Giant Kites That Drag Cargo Ships Across Oceans Go On Trial (bloombergquint.com) 155
schwit1 shares a report from BloombergQuint: Add ships being dragged along by giant kites to the list of things the industry is exploring in its quest to decarbonize. At the start of next year, the Ville de Bordeaux, a 154-meter-long ship that moves aircraft components for Airbus SE, will unfurl a 500 square meter kite on journeys across the Atlantic Ocean. It will undergo six months of trials and tests before full deployment. The kite is called Seawing. Its developer, Airseas, estimates that an even larger 1,000 square-meter parafoil, flying at an altitude of 300 meters, will cut fuel consumption and emissions from vessels by about 20%. Airseas says its technology is automated and can be installed on any ship -- regardless of size -- in a few days.
So....... Sails? (Score:5, Funny)
Great, you reinvented sails. I guess the problem was the mast?
Re:So....... Sails? (Score:5, Informative)
The Winds are much more consistent at altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in Navy ROTC some decades ago, they required us to compute wind speed to within a couple knots, and wind direction within 5 degrees. That seemed absurd to me; I grew up in Illinois, and was familiar with gusts. But when I got out to sea, I found it was they--and not me--that were right. Except in a storm with high waves, wind speed and direction is remarkably consistent over the seconds to minutes range, usually for an hour or more.
So you don't have to go to altitude if you're looking for cons
Re: So....... Sails? (Score:5, Informative)
The tallest masts are about 40 meters.
The kites fly at 300 meters, where winds are stronger. Power increases as the cube of the wind speed.
Also, masts are expensive, require high maintenance rigging, and interfere with container port operations. They are nearly impossible to retrofit onto existing ships.
The kites are cheaper. They can be reeled in and stowed before entering a port. Kites can be installed on existing ships in a few days.
Re: So....... Sails? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: So....... Sails? (Score:5, Informative)
And then your order from AliExpress takes 8 months instead of one.
Uh.. Uh.. Is this how your brain actually works?
They'll use the wind, when they can to save on fuel costs. If there's no wind, they aren't gonna sit around waiting for some. They just increase the throttle on the engines. Ships don't deliver goods when they fucking want to. They usually have delivery contracts that specific acceptable delivery windows.
If I'm shipping goods to the Europe, from China, and you don't deliver in the agreed upon time-frame, don't think you're getting paid the full amount. Our contract will almost certainly contain late-delivery penalties. Especially if it was perishable goods.
Re: So....... Sails? (Score:5, Interesting)
How to you tack when the winds are blowing in the wrong direction?
Easily.
Sailing ships have used tacking since antiquity, and kites open the options even further.
Steerable multiple line kites have been around since the mid 1800's. Dual line kites gained in popularity during the first golden age of kiting, which in turn lead to the invention of powered flight, the earliest airplanes were modifications of glider kites. They're attributed to Dr Daniel Colladon, a Swiss scientist around 1930-1840. The Wright Brothers, Bell, Langley, and other aviation pioneers used dual line kites in many flight experiments. Quad line configurations were realized in the 1980s and they allow absolute placement anywhere in the wind, in any orientation. Unlike mounted ship sails that have a smaller range, multi-line kites can use the entire wind window, roughly 160 degrees across although there is reduced power the farther you get from the center.
Computer controlled dual line and quad line configurations have been explored for over two decades. There are many active experiments in using them as a source of wind power, harnessing the stronger winds in the atmosphere rather than the lower winds available to ground-based turbines.
With a traditional sail a vessel can use tacking alone to reach about 250 to 270 degrees or so either at a run or using tacking, smaller boats can point much higher (reach farther into the wind) than a barge. While you can't go directly into the wind (often called the "No Go Zone"), with sails in close reach or close hauled you can tack back and forth, basically zig-zagging so you can slowly go against the wind. Since a controllable kite opens up about 160 degrees for its own pull direction in the wind window, coupled with tacking you can get some pull in any direction, including directly into the wind. There is a huge drop in force when you do it, it's only a small fraction compared to the pull with the kite in the power zone and the board/ship at a full run, but it can still generate enough pull to be useful.
(Source: I've been doing wind sports for ages. Go watch kiteboarding. For skilled pilots the direction of the wind is irrelevant.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So....... Sails? (Score:5, Informative)
You simply declare your destination to be where the winds take you.
