case that a top speed higher than 33.6 knots is unlikely.
  With all 8 reactors at full power, the ship makes more steam than the turbines (rated for 280kshp) can handle.
18. Re:Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 21:03 · Score: 0
  
  The /reactor/ can deliver the power. The limiting factor is the primary circuit heat removal capacity (coolant pumps). Exceed that and you'll end up with a molten reactor. There are other limitations (steam turbine blade stress, seawater cooling pump capacity to condense spent steam back into feed water etc.)
  Propellers actually start to cavitate at pretty low speeds and that's pretty normal. The limit at which they cavitate so much it destroys the propeller is not really relevant as to get there you would have exceeded so many other power constraints first.
19. Re:Defueling by thegarbz · 2017-02-06 22:18 · Score: 2
  
  The limiting factor for speed of any ship is its length and the size of the resulting bow wave. Regardless of how much power you can put out beyond a certain speed a ship starts to effectively climb over it's own bow wave and suddenly needs an exponential increase in propulsion power for a maginal gain.
  The propellers would cavitate and destroy themselves long before a ship overcame these limits imposed by their dimensions, not by their engine.
20. Re:Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 23:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The limiting factor with nuke powered ships is the propellers; you can only spin them so fast before they start to cavitate (usually somewhere around 100 knots for a big surface ship, somewhat higher for a submarine), The engines can deliver the horsepower.
  Umm, no.
  The limiting factor on the top speed of the Enterprise was the strength of her propeller shafts. IIRC, the #4 propulsion plant's shaft was over 600 feet long.
  Enterprise was originally built with high-speed screws that were removed in her first overhaul (again, IIRC) because the higher torque needed to spin them would have limited the life of the shafts.
  Even without the high-speed screws, she was faster than the Nimitz-class carriers. Enterprise had a hull that was longer and thinner, and she had 320,000 HP compared to the 260,000 or 280,000 for the Nimitz class. I'd venture that Enterprise could top out at over 40 kts even at the end of her life.
  But hey, what do I know. I only ran those propulsion plants for a couple of years.
21. Re: Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the AC above you is correct. We are not legally responsible for what is leaked to us. The person that leaks the classified information is responsible. Thus the former CMO would have to kill himself for revealing the secrets as he has the legal responsibility to protect them.
22. Re: Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's hardly a military secret. Fouling is a big problem in commercial shipping as well. Even a method that slows down fouling could be worth billions to shipping companies. It's not just the saving in fuel costs, but you'd also be able to go faster or use smaller engines. And as commercial ships are on average underway for 22 hours per day, these savings add up quickly. The military can just choose to use excess power, of course.
23. Re: Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Hardly a military secret. The military just uses more power. Commercial shipping is more cost-sensitive. You can literally earn billions if you come up with a good way to merely slow fouling. It's not just fuel savings, but also would mean higher speeds or smaller engines.
24. Re: Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  The limiting factor to speed is a concern with months out of dry dock due to barnacle build up. I could tell you more, but then I would have to kill you. A former CMO of 3 MMR.
  Somebody has to come up with an antibiotic coating.
25. Re:Defueling by currently_awake · 2017-02-07 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  A nuclear reactor converts radiation into electricity. If you use fuel reprocessing to purify the spent fuel you can extract enough radiation that the waste product can be safely dumped into a landfill. Nuclear power is still not cost effective against anything else. There are only 3 reasons to build a nuclear reactor: 1-remote power (voyager, south pole), 2-portable power (sub, aircraft carrier), 3-nuclear weapons production.
26. Re:Defueling by david_thornley · 2017-02-07 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  40 knots is awfully fast, requiring well over twice the power of 30 knots, and I don't know what the Enterprise's hull speed is offhand. She's about as long as ships that made 33 knots in WWII, so that would be my estimate.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
27. Re:Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunetely they cant turn it it a musuem. Once they gut it to pull the reactor out, not much of a ship will be left.
  A shame. The original WW2 Enterprise was supposed to become a museum, but lack of funds and interest led it to be scrapped.
28. Re: Defueling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for the moral support. OTOH Dane Cook should kill himself for the good of humanity, secrets notwithstanding.
29. Re: Defueling by slick7 · 2017-02-07 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing has been leaked. I know. There are many factors related to speed. Nothing classified has been leaked. The accumulation of barnacles affect all seawater vessels, including whales.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-06 09:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

...it's the entire contents of the article, minus the ads and with Slashdot's wrapped around it instead. This is copyright theft, pure and simple, and this summary should be deleted and replaced with a much, MUCH more abbreviated version.
1. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by bws111 · 2017-02-06 09:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh, but they did abbreviate it! They managed to remove all the paragraph formatting.
2. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by ljw1004 · 2017-02-06 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  ...it's the entire contents of the article, minus the ads and with Slashdot's wrapped around it instead. This is copyright theft, pure and simple, and this summary should be deleted and replaced with a much, MUCH more abbreviated version.
  Or... maybe Engadget's article could be deleted and replaced with a much, MUCH more detailed and information-rich version.
3. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by SeaFox · 2017-02-06 10:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ...it's the entire contents of the article, minus the ads and with Slashdot's wrapped around it instead..
  If the entire article is only 255 words, Engadget's paying that editor too much.
4. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by Xenographic · 2017-02-06 10:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, that's simply copyright infringement.
  You can't really "steal" a copyright unless you actually re-registered it in your own name somehow, perhaps by creating a fake memorandum of transfer. I don't see anyone depriving them of the copyright itself, just infringing upon some of the exclusive rights granted to them by copyright. At least, assuming the submitter wasn't authorized by the copyright holder. I sincerely doubt that they do have any such authorization, but Engaget and anyone they chose to inform are the only ones who have actual knowledge of that fact one way or another.
5. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-06 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the article is so bad, why is Slashdot linking to it in the first place? You can't have it both ways. Either it was newsworthy and contained sufficient content to justify its existence (in which case stealing it is bad), or it wasn't newsworthy or lacked sufficient information to be worth reading it (in which case mentioning it in the first place was bad.) Either way, Slashdot is in the wrong here.
6. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-06 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  So you know how much they got paid for it, eh? Interesting, and most likely not true. And without that information, your point is invalid.
7. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by SeaFox · 2017-02-06 10:55 · Score: 2
  
