Talk:NS Savannah/Archive 1

NS Prefix
Savannah really was called "NS Savannah" - there was a time when everybody thought "NS" would become as common a prefix as "SS"... Stan 00:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure the move was beneficial. Provided that 'NS' is indeed correct for Savannah's prefix, of course. Is a bracketed disambiguation any better than a prefixed NS? &mdash;Morven 00:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Checked, verified that 'NS' prefix is valid, restored article to previous name. &mdash;Morven 01:02, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Merchant Service
I originally put a "Merchant Service" header in the article where "Economics..." is presently. If more facts on her voyages become available, perhaps "Merchant Service" could be new section and the dated events in "Economics" moved to that section. It reads pretty well the way it is now, which is why I didn't move those events at this time.--J Clear 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Economics
Anyone know what a ton of bunker oil goes for these days? Perhaps MARAD should be restoring her to service.--J Clear 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or build new nuclear-powered ships with a more practical hull design. A single ship won't make much difference in the Merchant Marine's fuel consumption, but a few dozen would. 71.203.209.0 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The first steam powered ship to cross the atlanic?
Am i missing something here....? Please tell me you've heard of Brunel. David 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming you mean Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the Great Western, he was 13 in 1819, when the SS Savannah crossed the Atlantic. Great Western crossed about 19 years after Savannah. Note the reference does not state that the Savanah crossed entirely on steam. But then again a quick search for Brunel doesn't say that the Great Western did, either. I'm not saying Brunel wasn't impressive and didn't have many firsts, but the Savannah was before his time.  Apparently his Great Britain was the first iron hulled, propellor driven ship to cross the Atlantic, in 1845.  Perhaps that was what you were thinking of.--J Clear 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, my mistake. Thanks for the reply! David 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actual Owner
Under the photo of the NS Savannah, the owner is listed as "State Marine Lines." No shipping company ever owned the NS Savannah. When launched, it was owned by the US Maritime Administration (MARAD), who owns the vessel to this day (March 16, 2008).

The cited ownership is an understandable mis-perception, since ships are generally thought of as being owned by the company who operates them. However, both operators, States Marine Lines and First Atomic Ship Transport, a subsidiary of American Export-Isbrandtsen LInes, operated the vessel under a bare-boat charter from MARAD.

The potential citations to verify this fact are numerous. Anyone who can provide a reference to replace the current one, please do so. I will also search for a better citation, but wanted to get discussion underway first.

I am a former nuclear operator, serving on the NS Savannah from 1966 to 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpittner (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. Fixed with a MARAD source.  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sponsorship at Launching
According to the article:

"She was launched on March 23, 1962, sponsored by First Lady of the United States Mamie Eisenhower as a showcase for President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace initiative."

However, President Eisenhower's term ended January 20, 1961, which means that when the Savannah was launched, Mamie Eisenhower was the former First Lady of the United States, not the currently serving First Lady. - 4/15/2008


