Instead of using the meme thread…

Maybe someone wants to transfer the comments to this one.

As I posted earlier, I heard this mentioned on NPR this morning.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-history/60307223

“After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Maryland discussed installing pier guards but decided against it because it was too expensive.

“I think they would have been effective in all this. They would have reduced the impact, or at least prevented the ship impacting directly the piers because the way it went, it looked almost effortlessly the same. The vessel hit the pier and it just went and there was no hesitation. The bridge couldn’t handle it at all. So, I think the fenders, the bumpers would help,” said Abieyuwa Aghayere, a civil engineering professor at Drexel University.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali

https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1bo6e86/container_ship_loses_power_multiple_times_before/

https://www.facebook.com/BMoreUnique410/videos/759776602790664

kii said:

Instead of using the meme thread…

Maybe someone wants to transfer the comments to this one.

As I posted earlier, I heard this mentioned on NPR this morning.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-history/60307223

“After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Maryland discussed installing pier guards but decided against it because it was too expensive.

“I think they would have been effective in all this. They would have reduced the impact, or at least prevented the ship impacting directly the piers because the way it went, it looked almost effortlessly the same. The vessel hit the pier and it just went and there was no hesitation. The bridge couldn’t handle it at all. So, I think the fenders, the bumpers would help,” said Abieyuwa Aghayere, a civil engineering professor at Drexel University.”

Now we’ll be able to learn how expensive it is to not have the pier guards.

kii said:

Instead of using the meme thread…

Maybe someone wants to transfer the comments to this one.

As I posted earlier, I heard this mentioned on NPR this morning.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-history/60307223

“After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Maryland discussed installing pier guards but decided against it because it was too expensive.

“I think they would have been effective in all this. They would have reduced the impact, or at least prevented the ship impacting directly the piers because the way it went, it looked almost effortlessly the same. The vessel hit the pier and it just went and there was no hesitation. The bridge couldn’t handle it at all. So, I think the fenders, the bumpers would help,” said Abieyuwa Aghayere, a civil engineering professor at Drexel University.”

this has long been the case:
it would have been pennies on the dollar
to prevent such an event then the same party that
voted it down whines about the catastrophe once it occurs
Sadly the same thing will happen with the coming climate catastrophe

so it goes

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

kii said:

Instead of using the meme thread…

Maybe someone wants to transfer the comments to this one.

As I posted earlier, I heard this mentioned on NPR this morning.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-history/60307223

“After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Maryland discussed installing pier guards but decided against it because it was too expensive.

“I think they would have been effective in all this. They would have reduced the impact, or at least prevented the ship impacting directly the piers because the way it went, it looked almost effortlessly the same. The vessel hit the pier and it just went and there was no hesitation. The bridge couldn’t handle it at all. So, I think the fenders, the bumpers would help,” said Abieyuwa Aghayere, a civil engineering professor at Drexel University.”

Now we’ll be able to learn how expensive it is to not have the pier guards.

Try these cute balloon floaties that offer a bit of reactive armour style protection as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwgOHpZlxvc

Link

0:28 / 7:31

NTSB B-Roll – Aerial Imagery of Francis Scott Key Bridge and Cargo Ship Dali

The Dali should have had a tugboat with it, when it experienced powerloss the tugboat could have saved it and the bridge.

But instead a container ship fully loaded with power loss, steering loss and out of control, bumped into a pylon.

Maybe more engineering checks?

The Pylons need extra protection for sure.

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

I doubt that the bridge would have been able to get out of the way in time.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

They have sound-making devices (loud horns. And i mean LOUD) for a variety of sound signals.

There’s no specific signal for ‘collision’, but an approved distress signal, meant to get attention, is a continuous sounding of a horn, bell, or gong.

If it looks likely that your vessel is going to collide with something, then that would qualify as ‘distress’, and you could use that signal.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

They have sound-making devices (loud horns. And i mean LOUD) for a variety of sound signals.

There’s no specific signal for ‘collision’, but an approved distress signal, meant to get attention, is a continuous sounding of a horn, bell, or gong.

If it looks likely that your vessel is going to collide with something, then that would qualify as ‘distress’, and you could use that signal.

There was a power failure. Maybe the horn was disabled.

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

They have sound-making devices (loud horns. And i mean LOUD) for a variety of sound signals.

There’s no specific signal for ‘collision’, but an approved distress signal, meant to get attention, is a continuous sounding of a horn, bell, or gong.

If it looks likely that your vessel is going to collide with something, then that would qualify as ‘distress’, and you could use that signal.

There was a power failure. Maybe the horn was disabled.

Yeah, quite possibly. Adding another facet to the ship’s crew’s feelings of helplessness.

captain_spalding said:

Yeah, quite possibly. Adding another facet to the ship’s crew’s feelings of helplessness.

If sound signals were not an option, they could have used a rocket parachute flare or a hand flare showing a red light, which might have at least got the attention of some people on the bridge, and given them some chance to react.

Either such things were not to hand, or there was insufficient time/presence of mind to use them.

There’s several flag signals that might have been employed there, but it was probably too dark to see them, and the chance of there being anyone on the bridge who’d recognise them would be exceedingly small, anyway.

At they might have tried using a hand-held loud hailer to yell at the people on the bridge, if they had one on hand.

captain_spalding said:

captain_spalding said:

Yeah, quite possibly. Adding another facet to the ship’s crew’s feelings of helplessness.

If sound signals were not an option, they could have used a rocket parachute flare or a hand flare showing a red light, which might have at least got the attention of some people on the bridge, and given them some chance to react.

Either such things were not to hand, or there was insufficient time/presence of mind to use them.

There’s several flag signals that might have been employed there, but it was probably too dark to see them, and the chance of there being anyone on the bridge who’d recognise them would be exceedingly small, anyway.

At they might have tried using a hand-held loud hailer to yell at the people on the bridge, if they had one on hand.

The last report I saw said the road was closed to traffic because the ship informed the bridge people that they were out of control. Has that changed?

the captain did the right thing by notifying the bridge authorities of the impending Collison. the bridge was closed. only the maintenance crew remained. if they weren’t in radio contact then nobody was going to drive onto the bridge to warn them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

captain_spalding said:

Yeah, quite possibly. Adding another facet to the ship’s crew’s feelings of helplessness.

If sound signals were not an option, they could have used a rocket parachute flare or a hand flare showing a red light, which might have at least got the attention of some people on the bridge, and given them some chance to react.

Either such things were not to hand, or there was insufficient time/presence of mind to use them.

There’s several flag signals that might have been employed there, but it was probably too dark to see them, and the chance of there being anyone on the bridge who’d recognise them would be exceedingly small, anyway.

At they might have tried using a hand-held loud hailer to yell at the people on the bridge, if they had one on hand.

The last report I saw said the road was closed to traffic because the ship informed the bridge people that they were out of control. Has that changed?

No.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

If sound signals were not an option, they could have used a rocket parachute flare or a hand flare showing a red light, which might have at least got the attention of some people on the bridge, and given them some chance to react.

Either such things were not to hand, or there was insufficient time/presence of mind to use them.

There’s several flag signals that might have been employed there, but it was probably too dark to see them, and the chance of there being anyone on the bridge who’d recognise them would be exceedingly small, anyway.

At they might have tried using a hand-held loud hailer to yell at the people on the bridge, if they had one on hand.

The last report I saw said the road was closed to traffic because the ship informed the bridge people that they were out of control. Has that changed?

No.

They were able to stop traffic driving onto the bridge, but didn’t have enough time to evacuate road workers on foot.

