Talk:SS United States

Speed

The speed issue came up again. This is pretty difficult. I know for a fact that the source I provided is a verifiable reliable source, but it's only verifiable if someone can find a copy of Nautilus, alumni newsletter of the Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan. The story began in the Fall 2003 issue, and was completed in the Spring/Summer 2004 issue. These seem to have vanished from any web presence, but I saw volume 25 online for a while -- long enough that we cited it easily. Is there anyone anywhere near the NA&ME building at the U. of Michigan who could check the stacks for these volumes? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another good resource for this would be this: The Speed of the SS United States, KANE, 1978. J. R. Kane was chief engineer at Newport News Shipbuilding at the time of the 1952 trials. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When the ship's specs were declassified, in 1968, the New York Times reported the newly-released info, including a top speed of "42 knots, or better than 48 land-miles per hour". (The math checks out; 42.000 knots = 48.3327 mph.) The article ran on page 35 of the August 16, 1968, paper, under the headline, "Secrets of the Liner United States".

I'm new to this topic, so let me ask a possibly dumb question: Is there reason to disbelieve the Times on this? The now-old messages above have dead links, and don't summarize the sources they were linking to. What did J.R. Kane say? What did Michigan Naval Engineering say?

The article currently gives 38.32 knots as the ship's maximum speed. Is there any reason I should not change that to the figure that the Times quotes the U.S. Navy as giving in 1968? TypoBoy (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My late father worked as a marine engineer for Babcock & Wilcox from 1946 to 1981, eventually becoming the Manager of Marine Sales, and later Technical Editor of SNAME. He worked on the boilers for the United States, whose powerplant was essentially that of an Essex Class Aircraft Carrier. He told me the top speed could reach 43 knots if needed. You have to remember that the the published power is based on the operating pressure of 925 lbs PSI, but the design pressure of the boilers is 1118 lbs PSI, and they were steam tested to 1356 PSI according to the bronze test plate from boiler number 1B which I have from him. It was removed when they removed two shafts during the failed conversion to make it a cruise liner in the 1980s. So it was easy to get about 25 percent more power out of the powerplant than was publicly stated. You need to keep that in mind when doing any calculations. GCW50 (talk) 9 Feb 2016

References

@Jpgordon: I am reviving this discussion as I have also found printed media (made since you started this discussion) that also states that the United States briefly attained speeds of 43kts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Hey a year later for a 13-year old Wikipedia discussion! I've reached out again to the U of Michigan Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering Dept. to try to get access to the "How fast did it go?" article that explains the ruse. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've finally gotten into a correspondence with the person responsible for Nautilus magazine at UM NAME. Funny how slow going this has been for such a fast going ship. Anyway, for the first time I have a .PDF of half of the "How fast did it go" article, and I'll have the other half as soon as my contact goes back into the office. Once I have the whole thing, I'll feel comfortable with a full citation like for any other academic journal; that certain volumes are unavailable online does not break WP:V. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Did this end up going anywhere? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I need to wake it up again; the department was all in COVID disarray in February. Thanks for reminding me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Anything new? I'm inclined to go with the NYT story if nothing else. I can't read it because of the paywall but if you have access maybe you could provide a quote? I got a copy from the library and will add it to the article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So basically, you know it's incorrect, but because re-finding the source has been difficult, you'll willingly put in sourced misinformation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've put in another query to the department. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know it's incorrect. You declined to answer TypoBoy's questions six years ago, so all I have is what's in the reliable sources, and that's what I put in the article, per Wikipedia policy. If you think the information is wrong, you've had six years to discuss your concerns, and you have not done so in that time. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I do know it's incorrect. So do many people. I've got an exact source [1] which has been moved and the moment isn't WP:V by me but is certainly WP:V for anyone with access to the NA&ME library at the U of M. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This source, mentioned above, is in a different place now: The Speed of the SS United States. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's another source discussing this. 38 knots. [2] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So, from that Nautilus issue:

