|
And again, legit LOL. I was having a bit of a rough day at work. Thanks for that! :P
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
it's still there too. and the backlog of ships in the red sea keeps getting bigger e: lmao @ the other end too  this is gonna be like one of those highway traffic jams where one person slams on their brakes and the slowdown persists for ten minutes even though there's nothing wrong. except this one will keep echoing for what, a month? Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
I can't wait to see the shitshow of folks fighting over who gets to go first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
This was my favorite part
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Beach Bum posted:I can't wait to see the shitshow of folks fighting over who gets to go first. god imagine if there's just a massive pileup and the whole thing stays shut down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:This was my favorite part Ah yes the dick maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
e: nvm, I'm the horrible mechanical failure.
Bloody Pom fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Mar 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:Apparently those types of container ships can't even back up under their own power, so that's fun. Wouldn't surprise me if they don't have bow thrusters either, and just rely on the rudder to turn. This one has two bow thrusters, judging by the markings on the bow. Not that. they are much use when you're nose deep in sand!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:Apparently those types of container ships can't even back up under their own power, so that's fun. Wouldn't surprise me if they don't have bow thrusters either, and just rely on the rudder to turn. Where'd you hear that? They can absolutely go astern, and every image of the ship shows 2 bow thrusters marked on the hullside. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ever_Given 2x 3400hp bow thrusters Do your research before spouting fake news sharkytm fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Mar 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Is this a game of telephone that starts with “they can’t just throw the ship in reverse like your car” and ends with “the ship cannot reverse at all”? There’s no reverse gear. The engine has to be halted and started in the opposite direction. To put it lightly, it has considerable inertia, and this is not a quick process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fs2cU_MsRQ  By the time the Ever Given exited its desired route, it was too late for an order to reverse to do anything. It does not follow that ships cannot reverse at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
Additionally, if strong broadside winds are to blame, reverse wouldn't have helped. Steering corrections would have to have been made minutes earlier. It's like if your car slides off a corner because of ice and people say "if you could have backed up, it would be fine." Momentum is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Is a ship like that even operating her main engines at all in the canal? I kinda figured they’d just be under tow/tug the whole way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Is a ship like that even operating her main engines at all in the canal? I kinda figured they’d just be under tow/tug the whole way. They wouldn't in the locks, but the canal is miles long and most of it is long stretches of open water. Tugs are certainly used around the locks and entrance/exit. Otherwise, it's main engines. The Suez is 120 miles long. There's usually one tug acting as literal brakes with each ship. Idle is actually too fast in many cases, and the tug can help with steering a bit. : Edit: https://lethagencies.com/escort-tugs Here's the rules. sharkytm fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Mar 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:Impending failure from the OSHA thread My greatest triumph in life was moving 1400lbs of bagged gravel in a Mk1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
How big of a financial disaster is this for everybody with a ship, or cargo on a ship, that's currently stacking up on either side of that canal for what could be a long loving while?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
Javid posted:How big of a financial disaster is this for everybody with a ship, or cargo on a ship, that's currently stacking up on either side of that canal for what could be a long loving while? $400 million an hour is the current expectation of the costs... Here's an example of how a tug can brake, steer, and do ship handling as an escort. https://youtu.be/1b3yFGTsBFY sharkytm fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Mar 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
sharkytm posted:$400 million an hour is the current expectation of the costs... Money doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
I guess my question is, why is the canal letting in ships that large? Like, shouldn't the canal be much deeper and slightly wider specifically so global trade doesn't get shut down by one dipshit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
Digging huge rear end ditches through land is extremely expensive and every additional inch of width is probably something like 100 million dollars on a run that long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:I guess my question is, why is the canal letting in ships that large? Don't underestimate the ingenuity of dipshits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:I guess my question is, why is the canal letting in ships that large? The ship is exactly the max size to be let through. And global trade shuts down for this because capitalism is run on the paper thi margins that assume nothing bad can ever happen. If this happened in the panama canal at the same time, global shipping would be a cluster gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Pretty sure they literally build those ships to the max spec the major trade canals can handle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 05:29
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Is this a game of telephone that starts with “they can’t just throw the ship in reverse like your car” and ends with “the ship cannot reverse at all”? And I doubt it can run the engines now, with its stern so close to shore, it should also be noted that the props are much less efficient when backing. That 6800hp of bow thruster is barely anything on a ship that big, I'd imagine they're used mainly for station keeping at anchor. For reference the main engine produces roughly 80,000 shaft horsepower, allowing a blistering top speed of under 23 knots. Commercial vessels aren't my area of expertise though, so that's nothing authoritative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