OCDC said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The last report I saw said the road was closed to traffic because the ship informed the bridge people that they were out of control. Has that changed?

No.

They were able to stop traffic driving onto the bridge, but didn’t have enough time to evacuate road workers on foot.

I haven’t been aware of what communications were made from the ship.

I was really only listing means, other than sound signals, by which the ship’s ‘distress’ situation might have been communicated to the surrounding area. Good to know that they found some way to give whatever warning they could.

It fell down.

captain_spalding said:

OCDC said:

ChrispenEvan said:

No.

They were able to stop traffic driving onto the bridge, but didn’t have enough time to evacuate road workers on foot.

I haven’t been aware of what communications were made from the ship.

I was really only listing means, other than sound signals, by which the ship’s ‘distress’ situation might have been communicated to the surrounding area. Good to know that they found some way to give whatever warning they could.

Need a morse code flare for: have lost control about to crash.

Woodie said:

It fell down.

takes notes

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

OCDC said:

They were able to stop traffic driving onto the bridge, but didn’t have enough time to evacuate road workers on foot.

I haven’t been aware of what communications were made from the ship.

I was really only listing means, other than sound signals, by which the ship’s ‘distress’ situation might have been communicated to the surrounding area. Good to know that they found some way to give whatever warning they could.

Need a morse code flare for: have lost control about to crash.

There’s a number of signals which might be used, which can be made a variety of means. Signal flags (using the International Code flags) is one way, but also by semaphore, flashing light, or wireless telegraphy (Morse code key).

If you have a means of conveying them, probably by ‘Morse code’, then there’s:

NC – I am in distress and require immediate assistance

DV 1 – I am adrift.

F – I am disabled; communicate with me

CB 5 – I require immediate assistance; I am drifting.

CB 2 – I require immediate assistance; I have damaged steering gear

RN – My engines are out of action.

D – Keep clear of me; I am manoeuvering with difficulty.

There’s no signal specifically for ‘shit, i think there’s going to be a collision!’. There’s a whole range of signals that deal with ‘collision’, but they all have to do with what the situation is after a collision has occurred.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

I haven’t been aware of what communications were made from the ship.

I was really only listing means, other than sound signals, by which the ship’s ‘distress’ situation might have been communicated to the surrounding area. Good to know that they found some way to give whatever warning they could.

Need a morse code flare for: have lost control about to crash.

There’s a number of signals which might be used, which can be made a variety of means. Signal flags (using the International Code flags) is one way, but also by semaphore, flashing light, or wireless telegraphy (Morse code key).

If you have a means of conveying them, probably by ‘Morse code’, then there’s:

NC – I am in distress and require immediate assistance

DV 1 – I am adrift.

F – I am disabled; communicate with me

CB 5 – I require immediate assistance; I am drifting.

CB 2 – I require immediate assistance; I have damaged steering gear

RN – My engines are out of action.

D – Keep clear of me; I am manoeuvering with difficulty.

There’s no signal specifically for ‘shit, i think there’s going to be a collision!’. There’s a whole range of signals that deal with ‘collision’, but they all have to do with what the situation is after a collision has occurred.

I can see a couple there that could have been used.

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Need a morse code flare for: have lost control about to crash.

There’s a number of signals which might be used, which can be made a variety of means. Signal flags (using the International Code flags) is one way, but also by semaphore, flashing light, or wireless telegraphy (Morse code key).

If you have a means of conveying them, probably by ‘Morse code’, then there’s:

NC – I am in distress and require immediate assistance

DV 1 – I am adrift.

F – I am disabled; communicate with me

CB 5 – I require immediate assistance; I am drifting.

CB 2 – I require immediate assistance; I have damaged steering gear

RN – My engines are out of action.

D – Keep clear of me; I am manoeuvering with difficulty.

There’s no signal specifically for ‘shit, i think there’s going to be a collision!’. There’s a whole range of signals that deal with ‘collision’, but they all have to do with what the situation is after a collision has occurred.

I can see a couple there that could have been used.

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

There’s a number of signals which might be used, which can be made a variety of means. Signal flags (using the International Code flags) is one way, but also by semaphore, flashing light, or wireless telegraphy (Morse code key).

If you have a means of conveying them, probably by ‘Morse code’, then there’s:

NC – I am in distress and require immediate assistance

DV 1 – I am adrift.

F – I am disabled; communicate with me

CB 5 – I require immediate assistance; I am drifting.

CB 2 – I require immediate assistance; I have damaged steering gear

RN – My engines are out of action.

D – Keep clear of me; I am manoeuvering with difficulty.

There’s no signal specifically for ‘shit, i think there’s going to be a collision!’. There’s a whole range of signals that deal with ‘collision’, but they all have to do with what the situation is after a collision has occurred.

I can see a couple there that could have been used.

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

There’s a number of signals which might be used, which can be made a variety of means. Signal flags (using the International Code flags) is one way, but also by semaphore, flashing light, or wireless telegraphy (Morse code key).

If you have a means of conveying them, probably by ‘Morse code’, then there’s:

NC – I am in distress and require immediate assistance

DV 1 – I am adrift.

F – I am disabled; communicate with me

CB 5 – I require immediate assistance; I am drifting.

CB 2 – I require immediate assistance; I have damaged steering gear

RN – My engines are out of action.

D – Keep clear of me; I am manoeuvering with difficulty.

There’s no signal specifically for ‘shit, i think there’s going to be a collision!’. There’s a whole range of signals that deal with ‘collision’, but they all have to do with what the situation is after a collision has occurred.

I can see a couple there that could have been used.

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

Optus might be down.

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I can see a couple there that could have been used.

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

Optus might be down.

That’d be their luck.

OCDC said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I can see a couple there that could have been used.

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

who were they going to ring?

ChrispenEvan said:

OCDC said:

PermeateFree said:

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

who were they going to ring?

Doesn’t downtown Baltimore have some Ghostbusters™ to call?

OCDC said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I can see a couple there that could have been used.

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

PermeateFree said:

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

Nods.

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

PermeateFree said:

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

Arts said:

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

Yes.

ChrispenEvan said:

OCDC said:

PermeateFree said:

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

who were they going to ring?

More like that’s so 2000s, in this 2020s age everyone would be filming and not calling help.

Arts said:

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

They did manage to get an anchor out.

ChrispenEvan said:

OCDC said:

PermeateFree said:

They might also have a telephone and ring someone up.

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

who were they going to ring?

911. Get someone to stop traffic onto the bridge. Maybe polis could do such a thing.

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

They did manage to get an anchor out.

oh true? an article I read this morning said they didn’t have enough time…

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

OCDC said:

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

who were they going to ring?

More like that’s so 2000s, in this 2020s age everyone would be filming and not calling help.

I’d be straight on to it, telling the forum there’s a big boat about to hit the bridge.

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

They did manage to get an anchor out.

oh true? an article I read this morning said they didn’t have enough time…

Heard it on the wireless.

Arts said:

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

I had a similar thought. Presumably there was at least one working mobile phone on board.

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

I understand they did weigh anchor, but 110,000 tons going at 8 knots really, really wants to keep going.

Bridges can be protected from ship collisions – an expert on structures in disasters explains how
https://theconversation.com/bridges-can-be-protected-from-ship-collisions-an-expert-on-structures-in-disasters-explains-how-226781

A list of major US bridge collapses caused by ships and barges
https://apnews.com/article/bridge-collapses-barges-list-1f2d6261d523ddc625aaaf3b32c626bc

Category:Bridge disasters caused by collision
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bridge_disasters_caused_by_collision

Maybe a signal for collision is needed with a backup power supply for the horn?