Here's another idea, they plan their route to follow the trade winds. There is a reason they got the name "trade winds".
Re: (Score:2)
Mod +1. I came here to say the same thing. New routes that have favorable winds.
Re: (Score:2)
The sails fly in a figure-8 pattern to maximize apparent wind. The ones that I saw 10+ years ago could tack to about 30 degrees upwind, not sure what the current state of the art is.
Re: (Score:2)
How to you tack when the winds are blowing in the wrong direction?
Dude, this problem was solved when mariners invented sails.
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple Kites (Score:2)
Multiple Kites to create vectors in desired direction.
Re: (Score:2)
How to you tack when the winds are blowing in the wrong direction?
With a kite that is less of a problem. The wind doesn't necessarily blow the same direction at every height. A kite can do what a hot air balloon does and find the altitude where the wind is blowing the right direction.
This kite is also designed to be opportunistic so the barge would still have engines it could use when close to port or when the kite isn't profitable to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Go around the world in the opposite direction.
Re: So....... Sails? (Score:2)
They tried masts 300m tall but couldn't build a ship big enough to support a structure the nearly size of the Empire State building.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's why masts are vertical. How ingenious.
Yeah. But were they as tall as a kite? The largest sailing ship in the world, The Royal Clipper, has a mast height of 197 feet (60 meters).
The article says these kites will be at 300 meters / 984 feet. Quite a difference. The winds will be, on average, faster the higher up you go (to some limit, it's not linear all the way up).
So, while your smart-ass reply is true, a mast isn't getting you up to the premium wind. Besides, even if they did build a mast that tall, that's a fuck-ton more mass you're lu
Re:So....... Sails? (Score:5, Informative)
Masts 300-500m high were slightly problematic, yes :D
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Back to the age of sail! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of goes with all the piracy around Africa.
The piracy ended in 2012 when the warship escorts began.
A Somali with a rifle is no match for a destroyer with a 3"/50 auto-cannon.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The piracy ended in 2012 when the warship escorts began.
A Somali with a rifle is no match for a destroyer with a 3"/50 auto-cannon.
Imagine that, the solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.
Now, why should ships sailing past Somalia need escorts when we can arm the commercial cargo ships and train the crew how to operate the weaposn? A 3 inch auto-cannon sounds like a bit much. I'd think a more appropriate defense system would be something like the Phalanx: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or Goalkeeper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I remember reading some kind of article or whitepaper on how commercial cargo ships w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> the solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.
I'm thinking that's rather -- the perpetuation of the problem by it's over simplification into good guy's and bad guy's, with guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Yes, the Tibetans agreed with you... back before the soldiers started burning them alive and roasting marshmallows on the fires.
Not sure why you think the Tibetans would agree with me. I wasn't suggesting that anybody do nothing if that's what you thought I meant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Territory. That was exactly the problem that started the whole Somali pirate craze. The Somali "pirates" who initiated it were fishermen who were sick and tired of commercial fishing boats from other nations violating Somali waters and depleting their fisheries. From their point of view, they were forming an impromptu coast guard, boating out and performing a citizen's arrest of the bad guys and holding them until they pay a fine. Obviously there are questions about their actual authority to do so, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Kyle Rittenhouse isn't an example of someone who 'took the law into your own hands.' He was asked to keep an eye on a car lot by the owner in the midst of violent riots and was attacked by three men who tried to kill him. The only vigilante action he did was offering/performing medical assistance when he was only a partially trained and not certified EMT. Self-defense and medical aid is not taking the law i
Re: (Score:2)
Kyle Rittenhouse isn't an example of someone who 'took the law into your own hands.' He was asked to keep an eye on a car lot by the owner in the midst of violent riots and was attacked by three men who tried to kill him. The only vigilante action he did was offering/performing medical assistance when he was only a partially trained and not certified EMT. Self-defense and medical aid is not taking the law into your own hands.