  If the article is so bad, why is Slashdot linking to it in the first place?
  We're talking about the same Slashdot whose editors approve regurgitated press releases and Bennett Haselton, right?
8. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by AmiMoJo · 2017-02-06 11:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  255 words is about 3x the attention span of the average Engadget reader, so actually for them it's a long-form essay.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by mrchaotica · 2017-02-06 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  copyright theft
  That phrase is an oxymoron. Either it's copyright infringment or it's theft, but it cannot be both.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
10. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-06 12:29 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, however that's not a reason to condone copyright theft because "Well it's only short."
11. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-06 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  When pedantics are more important than semantics...
12. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-06 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  When pedantics are more important than semantics. You know perfectly well what the expression means, even if you want to minimize that meaning to justify your own behavior.
13. Re: That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by slick7 · 2017-02-06 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  I copied that last week AND you stole it. FTFY
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
14. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by Xenographic · 2017-02-06 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  I'm protesting the sort of unclear thinking that caused someone to use an emotionally charged word that is not correct on any level.
  As for the rest, think what you wish, but I don't believe I have anything copyright infringing on here. I basically gave up on movies & TV a long time ago and I can hardly find anything to watch on YouTube or CR. My games are either free (Nethack, DF) or from GoG / Steam. No emulators or ROMs. You might well be right that nearly everyone has probably committed some sort of copyright violation at some point by now, though, but that only serves to show how overreaching that law has become.
15. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they could have at least corrected the errors of fact; Enterprise was launched in 1960 and COMMISSIONED in 1961. Ships aren't rockets.
16. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by ItsJustAPseudonym · 2017-02-06 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  What was the part after "255"?
17. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 19:20 · Score: 0
  
  When actual understanding of the law is more important than propaganda, you mean.
  They have you so indoctrinated, you actually can't tell the difference between two different concepts anymore.
18. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by halivar · 2017-02-07 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  ...it's the entire contents of the article, minus the ads and with Slashdot's wrapped around it instead. This is copyright theft, pure and simple, and this summary should be deleted and replaced with a much, MUCH more abbreviated version.
  *infringement.
  C'mon, this is Slashdot. We've been making that clear distinction since 1997.
19. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by david_thornley · 2017-02-07 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  The semantics of "theft" are generally that someone is unlawfully deprived of something. This can be things, or it can be work time ("theft of service").
  The copyright holder is not deprived of anything by copyright infringement. The copyright holder might miss a potential sale, but there's lots of reasons to lose sales, and negative reviews are not considered theft.
  Apparently, you don't understand what "semantics" means, and you have a pet phrase you like to pull out to cover your lack of insight. Copyright infringement and theft are semantically different.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
20. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by gweilo8888 · 2017-02-07 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I can tell the difference perfectly well. The original author and copyright holder of the piece has been robbed of their ability to make profits from their work by Slashdot, which has also profited from its act. That is the definition of theft: One party has lost something tangible, and the other has gained something tangible. You can pretend otherwise if you like, but this is copyright theft and focusing on pedantics just makes you look stupid and greedy.
21. Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  That is the definition of theft: One party has lost something tangible, and the other has gained something tangible.
  Congratulations, you've just shown you can't in fact tell the difference.. Copyright infringement does not deprive anyone of anything tangible; ergo it's not theft.
  There's a huge difference between taking a thing and making a thing.
Outsourcing by yoda-dono · 2017-02-06 09:41 · Score: 1

This should be replaced by a Canadian vessel, named--in keeping with Star Trek numbering--the Enterprise-eh.
Let's Make America Great Again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 09:46 · Score: -1

I'll support whatever means are necessary to stop terrorism and bomb muslims back into the stone age.

I also think we should wage war on Mexico and stop illegal immigration.

I'm all for more military to keep the peace and prosperity in the US.
1. Re: Let's Make America Great Again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:03 · Score: -1
  
  yes, bomb sand n1ggers and smelly indo-chimps... right in washington where they migrated during the past 8 years.
2. Re:Let's Make America Great Again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  "I just heard some sad news on CNN - the US nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise was found dead in its home port in Norfolk Virginia this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss it - even if you didn't enjoy its work, there's no denying his contributions to blowing shit up. Truly an American icon."
Enterprise by Fire_Wraith · 2017-02-06 09:47 · Score: 4, Informative

For the curious, the US Navy has already decided on the next ship to be named the U.S.S. Enterprise. It will be the third Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, scheduled to be laid down in 2018, launched in 2023, and commissioned in 2025. No word yet on whether it will be sent on a five-year mission afterwards.

Personally, I wish they'd named the first ship of that class Enterprise, and let Ford be one of the latter ones, so it could be the "Enterprise Class." Ah well. :)
1. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 09:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Personally, I wish they'd named the first ship of that class Enterprise, and let Ford be one of the latter ones, so it could be the "Enterprise Class." Ah well. :)
  Why not keep the ship name "Enterprise", but rename the class to "Constitution"?
2. Re:Enterprise by Tokolosh · 2017-02-06 10:00 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Navy ships should have proper, bold, majestic, fighting names. Stop naming them after defunct politicians and overambitious military blowhards.
  The Royal Navy knows how to do it.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
3. Re:Enterprise by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-06 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Personally, I wish they'd named the first ship of that class Enterprise, and let Ford be one of the latter ones
  Personally, I think we should stop naming ships, or anything else, after dead politicians. Or, even worse, living politicians.
4. Re:Enterprise by istartedi · 2017-02-06 10:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In true Star Trek form though, the original Enterprise is actually a Constitution class star ship. I'm too lazy to see if any of the later Enterprises defined their class.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
5. Re:Enterprise by magarity · 2017-02-06 10:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Navy ships should have proper, bold, majestic, fighting names. Stop naming them after defunct politicians and overambitious military blowhards.
  The Royal Navy knows how to do it.
  Only after they learned the hard way with what happened to The Prince of Wales.
6. Re:Enterprise by jeff4747 · 2017-02-06 10:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The -D (ST:TNG) is a Galaxy class. And I'm not enough of a Trekkie to know the rest.
7. Re:Enterprise by F34nor · 2017-02-06 10:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Name them like Iain M. Banks does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
8. Re:Enterprise by SJHillman · 2017-02-06 10:50 · Score: 2
  