Michael V said:

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Yes, they used it to call police and get traffic stopped.

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

I understand they did weigh anchor, but 110,000 tons going at 8 knots really, really wants to keep going.

so PWM wasn’t just being ‘difficult’

Tau.Neutrino said:

Maybe a signal for collision is needed with a backup power supply for the horn?

And flares as Captain Spalding pointed out.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Maybe a signal for collision is needed with a backup power supply for the horn?

And flares as Captain Spalding pointed out.

Piers and wharfs get hit a lot as well.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Maybe a signal for collision is needed with a backup power supply for the horn?

And flares as Captain Spalding pointed out.

Imagine if they replaced fossil fuelling with lithium batter or small modular nuclears, wouldn’t knock down any bridges when you had a surprise outage, you’d just have fireworks¡

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Arts said:

exactly, they DID call someone and told them shit was going down, and they probably saved many lives by doing so.. in a situation that is unusual, and out of their control, on water that is flowing, in a vessel they have little control over (not even enough time to drop anchor) I think they did remarkably well under the circumstances.

I understand they did weigh anchor, but 110,000 tons going at 8 knots really, really wants to keep going.

so PWM wasn’t just being ‘difficult’

LOL

No, I don’t believe so.

Justin

In short: Investigators have found the pilot of the cargo ship that crashed into a Baltimore bridge had radioed for tugboat help minutes earlier, citing new data from the recovered voyage recorder.
They also said the Key Bridge built in the 1970s was more vulnerable to total collapse because it lacked structural engineering redundancies that are common to newer spans.
What’s next? The investigation could take up to two years, with a preliminary report to be completed next month.

OCDC said:

Justin

In short: Investigators have found the pilot of the cargo ship that crashed into a Baltimore bridge had radioed for tugboat help minutes earlier, citing new data from the recovered voyage recorder.
They also said the Key Bridge built in the 1970s was more vulnerable to total collapse because it lacked structural engineering redundancies that are common to newer spans.
What’s next? The investigation could take up to two years, with a preliminary report to be completed next month.

Prelim report will probably take the long route around to say, as Woodie put it so succinctly earlier, ‘it fell down’.

captain_spalding said:

OCDC said:

Justin

In short: Investigators have found the pilot of the cargo ship that crashed into a Baltimore bridge had radioed for tugboat help minutes earlier, citing new data from the recovered voyage recorder.
They also said the Key Bridge built in the 1970s was more vulnerable to total collapse because it lacked structural engineering redundancies that are common to newer spans.
What’s next? The investigation could take up to two years, with a preliminary report to be completed next month.

Prelim report will probably take the long route around to say, as Woodie put it so succinctly earlier, ‘it fell down’.

I could say a goon show line but I won’t.

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

OCDC said:

Justin

In short: Investigators have found the pilot of the cargo ship that crashed into a Baltimore bridge had radioed for tugboat help minutes earlier, citing new data from the recovered voyage recorder.
They also said the Key Bridge built in the 1970s was more vulnerable to total collapse because it lacked structural engineering redundancies that are common to newer spans.
What’s next? The investigation could take up to two years, with a preliminary report to be completed next month.

Prelim report will probably take the long route around to say, as Woodie put it so succinctly earlier, ‘it fell down’.

I could say a goon show line but I won’t.

Little Jim!

You could fit small sensors to each pylon looking for approaching collision objects, when one is found, collision sirens go off, to get off the bridge.

Building robust bridge segments giving a chance for vehicles to get to the next segment safely.

Tau.Neutrino said:

You could fit small sensors to each pylon looking for approaching collision objects, when one is found, collision sirens go off, to get off the bridge.

Building robust bridge segments giving a chance for vehicles to get to the next segment safely.

Correction
Building robust bridge segments giving a chance for vehicles on the next segment to continue safely.

You could have underwater sensors further up and down the river arranged like an under water airport landing strip, like a channel, any deviation of large ships sets off alarms.

Tau.Neutrino said:

You could have underwater sensors further up and down the river arranged like an under water airport landing strip, like a channel, any deviation of large ships sets off alarms.

Or a grid.

Or large underwater concrete shapes fitted with lots of wheels embedded in the sides of the channel that guide drifting ships.

Or tractor beams when they become available in the future.

Or a line of underwater powerful magnets 🧲 that can guide million tonne ships.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Or tractor beams when they become available in the future.

Or a line of underwater powerful magnets 🧲 that can guide million tonne ships.

With a inverted v shape at each end.

I imagine there would be many other ways to guide big ships under bridges safely.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

In this case it would have been one long blast followed by two short blasts; this indicates the ship is ‘restricted in ability to manoeuvre’ or ‘not under command’ (no ability to steer).

Obviousman said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

In this case it would have been one long blast followed by two short blasts; this indicates the ship is ‘restricted in ability to manoeuvre’ or ‘not under command’ (no ability to steer).

What good would it do? It’s not like the bridge can move out of the way.

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

In this case it would have been one long blast followed by two short blasts; this indicates the ship is ‘restricted in ability to manoeuvre’ or ‘not under command’ (no ability to steer).

What good would it do? It’s not like the bridge can move out of the way.

It’s a standard procedure. Certain action happen, specific procedures have to be followed.
A lot of those procedures have been learnt at the cost of blood.

Spiny Norman said:

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

In this case it would have been one long blast followed by two short blasts; this indicates the ship is ‘restricted in ability to manoeuvre’ or ‘not under command’ (no ability to steer).

What good would it do? It’s not like the bridge can move out of the way.

It’s a standard procedure. Certain action happen, specific procedures have to be followed.
A lot of those procedures have been learnt at the cost of blood.

TV this morning was saying the ship lost power due to faulty fuel.

Obviousman said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the Dali blow its horn?

Do ships have collision horns?

In this case it would have been one long blast followed by two short blasts; this indicates the ship is ‘restricted in ability to manoeuvre’ or ‘not under command’ (no ability to steer).

You are correct. For some reason, i had completely forgotten Rule 35, although the substance (if not the numbers) Rules 34, 36, and 37 came to mind with out too much trouble. I thought there ought to be a NUC signal, but couldn’t remember what it was, if there was one.

The grey cells are not what they once were.

So, how are they going to remove the bridge and ship and re-open the harbour to normal traffic?

party_pants said:

So, how are they going to remove the bridge and ship and re-open the harbour to normal traffic?

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

So, how are they going to remove the bridge and ship and re-open the harbour to normal traffic?

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

After that, I guess it is time to start work on a new tunnel.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

So, how are they going to remove the bridge and ship and re-open the harbour to normal traffic?

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

After that, I guess it is time to start work on a new tunnel.

That or build a new bridge with proper protection to the piers.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

After that, I guess it is time to start work on a new tunnel.

That or build a new bridge with proper protection to the piers.

Yeah, I guess that would be the more sensible option.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

So, how are they going to remove the bridge and ship and re-open the harbour to normal traffic?

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

I agree that this is the most likely scenario.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

So, how are they going to remove the bridge and ship and re-open the harbour to normal traffic?

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

After that, I guess it is time to start work on a new tunnel.

Do they have any tunnels nearby?

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

After that, I guess it is time to start work on a new tunnel.

Do they have any tunnels nearby?

Dunno, I have never been to Baltimore.

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Well, AFAIK, the ship is still afloat, so they cut the bridge wreckage away from the ship, and it can be towed away.