The car lot owners disagree with this description. I'm pretty sure, if he was actually working for them in any capacity for pay or for free, both he and they would be on the hook for a whole bunch of laws that arrangement would have broken. First off, he was a minor and would have been "working" at midnight on a school night. I don't know the labor laws in Wisconsin specifically, but that's a problem in a lot of jurisdictions. Next, there are licensing and certification requirements for armed security guard
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, looks like I have an offtopic mod here, but so does MacMann. I suppose piracy an so forth are somewhat off the topic of kites towing cargo ships, so it's a bit hard to argue against it. But stuff about the age of sail and pirates, etc. are all over the comments on this article. It does seem like the offtopic mods really should start with the very first comment on this thread in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Rittenhouse, some of that seems to hinge on whether he pointed his gun at the first person he shot before he threw a plastic bag at him or was otherwise aggressive
That was never alleged by the ADA at trial. What the ADA alleged is that Rittenhouse, who was right handed and was carrying a rifle in a three point sling, somehow managed to point his rifle, left handed, at a party other than Rosenbaum, and this somehow made Rosenbaum feel threatened, thus "provoking" him (of course, if one happens to look at the scene from a different angle than presented by the prosecution, one can see that no such thing happened and the alleged rifle is an artifact in the low resolutio
Re: (Score:2)
There's some sort of myth among gun owners about how responsible they all are with their firearms
There may be some myth, but I neither believe it nor invoked it. There is an allegation (refuted by Rittenhouse in his testimony, which the ADA tried to impeach him over) that Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at a different person earlier in the evening. Whether or not this is true doesn't seem to have borne on the trial but in any event has no bearing on the incident we are discussing that took place hours later.
I really don't have a hard time believing that a stupid adolescent did, in fact, point his gun at people. Ultimately, we don't really know.
You are wrong. We do know. We have imagery of the alleged incident from another angle that does
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does. Martin was "standing his ground" after a creepy armed adult followed him home and, when confronted, lied about it. He hid in the bushes rather than going into his house because he didn't want the creepy stalker to see where he lived. He obviously feared for his life.
Err... so? I don't see what that has to do with anything else in this discussion. That said, you make a similar point later re: Rittenhouse, and I'll address that one in more detail.
In general, the self defense laws in Wisconsin function like stand your ground in that there's no duty to retreat where possible and they're quite friendly towards killing someone simply because of feeling threatened rather than concrete evidence of an attack.
Rittenhouse's top count was "first degree intentional homicide" carrying a penalty of life imprisonment. Yep, they sure do sound quite friendly toward killing someone up there in Wisconsin. Further, with regard to "feeling threatened" this is a mischaracterization. What the law actually requires is that "[you] believe that t
Re: (Score:2)
There may be some myth, but I neither believe it nor invoked it. There is an allegation (refuted by Rittenhouse in his testimony, which the ADA tried to impeach him over) that Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at a different person earlier in the evening. Whether or not this is true doesn't seem to have borne on the trial but in any event has no bearing on the incident we are discussing that took place hours later.
If stories about Rittenhouse pointing guns at people had been circulating all night then that actually does have bearing on whether people would feel threatened and fearful for their lives if Rittenhouse approached them. The point about gun enthusiasts so often being irresponsible with their weapons is that so often they try to portray themselves as sober, responsible people who do everything with great care and I have heard many of them be shocked at the very notion that Rittenhouse could have done anythin
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing of the sort.
I didn't claim you did.
I was tired when I posted that and posted before I finished my thought so it does leave some threads hanging. Now that I got some sleep I just don't care enough to go even further off topic to finish my thoughts.
I will say that I brought up how I typically see cargo ship crew portrayed because it sounds so much like the argument you were making that I was trying to make a wider point with your comments as one variation on that theme. You may have not made specific points but many pe
Re: (Score:2)
I was tired when I posted that and posted before I finished my thought so it does leave some threads hanging. Now that I got some sleep I just don't care enough to go even further off topic to finish my thoughts.
Something we can agree on. This has just gone way too offtopic and some of the responses have gotten way too long. This was all supposed to be about interesting new kite/sail technology for cargo ships rather than pirates and merchant ship armaments. I'm just going to say that I, for one, welcome our new ship towing giant kite overlords and leave it at that.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm sure that there's an infinite number of actions one could choose from in response to bad guys with guns trying to hold you for ransom. Reciting Shakespeare is one option. Pissing in ones pants is another. We can group these actions into categories. One category is some variation on "throw rocks". Another category is "run away". Most every other action would be quite ineffective in preventing being taken for ransom and so can be categorized as "do nothing". So, please enlighten me on some other ca
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really clear what your actual argument is. The fact is that there are jurisdictions that allow ships registered in that jurisdiction to carry arms. In some cases they allow weapons that would actually be restricted on land in that jurisdiction. True, there are plenty of jurisdictions that don't allow more weapons than would be allowed on land and, in some cases, have even more restrictions. Armed vessels also need to be careful about the laws of any particular jurisdiction they pass through outside
Re: (Score:2)
I agree and this is where he loses me. I don't agree with these naive pacifists who think everyone would magically be sweet kind and wonderful if they weren't starving. That is ridiculous and contrary of human nature. It is the kind of fairy tale sold by those who want to sound like the good people responsible people who should be the only o
Re: (Score:2)
There are a surprisingly number of people that just really, really, want to shoot another person. You know the type. They spend way too much time talking about what they'll do "when" someone tries to break in to their home or "when" someone tries to "mess with them".