  These are the ones from the TV show and movies.
  NX-01 - NX class - served 2151 to 2161
  NCC-1701 - Constitution class - served 2245 to 2285
  NCC-1701-A - Constitution class (refit) - served 2286 to 2293
  NCC-1701-B - Excelsior class (refit) - served 2293 to 2329
  NCC-1701-C - Ambassador class - served 2332 to 2344
  NCC-1701-D - Galaxy class - served 2363 to 2371
  NCC-1701-D alternate timeline - Galaxy class (refit), aka Galaxy-X, aka Galaxy-dreadnought - served ? to ~2395
  NCC-1701-E - Sovereign class - served 2372 to ?
  NCC-1701-J - Universe class (possible/alternate future) - served 26th century
9. Re:Enterprise by Howitzer86 · 2017-02-06 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  B is Excelsior class. C is some weird hybrid kitbash thing (The Internet says Ambassador class). I stopped caring after D.
10. Re:Enterprise by SeaFox · 2017-02-06 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  These are the ones from the TV show and movies.
  NX-01 - NX class - served 2151 to 2161
  NCC-1701 - Constitution class - served 2245 to 2285
  NCC-1701-A - Constitution class (refit) - served 2286 to 2293 ...
  NCC-1701-D - Galaxy class - served 2363 to 2371
  NCC-1701-D alternate timeline - Galaxy class (refit), aka Galaxy-X, aka Galaxy-dreadnought - served ? to ~2395
  Aren't the NX-class prototype/experimental designs?
  Kinda interesting they would use a ship like that for 10 years, yet the NCC-1701-D was only in service for eight years -- or was that because of it being destroyed in that one TNG movie? Also the original service design (NCC-1701) was in service for 30 years, but then gets only another five years after a major refit.
11. Re:Enterprise by SeaFox · 2017-02-06 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Also the original service design (NCC-1701) was in service for 30 years, but then gets only another five years after a major refit.
  Brain fart there. Seven years, not five. Still doesn't seem like much bang for the buck.
12. Re:Enterprise by Psiren · 2017-02-06 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I love the culture novels, and some of the ship names are just fantastic. I was chuffed to see SpaceX name some of their drone ships after these. I really hope the next one is called "Funny, It Worked Last Time...". At some point it'll probably be very apt.
13. Re:Enterprise by mi · 2017-02-06 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Name them like Iain M. Banks does
  The ships themselves need to be sentient for that to work, I think. Besides, even in Banks' creation, different civilizations have very different approaches to ship-naming. And the humanity from Earth is decidedly not part of Culture.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
14. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The next one should be Abstract class.
15. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  NCC-1701-A wasn't a refit, it was a completely new ship!
16. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  These are the ones from the TV show and movies.
  NX-01 - NX class - served 2151 to 2161
  NCC-1701 - Constitution class - served 2245 to 2285
  NCC-1701-A - Constitution class (refit) - served 2286 to 2293 ...
  NCC-1701-D - Galaxy class - served 2363 to 2371
  NCC-1701-D alternate timeline - Galaxy class (refit), aka Galaxy-X, aka Galaxy-dreadnought - served ? to ~2395
  Aren't the NX-class prototype/experimental designs?
  Kinda interesting they would use a ship like that for 10 years, yet the NCC-1701-D was only in service for eight years -- or was that because of it being destroyed in that one TNG movie? Also the original service design (NCC-1701) was in service for 30 years, but then gets only another five years after a major refit.
  1701 was refitted in the 2270's the 1701-A was a different Constitution class (refit) ship renamed Enterprise after the 1701 was destroyed in combat above the Genesis planet.
  1701-C was destroyed defending the Klingon outpost at Kitomer from the Romulans.
  1701-D was destroyed by another bird of prey over Veridian III.
  It's IMO implied that the B met some similar fate as Excelsior class ships are seen regularly in TNG and DS9 so it's not that they just retired the class.
  The NX class (the first warp 5 ships built by Starfleet) was a retcon. But also a pre-Federation designation. The Federation uses NX for prototype or commissioned experimental ships ships but those ships get registers with NCC after being commissioned (Excelsior was NX - 2000, then later NCC - 2000).
17. Re:Enterprise by evilviper · 2017-02-06 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Stop naming them after defunct politicians and overambitious military blowhards. The Royal Navy knows how to do it.
  They HAVE TO. There's just too many ridiculous British names...
  Let's hear it for the HMS Ridgewell Hancock
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
18. Re: Enterprise by slick7 · 2017-02-06 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  The Ford class? Fix or repair daily?
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
19. Re:Enterprise by serviscope_minor · 2017-02-06 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Navy ships should have proper, bold, majestic, fighting names.
  The Royal Navy knows how to do it.
  Only after they learned the hard way with what happened to The Prince of Wales.
  I can assure you that the Prince of Whales was the only ship like that. Others were given names such as:
  the HMS Pansy
  er no ok wait, how about:
  the HMS Cockchafer
  I mean sure that sounds like an unpleasant thing to do to an enemy, but it doesn't sound exactly terminal. OK so how about:
  The HMS Griper.
  I heard there were also plans for an "HMS Whinger", but it was never built. But I guess:
  the HMS Broke
  is a better name than the "HMS Funding Cut". I think it sounds altogether more cheerful to serve aboard:
  the HMS Frolic.
  And then there's any one of the many HMS Daffodills, all of which are guaranteed to strike fear into the hard ot any enemy upon hearning the name.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
20. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  Boaty McBoatFace
21. Re:Enterprise by Fragnet · 2017-02-06 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Amazing that it takes 5 years to build one of those. I remember reading that the US built 160 carriers during World War 2. Of course their construction was a lot simpler and the effort was balls-deep but still. That's a fuck-ton of ships.
22. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 21:02 · Score: 0
  
  Historically it has all been about funding.
  Initially you named them to make the local warlord happy and pay for the navy. Later, people figured out that rich towns and counties would pay up too.
  Really it is remarkable that we got any good names at all. The US was just really unfortunate that their navy came to be at a time when naming rights were being democratized and had lots of politicians, cities, counties, and states wanting to get in on the game.
23. Re:Enterprise by Oxygen99 · 2017-02-06 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  The GOU Overwhelming Display of Declining Military Power
  
  --
  I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
24. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  hms battleaxe
  Named after the mother in law.
  Nod to Tom Clancy (it is a real ship).
25. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear McGlowFace
26. Re:Enterprise by laughing_badger · 2017-02-07 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
27. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yes please.
  Yours,
  The crew of the USS Nonce
28. Re:Enterprise by usuallylost · 2017-02-07 01:28 · Score: 2
  