As for the rest of the bridge wreckage, most likely salvage crews will cut it up into chunks which can be removed by floating cranes. The Yanks has some really big floating cranes.

After that, I guess it is time to start work on a new tunnel.

Do they have any tunnels nearby?

Are you thinking of moving one to the harbour?

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

After that, I guess it is time to start work on a new tunnel.

Do they have any tunnels nearby?

Dunno, I have never been to Baltimore.

I’ve checked. Baltimore has two harbour tunnels, but neither is a dug tunnel. They are made from submerged tubes. It may indicate that the rock there is not right for a bored tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Harbor_Tunnel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McHenry_Tunnel

party_pants said:

So, how are they going to remove the bridge and ship and re-open the harbour to normal traffic?

cut it up and load it onto barges with floating cranes.

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Do they have any tunnels nearby?

Dunno, I have never been to Baltimore.

I’ve checked. Baltimore has two harbour tunnels, but neither is a dug tunnel. They are made from submerged tubes. It may indicate that the rock there is not right for a bored tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Harbor_Tunnel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McHenry_Tunnel

Like Rev said, I guess building a new bridge with all the necessary protections would be the sensible option.

I mean really, every bridge that crosses over a ship route to/from a major port should be built with the potential for ship collisions in mind.

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

Dunno, I have never been to Baltimore.

I’ve checked. Baltimore has two harbour tunnels, but neither is a dug tunnel. They are made from submerged tubes. It may indicate that the rock there is not right for a bored tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Harbor_Tunnel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McHenry_Tunnel

Like Rev said, I guess building a new bridge with all the necessary protections would be the sensible option.

I mean really, every bridge that crosses over a ship route to/from a major port should be built with the potential for ship collisions in mind.

The Hobart bridge taught us that.

party_pants said:

I mean really, every bridge that crosses over a ship route to/from a major port should be built with the potential for ship collisions in mind.

Well, you’d think that people would have learnt that by now.

But, even after the 1975 Tasman Bridge incident, the bridge apparently still cannot risk an impact from a vessel of any size, which is why the icebreaker Nuyina is not allowed to pass under the bridge to go to the refuelling facility in Hobart.

Having had the bridge knocked down by a ship once, you’d expect that it would be rebuilt with an enhanced capacity to resist such things, but, no, it seems that such measures would have been a bit too much bother, so Hobart still has a rather fragile bridge.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

I’ve checked. Baltimore has two harbour tunnels, but neither is a dug tunnel. They are made from submerged tubes. It may indicate that the rock there is not right for a bored tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Harbor_Tunnel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McHenry_Tunnel

Like Rev said, I guess building a new bridge with all the necessary protections would be the sensible option.

I mean really, every bridge that crosses over a ship route to/from a major port should be built with the potential for ship collisions in mind.

The Hobart bridge taught us that.

This is not the first it has happened. I recall watching a doco a while ago about another bridge/ship collision and collapse. Happened during bad weather with limited visibility.

There has been an awful lot of bridge failures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures

Michael V said:

There has been an awful lot of bridge failures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures

Interesting list.

The main causes seem to be: collisions with trucks or ships passing underneath, train derailments, flooding, overloading, poor construction, and bad design.

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/baltimore-bridge-struck-by-ships-twice

Link

ChrispenEvan said:

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/baltimore-bridge-struck-by-ships-twice

Link

People seem to want to overcomplicate this.

If a massive ship traveling at a few m/s hits a non-massive bridge pier with very limited ductility, the bridge pier will collapse, and the supported spans will come down with it. If the bridge deck is continuous, without any provisions to stop transmission of collapse mechanisms, then the adjacent spans will collapse, and so on.

The only mystery is why the risk of this happening was considered acceptable before the event, but not acceptable after the event, when the probability of the impact happening could have been (and presumably was) calculated before the event.

But unfortunately failure to give adequate consideration of low probability high consequence events continues in every field of human endeavour.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/baltimore-bridge-struck-by-ships-twice

Link

People seem to want to overcomplicate this.

If a massive ship traveling at a few m/s hits a non-massive bridge pier with very limited ductility, the bridge pier will collapse, and the supported spans will come down with it. If the bridge deck is continuous, without any provisions to stop transmission of collapse mechanisms, then the adjacent spans will collapse, and so on.

The only mystery is why the risk of this happening was considered acceptable before the event, but not acceptable after the event, when the probability of the impact happening could have been (and presumably was) calculated before the event.

But unfortunately failure to give adequate consideration of low probability high consequence events continues in every field of human endeavour.

not over complicating it. mentions it was hit before and nothing was done. even though ships had got larger.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/baltimore-bridge-struck-by-ships-twice

Link

People seem to want to overcomplicate this.

If a massive ship traveling at a few m/s hits a non-massive bridge pier with very limited ductility, the bridge pier will collapse, and the supported spans will come down with it. If the bridge deck is continuous, without any provisions to stop transmission of collapse mechanisms, then the adjacent spans will collapse, and so on.

The only mystery is why the risk of this happening was considered acceptable before the event, but not acceptable after the event, when the probability of the impact happening could have been (and presumably was) calculated before the event.

But unfortunately failure to give adequate consideration of low probability high consequence events continues in every field of human endeavour.

not over complicating it. mentions it was hit before and nothing was done. even though ships had got larger.

I beg to differ.

It was written as though the collapse was some sort of mystery, needing the extraordinary insight of the author to explain.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

People seem to want to overcomplicate this.

If a massive ship traveling at a few m/s hits a non-massive bridge pier with very limited ductility, the bridge pier will collapse, and the supported spans will come down with it. If the bridge deck is continuous, without any provisions to stop transmission of collapse mechanisms, then the adjacent spans will collapse, and so on.

The only mystery is why the risk of this happening was considered acceptable before the event, but not acceptable after the event, when the probability of the impact happening could have been (and presumably was) calculated before the event.

But unfortunately failure to give adequate consideration of low probability high consequence events continues in every field of human endeavour.

not over complicating it. mentions it was hit before and nothing was done. even though ships had got larger.

I beg to differ.

It was written as though the collapse was some sort of mystery, needing the extraordinary insight of the author to explain.

do you not think that some readers might find the information useful?

This ship had the momentum of 30 max weight Boeing 737s travelling at cruising speed.

dv said:

This ship had the momentum of 30 max weight Boeing 737s travelling at cruising speed.

how many african swallows though?

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not over complicating it. mentions it was hit before and nothing was done. even though ships had got larger.

I beg to differ.

It was written as though the collapse was some sort of mystery, needing the extraordinary insight of the author to explain.

do you not think that some readers might find the information useful?

I found it annoying, so I’m probably not the best person to judge its usefulness.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

This ship had the momentum of 30 max weight Boeing 737s travelling at cruising speed.

how many african swallows though?

What’s that in bananas?

The 5G page isn’t a conspiracy site.

ChrispenEvan said:

The 5G page isn’t a conspiracy site.

I blame the Russians.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The 5G page isn’t a conspiracy site.

I blame the Russians.

They’ll just blame the Ukrainians.

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The 5G page isn’t a conspiracy site.

I blame the Russians.

They’ll just blame the Ukrainians.

I’ll pay that :)

ChrispenEvan said:

The 5G page isn’t a conspiracy site.

So, unless I’m mistaken, one bridge had a mulch fire near it, the other one was in India.

I’m not sure how far you can stretch a long bow, but I’m sure that it won’t stretch between continents.