That isn't human nature. These people are just deeply insecure. I think the term to use here is "fragile masculinity".
If we made mental health a priority, we'd sell fewer guns and pickup trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Average speed of merchant ship: ten or fifteen knots. Average speed of pirate speed boat: just guessing, but maybe 30 or 40 knots.
Re: (Score:2)
Avoid the western part of the Indian Ocean. Or ship by air instead of by boat.
Re:Back to the age of sail! (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that the Somali pirates things actually started with Somalis in Somali waters versus merchant ships illegally encroaching in Somali waters seems to complicate it a bit. Also the long history of warships from various nations boarding foreign merchant vessels in international waters for "inspections" or outright seizure complicates things as well. Technically, under modern treaties, it's illegal to do so. However, that doesn't stop, for example, the US from doing so on numerous occasions. Quite recently with Iranian ships on the excuse that they're violating US sanctions, despite the fact that US sanctions only have force of law within the US or countries which choose to follow them. So, those obvious acts of piracy by powerful countries illustrate that it's really all about power, not about settled law. In other words, if a ship at sea is capable of taking another ship and their home country won't do anything about it, it's basically de facto legal. So, that certainly complicates things.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be if letters of mark and reprisal were a legal thing these days. While the US uses a disturbing number of mercenaries ("contractors" as they like to put it, which left me initially pretty confused when I first heard stories about people who were apparently there to hang up drywall killing crowds of civilians), they aren't legally empowered to attack civilian merchant vessels. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's considered a war crime these days. Maybe if a state of war actually existed it would be leg
Re: (Score:2)
"contractors" as they like to put it, which left me initially pretty confused when I first heard stories about people who were apparently there to hang up drywall killing crowds of civilians
It's not in the least bit funny, but I'm laughing at this--I had a similar reaction the first time I heard the word "contractor" in that context. Apparently, it's a fine American tradition, per an alleged conversation between Jimmy Hoffa and Frank Sheeran on their first meeting:
Hoffa: "I heard you paint houses" (murder people, hitman)
Sheeran: "Yeah, I also do my own carpentry work." (clean up scene, dispose of bodies)
Re: Back to the age of sail! (Score:2)
Read up the East India Trading Company to get an idea of how "within the law" and "outside the law" that doesn't have anything to do with "right" and "wrong".
Re: Back to the age of sail! (Score:2)
Never thought to see it that way, but yes, In think I mostly do: on most occasions when very rich and every poor seriously clash, there's no chance in Hell you're going to get that fairly and constructively fixed by screaming "oh, but the law mandates!..."
That was true hundreds of years ago, and it's true tody. We're still the same humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to have an auto-cannon,
just let them have some shotguns and
bolt action rifles.
The problem isn't the weapons - it's the properly trained
personnel. Ask anybody in the Navy: defending a ship
is no job for amateurs.
But come on MacMann, be honest: you really want the crew
to throw nuclear reactors at them.
Re: (Score:2)
The fuel savings of the transport ship are then offset by the fuel consumption of the military ship sent to escort it.
Re:Back to the age of sail! (Score:4, Informative)
The fuel savings of the transport ship are then offset by the fuel consumption of the military ship sent to escort it.
A destroyer uses way less fuel than a container ship, and they escort convoys containing a dozen or more ships.
Re: (Score:2)
Having served on a destroyer, I'm not at all sure that's true. Sure, if you travel at convoy speed, maybe. But typically escorting a convoy involves driving around to various sides of the convoy, necessarily at high speed, to check out possible threats, or for other reasons. We never did convoy escort, but we did refuel every couple-three days. Granted, we might only be down to 70 or 80% at that point, but since the infamous typhoon in WWII sank several destroyers--mostly with low fuel--the Navy has bee
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that it did not end, and that the pirates with rifles are not the problem anyway. Those with bazooka and speed boats are.