Those with NA&ME degrees should look at Marine Technology, 1978, vol 15,2, paper by John R. Kane, "Speed of the United States." He gives top speed on builder's trials as 38.3 knots. We look at the speed power/curves he gives, and doing a little eyeball extrapolation, estimate the power for 43 knots would have to be...you try it, see if you agree with your editor's estimate of 1,000,000shp...But second, whence cometh that 43-knot figure? Well, boys will be boys, boys not above playing tricks on the gullible. Mr. Author-of-43-knots was aboard on the trial ship in which the 38.3 knot speed was reached. However, that speed was a SECRET until Kane was allowed to publish it some 25 years late. But everyone aboard wanted to know at the time. Well, those boys who would be boys were those pushing slide rules in the Data Center, so when reporters wandered in, hoping to learn something, we were Silent Sams, every one. Mr. Kane, boss of all data, stood by to make sure we did NOT speak to the curiousity seekers...But the slide rule boys concocted a sneaky joke. We made up a false speed/power data sheet showing that 43 knots, and "carelessly" left it on a table that was otherwise littered with innocent paper...We were sure one of the curious would see it...the data boys had done their dirty deed, and them that don't know their NA&ME have been telling it like it could never be ever since.

--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Do you have the full citation for that article? I think it's includeable with a sentence like "A graduate of the University of Michigan's Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering program later claimed that the Times number stemmed from a false piece of data deliberately left out as a joke for reporters to latch onto." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with just the Marine Tech citation. Of course it would be better without the paywall but I don't doubt that it says what we say it says. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, look what I just found. The Speed of the SS United States. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Jpgordon, I meant a full citation for the Nautilus article. I've already just added Kane! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've really no idea how to cite it. I've a photograph of the journal page, that's it. It's page 8 vol. 25 of Nautilus. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jpgordon! I've added it as a source. Feel free to tweak that! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Main image

Hello, I've have seen this picture of the SS United States in 2017, which some time ago was the main image of the article: File:A559, SS United States, Pier 82, Columbus Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2017.jpg.

Also, there is this image, taken in 1950s and coloured by Angelgreat: File:StateLibQld 1 169487 United States (ship) (colorized).jpg.

• 
  Angelgreat's proposed infobox image (1952 colorized image)
• 
  Original infobox image (2017)

For my personal opinion, this is a beautiful image which depicts the ship in her golden years, but I think otherwise that, unless she's sold for scrapping, it is better to put an image taken not too long ago.

However, I think that the best decission for the article would be to open a consensus for other users to express their opinion of this and decide together which image would be the most appropriate as the best candidate.

I have placed, by the moment, the 2017's photograph but nevertheless, if it is agreed that the colored version from the 1950s is better, I think there would be no problem in relocating that image. I leave open this discussion so that any user can express their point of view on it.

Cordial greetings. HefePine23 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In its heyday but colorised pics just look false. How about using the original uncolourised version of the pic? Lyndaship (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: I agree with you. It would be better the original than the coloured version.

So, I think to let other users to explain their opinion and, from there, study the images carefully and make a decision.

HefePine23 (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Theres A Battle for the Lead Image Soooooo, I believe the 1952 photo is the best for this Wiki. She looks more glory in that photo. The 2017's one, on the other hand, well uh, its not that good, she's all rusty and dusty, she might be scrapped if not enough funds, so yeah, thats all. Ulepickid60 (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ulepickid60: Thanks for your contribution but, honestly and with all due respect, your argument looks too subjective.

It is true that the point of "the photo in its golden years" I think the same that it would be better compared to the current photo.

But the fact that "she could be scrapped soon" doesn't convince me much —which by the way, it would be a shame if they scrapped it, but with the current world situation I'm not very surprised that this could happen, it also happens to the RMS Queen Mary—.

Regarding the fact that I am not very convinced, the point that it may be scrapped soon is, in my opinion, lacking in reliability since, at the moment, it has not been officially said that it will be scrapped or kept, so I think not helps a lot. It is as if in the Queen Mary's article we removed the current image —which shows her in Long Beach in 2011— and exchanged it for another of the ship in her years in service just because "it is possibly that she's going to be scrapped", when there is still no official answers about it.

Therefore, while I support the idea of ​​placing a photograph of the SS United States in her golden years, this argument does not seem objective enough for us to later change the image to what a particular individual wants it to be. However, thank you for your time and, of course, you are invited to continue participating in the discussion and indicate your position (but try to be more objective, yes).

Thanks again and regards.

HefePine23 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Since picture choice is about personal preferences, mine is that the colorized picture looks fake -- it certainly doesn't register as my own personal memories of its appearance -- and that the picture of its recent condition is a more accurate rendition of what the ship is. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I regret not having responded until today, since I have had to manage some external matters to the project.