Kingy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The 5G page isn’t a conspiracy site.

So, unless I’m mistaken, one bridge had a mulch fire near it, the other one was in India.

I’m not sure how far you can stretch a long bow, but I’m sure that it won’t stretch between continents.

yeah, I looked at news for those two other bridges. long bow indeed.

ChrispenEvan said:

Kingy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The 5G page isn’t a conspiracy site.

So, unless I’m mistaken, one bridge had a mulch fire near it, the other one was in India.

I’m not sure how far you can stretch a long bow, but I’m sure that it won’t stretch between continents.

yeah, I looked at news for those two other bridges. long bow indeed.

If it was a conspiracy to attack multiple bridges in the US, then the conspirators ought to be having some serious words with their operatives regarding subtlety, methods and allocation of resources, and their ability to locate targets.

You could have a parallel set of lights on floating buoys like an airstrip. Running down the middle of the river, once hit they trigger sirens and flares.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/30/1241836267/army-corps-continues-efforts-to-remove-wreckage-of-baltimores-key-bridge

Worth a listen if you can. No transcript yet.

kii said:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/30/1241836267/army-corps-continues-efforts-to-remove-wreckage-of-baltimores-key-bridge

Worth a listen if you can. No transcript yet.

Thanks.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=431219712902839

Link

Before you watch the video describe two ways for the ship to pass beneath the bridge. Be nice also not to give the answer for a while.

Pete Buttigieg interview on Face the Nation.

Some interesting footage of the beams being cut and the situation on the ship’s deck.

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=431219712902839

Link

Before you watch the video describe two ways for the ship to pass beneath the bridge. Be nice also not to give the answer for a while.

Well there you go, unexpected.

You could have an underwater network of trigger lines both sides of the bridge allowing a clear channel for ships.

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

they will need a troll underneath…

wait that was goats

You could have a network of criss crossing infra red signals and lasers looking for ships that could trigger alarms on the bridge.

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

Sloped terrain both sides under the bridge, sloping away on a angle.

we should just dig traffic tunnels under water and do away with bridges altogether

Arts said:

we should just dig traffic tunnels under water and do away with bridges altogether

No doubt they have looked at that or are looking.
However you don’t win prizes and accolades for aesthetically looking tunnels.

Arts said:

we should just dig traffic tunnels under water and do away with bridges altogether

or make ships from foam rubber.

ChrispenEvan said:

Arts said:

we should just dig traffic tunnels under water and do away with bridges altogether

or make ships from foam rubber.

Arts said:

we should just dig traffic tunnels under water and do away with bridges altogether

It seem that the geology is unsuitable. There are two tunnels crossing the river in Baltimore, but they are made of pre-formed steel tube and just rest on the floor of the river.

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

they will need a troll underneath…

wait that was goats

Or worse

(ref Birmingham Piss Troll)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

Sloped terrain both sides under the bridge, sloping away on a angle.

2 Drag anchors at the back of the ship.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

Sloped terrain both sides under the bridge, sloping away on a angle.

2 Drag anchors at the back of the ship.

Rubber Ducks, what about rubber ducks?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

Sloped terrain both sides under the bridge, sloping away on a angle.

2 Drag anchors at the back of the ship.

Or more… 4 maybe?

Dunno.

:)

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Sloped terrain both sides under the bridge, sloping away on a angle.

2 Drag anchors at the back of the ship.

Rubber Ducks, what about rubber ducks?

One could put rubber around the pylons and on the bow of the ship.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

2 Drag anchors at the back of the ship.

Rubber Ducks, what about rubber ducks?

One could put rubber around the pylons and on the bow of the ship.

But would that give the warning quack?

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Rubber Ducks, what about rubber ducks?

One could put rubber around the pylons and on the bow of the ship.

But would that give the warning quack?

Floating Surface sensors

But located back far enough back so workers can jet pack off the bridge.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

One could put rubber around the pylons and on the bow of the ship.

But would that give the warning quack?

Floating Surface sensors

But located back far enough back so workers can jet pack off the bridge.

Nah! I prefer a quacking rubber duck.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

One could put rubber around the pylons and on the bow of the ship.

But would that give the warning quack?

Floating Surface sensors

But located back far enough back so workers can jet pack off the bridge.

Onya Gyro Gearloose.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

But would that give the warning quack?

Floating Surface sensors

But located back far enough back so workers can jet pack off the bridge.

Nah! I prefer a quacking rubber duck.

Good idea workers can grab and duck and jump off the bridge. Duck inflates on the way down.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Floating Surface sensors

But located back far enough back so workers can jet pack off the bridge.

Nah! I prefer a quacking rubber duck.

Good idea workers can grab and duck and jump off the bridge. Duck inflates on the way down.

So many great ideas.

Correction

Good idea workers can grab a duck and jump off the bridge. Duck inflates on the way down.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Nah! I prefer a quacking rubber duck.

Good idea workers can grab and duck and jump off the bridge. Duck inflates on the way down.

So many great ideas.

The ship could have made duck noises but nothing was heard.

:)

Kingy said:

I think they mean Five Dollars.

Wholesale.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Kingy said:

I think they mean Five Dollars.

Wholesale.

They then bump it up to $37 retail.

I don’t think it matters how loud the duck ship will quack, the bridge is not getting out of the way – they are stubborn like that.

A fast response tugboat might have done it.

Fast like a speed boat, then switches to normal torque

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

they will need a troll underneath…

wait that was goats

Rams … goats … ISWYDT

dv said:

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

A new bridge could cost a pretty penny if they are going to make it ram proof.

they will need a troll underneath…

wait that was goats

Rams … goats … ISWYDT

Straight through to the keeper.

Y’all are talking about what needs to be done for the bridges but the bridge was entirely suitable for purpose.

What went wrong was a very rare power failure in a hundred million dollar cargo ship. Maritime collisions that destroy bridges are rare and the cost to upgrade every bridge in the world that is near Port facilities so that they could withstand such a collision would have to run into trillions of dollars. Two more reasonable courses of action would be

a) do nothing. Accept that something like this will happen every decade or so. Maersk will be footing the bill to replace the bridge, I should think, and in honesty the cost will be chump change for them.

b) shipping operators can spend a bit of money improving the reliability of their propulsion.

Tau.Neutrino said:

A fast response tugboat might have done it.

Fast like a speed boat, then switches to normal torque

Just a reminder … this ship weighed something like 100000 tonnes. Give me the specs for a tugboat that is going to bring such a beast from 10 knots to stationary in time to avoid this collision.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A fast response tugboat might have done it.

Fast like a speed boat, then switches to normal torque

Just a reminder … this ship weighed something like 100000 tonnes. Give me the specs for a tugboat that is going to bring such a beast from 10 knots to stationary in time to avoid this collision.

we passed logic about 100 posts back

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A fast response tugboat might have done it.

Fast like a speed boat, then switches to normal torque

Just a reminder … this ship weighed something like 100000 tonnes. Give me the specs for a tugboat that is going to bring such a beast from 10 knots to stationary in time to avoid this collision.

Its deadweight tonnage is 116,000 tonnes. If it was moving at 5 knots (just under 10 kmh), it would have had a momentum of about322222248 kg·m/s.

It’s going to be one beefy tug that can whiz up alongside, get in to position to push, and negate that momentum in a very short period of time. And forget about ‘towing’ it from astern – there’s no rope made (or even conceivable) that’s going to stand that strain.

The tug is mainly used for steering when underway.

Arts said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A fast response tugboat might have done it.

