Future of ships


#282

How many TEU’s do these hold?


#283

[QUOTE=DavidMT;193666]UM, A VLCC would have 0 TEU capacity, as a VLCC is a tanker not a box boat also the largest box boat built to date is just over 15,000 TEU’s

Odd mistakes for a guy who claims so much knowledge of maritime matters[/QUOTE]

I believe your information regarding the largest containership built to date is a bit old. If you are referring to the Emma Maersk (15,000 TEU), she was delivered in 2006 There are a number of ships currently sailing that are in the 19,200 TEU range.


#284

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;193692]How many TEU’s do these hold?

[/QUOTE]

I am not a Star Wars aficionado and had to do some research to answer your query. The vessel appears to be an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer according to those experts in the know. As such it is believed to have 0 TEU capacity.


#285

[QUOTE=Pilot;193676]The common term for these new Very Large Container Vessels the VLCC for tankers. You can make up any term if you want is a large car carrier longer than 200 meters a VLCC ? I think not.[/QUOTE]

Please note the acronyms found in this news article. http://www.cict.lk/CICT%20brings%20one%20of%20the%20Largest%20ships%20afloat%20to%20Colombo.php
Depending in the segment of the industry one is involved in, VLCC can refer to Very Large Container Carriers and ULCC’s are Ultra Large Container Carriers.


#286

At 19,000m long I bet it can hold more than zero but slightly less than a billion.


#287

Has anyone done a cost benefit analysis to compare the cost of one of these expensive unmanned ships, with one that is run by the rice powered cyborgs that the ISM code has created.

Manned ships will probably still be cheaper when they are ran with people on 12+ month contracts, who get a few hundred dollars per month, only eat rice, with limited education so that they can only survive with checklists

One of the side effects of the ISM code is that labor that needs an expensive education can be replaced with cheap tick box cyborgs with poor education.


#288

I was curious how quickly the terms VLCC and soon afterwards ULCC became part of the marine lexicon. The USCG using the term in official paperwork, to me, made it an officially designated term that should be used often at every SNAME meeting that would definitely increase your cool factor and no one would ever ask,
"Just what is a ULCC?"
To me, these two terms got to wander around with no boundaries or accountability and they did seem to have legs. I called the USCG R&D in DC. I wanted to know what the difference between a tanker a VLCC and a ULCC actually was. Talk about poor luck, the one guy that knew, was at a GPS satellite conference. I knew I was in a strong headwind. If everyone knew the definition, well there goes the cool factor.

Restricted by draft, was a term that appeared at the same time. It’s place in the hierarchy of privilege, had to be determined. I had more faith in government in those days. Instead of giving vessels restricted by draft a black and white solution when he’s coming your way in a harbor it used a term that,
"You shall not hamper the passage of"
Thanks guys. I really wanted to know now. Time to call the deck plate coasties. Back in the days when we wrote answers to USCG questions I spent 10 days with a CWO Boatswain from Savannah who was pulling my questions from thousands of index cards in the MIO. This guy was sharp. I called him, he hadn’t retired.
“VLCCs and ULCCs aren’t ships. They don’t act like ships, drive like ships and they are full of humans. Their dangers are singular. There are holding strength, sail face, maneuvering characteristics, etc. that work for ships that don’t work for these giant barges. They aren’t ships, we’re not going to kid ourselves.”

Sanko Lines was the largest container fleet in the world at that time and they were all Panamax so the sharing of terms weren’t necessary. My feeling is that insuring a ULCC for a load isn’t the same as insuring a container ship. Lloyds and other insurers have to have a different term to address the policy.

A town of 1000 folks in MA, a place like Port Huaneme, in CA, that has pot luck suppers planning smoking stack hits, Europe, Scandinavia, off Patagonia, anywhere where a quorum can be raised will shut down $Bs in R&D over a bean supper. My quess is Rolls Royce was in a “make work” grant from the government that may have changed with prime ministers. As a third beer discussion it’s as good as 100 uses for duct tape or if they only knew what nice shirts marijuana makes.

Happy New Year!


#289

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;193714]At 19,000m long I bet it can hold more than zero but slightly less than a billion.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor-class_Star_Dreadnought[/QUOTE]

Enough for some truly wicked bending moments and hogging to end all hogging.


#290

Maybe this is the future of ships?: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/62537/62537-6219116630157332483?midToken=AQFFHxapL-W4hw&trk=eml-b2_anet_digest_of_digests-hero-8-view~discussion&trkEmail=eml-b2_anet_digest_of_digests-hero-8-view~discussion-null-ii9u2~ixa6xuw9~1r
The proposal of adding flexible solar panels to the sails for the days with no wind sounds good. (Or make the sails out of flexible panels?)

BTW I assume these will be manned.


#291

Maybe this is the Future of Ships?: http://www.grotezeilvaart.nl/scribo/index.html?art_id=151&vlag1=110&vlag2=0

Covering (or making?) the sails out of flexible Solar Panels will take care of those windless days: http://flexsolarcells.com/PowerFilm-Solar-Rollable-Solar-Panels.php

PS> I don’t know for sure, but probably these bats will be fully manned.


