I haven't seen anything yet on what the Navy considers the value of putting a ship back to sea vs scrapping. I believe that some battle damage throughout the years was so bad that cost to repair was greater than the value of the finished product. Going back to WWII, all battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor other than the AZ and OK were put back into service. Was there a morale value in putting ships into action the Japanese had sunk? How about the Cole. Wasn't considerable value placed on putting the ship back into service therefore being able to say they dished out their best but we persevered. Franklin and Bunker Hill come to mind as ships that possibly have been let go saving sailor lives vs being able to say we brought her home. In this case we have an accidental fire while in port, not a ship suffering battle damage. Will this contribute to the decision whether or not to restore a ship that has served 2/3 of its design life? Sailors would hate to lose their ship while they are assigned but when is it time to cut your losses. I assume that only a detailed damage assessment followed by cost to repair estimate will be needed and wondered how maintaining the Navy's image fits in.