 * I noticed that too while editing this article today. Not only was Mamie Eisenhower no longer the First Lady after January 1961, the entire sentence has problems: the ship was launched on July 21, 1959, not 1962. And to say that the ship was "sponsored" by her is puzzling. Perhaps what was meant is that Mamie Eisenhower christened the ship (with the traditional bottle of champagne?) when it was launched in 1959. Someone with access to this information needs to clear it up, otherwise the sentence will need to be deleted. I've added a cn tag in the meantime.  JGHowes talk  -  20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You should state what part of the entire preceding paragraph needs a citation. As I pointed out when I removed the citation tag, the "Atoms for Peace" fragment was sourced from an existing reference.  The omission of "former" might could have been due to courtesy title writing in the original source, much as former Presidents are often introduced as "President".  Edit it for accuracy.  The "sponsored" is odd phrasing, but the christening phrasing is here, which is a URL in the External Links section.  Make it a reference.  -- SEWilco (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for clearing that up. By the way, the {cn} tag was placed immediately following the sentence in question, with the edit summary "see Talk".  JGHowes talk  -  16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Red dot
Could someone please fix the red dot in the infobox showing where Savannah is currently located. Thanks, Kb3mlm (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"NS" or just "SS"
Why "NS" for nuclear ship? It's just a steamer,isn't it? We don't call oil-fired steamers "OS" for "oil ship" or coal-fired ships "CS" for "coal ship". Steam engines run on steam, they don't care about the source of heat used to generate the steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.49.0 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Union pay dispute section accuracy
I'm not seeing much for cites for the union dispute section, and part of it appears to be factually incorrect. See http://www.hnsa.org/savannah/press/programdata.htm ... the deck officers did indeed have additional skill training, "reactor management, health physics, reactor operation, nuclear safety". Further, the the way this section paints the future of nuclear propulsion ships seems a very odd conclusion given that Navy nukes are enlisted and make less than officers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.92.161 (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It was the engineering officers who had additional training; in addition to their traditional coursework they had to learn all about how to operate a nuclear reactor safely. The deck officers required very little additional training; the cargo handling, docking, etc was all very similar to other non-nuclear ships. The very best source for the labor issues of the NS Savannah is David Kuechel's book, The Story of the Savannah: An Episode in Maritime Labor-Management Relations, Harvard College Press, 1971. The government arbitrator (or mediator) assigned to straighten everything out agreed with the engineering officers that their additional training did deserve a pay rate raise, but he also thought that the traditional and historic precedent of deck officers being paid at a higher rate than engineering officers was important too. So he gave the deck officers a pay rate raise also. This is what enraged the engineering officers and it was unthinkable to them that the deck officers would get a pay raise off of their backs. The engineering officers got the pay raise they were demanding, but then saw the deck officers still end up being paid more. The engineering officers had all submitted their resignations early on in the process, and States Marine Lines formally accepted them and demanded they leave the ship. The engineers shut down the reactor on May 6, 1963, in Galveston, Texas, and left the ship. Nuclear light (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Unanswered point
It isn't mentioned, but I think people would be curious (I am) - when this ship is moved (say when it was moved from Patriots Point in 1994) does it move under its own power (via the reactor) or by tug? The reason this information would be notable is because its method of transportation is what made this ship notable.--Pittsburghmuggle (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The NS Savannah has no operable power source today. During it's active career however, it did have two 12 cylinder Electro-Motive 567 series diesel engines that (today would be called Emergency Diesel Generators) which would provide emergency power for a 750 HP electric motor, called the “take home motor” that could propel the ship at roughly 6 knots should steam from the reactor plant be unavailable. Each of the diesel generators was rated 750 KW or about 1000 HP (This is found here - http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/12/05/past-present-and-promise-3-return-to-the-n-s-savannah/, in a post by a member of Savannah's crew.)Nuclear light (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on NS Savannah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080430211219/http://www.marad.dot.gov:80/Offices/MSP/Ship_Operations/NSS/index.htm to http://www.marad.dot.gov/Offices/MSP/Ship_Operations/NSS/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Why was a Croatian ship registered as a US ship?
Per List of Croatian inventions and discoveries, NS Savannah was apparently invented (not merely designed) by the Croat Erazmo Tićac. Anyone care to comment? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That erroneous entry about Savannah has been removed from that page and the name of Erazmo Tićac has also been removed from the page of Croatian inventors. This claim apparently originated at this page but there are many obvious errors in fact in the article on that page. The date for Savannah's maiden voyage is wrong, stating Savannah started regular service in 1963 is wrong, and saying that the ship had two reactors is monumentally wrong. Beyond that the firm of George G. Sharp Inc. was never known as Sharp Brothers. There is no mention of Erazmo Ticac in any historic documentation of the ship that I've seen over many years of research.

There is however, a record of a person named E. Bernadin Ticac entering the United States on 9 Oct 1933 at St. Albans, Vermont. The story does say he changed his first name to Ben when he became an American Citizen. And, the cities mentioned: Zurkovo, Susak, Kostrena, and Rijeka, are all place names in the same small region of current day Croatia.