#292

Things are progressing towards the autonomous ships of the future, regardless of what objections there are from the sceptics on this and other forums: http://maritime-executive.com/blog/norway-and-uk-accelerate-autonomy


#293

[QUOTE=ombugge;194020]Things are progressing towards the autonomous ships of the future, regardless of what objections there are from the sceptics on this and other forums: http://maritime-executive.com/blog/norway-and-uk-accelerate-autonomy[/QUOTE]

I’m not skeptical. There is obviously a lot of effort to make it happen but I don’t have to like it and certainly won’t support it. A lot of “improvements” that we are told are for our own good in fact only benefit the bean counters at our expense.
Skal.


#294

Another puff piece that omits so much information it is it impossible to evaluate. Does this effort’s definition of “autonomous” mean:

A. Remote piloted with continuous link to shore;

B. Independent course-setting with intermittent updates from shore;

C. Or what the military calls “fire and forget?”

Each of these drives radically different ConOps (there’s that word again :-)) with radically different approaches to nasty problems like safety and security. Just saying “don’t worry, it’s autonomous” doesn’t cut it for those of us who have been around the block more the once. I’d also like to see the ops rules for the range safety officer at that place.

In other news, a simple LIDAR jammer can put you and your autonomous vehicle into the wall at full speed:

Cheers,

Earl


#295

In the proper sense of the word, autonomous should mean your third and maybe your second option. Otherwise it’s not autonomous it’s an ROV.


#296

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;194027]In the proper sense of the word, autonomous should mean your third and maybe your second option. Otherwise it’s not autonomous it’s an ROV.[/QUOTE]

Precisely. But the previous puff piece made it look like it was an ROV with on-board augmentation (the screen shot of the collision avoidance)or a monitored “fire and forget” with on-shore override. In any case the necessary semantic content is largely absent. Which makes it a perfect “wave of the future,” forever in the future :slight_smile:

Cheers,

Earl


#297

I don’t think anybody have said that the prototype that will start testing the systems in abt. Q1/2018 will be fully autonomous from day one. It is a process of failing and learning in a safe environment to develop something that will eventually be put to work on bigger vessels, probably initially on ferries, coasters and short sea ships around Scandinavia and eventually the North Sea, (have I said that before?) before they are put out there where there are pirates and other “bad guys”.

I don’t think the videos I have linked to is telling the whole story, or is intended to. Those are meant for general consumption, not necessarily for mariners, engineers and professional security experts.

I also don’t think that the people, companies and intitutions who are working on this development are ignorant of the the potential dangers and pitfall, but if you stop searching for new solutions and better technology just because it is difficult we never get anywhere. What was is J.F.Kennedy said some 50 odd years ago?

PS> I wouldn’t be surprised if this vessel is going to be involved in early tests of prototype equipment for navigation and avoidance, until the purpose built test vessel gets going: https://www.ntnu.edu/oceans/gunnerus


#298

Oh, sure. But even when writing for a general audience you are obligated to explain the fundamentals of what you’re trying to do. They use “autonomous” in a way that can mean anything, so it means nothing. That SUV that rolled off the back of the ferry in Australia was “autonomous” for a short distance. And you can finesse the security issue by saying they are limited to protected waters but that doesn’t say anything for the safety issue. One systems diagram, with labelled boxes and zappy lines connecting them would go a long way toward moving my bogometer needle out of the red zone.

Cheers,

Earl


#299

[QUOTE=Earl Boebert;194038]Oh, sure. But even when writing for a general audience you are obligated to explain the fundamentals of what you’re trying to do. They use “autonomous” in a way that can mean anything, so it means nothing. That SUV that rolled off the back of the ferry in Australia was “autonomous” for a short distance. And you can finesse the security issue by saying they are limited to protected waters but that doesn’t say anything for the safety issue. One systems diagram, with labelled boxes and zappy lines connecting them would go a long way toward moving my bogometer needle out of the red zone.

Cheers,

Earl[/QUOTE]

I live next door to one of the main development centers for Roll-Royce Marine, but I’m afraid I would not be able to get detailed drawings, or even schematics for you. You and me both will just have to watch and see what comes out of this experiment.

One thing for sure, it will not affect any of us oldtimers here on the forum.
Maybe some of the young ones asking “stupid questions” now will one day sit in a control room somewhere watching the progress of a dozen ships around the world?

BTW Fundamentals to you may be way over the head of most in the “general public”.


#300

[QUOTE=ombugge;194039]I live next door to one of the main development centers for Roll-Royce Marine, but I’m afraid I would not be able to get detailed drawings, or even schematics for you.[/QUOTE]

DSD could produce those for you in a heartbeat.


#301

[QUOTE=Lee Shore;194040]DSD could produce those for you in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE]

What? Are you giving me a job to work on? Just a heads up. Some of this stuff takes time, so be patient.