Regarding the comment of @Jpgordon: I'm according with you at the point that the colorized photograph looks some bogus than the original black and white, like @Lyndaship suggested three days ago. In addition, with respect to the current picture, it is true that I thought the same in the aspect that while the ship still exists, a greater emphasis should be given to the current appearance of the ship —a bit similar case to people's articles, which while they're alive, a recent image is placed and, when they pass away, it is changed for one in their best years, professional career...—.

Of course, it is that we should be aware of how events develop —specially in case there is any news of whether it is sold for scrapping or is preserved and restored— in order, in addition to ensuring that the article is updated with references reliable, proceed to update the image with that of the 1950s (if it's sold for scrap) or a more recent one (if it's preserved).

I don't know what all users think of this, but I think it could be a good alternative.

However, I will keep this discussion open to finish deciding whether in the meantime to keep the 2017's photo or change it to the 1950s' one.

PS, I will probably take longer to answer or connect, so if the image to put is decided in my absence, I allow another user —like @Lyndaship or @Jpgordon, for example— to close this discussion and proceed to change the image according to the results obtained.

Best regards. --HefePine23 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree many colorization attempts look fake and detract from detail of the ship and its equipment. Given a detailed gray scale and even fair attempt at colorization without such detail I'd tend to go with the detail. Remember too many passenger carrying ships, including the wonderful old passenger/cargo ships, had postcards and ads in which color was more important than the ship's detailed features. Unless no better choice exists I'd put those somewhere in text if at all. There is another case in which even a poor colorization is useful — showing a ship in a line's livery. I've included one in "External links" recently where the same museum site has many very detailed photos of the ship for exactly that reason. M/S Marocco (painting) shows nothing like the detail in other photos on that site, but it shows a prominent Danish line's livery well. If copyright were not at issue I'd use it in the text where the line is mentioned. Palmeira (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Not the colorized image. That image is fuzzy. The 2017 image is fine until a better image can be found. I'm surprised that such a famous ship doesn't have any images from her 'golden years' at c:Category:IMO 5373476.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the colorized image, there was a discussion held recently about that topic, see: Talk:Wright Flyer#Colorized photo (fyi) - wolf 16:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That non-discussion is too life-shortening to spend time on - but in any case the circumstances are completely different: that original B&W Kitty Hawk image is of superb clarity/detail and is the extremely well-known image uniquely recording a very significant moment in history; on the other side of that argument, the colorization is also of top quality and done in a scholarly and professional manner. Unfortunately, for United States the original B&W image is mediocre in some respects and the colorization could be described as only workmanlike.

This is an article about a ship whose notability derives primarily from from its record-breaking life as an ocean liner, and that is what we should see at the top of the article. It is unfortunate that at present there is not really anything in Commons in colour that is good enough, so I would prefer a good B&W for the time being, rather than some recent image of this fine ship just mouldering away (we don't go that far with people-articles on WP either) - this one would work with a clean-up and cropping. Davidships (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the infobox image should be of the ship as originally built, whether it is black and white or not. I'm not a fan of colourised images. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

After read @Trappist the monk, @Palmeira, @Thewolfchild, @Davidships and @Peacemaker67's comments and reviewing the previous comments of other users, it is evident that it has been agreed that the "original" image of the 1950s (that is, in black and white, without digital coloring process) is the most suitable to star in the article.

Therefore, I will proceed to place it in the infobox and move the 2017's one to the gallery section.

For me, the discussion has already come to an end, but if any other user wants to express their opinion, you are invited to do so.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Best regards.

HefePine23 (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, due to this, I have removed the colorized image. Have a good day. Angelgreat (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

I doubt whether the B&W image is actually free of copyright, regardless of what the Queensland library says. I've asked about it at Commons Village Pump. Davidships (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

In 1999:SS United States Conservancy (then known as the SS United States Preservation Society, Inc.)

In 2009:The SS United States Conservancy was then created that year as a group trying to save United States by raising funds to purchase her

Sounds more like a name change than a new creation. Davidships (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Rare footage

Cultural Reference

Several stock footage scenes of the ship are used in the 1957 film An Affair to Remember. Please add? Tiptopper (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The linked page on the film doesn't mention film of this ship as being so used. We'd need to have that film use verified. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Commodore plaque.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Literature section

I'm starting to wonder what the purpose of the Literature section is and how it differs from Further reading. Ujifusa, for example, appears in Literature, several times in References, and in Further reading. Several other works also appear in two or more of these sections. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a ... great question. I'm guessing it was intended to be a list of books that are directly about the ship, but that should really be confined to the references/further reading. I think we can remove it after verifying we won't lose anything useful. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)