So, is there anything to this story or not? What is needed is for something to place Ben Ticac in the employ of George G. Sharp, Inc. as a maritime engineer or naval architect during the mid to late 1950s. Nuclear light (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There is an article in Mjesečna revija Hrvatske matice iseljenika / Monthly magazine of the Croatian Heritage Foundation from June 2020 written in Croatian with several photographs of (Erazmo) Bernard Tichaz. One of the photographs shows the obituary for Bernard Tichaz published in New York Times, dated 23rd of August of 1968, where is stated that he was "project engineer in charge of the design of the nuclear ship Savannah" with other biographical details. The obituary can found on New York Times archive website, in reduced resolution without subscribing. In the article there is also a photograph of Tichaz with caption "NS Savannah project team" showing Tichaz and two other unnamed persons with a painting of NS Savannah on the wall behind them. 18:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Unknownseafarer (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Tichaz is mentioned with David L. Gorman as a hull desingner in A.W. Kramers's book: Nuclear propulsion for merchant ships (ISBN-10: 1410225038) at page IV of the preface. The book is also available at: .Unknownseafarer (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NS Savannah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414085315/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1845&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1845&ResourceType=Structure

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

crew
Names of Captains and Officers might be interesting.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doubt they would be of any interest to the general reader Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The general reader will simply skip over it if not interested, but I too think a listing of at least the captains of NS Savannah would be a good addition to the article.

Capt. Gaston R. De Groote, first Master of NS Savannah, from 1 May 1962 to 9 Mar 1963, with States Marine Lines.

Capt. David B. McMichael, second Master of NS Savannah, with American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, from 22 Aug 1963 to 10 Mar 1965.

Capt. John Korista, third Master of NS Savannah, with American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, from 16 Mar 1965 to 23 Feb 1967.

Capt. Austin D. Cushman, Jr., fourth Master of NS Savannah, with American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, from 2 Mar 1967 to 25 Aug 1967.

Capt. Arnold R. “Pete” Block, Jr., fifth Master of NS Savannah, with American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, from 28 Aug 1967 to 8 Nov 1970. Nuclear light (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct date of deactivation.
The first paragraph states, "She was in service between 1962 and 1972 as one of only four..." and then the next sentence says "Savannah was deactivated in 1971 and after several moves..." These two statements contradict each other. 8 Nov 1970	was the date of FWE (finished with engines) and final reactor shutdown. This call was made from the bridge to the control room at 5:50 pm. MARAD notes the as date of 3 Dec 1971 defueling completion, when all nuclear fuel rods were completely removed from the reactor. Savannah's period of "in service" did not enter 1972. Which date you want to pick will depend on how you define "deactivated." Was she deactivated upon final reactor shutdown, or was she deactivated when all fuel was removed? Nuclear light (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Historic designations and awards
The National Historic Landmark designation is covered, but two additional awards/historic designations are not. A fuller understanding of Savannah's historic importance may be enabled by a complete chronological listing of her awards and designations. 14 Nov 1982 - Listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. NPS (National Park Service). 15 Oct 1983 - Designated a Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark by ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 17 July 1991 - Designated a National Historic Landmark by U.S. NPS (National Park Service) well in advance of the typical 50 year waiting period. October 1991 - Designated a Nuclear Engineering Landmark by the ANS (American Nuclear Society). Nuclear light (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong year date in Origin section.
In the Origin section, 2nd paragraph, it states, "In 1969, Savannah became the first nuclear-powered ship to dock in New York City". This is not correct. By 1969, Savannah had entered New York Harbor over 50 times; sometimes docking at New York, other time at Hoboken or Brooklyn. It was in June 1964 when Savannah entered New York harbor for the first time. Nuclear light (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good spots on all of these. No need to open a talk conversation (which few will read and probably no one will correct) - its a case of WP:SOFIXIT Lyndaship (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)