This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States naval reactors article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Erm, isn't the title for this a little bit off? Shouldn't it be "United States Naval Reactors"? Elde 08:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There are some discrepancies between the vessels listed under each reactor type and the reactors named in the articles describing the individual reactors and vessels (e.g. S3G reactor, USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659), USS Gato (SSN-615) and USS Triton (SSN-586). This will have to be sorted out by somebody with accurate knowledge! EdH 16:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
Why the inclusion of USS JFK (CV67) in this article? As a mere Brit, even I am aware that that ship is conventionally fuelled. Brian.Burnell 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton.
This article is entitled United States Naval reactor. Some portions of the article deal with other navies' reactors, civilian merchant ship reactors even land-based reactors that aren't marine designs (the Antarctic reactor mentioned, while operated by U.S. Navy Seabees was an Army reactor and the operators were Army-trained).
I suggest we consider any or all of the following:
-- A. B. 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is titled United States Naval reactor but it covers other countries' naval reactors. Should this article be renamed or some more general article on naval reactors in general be started? Or perhaps a naval reactors section be added to a new section in Nuclear marine propulsion.
Altogether, we have:
Your thoughts?
--
A. B.
(talk) 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We have the paragraph I just modified about the Army-designed reactors (my addition in italics):
This paragraph should not really go in this article. (Yes, there were Navy reactor operators for the Antarctic reactor, but that's only because it was a navy-supported base; those operators were Army-trained Seabees -- navy construction personnel operating an Army reactor designed for land-based use). The Naval Reactors office was not involved. If Rickover couldn't control something, he didn't want to be responsible for it in any way; he had the clout (even with Presidents) to get his way about this sort of thing.
Perhaps just a short note in the "See Also" section (or wherever the Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates):
-- A. B. (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There was not much about decommissioning in the text. I've added disposal a photo from http://www.navsea.navy.mil/shipyards/puget/Page/CVN65FinalEA.pdf
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford,_WA_in_2004.png Johnvr4 ( talk) 17:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
that they are not singularly concerned with driving a generator, but the steam turbine's primary use is to provide propulsion for the propeller shafts, right? Also on the carriers additional steam is generated for the airplane catapults. And I would expect that they are constructed in a way to easily and efficiently power up and down, compared to electric power generating stations, where you usually want to operate the reactor at one optimal point for as long as possible. -- BjKa ( talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States naval reactors article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Erm, isn't the title for this a little bit off? Shouldn't it be "United States Naval Reactors"? Elde 08:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There are some discrepancies between the vessels listed under each reactor type and the reactors named in the articles describing the individual reactors and vessels (e.g. S3G reactor, USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659), USS Gato (SSN-615) and USS Triton (SSN-586). This will have to be sorted out by somebody with accurate knowledge! EdH 16:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
Why the inclusion of USS JFK (CV67) in this article? As a mere Brit, even I am aware that that ship is conventionally fuelled. Brian.Burnell 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton.
This article is entitled United States Naval reactor. Some portions of the article deal with other navies' reactors, civilian merchant ship reactors even land-based reactors that aren't marine designs (the Antarctic reactor mentioned, while operated by U.S. Navy Seabees was an Army reactor and the operators were Army-trained).
I suggest we consider any or all of the following:
-- A. B. 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is titled United States Naval reactor but it covers other countries' naval reactors. Should this article be renamed or some more general article on naval reactors in general be started? Or perhaps a naval reactors section be added to a new section in Nuclear marine propulsion.
Altogether, we have:
Your thoughts?
--
A. B.
(talk) 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We have the paragraph I just modified about the Army-designed reactors (my addition in italics):
This paragraph should not really go in this article. (Yes, there were Navy reactor operators for the Antarctic reactor, but that's only because it was a navy-supported base; those operators were Army-trained Seabees -- navy construction personnel operating an Army reactor designed for land-based use). The Naval Reactors office was not involved. If Rickover couldn't control something, he didn't want to be responsible for it in any way; he had the clout (even with Presidents) to get his way about this sort of thing.
Perhaps just a short note in the "See Also" section (or wherever the Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates):
-- A. B. (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There was not much about decommissioning in the text. I've added disposal a photo from http://www.navsea.navy.mil/shipyards/puget/Page/CVN65FinalEA.pdf
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford,_WA_in_2004.png Johnvr4 ( talk) 17:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
that they are not singularly concerned with driving a generator, but the steam turbine's primary use is to provide propulsion for the propeller shafts, right? Also on the carriers additional steam is generated for the airplane catapults. And I would expect that they are constructed in a way to easily and efficiently power up and down, compared to electric power generating stations, where you usually want to operate the reactor at one optimal point for as long as possible. -- BjKa ( talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)