Re: (Score:2)
Showing my age, but: when I was on a destroyer, we had five inch guns. Not even destroyer escorts (what they now call a frigate) had three inch guns. Is this something new?
On any ship, within days (Score:2)
provided of course that there's a way to mate the anchor to the correct part of the ship to enable the required load capacity without introducing roll or pitch instabilities and preserving cargo space and not displacing any critical systems like engines, fuel storage, crew quarters, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the kite-sail takes too much skill to run. A current cargo ship can be run with a minimalist crew.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently this is robotically controlled, so probably doesn't need much help unless something goes wrong. Although, I'm assuming this can't be easily packed without human help.
Deja Vu (Score:2)
We were reading stories about this 15 years ago, at least. I guess we'll read about it again in another 15 years.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's actually going on to in-service vessels then that gives some hope that they'll manage to gather the data they need in real-world conditions to determine how these beta-test kites do, and hopefully to enable them to revise their designs for more efficiency. If the beta-test goes well and if the shipping firm sees anything close to the increased efficiency then it may well be readily integrated into ships on favorable routes, where whatever negatives it introduces in ship handling don't matter very m
Re: (Score:2)
It actually went into in-service vessles 10-15 years ago as well. It was successful, but IIRC deploying and retreival was a little difficult in some situations. I can imagine that sensors readily available today might make the process slightly easier to automate.
Re:Deja Vu (Score:4, Funny)
It could be worse. In 20 years I guess we'll read about fusion.
Re: (Score:2)
"It could be worse. In 20 years I guess we'll read about fusion."
And it will only be 10-20 years away at that point too.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion should be ready in 2025, so about 4 years now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Back then it was sails. Sails still seem like a better idea this sounds rather weird and somewhat risky.
Re: (Score:2)
The gains are a higher average wind speed, but everything has to continually go right to bring it to realization. When this thing takes a dive into the water, whats the turn-around time for getting it airborne again? I bet its many hours.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my take. I also wonder what the windspeed envelope is where this is practical vs putting up a carbon fiber sail?
Re: (Score:2)
Have to see the numbers. International shipping is an incredibly tight. Interesting statistic you buy a pair of shoes in the U.S. that was made in Vietnam it cost around 30cents to get it to you. The article talked about this with a particular cargo, airbus parts, this is different from bulk cargo where if you have ever looked at the deck you will smack your head and go, THAT WORKS?
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, something like this should probably be required equipment on everything currently ferrying freight across large bodies of water. The pollution for those ships is prodigious. If it's easy to make those more efficient then that should get added en masse.
On the other hand, just 20%? Argh. There's all that really fast air moving up at that height. Surely more energy could be grabbed from that stream?
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, just 20%? Argh. There's all that really fast air moving up at that height. Surely more energy could be grabbed from that stream?
It's only the first attempt -- if it works out, they will no doubt try something more ambitious for the next iteration.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. This really has been around for 5+ years. They've done tests before. I don't think this is going to get much better for power. Though I'll bet each experience like this helps them make the whole system more convenient to deploy/use.
Re: (Score:2)
Once it's proven I imagine they will add more of them. Starting with one gives them an opportunity to sort out any issues that arise, and make the computer control software more robust.
Re: (Score:2)
20% is an easy target though; you still have engine power in case something goes wrong, and for direction control. Maybe they can do about 50%, but much more and you are going to need to solve a number of other problems. If the ship is an electric hybrid drive you might have even more leeway.
Re: (Score:2)
There's not really "all that fast moving wind" at that altitude. 300 meters is only a thousand feet, you'll want to be quite a bit higher than that before you get a lot of wind. The ship may actually be travelling faster than the wind is blowing at that altitude, which would turn a kite into an airbrake instead of a sail. Even at ten times that altitude wind isn't that much faster, though it does tend to be more consistent and less gusty.
Re: (Score:2)
There's all that really fast air moving up at that height. Surely more energy could be grabbed from that stream?
I think you underestimate just how much energy a ship takes to move through water. Hint: Ship engines for large freight movers have now hit over 100,000 horsepower.
