My suggestion is to use land-based pulleys to rotate the ship around its center both working in unison, not tugs. Rough sketch... Image from the Dail Mail. I added the green.
There's no infrastructure to support the pulleys. And, it's all sand.
Where there's a will there's a way. They've built entire cities in the sand in the Middle East.
Agreed, but it didn't happen in a month.
The mechanical advantage that a land-based pulley system would have over tugs would be massive. A fleet of land-moving trucks with pulleys could pull more with their brakes on in sand than tugs in water. I am being flippant, but concrete can be poured quite quickly into big holes. Not to mention the angle the tugs have to pull at is incorrect for the desired turning moment. The original Daily Mail diagram is wrong, my green addition is the most efficient angle to pull at.
Gosh, hopefully all these maritime experts realize they got it wrong and you behind your monitor & keyboard got it right! Fire off a memo!
My suggestion is to use land-based pulleys to rotate the ship around its center both working in unison, not tugs. Rough sketch... Image from the Dail Mail. I added the green.
That's like saying all we need to go to Mars is a rocket with enough fuel.
What pulleys? Where will they come from and how will they get there? What will the be installed on? How would you power these pulleys? What are the cables going to be attached to? How big would the cable need to be to pull upwards of 100,000 tons without breaking? How big a diameter wheel would you need to hold that large a cable?
Drawing pretty pictures is easy. Doing it is what counts.
Yeah but he’s a random guy on the internet, they know how simply everything *really* is. /s
Yep, you’re right of course. Many engineering challenges. Nothing is ever simple.
The mechanical advantage that a land-based pulley system would have over tugs would be massive. A fleet of land-moving trucks with pulleys could pull more with their brakes on in sand than tugs in water. I am being flippant, but concrete can be poured quite quickly into big holes. Not to mention the angle the tugs have to pull at is incorrect for the desired turning moment. The original Daily Mail diagram is wrong, my green addition is the most efficient angle to pull at.
Gosh, hopefully all these maritime experts realize they got it wrong and you behind your monitor & keyboard got it right! Fire off a memo!
People are probably underestimating the scale of the problem:
This is like having a skyscraper on its side lodged in the sand.
Once they dig out the front and/or there's a high tide, they'll be able to get it floating again. Potentially they can offload the containers using helicopters or another ship but it can carry up to 20,000 containers so that could take days/weeks to offload enough weight. Maybe offloading containers from the front would be enough to reduce pressure on the sand but even just the first row is about 250 containers, it would need around 5 rows or more removed to impact the weight.
Maybe they could have multiple helicopters lift the front of the ship while the boats push/pull the back of it. They'd need to be able to release it if the helicopters became unstable.
There's a lot of money involved so I'm sure they have some top people on the case.
The mechanical advantage that a land-based pulley system would have over tugs would be massive. A fleet of land-moving trucks with pulleys could pull more with their brakes on in sand than tugs in water. I am being flippant, but concrete can be poured quite quickly into big holes. Not to mention the angle the tugs have to pull at is incorrect for the desired turning moment. The original Daily Mail diagram is wrong, my green addition is the most efficient angle to pull at.
Gosh, hopefully all these maritime experts realize they got it wrong and you behind your monitor & keyboard got it right! Fire off a memo!
People are probably underestimating the scale of the problem:
This is like having a skyscraper on its side lodged in the sand.
Once they dig out the front and/or there's a high tide, they'll be able to get it floating again. Potentially they can offload the containers using helicopters or another ship but it can carry up to 20,000 containers so that could take days/weeks to offload enough weight. Maybe offloading containers from the front would be enough to reduce pressure on the sand but even just the first row is about 250 containers, it would need around 5 rows or more removed to impact the weight.
Maybe they could have multiple helicopters lift the front of the ship while the boats push/pull the back of it. They'd need to be able to release it if the helicopters became unstable.
There's a lot of money involved so I'm sure they have some top people on the case.
Great post. I'm sure they have some real engineers doing real math to calculate what the best (ie, quickest) way is to solve this problem. This is probably not the first time a large ship has been grounded so they probably also have access to real data from past incidents. Some of us (at least me) were just having fun when we came up with alternate solutions.
If you want to use Google Earth to find the exact location, use this string: 30.01759N, 32.58022E
I think I can see the very house in the photo provided above, but it's tricky because there is no Street View in that area.
One option I read that is being considered is to offload fuel rather than containers. It would not be enough to float the ship but it could be done fairly quickly and would help.
One option I read that is being considered is to offload fuel rather than containers. It would not be enough to float the ship but it could be done fairly quickly and would help.
They also unloaded ballast already. Water is used as ballast.
Interesting. Seems like a coupla tugboats could free it, but what do Editorbs know.
The Suez doesn't tow vessels from the shore within its confines. It's looking like there was an engineering casualty that locked the rudder, driving the vessel into the sidewall at transit speed. So, the bow dome is buried pretty deep in the sand at the edge of the canal.
200,000 metric tons plus doesn't stop on a dime, and that's a lot of force behind it, even at just a few knots. And, in that stretch of the canal, there isn't a good way to unload the vessel.