  I looked it up. None of the ships to bear the name Enterprise in Star Trek defined their class.
  Ships with the name Enterprise were, in historical order from the main Star Trek timeline, of the NX class, Constitution class, Constitution refit class, Excelsior refit class, Ambassador class, Galaxy class and Sovereign class
29. Re:Enterprise by Talderas · 2017-02-07 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  Only about 24 carriers (Essex class) built during WW2 had a 90+ aircraft capacity. Most of the rest of those had a capacity of 24-36 aircraft and probably displaced around 11,000 tons. The Essex class had a displacement of 27,000 tons. The first supercarrier class was the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk at 60,000 tons followed by the Enterprise at 93,000 tons and the Nimitz and Gerald Ford classes at 100,000 tons displacement. Between Nimitz and Ford and the limit of 12 supercarriers in the navy you're talking a total displacement of 1,200,000. The 24 Essex had a total displacement of 648,000 tons. The remaining 552,000 tons would be equivalent to the displacement of 50 of those light escort carriers.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
30. Re:Enterprise by cmdr_klarg · 2017-02-07 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  These are the ones from the TV show and movies.
  NX-01 - NX class - served 2151 to 2161
  NCC-1701 - Constitution class - served 2245 to 2285
  NCC-1701-A - Constitution class (refit) - served 2286 to 2293
  NCC-1701-B - Excelsior class (refit) - served 2293 to 2329
  NCC-1701-C - Ambassador class - served 2332 to 2344
  NCC-1701-D - Galaxy class - served 2363 to 2371
  NCC-1701-D alternate timeline - Galaxy class (refit), aka Galaxy-X, aka Galaxy-dreadnought - served ? to ~2395
  NCC-1701-E - Sovereign class - served 2372 to ?
  NCC-1701-J - Universe class (possible/alternate future) - served 26th century
  Star Trek Online has the NCC-1701-F Enterprise - Odyssey class.
  
  --
  THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
31. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  Navy ships should have proper, bold, majestic, fighting names. Stop naming them after defunct politicians and overambitious military blowhards.
  The Royal Navy knows how to do it.
  Yeah, using names of virtues [Intrepid, Invincible, etc]. Pretty cool.
  *In my country [2 carriers] they are named after states and cities.
32. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  HMS Boaty Mcboatface
33. Re: Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Star Trek: Enterprise: Archer's NX-01 - NX Class
  TOS: Kirk's NCC-1701 - Constitution Class
  Star Trek I - III: Kirk's NCC-1701 - Constitution Class (refit)
  Star Trek IV-VI: Kirk's NCC-1701-A - Constitution Class (refit)
  Star Trek: The Next Generation: Picard's NCC-1701-D - Galaxy Class
  Star Trek Generations: Harriman's NCC-1701-B - Excelsior Class
  "Yesterday's Enterprise": Garrett's NCC-1701-C - Ambassador Class
  Star Trek: First Contact: Picard's NCC-1701-E - Sovereign Class
  Star Trek: Enterprise: Unknown Captain's NCC-1701-J - Unknown class (fan speculated Universe Class or Congo Class)
  Star Trek Online: Shon's NCC-1701-F - Odyssey Class
  DS9: Sisko's USS Defiant NX-74205 - Defiant Class
  Voyager: Janeway's USS Voyager NCC-74656 - Intrepid Class
34. Re:Enterprise by david_thornley · 2017-02-07 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  In the 19th Century New Navy and on through WWII, battleships got state names (USS Kearsage being the exception), cruisers were named after cities, destroyers after people who'd been in the Navy and seemed worth commemorating, submarines after fish (although late in WWII they had to make up fishy-sounding names and kinda hope somebody would find a fish and use that name sometime). The first carrier was USS Langley, and the first real carriers were battlecruiser conversions and adopted the intended battlecruiser naming scheme of old famous warships. Later they named carriers after battles, and with the production of escort carriers they got pretty obscure.
  The modern use of state names for ballistic missile submarines and city names for attack submarines seems more or less reasonable, but naming carriers after politicians always seemed sad to me. There was some justification for USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, but having capital ships named after Vinson and Stennis seemed wrong to me.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
35. Re:Enterprise by EnsilZah · 2017-02-07 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  SpaceX does that.
  But then, their ships are autonomous.
36. Re:Enterprise by EnsilZah · 2017-02-07 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  How about making an exception for living politicians that become dead politicians as part of the process?
37. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-08 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Also the original service design (NCC-1701) was in service for 30 years, but then gets only another five years after a major refit.
  possibly related to it being self destructed and crashed onto a planet...
  the one that was decommissioned was another ship (most likely the Yorktown or Lexington) renamed Enterprise as a sop to either public opinion or Kirks ego, and theres no information how long ago it had been refitted...
Who would sink a nuclear ship? by MadCow42 · 2017-02-06 09:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

You have to admit... what army/navy/etc. would sink a nuclear ship in their own waters during war? You'd have to think twice about that - it could be a good deterrent to being attacked. If sunk, it could be a major issue in your region for generations to come.

--
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
1. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-06 10:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  what army/navy/etc. would sink a nuclear ship in their own waters during war?
  Given the opportunity, all of them.
  
  If sunk, it could be a major issue in your region for generations to come.
  Nine nuclear ships have sunk at sea. None of them resulted in significant radiation release. The reactors are designed to withstand sinking.
2. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  Why not? Sinking is actually a pretty good way to decommission a reactor.
3. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't the sinking that would cause the radiation release. It is the massive explosions, as a result of battle, that could breach the reactors while sinking the ship at the same time.
  None of the nine submarines in your link sank because of battle damage. They were accidents, relative benign events compared to battle.
  Still, I agree, given the opportunity, all of them would. What is the point in keeping the waters clean if it means you are going to lose control over it?
4. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously? Then why all the brouhaha over nuclear plants? Surely we can dump everything in the ocean when we're done. A few dozen RC dozers could clean up Fukushima in a week or two. Why on earth has this never been proposed?
5. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I remember thinking that when they blew up the Konovalov in Hunt for Red October.
  "Oh yes, very sad. Let's GTFOOH!!"
6. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-06 11:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Water absorbs radiation pretty effectively, and the oceans are in fact rather big[citation needed] and contain currents that will dilute and disperse the radionuclides. That's not to say there will definitely be zero impact, but it's not going to be catastrophic even if it sinks over an economically important part of the continental shelf. The biggest issue will probably be bioaccumulation in the sea life. So yes, fishing industries a bit damaged for a while. Beyond that, there's no huge problem other than those stemming from nuclear/radiation hysteria.
7. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-06 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  You have to admit... what army/navy/etc. would sink a nuclear ship in their own waters during war? You'd have to think twice about that - it could be a good deterrent to being attacked. If sunk, it could be a major issue in your region for generations to come.
  It's astonishing that anyone (let alone 6 digit slashdotters) still thinks of radioactive contamination like this.
  