Was the report that I saw that it experienced a loss of electrical power (and therefore control) wrong, or is calling the crew/captain/whatever a dipshit a bit much? I mean, yeah, this is an absolute poo poo show, but I don't know what 23 people on a 221k ton boat could have done different once the controls died. Unless the dipshit is the company that surely did adequate maintenance to avoid such a failure, in which case, right-o, carry on, then. Also I love seeing the experts come out on stuff like this. I've learned so much from you lot over the years. Edit: To that point: sharkytm posted:Here's an example of how a tug can brake, steer, and do ship handling as an escort. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Mar 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 06:31
|
|
|
The question as to who was in charge at the time also needs to be answered. Ships going through there need a pilot, but apparently the Suez pilot crews, who you pay many many thousands of dollars for the privilege of having on your ship, are notoriously poo poo. Thread here: https://twitter.com/Nature_Grrrl/status/1375168720495075338 The tl;dr is the transit takes 13 hours and the pilot crews mostly just sit, snack and sleep the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:I guess my question is, why is the canal letting in ships that large? The canal is as deep and wide as it makes sense to be and the ship is wedged in it sideways. Unless you're going to make all your ships little donuts that don't have a long axis, this sort of issue always has the potential to be a problem. In any case, designing ships to just barely squeeze through the canals and locks they're expected to use is standard practice. Here is the USS Missouri transiting the Panama Canal. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 07:18
|
|
|
Also: https://twitter.com/scottgoblue314/status/1374464881261301773?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
Supposedly that's still within range if you ask for approval from the canal authorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 09:11
|
|
|
(I know nothing about boats and am completely ready to believe that, but...) ... doesn't make for as good a snarky tweet, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 09:44
|
|
|
Also, if asking the authorities for approval is like everything else in Egypt, greasing the correct palm(s) will mean your approval will be granted regardless of whether it should be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 10:04
|
|
|
I'm not sure if shrinking it down to Suezmax would have made much of a difference here. And IIRC, "Suezmax" isn't actually what it sounds like anymore; they've expanded the canal a bit since that size was defined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 12:22
|
|
|
The Suez Canal is a very different thing today than it was when it was dug, largely by hand, in the nineteenth century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 12:33
|
|
|
Anyway sorry if this is obvious but, the problem isn't that the ship is too big, it's that it's sideways and stuck in the dirt at both ends If it were 10m longer it probably wouldn't have been able to turn that far sideways and would never have gotten stuck
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 13:08
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:I'm not sure if shrinking it down to Suezmax would have made much of a difference here. "The Suez Canal Authority occasionally brings out updated tables of width and acceptable draft for ships. Currently the permissible limits for suezmax ships are 20.1 m (66 ft) of draught with the beam no wider than 50 m (164.0 ft), or 12.2 m (40 ft) of draught with maximum allowed beam of 77.5 m (254 ft)." Container ships draw less water than tankers sans ballast, so they probably de-ballast near entry so they meet the SCA's criteria. They don't need the stability in the canal, nor do they need the reduced propeller slip from the increased draft. Krakkles posted:Was the report that I saw that it experienced a loss of electrical power (and therefore control) wrong, or is calling the crew/captain/whatever a dipshit a bit much?  yup. A tug is basically a bit, towing machine, fuel tanks, engines, shafts, rudders, and propellers with a boat wrapped around them. A good friend of mine owns 2 relatively small coastal tugs (1400 and 1700hp, 80-ish feet long), and I can say with certainty that this is the case. When you move to dedicated ship assist tugs, it's often even more obvious because they aren't designed for long haul towing. ASD/Z-drive/Voith Schneider (cyclorotor) tugs are even more specialized. That container ship has 80,000hp, but weighs about 200,000 tons: 0.4hp/tonMy buddy's larger tug has 1700hp and is 370 tons fully loaded: 4.6hp/ton, and he's not touching anything near a Suezmax. The power is also delivered completely differently. Modern ship assist tugs often have 5000 to 8000hp in a 90-110 foot vessel, so more like 6-8hp/ton. Tractor tugs are incredible machines, combining huge power with incredible maneuverability. Elviscat posted:And I doubt it can run the engines now, with its stern so close to shore, it should also be noted that the props are much less efficient when backing. And that ship probably doesn't see 23kt very often. They've slowed down quite a bit to save fuel in recent years. The Door Frame posted:I guess my question is, why is the canal letting in ships that large? If anyone wants to listen to a long form podcast series about marine shipping, I strongly recommend "Containers" The first 2 episodes are here: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/containers-ships-tugs-port/ Also, the book "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger" is excellent. sharkytm fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Mar 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Unless you're going to make all your ships little donuts that don't have a long axis, this sort of issue always has the potential to be a problem. What was good enough for Noah should be good enough for anybody. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 13:20
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:What was good enough for Noah should be good enough for anybody. Ooooo, I read his book on the Ark and it's really amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
Any time I’m able to mention this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics_(film) It’s the longest movie ever made, and tracks the progress of a cheap pedometer from creation to shipping in REAL TIME 51,420 minutes
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
namlosh posted:Any time I’m able to mention this: Something new to binge straight through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 17:15
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Colostomy Bag posted:Something new to binge straight through. 857 hours!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
namlosh posted:Any time I’m able to mention this: It'd a lot cooler if it was 69,420 minutes
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 19:11
|
|