Fast like a speed boat, then switches to normal torque

Just a reminder … this ship weighed something like 100000 tonnes. Give me the specs for a tugboat that is going to bring such a beast from 10 knots to stationary in time to avoid this collision.

we passed logic about 100 posts back

But he’s so enthusiastic!

Peak Warming Man said:

The tug is mainly used for steering when underway.

The big ship has a bow thruster for that.

The bridge itself could have an AI camera system looking for threats, if a threat is found it closes the bridge, alerts port authorities, and sounds a siren to any bridge workers.

Peak Warming Man said:

The tug is mainly used for steering when underway.

Yes, especially in hazardous and/or very confined waters. As i mentioned some days ago, a lot of merchant ships coming off the slipways these days are vastly more manoeuvrable than those of decades past.

With bow- and stern-thruster propellors, and propulsion units that can rotate 360 deg like this one:

and variable-pitch and contra-rotating propellors, the services of tugs can often be dispensed with entirely, which is good news for shipping lines, as the services of tugs are not cheap, nor are they readily available in some ports.

Ship-handling that would have been impossible for even the most skilled merchant ship captain only a few years back is now a matter of routine.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The bridge itself could have an AI camera system looking for threats, if a threat is found it closes the bridge, alerts port authorities, and sounds a siren to any bridge workers.

At least the siren would give the bridge workers a chance to say their prayers.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The bridge itself could have an AI camera system looking for threats, if a threat is found it closes the bridge, alerts port authorities, and sounds a siren to any bridge workers.

At least the siren would give the bridge workers a chance to say their prayers.

Well they could grab a jet pack from their vehicle or a inflatable duck.

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The bridge itself could have an AI camera system looking for threats, if a threat is found it closes the bridge, alerts port authorities, and sounds a siren to any bridge workers.

At least the siren would give the bridge workers a chance to say their prayers.

Well they could grab a jet pack from their vehicle or a inflatable duck.

Ooh, ooh, how about this…ejection seats. Installed at multiple locations along the bridge and its supporting structure.

Siren sounds, run to the nearest seat, strap yourself in, pull the handle, and ride the rocket out of there.

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The bridge itself could have an AI camera system looking for threats, if a threat is found it closes the bridge, alerts port authorities, and sounds a siren to any bridge workers.

At least the siren would give the bridge workers a chance to say their prayers.

Well they could grab a jet pack from their vehicle or a inflatable duck.

I think it’s silly having large segments on bridges.

Makes SPLASHING Noise.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

At least the siren would give the bridge workers a chance to say their prayers.

Well they could grab a jet pack from their vehicle or a inflatable duck.

Ooh, ooh, how about this…ejection seats. Installed at multiple locations along the bridge and its supporting structure.

Siren sounds, run to the nearest seat, strap yourself in, pull the handle, and ride the rocket out of there.

Or bridge workers already have their jet packs on.

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Well they could grab a jet pack from their vehicle or a inflatable duck.

Ooh, ooh, how about this…ejection seats. Installed at multiple locations along the bridge and its supporting structure.

Siren sounds, run to the nearest seat, strap yourself in, pull the handle, and ride the rocket out of there.

Or bridge workers already have their jet packs on.

They could have nuked the Dali from space if they were fast enough.

Baltimore needs to think fast.

Fast response times.

Fast is good.

Faster is better

Fastest is what’s needed.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Baltimore needs to think fast.

Fast response times.

Fast is good.

Faster is better

Fastest is what’s needed.

And with long bridges have multiple closing booms with U turns.

Oh dear…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Ooh, ooh, how about this…ejection seats. Installed at multiple locations along the bridge and its supporting structure.

Siren sounds, run to the nearest seat, strap yourself in, pull the handle, and ride the rocket out of there.

Or bridge workers already have their jet packs on.

They could have nuked the Dali from space if they were fast enough.

Steady lad, steady.

Arts said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A fast response tugboat might have done it.

Fast like a speed boat, then switches to normal torque

Just a reminder … this ship weighed something like 100000 tonnes. Give me the specs for a tugboat that is going to bring such a beast from 10 knots to stationary in time to avoid this collision.

we passed logic about 100 posts back

This is all a crock and yous know it, yous lot talking about rocket parachutes and rocket ejection but obviously the correct solution is to pack a stack of SHLLV engines on board to fire in any emergency, that’ll do it, you’re not fighting gravity you’re just pushing the speed up or down by a few m/s it’s no big deal a handful of NK-15 should be plenty.

dolphins

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Baltimore needs to think fast.

Fast response times.

Fast is good.

Faster is better

Fastest is what’s needed.

And with long bridges have multiple closing booms with U turns.

Or if it’s double lane both ways close one lane each side and allow the other lane to go back.

3 point turns for everyone

Hmm

Bridge workers could have rescue drones in their vehicles.

Drones the size of a bucket but able to get someone down safely

They come to the worker when signalled ftom a radio.

AntiMaterielLASERs

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bridge workers could have rescue drones in their vehicles.

Drones the size of a bucket but able to get someone down safely

They come to the worker when signalled ftom a radio.

The bridge AI System would start up the drones and send them to the workers.

Fixed.

Tau N, I love you man but not everything has, or needs, a solution.

No seriously, dolphins (structure).

Massive fuck-off big lumps/piles of concrete to deflect any ship collision away from the piers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
blah

dv said:

Tau N, I love you man but not everything has, or needs, a solution.

I think their stream of consciousness is interesting, and sometimes weird, but so are the dreamers of the dreams

dv said:

Tau N, I love you man but not everything has, or needs, a solution.

The people falling into the water.

They might need a solution.

Number X asteroid might hit us…

Bigger than a ship.

Just saying..

I HAVE A FEAR OF BRIDGE COLLAPSES.

Runs away…

I HAVE A FEAR OF ASTEROIDS HITTING US…

RUNS AWAY…

FAR AWAY.. .

I have a fear of black holes larger than galaxies…

Runs away really fast…

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau N, I love you man but not everything has, or needs, a solution.

The people falling into the water.

They might need a solution.

Number X asteroid might hit us…

Bigger than a ship.

Just saying..

I HAVE A FEAR OF BRIDGE COLLAPSES.

Runs away…

The chances of you dying in a bridge collision are about 1 in 20 million.

party_pants said:

No seriously, dolphins (structure).

Massive fuck-off big lumps/piles of concrete to deflect any ship collision away from the piers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
blah

or:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I have a fear of black holes larger than galaxies…

Runs away really fast…

I have a fear of the universe

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

No seriously, dolphins (structure).

Massive fuck-off big lumps/piles of concrete to deflect any ship collision away from the piers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
blah

or:

Take that Dali.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

No seriously, dolphins (structure).

Massive fuck-off big lumps/piles of concrete to deflect any ship collision away from the piers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
blah

or:

Take that Dali.

Quite.

It seems to be a standard design feature in more modern bridges. Just rebuild the bridge with something like this.

Only a few months ago…

In short: Computer-based simulations show Australia’s Antarctic icebreaker “hit” Hobart’s Tasman Bridge four times, and would have done so a further 10 times if the virtual trial wasn’t aborted.

The details have been revealed after the ABC obtained a report outlining why the harbour master refused to allow the $528 million vessel to travel under the critical piece of infrastructure.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-03/icebreaker-nuyina-hit-hobart-tasman-bridge-in-modelling/103158228

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

No seriously, dolphins (structure).

Massive fuck-off big lumps/piles of concrete to deflect any ship collision away from the piers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
blah

or:

More bridges should be like that.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

or:

Take that Dali.