  It might be an issue for the fishing industry due to bioaccumulation, but there would be no other significantly worrisome effects. Water absorbs radiation very effectively and unlike fallout on land, currents would eventually disperse any radionuclides that didn't immediately settle on the sea floor.
  
  We're constantly surrounded by radiation. The entire Earth is, in fact, a nuclear reactor orbiting another nuclear reactor that can give you a radiation burn and possibly even cancer if you expose your uncovered skin to it for just an hour or two...
8. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-06 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? Then why all the brouhaha over nuclear plants?
  Because there's a massive amount of misunderstanding and hysteria. There is one potential issue in bioaccumulation in sealife harming the fishing industry, but this would be fairly localized.
  
  few dozen RC dozers could clean up Fukushima in a week or two. Why on earth has this never been proposed?
  Well, there's the fishing and there's radioisotope terrorism, but those are largely driven by emotions, too. You make a fatal error when you assume that the public as a whole, or policymakers, are driven by cool, rational, relative risk and cost-based thinking.
  
  Nuclear dangers have always been grossly overstated. We tolerate being poisoned by mecurcy in tuna (due mainly to coal power plants and gold miners) with very little controversy, despite the fact that heavy metal poisoning, even in smaller doses, is proven to permanently lower IQs. But people go insane the moment it's revealed that anything is slightly more radioactive than normal, for any reason.
9. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by tomhath · 2017-02-06 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't the sinking that would cause the radiation release. It is the massive explosions, as a result of battle, that could breach the reactors while sinking the ship at the same time.
  Nope. Naval vessels don't get blown apart unless you hit them with a nuke of your own. The massive explosions that would follow are the ICBMs that would rain down on whoever sank the ship.
10. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  This is correct. Besides, after twenty or thirty years the cod will be fucking huuuuge.
11. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  That's great. I always enjoy my sparkling tap water spiked with radiation in the morning. Mmmmmm Mmm!
12. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by slick7 · 2017-02-06 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  If you really want to know what can happen, then look to the Dai-Ichi reactor complex in Fukushima.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
13. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by DerekLyons · 2017-02-06 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  Nine nuclear ships have sunk at sea. None of them resulted in significant radiation release.
  Yet.
  
  And precisely none of them were sunk under attack. (And two of them aren't even in the ocean any more - they are salvaged.) That's an awful thin experience base on which to make long term judgements.
14. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-06 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Water absorbs radiation pretty effectively
  Indeed.
15. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Because there's a massive amount of misunderstanding and hysteria.
  Not quite, but no surprise you want to blame the exploited. It is what the industry wants.
  You know why they can't get their act together? Because of a massive amount of corruption and incompetence in the electric power industry. One or the other would be manageable, but combined, they make for an intractable mess.
  They can't even construct the plants efficiently, let alone be trusted to operate them. If we started dumping reactors in the ocean, you can bet some idiot would find a way to fuck that up.
  And they have no reason to be cheaper either, all that shit about electric production too cheap to meter? Yeah, a power company wants that. Bullshit, as shown by Enron's machinations in California (which their lobbyists got everybody to blame on anybody else), but even now, the state of California is being victimized by the industry in building plants just to cover the fallout from those brownouts. Not that half the nuclear reactors in that state didn't have serious problems. At least if one of their natgas plants blows up it only takes out the neighborhood.
  And before you go on about mercury releases from coal, just remember that the pea soup of London Fog used to be far far worse. And people put up with that.
  I usually put fusion reactors as on the same level as the water-powered car, but some days, I wonder.
  So should you.
16. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I don't know about you, but that's why I spent a few million years building an atmosphere to keep the nasty radiation away.
17. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by cyn1c77 · 2017-02-06 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  You have to admit... what army/navy/etc. would sink a nuclear ship in their own waters during war? You'd have to think twice about that - it could be a good deterrent to being attacked. If sunk, it could be a major issue in your region for generations to come.
  You sink the ship, then accuse the country that owned the ship of attacking you with a nuclear capability.
  There you go, you now have given yourself approval for a nuclear retaliation.
  Seems like crazy logic, but let's see if it happens in the South China Sea soon.
18. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-06 15:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you really want to know what can happen, then look to the Dai-Ichi reactor complex in Fukushima.
  Non sequitur much? This is about a reactor at the bottom of the sea which stands a good chance of being flooded due damage to the vessel before anything melts down. Fukushima was about a reactor overheating and sending crap into the air. It also wasn't nearly as dangerous as the hysteria would have you believe, but that's another story.
  
  As I said elsewhere, people will happily poison themselves and stunt their childrens' IQs by a few points by eating tuna that's been contaminated (*worldwide*) by mercury from coal burning and gold mining and then afterwards go for a nice relaxing lie-down on the beach to give themselves cancer-inducing radiation burns, but god forbid there's a localized incidence of slightly increased radionuclide-based radioactivity somewhere in the world.
  
  Centralia also needs to be brought up whenever people like to imply that the damage from nuclear is uniquely long-lived compared to the alternatives. And the situation there isn't unique.
19. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-06 16:06 · Score: 2
  
  You're just blathering. The point is not that nuclear is completely safe; it's that nothing is.
  
  They can't even construct the plants efficiently, let alone be trusted to operate them.
  They can't even be trusted to mine coal, let alone burn it.
  
  You *were* aware that there are dozens of coal mine fires burning around the world right now, right? That they spew forth toxic gasses and cause the ground to collapse and it ends up rendering many square miles of land uninhabitable? That thousands of people have been forced to evacuate? That it's not too unusual for the fires (like Centralia's) to have lifespans on the order of hundreds of years?
  
  How many coals miners have died from cave-ins? How many workers have died from coal dust or petroleum explosions? How many civilians have died from petroleum and coal? It's monstrous. Nuclear has killed a very, very small number of people over the past 50 years outside of some moronic shit the USSR did. Go ahead and find the worst estimates for increased cancer rates and toss that into the fatality figure; it's still a ridiculously small number compared to hydrocarbons. Because nuclear safety is held to a completely different standard.
20. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 17:56 · Score: 0
  
  No technology is idiot proof, or greed proof, and if you're going to go on about coal-mine fires, while ignoring the point I made about the "pea soup" fogs that were once a regular problem, maybe you are one of those idiots yourself.
  That's right, choking miasmas were ignored, and you're expecting underground fires to bother people? Faraway mountains, no matter how scenic to be protected? When the locals don't care?
  Nope! They gots to mine that coal. It's the way their pappy and their gran-pappy done it. While drinking the finest methyl alcohol they could ferment.
  And you, you, you seemed inclined blame the environmentalists for it. Cuz they are the problem. Not a bunch of rich and powerful people with the influence and capabilities to shape the world.
  And no, I don't mean Lady Gaga.
21. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-06 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't read in scrupulous detail the posts of ACs who appear to be blathering.
  
