Battleship Texas is leaving San Jacinto on August 31

43,108 Views | 192 Replies | Last: 18 days ago by nortex97
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cool, thanks for the pics
Post removed:
by user
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Interesting video, not about the current work.
Post removed:
by user
texrover91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Awesome pics. Thx for posting- I need to book a tour with the kids!
Marauder Blue 6
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Baytown and Beaumont are out of consideration as a future berth. Looks like the next option is Galveston. Could it go back to it's original berth?
Jugstore Cowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think, and one pretty good source also thinks, that Galveston is most likely. But there's a lot of money to make up. I imagine the leg would need to put a bond election up.
aggie_sprt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Galveston was always likely destination, it is just a question of where in Galveston. Seawolf Park, Pier 21, ??

Also probably trying to shore up more state funding for the move and development of the new home in the current legislature before making an annoucement.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've debated where to put this but I figure naval history fans…might appreciate it/see it best here;

Post removed:
by user
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm glad they've eliminated beaumont, that was the goofiest idea possible.


Unless something major has changed, the battlefield actively wanted to get rid of the ship. The sentiment when I was an undergrad was that it was a liability and detracted from the site. She will end up at a temporary dock before she'll go back there I believe.

I'm pretty sure the plan is to put her back in the strand area, the delay is likely just to hammer out the details. The biggest problem for putting the ship anywhere is dredging..... the more they have to dredge I'm, the more they'll have to dredge out in 20 years. We've also learned a lot, and burying these ships in the mud is a terrible idea
maca1028
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hate hearing the Baytown is officially out, it would've looked great sitting at the base of Fred Hartman as you drive into town. I get it though, there's absolutely nothing worth visiting in Baytown unless you're coming here for work.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
3/26/1945: Battleship Texas continues outstanding service

On this day in 1945, the battleship Texas supported the landings for the battle of Okinawa, the final great amphibious assault of World War II. The keel of the Texas, the second battleship to bear this name, was laid at Newport News, Virginia, on April 17, 1911. After serving in the Atlantic Fleet in the First World War, she supported the World War II landings in North Africa, Omaha Beach, southern France, and Iwo Jima. After more than thirty-four years of naval service she was retired and given to the state of Texas to be used as a memorial.
Post removed:
by user
Post removed:
by user
P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag_of_08 said:

I'm glad they've eliminated beaumont, that was the goofiest idea possible.


Unless something major has changed, the battlefield actively wanted to get rid of the ship. The sentiment when I was an undergrad was that it was a liability and detracted from the site. She will end up at a temporary dock before she'll go back there I believe.

I'm pretty sure the plan is to put her back in the strand area, the delay is likely just to hammer out the details. The biggest problem for putting the ship anywhere is dredging..... the more they have to dredge I'm, the more they'll have to dredge out in 20 years. We've also learned a lot, and burying these ships in the mud is a terrible idea
I realize prohibitively expensive, but I wish the plans for her were long-term dry display of some kind.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure what the refurbishment includes.

No way Texas returns to its home berth under its own power, is there?
DrEvazanPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA said:

Not sure what the refurbishment includes.

No way Texas returns to its home berth under its own power, is there?
No. I don't think they'll ever bring the engines online again, and the rudder is permanently rusted in place.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
DrEvazanPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.


I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs
BrazosBendHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DrEvazanPhD said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.


I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs

True. All of this.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BrazosBendHorn said:

DrEvazanPhD said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.


I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs

True. All of this.
Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?
p_bubel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA said:

BrazosBendHorn said:

DrEvazanPhD said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.


I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs

True. All of this.
Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?
It's probably going to Galveston.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Always appreciate the updates on this thread (which also led me to donate to the cause - and received some of the coolest trinkets ever from a donation).

I would love to see a dry dock solution whether it be Galveston or seeming more appropriate Corpus. Trying to add in a trip down to Portsmouth when in London next month. They have the HMS Victory and HMS M 33 both in permanent / semi permanent dry dock. Sees like the right way to do it.

CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree with the dry dock. Would love to be able to tour the area below the water line
DrEvazanPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
p_bubel said:

74OA said:

BrazosBendHorn said:

DrEvazanPhD said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.


I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs

True. All of this.
Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?
It's probably going to Galveston.


I think Galveston is where the battleship Texas foundation would prefer to be. I know corpus was considered as an option, but the worry is that two museum ships in the same area will attract the same number of visitors a year, so basically viewing/revenue will stay the same, but the maintenance costs double. Galveston would get plenty of incidental traffic from vacationers, folks going on cruises, and general tourism
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA said:

BrazosBendHorn said:

DrEvazanPhD said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.


I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs

True. All of this.
Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?

the best possible plan would be to send her to Charleston and dock at Patriots Point next to the Yorktown

huge amount of tourists there - and how awesome would it be to have a battleship and fleet carrier side by side?
tree91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For those who have taken the tour, do you get to go on the ship, or is it just a walk around the hull? Is it worth a special trip to Galveston to do it?
ABATTBQ87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

74OA said:

BrazosBendHorn said:

DrEvazanPhD said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.


I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs

True. All of this.
Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?

the best possible plan would be to send her to Charleston and dock at Patriots Point next to the Yorktown

huge amount of tourists there - and how awesome would it be to have a battleship and fleet carrier side by side?


Send her to Pearl Harbor and let her rest with the Missouri next to the Arizona
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
i imagine that would be cost prohibitive to tow her that far.

and why would they want another battleship when they got the Missouri there already
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eazy peazy lemon squeezy:
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown

"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

why would they want another battleship when they got the Missouri there already
Agree, unless you're going to sink her next to Arizona, she needs to be at a Texas port.

Hawaii has about 1.5 million population, and 10 million annual visitors, many of them from outside the US. You would think the latter group has little interest in Texas.

Texas has nearly twice as many people (20 million or more) living east of I-35, and over 70 million out-of-state visitors a year.
Post removed:
by user
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bregxit said:

And why sink Texas at Pearl Harbor? She wasn't there for the attack. Makes zero sense.
Nobody is going to sink her, I was just making a ridiculous comparison.
Post removed:
by user
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.