Do you *want* steampunk? (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, lower CO2 with nuclear power (Score:3, Interesting)
Kites are neat, I guess. I'd rather see nuclear powered ships.
https://www.nepia.com/articles... [nepia.com]
I can't find it now but I recall something fairly recent about UK considering commercial nuclear powered cargo ships. News of the Australian navy getting nuclear powered submarines certainly made some waves not long ago. That's not commercial shipping though, but a sign that Australia is thinking about nuclear power. Russia has had civilian nuclear powered icebreakers for some time. Icebreakers don't have to visit foreign ports like cargo ships would and so avoids the politics of a nuclear powered ship in the harbor of a foreign nation. Russia's nuclear powered icebreakers lack the cooling needed to leave Arctic waters, they aren't going far. Never were intended to go far. That is they won't go far under their own power, I guess someone could put some tugs on it if they wanted it someplace else.
I don't know when we will get nuclear powered cargo ships, only that it is going to happen. Any bets on the who will be first? Well, I guess the bets should be on who is next, we had nuclear powered commercial cargo ships before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:In other news, lower CO2 with nuclear power (Score:4, Informative)
"...a sign that Australia is thinking about nuclear power."
Not really, it's a sign that Australia is thinking about deterring a powerful autocratic country to their north - and a major trade partner - from attacking them, or others. It's not a great idea to launch hypersonic missiles when you don't know where the cruise missile subs are that will respond by blowing up your power stations, dams and ports - though by the time Australia gets them (if it ever does) it'll be 2040 or so.
Just another brainfart by Australia's incompetent current government. The French subs that were cancelled were originally nuclear, Australia wanted diesel/electric, hence the budget and time blowout due to the required redesign.
Re:In other news, lower CO2 with nuclear power (Score:5, Informative)
It's been tried, but nuclear powered civilian vessels just aren't economically viable. They cost too much to build and operate. There is massive overhead for regulation, inspections, maintenance.
The Navy only does it because cost isn't a big issue. And no, you can't just take a navy reactor and shove it in a civilian ship, that thing is classified up the wazoo. Russian "civilian" ships are not 100% civilian at all. Remember that the USSR was communist so nothing was really privately owned, and even now the government is deeply involved with their operation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been tried, but nuclear powered civilian vessels just aren't economically viable. They cost too much to build and operate. There is massive overhead for regulation, inspections, maintenance.
That was then, this is now. We built nuclear powered civilian vessels because they were economically viable at the time. They went out of service once they became too expensive to run.
What if we used the economic analysis of the 1970s to decide if we should use solar and wind power in the future? How would that sit with you? Not well, I assume. That's because the technology, energy costs, and other factors changed. Had the NS Savannah stayed in service one or two more years then it would have been ope
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's nuclear powered icebreakers lack the cooling needed to leave Arctic waters, they aren't going far.
That is only true for a certain class of them.
Just go back to sailing ships already! (Score:2)
Re:Just go back to sailing ships already! (Score:4, Insightful)
FFS why reinvent the wheel? With modern materials technology and engineering applied to the very much mature technology of sailing ships they could make some very efficient ships.
WTF do you think this is? It's sailing ships with modern materials and engineering applied.
Applying modern materials and engineering to the problem of wind powered ships would quite possibly look quite differently than anything from the Age of Sail. We could also have quite different looking ships and sail configurations depending on what parameter we are trying to optimize. A toy quad-copter is one way to get something to fly but that is optimal for one kind of task. An Airbus A380 looks quite different. An F-15 Eagle looks different yet because it is optimized for a different task.
A wind powered ship optimized to get cargo halfway around the world at some optimal point for speed vs. cost could look like a typical diesel ship with a big freaking kite pulling it along. How do you know what it's supposed to look like?
Re: (Score:2)
An example of a modern sail powered boat, that can travel at triple (or more) the windspeed, can be found at this entertaining link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Sure, these are racing boats, but they show just how far a yacht has come since the last time you may have glanced at one.
Pirate ship named 'The Kite Runner' (Score:2, Funny)
Hey Captain, should we be concerned about that ship approaching us?
Captain: Don't worry, we are in the shipping lane. What is the name of the ship?
1st Mate: The Kite Runner
Captain: oh shit oh shit oh shit!
Massive improvement (Score:2)
The only reason this took so long to do was people thinking sailing is 'old technology'.