  If you're just going Luddite on me, life was of course no walk in the part before we had access to modern technology including electricity. I might hate Monsanto too, but the people who argue for locally grown, organically fertilized everything are being extremely stupid.
  
  If you're not being a Luddite, you're just aimlessly blathering. And/or you haven't wrapped your mind around some rather elementary misanthropic truths.
  
  And you, you, you seemed inclined blame the environmentalists for it.
  For focusing on the wrong things and demonizing technology that is safer and won't contribute to global warming, yes.
  
  They are a rather large part of the problem, although there's an extremely depressing but very possibly sound argument that the nuclear taboo is worth preserving intact because of nuclear weapons.
22. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 22:11 · Score: 0
  
  Water absorbs radiation pretty effectively, and the oceans are in fact rather big[citation needed] and contain currents that will dilute and disperse the radionuclides.
  No, they don't dilute, they concentrate...
  
  The biggest issue will probably be bioaccumulation in the sea life.
  that is what bio-accumulation *is*.
23. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by BitZtream · 2017-02-07 00:13 · Score: -1
  
  What about the ones that get blown up due to an intentional attack ... Then sink.
  There have been exactly 0 of those.
  Sinking isn't the problem, it's that cruise missile or harpoon that I'm worried about.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
24. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Your tap provides seawater? From the deep ocean? And you drink it?
25. Re:Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-07 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not all compounds bioaccumulate. Many chemicals are not absorbed by the digestive tracts of vertebrates and these will (assuming they aren't big enough or heavy enough to stay on-site) disperse in the ocean with no concentrating effects.
  
  The ones that do dissolve in seawater *and* bioaccumulate can be a problem for the people who eat the fish, but unless this happens in the middle of a critically important/valuable sea food producting area, this isn't a catastrophic or even a particularly unusual problem as several people on here seem to be implying.
26. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's ok man, all it produces is your own incoherent ranting. Which is hardly uncommon around here. Or in the Oval Office now. Well, actually, I heard people think he tweets his nonsense on the toilet. That'd be slightly better. I guess.
  Look, you want to believe that it's the Luddites, and the environmentalists, and the Greens, and think they're a large part of the problem, you might as well blame them for keeping the Martians under wraps and the super-intelligent space chimpanzees.
  No, dipweed, blame the real problem, people with money and power, the ones who sit in the boardrooms, wearing their suits and snorting coke. Not a bunch of people who end up 1% of the vote.
  They aren't doing anything, they aren't capable of doing anything. They could wear pyramids on their heads and embrace the power of moonbeams, it'd not make a difference. Wrap your head around that truth. Realize that you are aimlessly jousting at the clowns, while ignoring the elephant in the room.
27. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-07 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Technology is an integral part of the problem that exists independent of business and politics. You're just blathering irrelevancies. I've no great love whatsover for corporations or the 1%, but I don't try to hijack every conversation into being about them. The tech and pollution questions would exist even in a governmental utopia.
28. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by slick7 · 2017-02-07 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  Given time, seawater affected reactors will eventually spill their guts. Fuku-shima has been doing so for years.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
29. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-07 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  Again, unless you have a case study or mathematical estimates to indicate otherwise, it's a reasonable assumption that this is going to be a fairly localized event with limited impact, it's not going to get into the air and get blown to a nearby town, it's not going to make it unsafe to swim or boat, it's not going to get in the drinking water supply (assuming there's no desalinization plant nearby), and it's not going to poison miles of coastline. It might bioaccumulate and affect the local seafood industry, very possibly primarily affecting the fish that are already unhealthy to eat due to mercury bioaccumulation. That's about it.
30. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by slick7 · 2017-02-09 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you really want to know what happens, then go to Japan and stay there; eat the seafood, drink the water and bathe in the the environment. Take notes, leave a journal for posterity and have children. Post your data to social media, words and pictures; leave it to the future to assess the outcome. You are too close to the inception point, with little data to make a valid extrapolation. Given 20 or 30 years worth of data will give a meaningful direction for further extrapolation. Given 100 years of data, an hypothesis will redefine the direction and possible results.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
31. Re: Who would sink a nuclear ship? by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-09 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Live near an airport and breath the leaded gas fumes, inhale the radioactive particles emitted by coal plants (yes, coal plants emit a significant amount of radionuclides), eat bluefin tuna for two meals a day and get mercury poisoning, etc.
  
  You're just babbling. The world is full of dangerous side effect pollutants. But whatever the substance is, the harm is always a function of dose.
  
  I'd be happy to move to Fukushima and raise a family, if you're financing it. Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world. Getting a single CT scan in your lifetime raises your rise of cancer much more than the background radiation increases from minor nuclear accidents like Fukushima or Three Mile Island.
Islam EXPOSED! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 09:50 · Score: -1

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Fal...
Christians and Muslims DON'T Worship the Same God!
I have received quite a few letters recently from Muslims who are insistent that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. If fact, even George W. Bush, a professed "Christian," said the same thing to ABC news correspondent, Charles Gibson...
In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson, Bush said he believes that both Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
"I think we do. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty," Bush said. "But I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to get decide who goes to heaven. The Almighty God decides who goes to heaven and I am on my personal walk," he said.
--ABC News, October 26, 2004
Do Muslims and Christians worship the SAME God? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Allah is a fictitious, fabricated, false god from the 9th century ... the moon god (which you will see later in this article). According to www.thetruereligion.org...
For various reasons, many people have come to believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians and Jews. This is totally false, since "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" - and there is only One God. Let there be no doubt - Muslims worship the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus - peace be upon them all. -SOURCE
As proof that the above claim is a lie, we need only turn to the Koran itself, The Women, 4.171...
"...believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector."
Clearly, the Koran (written about 600 A.D.) DENIES the Son of God, Jesus Christ! The Koran teaches that God has no Son. In contrast, the Word of God, the Bible, declares in John 3:16...
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
1st John 2:22 calls ALL Muslims "LIARS" because they deny that Jesus is the Christ...
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
According to the Word of God, you are a liar and an ANTI-Christ if you deny the Father AND THE SON. Clearly, the Koran and the Bible are completely INCOMPATIBLE. Islam is a big lie, totally contrary to the Word of God. The Koran is filled with demonic lies! There is no common ground, you either believe the Bible or the Koran. You MUST choose! George W. Bush is wrong. The above quote from www.thetruereligion.org is wrong! The Koran is wrong! Islam is a false religion!
Muslims Deny Jesus' Deity, Crucifixion, and Resurrection!
At www.islamworld.net, the following statement appears in large bold lettering at the top of the home page...
"THERE IS NO DEITY WORTHY OF WORSHIP EXCEPT ALLAH, AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER "
In contrast, the Word of God proclaims in Revelation 4:11...
1. Re: Islam EXPOSED! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:06 · Score: -1
  