Quite.

It seems to be a standard design feature in more modern bridges. Just rebuild the bridge with something like this.

Ironically they look like ships.

Kingy said:

Only a few months ago…

In short: Computer-based simulations show Australia’s Antarctic icebreaker “hit” Hobart’s Tasman Bridge four times, and would have done so a further 10 times if the virtual trial wasn’t aborted.

The details have been revealed after the ABC obtained a report outlining why the harbour master refused to allow the $528 million vessel to travel under the critical piece of infrastructure.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-03/icebreaker-nuyina-hit-hobart-tasman-bridge-in-modelling/103158228

While I must admit I am enjoying the current weather, I think we need winter to come along early this year.

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

Only a few months ago…

In short: Computer-based simulations show Australia’s Antarctic icebreaker “hit” Hobart’s Tasman Bridge four times, and would have done so a further 10 times if the virtual trial wasn’t aborted.

The details have been revealed after the ABC obtained a report outlining why the harbour master refused to allow the $528 million vessel to travel under the critical piece of infrastructure.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-03/icebreaker-nuyina-hit-hobart-tasman-bridge-in-modelling/103158228

While I must admit I am enjoying the current weather, I think we need winter to come along early this year.

Oops wrong quote. That was supposed to be in response the the dams question in chat

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

No seriously, dolphins (structure).

Massive fuck-off big lumps/piles of concrete to deflect any ship collision away from the piers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
blah

or:

Useless, look at all the solid land protecting this bridge

and it still couldn’t stop

this from happening.

Do they have black boxes for cargo ships?

Black boxes seem to be needed to take note of cargo ships problems just like airplanes.

A last resort backup power system that has enough power to bring the ship to a stop.

Complete with drag anchors at the back of the ship.

Tau.Neutrino said:

A last resort backup power system that has enough power to bring the ship to a stop.

Complete with drag anchors at the back of the ship.

With those drag anchors could be a spring system built into the structure of the ship that allows the ship to gradually come to a stop. This would help to keep containers on the ships deck from falling off.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A last resort backup power system that has enough power to bring the ship to a stop.

Complete with drag anchors at the back of the ship.

With those drag anchors could be a spring system built into the structure of the ship that allows the ship to gradually come to a stop. This would help to keep containers on the ships deck from falling off.

Big ships need an upgraded maintenance system that port authorities can check over WiFi to see the overall engineering system of the ship.

I think the shipping industry is found wanting, those that do nothing should be smitted.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think the shipping industry is found wanting, those that do nothing should be smitted.

Another area of improvement could be in designing engines and other systems to be more generic, relying on other tested systems that work, this way could be expanded to cover everything from wiring to hull design.

The environment suffers from poor ship design and poor maintenance, how many ships lie at the bottom of the sea because of poor maintenance.

A much more upgraded system is needed to keep shipping above water and not underneath it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think the shipping industry is found wanting, those that do nothing should be smitted.

Another area of improvement could be in designing engines and other systems to be more generic, relying on other tested systems that work, this way could be expanded to cover everything from wiring to hull design.

The environment suffers from poor ship design and poor maintenance, how many ships lie at the bottom of the sea because of poor maintenance.

A much more upgraded system is needed to keep shipping above water and not underneath it.

Bridges could have tie points along the river banks located each side of the bridge.

A computer controlled tie line is fired at the tie point.

Strong enough to stop the ship.

A spring system could be used to avoid a sudden stop.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think the shipping industry is found wanting, those that do nothing should be smitted.

Another area of improvement could be in designing engines and other systems to be more generic, relying on other tested systems that work, this way could be expanded to cover everything from wiring to hull design.

The environment suffers from poor ship design and poor maintenance, how many ships lie at the bottom of the sea because of poor maintenance.

A much more upgraded system is needed to keep shipping above water and not underneath it.

Bridges could have tie points along the river banks located each side of the bridge.

A computer controlled tie line is fired at the tie point.

Strong enough to stop the ship.

A spring system could be used to avoid a sudden stop.

Fit all older ships with jet powered brakes at the front of the ship.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Another area of improvement could be in designing engines and other systems to be more generic, relying on other tested systems that work, this way could be expanded to cover everything from wiring to hull design.

The environment suffers from poor ship design and poor maintenance, how many ships lie at the bottom of the sea because of poor maintenance.

A much more upgraded system is needed to keep shipping above water and not underneath it.

Bridges could have tie points along the river banks located each side of the bridge.

A computer controlled tie line is fired at the tie point.

Strong enough to stop the ship.

A spring system could be used to avoid a sudden stop.

Fit all older ships with jet powered brakes at the front of the ship.

Gps location and ship condition radio signalling could have alerted port authorities using a
Front line early warning system. It would have sent power going off and on and the ship drifting off its course.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bridges could have tie points along the river banks located each side of the bridge.

A computer controlled tie line is fired at the tie point.

Strong enough to stop the ship.

A spring system could be used to avoid a sudden stop.

Fit all older ships with jet powered brakes at the front of the ship.

Gps location and ship condition radio signalling could have alerted port authorities using a
Front line early warning system. It would have sent power going off and on and the ship drifting off its course.

Port authorities should be able to have limited access to ships systems while in the river or harbour areas, then the port logs out once the ship is out of harbour.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Fit all older ships with jet powered brakes at the front of the ship.

Gps location and ship condition radio signalling could have alerted port authorities using a
Front line early warning system. It would have sent power going off and on and the ship drifting off its course.

Port authorities should be able to have limited access to ships systems while in the river or harbour areas, then the port logs out once the ship is out of harbour.

I wonder if there was enough time for a fast response tugboat to get to the ship.

This would be a dual engine tugboat with a fast engine to get there and then switch over to the tug engine or a new design that does both.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Gps location and ship condition radio signalling could have alerted port authorities using a
Front line early warning system. It would have sent power going off and on and the ship drifting off its course.

Port authorities should be able to have limited access to ships systems while in the river or harbour areas, then the port logs out once the ship is out of harbour.

I wonder if there was enough time for a fast response tugboat to get to the ship.

This would be a dual engine tugboat with a fast engine to get there and then switch over to the tug engine or a new design that does both.

An early warning system sends ship power failure information to port authority computers, they then validate and send a fast response tugboat. This could be a drone tugboat piloted by remote.
That would speed up the response time.

Designed to stop ships in short distances like air brakes stop planes, the Lacoste “ship-brake” here is
installed on USS Indiana (BB 1) at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, #OTD 1910. It would be removed by
November of the same year as Board members found the brake provided neither the promised short
stopping distances nor the reduced turning radius, and its weight had to be offset by reduced coal or
ammunition. Further, the board noted that without frequent use it would become clogged with marine
growth.

ChrispenEvan said:

Designed to stop ships in short distances like air brakes stop planes, the Lacoste “ship-brake” here is
installed on USS Indiana (BB 1) at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, #OTD 1910. It would be removed by
November of the same year as Board members found the brake provided neither the promised short
stopping distances nor the reduced turning radius, and its weight had to be offset by reduced coal or
ammunition. Further, the board noted that without frequent use it would become clogged with marine
growth.

It was a nice idea at the time.

I thought I’d bring in that reliability testing as it seems relevant here.

It’s already going on across different industries now including shipping.

But seeing ships lights going on and off repeatedly doesn’t look very reliable.