Wind speed has been known to increase with altitude for a very long time and we have had strong sails and strong line almost as long.
I expect that this will end up as standard for cargo ships in the near future. Would not surprise me if pleasure boats started adopting this as well. Kite boating could become as much a sport as kite surfing is.
What did they do? (Score:2)
What did they do? Who was the accuser? Poor sails.
Re: (Score:2)
Already a thing... (Score:2)
The biggest issue I'd foresee whether using on a big or small boat is getting the thing up and retrieving it again could be a huge pain in the ass, especially if the wind shifts.
Shipping Wars (Score:2)
I want to see this deployed on Jared's van.
Sky's the limit (Score:2)
So they're just heavy airplanes. How many sails before they just skim the waves?
Kevin Costner wants his idea back (Score:2)
Waterworld (1995)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: If you want to be done with COVID... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you not able to understand the difference between the mortality/survival rate of a disease and the actual number of people who have died from it already? Are _you_ on drugs? I'll try to explain this to you carefully so you understand. You're stating a high survival rate of 99.6% from Covid, which as already killed approximately 0.3% of the entire population. For your 99.6% survival rate to be accurate, that would need to mean that you're saying that if everyone was unvaccinated and caught it, only 0.4%
Re: (Score:2)
What is with you people replying twice to one comment? I mean, maybe if you needed to fix something in your original post, but this is just ridiculous.
2 fucking years. You don't think most folks have come into contact with it by now? Well, I suppose you already answered that. You don't. Why don't you sit down and do the math?
I don't think most people have caught it by now, correct, going by both published statistics and estimates and by anecdote. Of all the people I know and know of, only a fraction have had it. I can't assume that my experience is universal, but it seems to agree with the published numbers that there is still a large reservoir of people this could spread to.
Furthermore, the people who have NOT got the vaccine, by now, WILL NOT GET IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU ASSHOLES BITCH ABOUT IT.
Yeah
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy? What fucking conspiracy you mouth-breathing cunt? I made damn sure to qualify everything I said in regards to the virus. Made sure I was CRYSTAL CLEAR that I'm not claiming the virus isn't real.
Wow, you have poor reading comprehension abilities to go along with your low intelligence you mouth-dribbling, vulgarian, sophomoric twit. I was very clear that the part about how you've "seen thru [our] lies" is enough to put you squarely into foaming at the mouth, tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist nutter territory.
The lies I am referring to are the lies that have come out of the left. "Two weeks to flatten the curve" "Get your shot and you can go back to life as normal". Both were LIES. I could throw more in, but we'll start with those two.
I'm even more impressed by how bad at reading you are. Did you skip some of your hooked on phonics lessons? I specifically addressed that and explained how stupid your interpretations of t
Re: (Score:2)
Please people like me? You're a worthless sack of shit. Really bugs you that representative governments have to respond to the demands of the citizens, does't it?
I'm happy for you that you have at least enough awareness to know that the US is a representative government. It's a pity that you're too much of a moron to understand what a representative government actually is. A representative government is a form of Republic where people are represented in government by representatives, usually divided up by region. Technically, they don't actually need to respond to the demands of the citizens or even be elected. You need a democratic representative government for tha
Re: (Score:2)
You're a delusional piece of work.
I'm delusional? Your type are the ones who cycled through claiming that Covid is not real, a hoax, etc. That it will kill a max of 15 people, 500 people, 5000 people. That it will just disappear in the Summer. That malaria medications and horse parasite medications will cure it in humans. Let's not even go into bleach and UV light. You personally have said that it's no more deadly than the flu. :You've downplayed (either through ignorance or just because you were lying) the actual level of fatality). You th
Re:Sails (Score:4, Informative)
Kites have advantages that sails don't have. The two main ones are:
- You can reel them in and stow them away neatly in a small box at the fore of the ship. In contrast, even if you lower sails, you still have the whole mast and rigging taking up space on deck and hanging n the breeze.
- They can fly a lot higher to catch stronger winds.
Of course, it's really an option now that automated systems exist to deploy, fly, then retract the kites. When that wasn't available and everything had to be people-driven, sails were probably a better option. Kind of like how ultra-unstable military aircraft are now a viable proposition thanks to fly-by-wire and aircraft manufacturers don't have to stick to inherently stable designs anymore.