  Yes, exterminate all terrorists sand n1ggers - at their headquarters in washington.
2. Re:Islam EXPOSED! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. When you die, you go to the afterworld and you will typically shed your body and live on as a disembodied being. But if you behaved well in your life and especially if you're a skilled martial arts fighter, you might get to keep your physical body. Then, you get to meet Kaio of the Galaxy's North quadrant and if you prove yourself worthy, master Kaio will teach you new techniques such as the very powerful but dangerous Kaio-ken. This will be very useful when you come back to life but for that your friends or family have to collect all seven Dragon Balls and summon Shenron, which can only be done once a year.
3. Re:Islam EXPOSED! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  Even Jesus said 'Jesus' when he read that.
The evil RUSSIANS did it! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 09:54 · Score: -1

The RUSSIANS are behind EVERY cyber attack of our cyber critical cyber systems. They cyber HACKED our cyber ELECTION and caused a dying evil witch to lose it. Despite there being not the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence, you should believe US just as you believed us when we said that there were WMDs in Iraq. If we had been able to install the REAL leader of the USA, certainly we would have been able to nuke all those EVIL RUSSIANS so far into the stone age they'd have to reinvent Tetris. Evil PUTIN is EVVVIIILLL!!!
Nuclear desalinization after disasters by nomadicGeek · 2017-02-06 09:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

My father pointed out to me that the nuclear carriers can be a great help after humanitarian disasters as they can desalinate large quantities of water. I found an article about the Carl Vincent that says that it can desalinate 400,000 gallons of water a day. We stationed it off the coast of Haiti after the earthquakes there.
http://content.time.com/time/s...
1. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  This is true, but you could probably make an equivalent desalination barge for a fraction of the cost.
2. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by aaarrrgggh · 2017-02-06 11:53 · Score: 2
  
  The carrier can also be set up to back-feed the electrical grid in port... and it can move pretty fast.
3. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  > I found an article about the Carl Vincent that says that it can desalinate 400,000 gallons of water a day.
  Wow! They'd have enough salt to last FOREVER!
4. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  Can't even outrun a lame ol' Exocet.
5. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by _merlin · 2017-02-06 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but all of that would be far more efficient with a purpose-built ship that wasn't also carrying an entire airbase.
6. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by Deadstick · 2017-02-06 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  the Carl Vincent
  
  Please tell me that's your spellchecker.
7. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by aaarrrgggh · 2017-02-06 13:58 · Score: 2
  
  Yes; if you need to build a maritime vessel to provide power and desalinization an aircraft carrier would not be the first choice. However, if you build a fleet of aircraft carriers that are staffed and dispatched around the world, and only occasionally needed for supporting aircraft... it makes a lot of sense to be able to use them as emergency response facilities.
8. Re: Nuclear desalinization after disasters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  We could, but only in Fantasy Land where gubmints build desalination barges. In Real Life we make killing machines that happen to desalinate. Justify that budget!
9. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by nomadicGeek · 2017-02-07 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed it was. I'll correct the correction. Thanks for the catch.
10. Re:Nuclear desalinization after disasters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Air base seems like it'd be a great thing to carry if you are looking to supply and distribute aid to an area that might not have an operable airport, or sea port.
  Being able to send out helicopters and take in supplies (I think a carrier can support cargo planes carrier something like 2-5 tons of cargo) in a centralized location that is unaffected by what ever they are responding to seems like a great idea.
Photons? by CohibaVancouver · 2017-02-06 10:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Team leader, this is team two. Come in, please.

I have the coordinates of the reactor.

Kirk here.

Admiral, we have found the nuclear wessel.

Well done, you two!

And Admiral... it is the *Enterprise*!
1. Re:Photons? by scdeimos · 2017-02-06 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Thank goodness. I thought I was the only one to think of George and Gracie.
2. Re:Photons? by Slider451 · 2017-02-06 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  First thing I thought of, too.
  I was bummed to find out that the the USS Enterprise in the movie was actually played by the USS Ranger, temporarily re-branded.
  
  --
  Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
3. Re:Photons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  First thing I thought of, too.
  I was bummed to find out that the the USS Enterprise in the movie was actually played by the USS Ranger, temporarily re-branded.
  Which was not even a nuclear wessel.
4. Re:Photons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  George and Gracie might possibly be a nod to the real life George and Gracie. The George Burns road was dedicated at the same year the movie came out, the year of George Burn's 90th birthday.
5. Re:Photons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  might?
ftfy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:43 · Score: 0

" They'll be disposed of relatively safely at the notoriously unsafe Hanford Site"
trivia by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:43 · Score: 1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/quotes
Chekov: Admiral. We have found the nuclear wessel.
Kirk: Well done, Team two.
Chekov: And Admiral... it is the *Enterprise*.
[Kirk and Spock look at each other]
Kirk: Understood.
Hanford "relatively safe"??? by mspohr · 2017-02-06 10:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Looks like the Hanford site has had quite a few problems:
Hanford Nuclear Waste Cleanup Plant May Be Too Dangerous
https://www.scientificamerican...
Report finds serious defects at Hanford nuclear waste treatment plant
http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
1. Re:Hanford "relatively safe"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  I don't usually ask questions about moderation (in fact maybe I've never done so), but why might this have been moderated as "Offtopic"?
2. Re:Hanford "relatively safe"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Unclear, though I find Hanford to be a touchy subject on Slashdot. Maybe it's because some believe the disaster there reflects badly on the nuclear industry, and many Slashdotters are pro-nuclear.
3. Re: Hanford "relatively safe"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  It might've been downvoted because you didn't specify *graphite* moderation.
  Try the shrimp scampi! I'll be here all week.
  Seriously, Hanford is pretty contaminated. Surprised they're still dumping nuclear waste there.
4. Re:Hanford "relatively safe"??? by alleycat0 · 2017-02-07 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Hanford has experienced a handful of serious (and a plethora of less significant) problems throughout its history - reference, for example, www.lutins.org/nukes.html
  