If shipping companies are neglecting maintenance then maybe port authorities should have a WIFi remote diagnostic system whereby they can log in over WIFi upon harbour entry so see the ships gps position and its overall engine and electrical systems, then they log out when the ship leaves harbour. Such systems need to be generic across the world to help bring costs down.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thought I’d bring in that reliability testing as it seems relevant here.

It’s already going on across different industries now including shipping.

But seeing ships lights going on and off repeatedly doesn’t look very reliable.

If shipping companies are neglecting maintenance then maybe port authorities should have a WIFi remote diagnostic system whereby they can log in over WIFi upon harbour entry so see the ships gps position and its overall engine and electrical systems, then they log out when the ship leaves harbour. Such systems need to be generic across the world to help bring costs down.

What is needed is a fail safe system. Something that doesn’t always function as planned.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thought I’d bring in that reliability testing as it seems relevant here.

It’s already going on across different industries now including shipping.

But seeing ships lights going on and off repeatedly doesn’t look very reliable.

If shipping companies are neglecting maintenance then maybe port authorities should have a WIFi remote diagnostic system whereby they can log in over WIFi upon harbour entry so see the ships gps position and its overall engine and electrical systems, then they log out when the ship leaves harbour. Such systems need to be generic across the world to help bring costs down.

What is needed is a fail safe system. Something that doesn’t always function as planned.

wifi range is about 100m.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thought I’d bring in that reliability testing as it seems relevant here.

It’s already going on across different industries now including shipping.

But seeing ships lights going on and off repeatedly doesn’t look very reliable.

If shipping companies are neglecting maintenance then maybe port authorities should have a WIFi remote diagnostic system whereby they can log in over WIFi upon harbour entry so see the ships gps position and its overall engine and electrical systems, then they log out when the ship leaves harbour. Such systems need to be generic across the world to help bring costs down.

The ship had, if the report i read was correct, TWO pilots aboard.

Pilots are master mariners who have very extensive experience in handling large ships in harbour or restricted navigation environments, and who are most intimately acquainted with the characteristics of the harbours or sea areas (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef) to which they’re appointed. They are no mere amateurs at what they’re doing. They’re appointed by the marine authority which has jurisdiction over that harbour or sea area.

They know all about the channels, leading marks, underwater hazards, likely and extraordinary weather to be expected, islands, bridges, currents, swells, winds, available spaces for turns, best and safest speeds for vessels of various sizes, in short, they know EVERYTHING about their appointed area, they know it inside out.

While they’re aboard the vessel, and its navigating their area of operations, they have command of the vessel. It’s their ship, they, not the captain, are the ultimate authority for navigating that vessel. You could say that, in their person, the ‘port authorities’ do already have access to all of the ship’s systems. They have as much control over the ship, and its reactions to any situation, as it’s possible to make available to anyone.

Calls for some sort of control over the ship by some agency or office or site outside of the ship, from somewhere ashore, are entirely superfluous.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thought I’d bring in that reliability testing as it seems relevant here.

It’s already going on across different industries now including shipping.

But seeing ships lights going on and off repeatedly doesn’t look very reliable.

If shipping companies are neglecting maintenance then maybe port authorities should have a WIFi remote diagnostic system whereby they can log in over WIFi upon harbour entry so see the ships gps position and its overall engine and electrical systems, then they log out when the ship leaves harbour. Such systems need to be generic across the world to help bring costs down.

What is needed is a fail safe system. Something that doesn’t always function as planned.

wifi range is about 100m.

Yes your right.

There are other wifi technologies such as Long range WIFI that has a range of 1.6km, compared with cell phone data at a much longer 35km.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi

So 35km – 40km on cellular appears a better option.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi

https://dgtlinfra.com/cell-tower-range-how-far-reach/

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thought I’d bring in that reliability testing as it seems relevant here.

It’s already going on across different industries now including shipping.

But seeing ships lights going on and off repeatedly doesn’t look very reliable.

If shipping companies are neglecting maintenance then maybe port authorities should have a WIFi remote diagnostic system whereby they can log in over WIFi upon harbour entry so see the ships gps position and its overall engine and electrical systems, then they log out when the ship leaves harbour. Such systems need to be generic across the world to help bring costs down.

The ship had, if the report i read was correct, TWO pilots aboard.

Pilots are master mariners who have very extensive experience in handling large ships in harbour or restricted navigation environments, and who are most intimately acquainted with the characteristics of the harbours or sea areas (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef) to which they’re appointed. They are no mere amateurs at what they’re doing. They’re appointed by the marine authority which has jurisdiction over that harbour or sea area.

They know all about the channels, leading marks, underwater hazards, likely and extraordinary weather to be expected, islands, bridges, currents, swells, winds, available spaces for turns, best and safest speeds for vessels of various sizes, in short, they know EVERYTHING about their appointed area, they know it inside out.

While they’re aboard the vessel, and its navigating their area of operations, they have command of the vessel. It’s their ship, they, not the captain, are the ultimate authority for navigating that vessel. You could say that, in their person, the ‘port authorities’ do already have access to all of the ship’s systems. They have as much control over the ship, and its reactions to any situation, as it’s possible to make available to anyone.

Calls for some sort of control over the ship by some agency or office or site outside of the ship, from somewhere ashore, are entirely superfluous.

Nods.

if contaminated fuel is found to be the cause of the engine failure then the simplest remedy is to fix that problem. going on about all the tech solutions isn’t fixing the problem.

Nuclear power on ships for the win¡

Wait.

ChrispenEvan said:

if contaminated fuel is found to be the cause of the engine failure then the simplest remedy is to fix that problem. going on about all the tech solutions isn’t fixing the problem.

Maybe mobile tankers and fuelling stations need more contamination detection and controls.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if contaminated fuel is found to be the cause of the engine failure then the simplest remedy is to fix that problem. going on about all the tech solutions isn’t fixing the problem.

Maybe mobile tankers and fuelling stations need more contamination detection and controls.

Including ships fuel tanks.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if contaminated fuel is found to be the cause of the engine failure then the simplest remedy is to fix that problem. going on about all the tech solutions isn’t fixing the problem.

Maybe mobile tankers and fuelling stations need more contamination detection and controls.

Including ships fuel tanks.

Just Melt Down Or Supercritical Compress That Nuclear Power¡

but the wings!! where are the wings?!!!?1

Arts said:

but the wings!! where are the wings?!!!?1

Seriously though, battery power for ships makes the most sense even despite all the doubters here, after all what is a ship but just a MetalFloating huge electrochemical reaction vessel¿

Arts said:

but the wings!! where are the wings?!!!?1

It did have wings but they fell off.

https://youtu.be/lSHsZbt0VjY?si=R6DND2omXweVVa_M

Legal Eagle breaks down the liability

For avoiding bridges in river systems and approaching piers for docking, an underwater rail system can guide big ships to stay in place with more precision, the ship pick up a line, batteries power a pully system on an underwater rail car.

Tau.Neutrino said:

For avoiding bridges in river systems and approaching piers for docking, an underwater rail system can guide big ships to stay in place with more precision, the ship pick up a line, batteries power a pully system on an underwater rail car.

Maybe the ship itself could have its own hauling system attached to an underground rail system,a line runs from under the bow of the ship down to the rail and up again to the stern of the ship,

Or something like that, maybe not as complicated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxeKXjDVqMA

Link

16:30 / 23:46

What caused the Power Failure : The Dali Incident

Chief MAKOi

he is a ships engineer.

Bogsnorkler said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxeKXjDVqMA

Link

16:30 / 23:46

What caused the Power Failure : The Dali Incident

Chief MAKOi

he is a ships engineer.

Very interesting.