We're gonna need a bigger iceberg

[datsunaholic]

Because it would probably cost several billion dollars-assuming it's even POSSIBLE, which it may not be.

The interior has largely been stripped, and her engines require parts that haven't been made in decades...and I'm not sure ANYONE still has the knowledge to run or repair them.

The interior being stripped isn't really a problem, it's not like it was the luxury liners of the pre-WWII era. It would have had to been stripped to bring things up to current fire codes anyway.

The engines are steam turbines. Which are still made. They aren't really that much different than the engines used in the current generations of US Supercarriers. The steam turbines used in the Gerald R Ford class aren't much different than the ones used in the 1950s Forrestal Class carriers, which are very similar to the ones used in the SS United States. The bigger issue is the turbines haven't been maintained in almost 55 years and the reduction gears have turned to rust.

The difference is how the steam is made. And the boilers in SS United States are very obsolete. Not saying they can't be rebuilt- they'd have to be rebuilt, but even WWII era boilers were converted to run distillate fuel rather than bunker oil so making them relatively clean burning isn't the issue. But they are so corroded as to be unsafe.

Billionaires rarely maintain the past. Elon is more interested in space travel than history. Even the late Paul Allen was more interested in Sailboat racing than preserving history, even though he did fund expeditions to find and photograph WWII wrecks at the bottom of the Pacific. Most Billionaires are just paper Billionaires anyway- it's not liquid cash they can just hand out. And handouts to even the most genuine non-profits don't last long. You get the big surge of cash and the beginning of the project, but never enough money exists to maintain it later, and the museums often go bankrupt anyway. There have been 3 museum ships that were already preserved that were scrapped in the last 2 years because there was no money to maintain them, with several others (Falls of Clyde, anyone?) about to be.

[Big RR]

I don't know what the solution is, but I know it's a real problem. We and the planet would be better off if travel was more expensive

I don't know; in the US more people would just drive, which is not better for the environment than using mass travel options.

As for the people bitching about the tourists, for all those hating the tourists hordes, there are many others making significant monies from the tourism industry; in some places that's pretty much all the work that is available. And many areas also benefit, getting more businesses that support tourism but serve the locals as well--things like restaurants, etc. I have a number of friends who live near the JErsey shore and bitch constantly about the tourists, but they reap the benefit of federal funds keeping the beaches from being eroded away, the highways built to handle the traffic, the business contributions of taxes to the town, keeping the personal property taxes lower, etc.

I do think there should a way to restrict tourism in environmentally sensitive areas, but limiting it to the very rich, as it was in the past, is not the answer, just as it wasn't at the turn of the century.