  --
  I am not a number - I am a free man!
Chekhov by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 10:53 · Score: 1

"We are looking for nuclear wessels"
1. Re:Chekhov by jfdavis668 · 2017-02-06 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Admiral. We have found the nuclear wessel. And Admiral... it is the Enterprise
Trump class a-coming by mi · 2017-02-06 11:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Are you that afraid of there appearing a Trump-class of ships some day?
It will be huge. And beautiful...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Trump class a-coming by Tokolosh · 2017-02-06 11:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ha, indeed. Democrats are waking up to the realization that giving the government power will backfire.
  Republicans, being slower on the uptake, have yet to learn this lesson.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
2. Re:Trump class a-coming by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-02-06 12:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Are you that afraid of there appearing a Trump-class of ships some day?
  Weapons on any Trump class ships will probably be unable to aim properly, inflicting equal damage on friend, foe, and crew.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
3. Re:Trump class a-coming by Boronx · 2017-02-06 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has their blindsides. Republicans knew much earlier than Democrats that the media was full of shit, but have yet to learn not to elect retards.
  
  --
  Play Command HQ online
4. Re:Trump class a-coming by mi · 2017-02-06 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  Weapons on any Trump class ships will probably be unable to aim properly, inflicting equal damage on friend, foe, and crew.
  They'll still be winning battles, even while losing the popular vote. Like Patriots.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
5. Re:Trump class a-coming by ItsJustAPseudonym · 2017-02-06 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  But there will be so much aiming. So much.
6. Re:Trump class a-coming by usuallylost · 2017-02-07 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Are you that afraid of there appearing a Trump-class of ships some day?
  It will be huge. And beautiful...
  Now that is an amusing vision. I can see a warship entirely lit up in neon with giant golden letters spelling out TRUMP on the side. On the upside it will probably having onboard gambling and an excellent buffet
7. Re:Trump class a-coming by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  The deck will feature a majestic 360 degree wall courtesy of the Mexican navy.
8. Re:Trump class a-coming by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Aiming with its tiny guns.
9. Re:Trump class a-coming by nmb3000 · 2017-02-07 04:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Are you that afraid of there appearing a Trump-class of ships some day?
  Weapons on any Trump class ships will probably be unable to aim properly, inflicting equal damage on friend, foe, and crew.
  Probably because the guns are so tiny.
  
  --
  "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
  /)
10. Re:Trump class a-coming by phorm · 2017-02-07 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  And for some reason those guns will be unable to target any Russian vessels...
11. Re:Trump class a-coming by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  And yet, somehow, still win the war.
12. Re:Trump class a-coming by cthulhu11 · 2017-02-07 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Desperately wish I could mod this up
Americans Are Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 12:59 · Score: 0

Imagine if this sailing piece of radioactive shit got sunk, and spent eternity leaking nuclear waste into the ocean. Yes that's how fucking reckless you idiot yanks are.
Hypocrisy of the Left by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:15 · Score: 0

There is a dirty little secret. Commercial ocean going ships pollute heavily. Our oceans are dying. Rather that switch to clean burning carbon neutral source of energy like nuclear power, you insist that you get your Fiji natural spring water carried to you on ocean liners burning diesel. These diesel freighters are all leaking massive amounts of petrochemicals into the ocean all the time due to leaky seals and gaskets. The have a special 'sorta' clean fuel they only use in your pristine California ports. The rest of the time they are burning the nastiest stuff imaginable.
I imagine that if it hadn't been to all you greenies that outlawed nuclear powered ocean liners in the 70's we would have a lot more fish in the ocean. A nuclear powered craft can run 13 years w/o refueling.
Fucking faggoty ass greeny liberals are destroying my planet.
Story from inside the Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 16:09 · Score: 0

I worked at a commercial company as a coop in college. I spent the better part of an afternoon on the Enterprise doing a site survey/inventory. It was truly and amazing site.
Don't destroy it. Give it to us Canadians. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 17:53 · Score: 0

Why not give it to Canada? We do not have an aircraft carrier and I imagine we would jump at the opportunity of having a nuclear one.
Civilian use? by bazorg · 2017-02-06 19:14 · Score: 1

I wonder if there's any possibility of this ship being used for civilian purposes? If it's good enough for carrying armed aircraft and hundreds of crewmen, it should be OK for doing the same minus the weapons.
Or... after all those years in service, will the Enterprise still have any shipbuilding secrets worth hiding?
Apart from the obvious use as a supervillain HQ, a large ship with helicopters and airplanes could be useful for rescue operations and support to places needing help following natural disasters (the "UNICEF aircraft carrier").
1. Re:Civilian use? by coofercat · 2017-02-07 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Such ships seem like a great idea - some years ago there was one for sale (not sure who the previous owner was). I seem to remember it was for sale in the low-millions of dollars sort of range. The thing is, to get it off the dock you need millions more just to tow it, millions more to dock it somewhere you can work on it and then (probably) hundreds of millions more to refit it and make it work in any useful sense.
  There's a reason military budgets get measured in the billions ;-)
2. Re:Civilian use? by bazorg · 2017-02-07 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  OK... I get the idea...
  Could this one be the ship you saw in the news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  ?
3. Re:Civilian use? by Talderas · 2017-02-07 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  It would be far too expensive to maintain or operate and ocean travel can take a long time. More likely than not a US supercarrier is going to be closer to the disaster that occurs than the repurposed Enterprise.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
4. Re:Civilian use? by currently_awake · 2017-02-07 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Civilian aid agencies can't afford to run it, and the military needs the money for the F35 and the Ford class gravy train.
The Navy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 21:29 · Score: 0

I wasnt aware there was one navy on the planet...
Since when did the chinese, russia and american navies all get merged into the "navy" ?
1. Re:The Navy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  Only an idiot would not recognize he was talking about the US Navy as that is the entire subject of this article, and thread.
Don't know why I thought of this: by AlanObject · 2017-02-07 07:24 · Score: 1

A quote that might or might not be germane:
Commander William T. Riker: Fate. Protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise.
It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 10:16 · Score: 0

The autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!
So by BitztreamNotARealNam · 2017-02-07 16:30 · Score: 1

How's life in the hypocrite lane?