Blow up the ship! Don't try to preserve the ship and containers. The loss of shipping delays are much greater than this. Try to salvage the containers on the water.
200,000 metric tons of vessel and more mass in containers doesn't evaporate. A sunken hull will be harder to remove.
200,000 metric tons is weight of water it expels. The ship is much lighter.
The ship itself weighs less than the displaced weight, yes. But the ship plus what's on or in it is the same weight as the displaced weight. (That wouldn't be true right now, while the ship's weight is being partially supported by the side of the canal. But it would be very close.)
Interesting. Seems like a coupla tugboats could free it, but what do Editorbs know.
The Suez doesn't tow vessels from the shore within its confines. It's looking like there was an engineering casualty that locked the rudder, driving the vessel into the sidewall at transit speed. So, the bow dome is buried pretty deep in the sand at the edge of the canal.
200,000 metric tons plus doesn't stop on a dime, and that's a lot of force behind it, even at just a few knots. And, in that stretch of the canal, there isn't a good way to unload the vessel.
Blow up the ship! Don't try to preserve the ship and containers. The loss of shipping delays are much greater than this. Try to salvage the containers on the water.
200,000 metric tons of vessel and more mass in containers doesn't evaporate. A sunken hull will be harder to remove.
200,000 metric tons is weight of water it expels. The ship is much lighter.
Three minor corrections.
That 200 metric tons is the "maximum load" that the ship can carry (including fuel, ballast, crew & provisions). Normally it carries less than maximum capacity.
Historically shipping was always measured in Long Tons, which are NOT metric tonnes. Metric tons should be spelled "tonnes." And Imperial (Long) Tons should be spelled with a capital "T." So "metric tons" is technically an oxymoron (it should be "metric tonnes"). However starting around 2010 the shipping industry (including the US) appears to have settled on using "metric tonnes" rather than "Imperial Tons." One has to be careful because lots of documentation (pre-2010) still refers to Imperial Tons. The difference between the two is about 10%.
It's not "the weight of water it expels", it's actually "the weight of saltwater it expels" which is 2.5% more weight than regular water per unit volume.
So if you pause to think about it, a large salt water ship that enters the Panama Canal's freshwater system (or the freshwater in the St. Lawrence Seaway which begins at Quebec City) will sink (about a foot, I think) because fresh water is less dense. It just instantly sinks by a foot the moment it reaches fresh water... amazing.
Re: (3)
It's the weight of whatever liquid is being displacing - whether that's freshwater or saltwater. The ship would displace the same weight of saltwater as it would freshwater. It's just that, as you point out, saltwater is denser than freshwater so the volume of saltwater (and thus, generally, the depth of saltwater if the cross section remains the same) that is displaced is less than the volume of freshwater that would be displaced.
Interesting. Seems like a coupla tugboats could free it, but what do Editorbs know.
The Suez doesn't tow vessels from the shore within its confines. It's looking like there was an engineering casualty that locked the rudder, driving the vessel into the sidewall at transit speed. So, the bow dome is buried pretty deep in the sand at the edge of the canal.
200,000 metric tons plus doesn't stop on a dime, and that's a lot of force behind it, even at just a few knots. And, in that stretch of the canal, there isn't a good way to unload the vessel.
Blow up the ship! Don't try to preserve the ship and containers. The loss of shipping delays are much greater than this. Try to salvage the containers on the water.
200,000 metric tons of vessel and more mass in containers doesn't evaporate. A sunken hull will be harder to remove.
200,000 metric tons is weight of water it expels. The ship is much lighter.
Three minor corrections.
That 200 metric tons is the "maximum load" that the ship can carry (including fuel, ballast, crew & provisions). Normally it carries less than maximum capacity.
Historically shipping was always measured in Long Tons, which are NOT metric tonnes. Metric tons should be spelled "tonnes." And Imperial (Long) Tons should be spelled with a capital "T." So "metric tons" is technically an oxymoron (it should be "metric tonnes"). However starting around 2010 the shipping industry (including the US) appears to have settled on using "metric tonnes" rather than "Imperial Tons." One has to be careful because lots of documentation (pre-2010) still refers to Imperial Tons. The difference between the two is about 10%.
It's not "the weight of water it expels", it's actually "the weight of saltwater it expels" which is 2.5% more weight than regular water per unit volume.
So if you pause to think about it, a large salt water ship that enters the Panama Canal's freshwater system (or the freshwater in the St. Lawrence Seaway which begins at Quebec City) will sink (about a foot, I think) because fresh water is less dense. It just instantly sinks by a foot the moment it reaches fresh water... amazing.
Re: (3)
It's the weight of whatever liquid is being displacing - whether that's freshwater or saltwater. The ship would displace the same weight of saltwater as it would freshwater. It's just that, as you point out, saltwater is denser than freshwater so the volume of saltwater (and thus, generally, the depth of saltwater if the cross section remains the same) that is displaced is less than the volume of freshwater that would be displaced.
I'm surprised that it took someone this long to attempt to correct me. Good job, but the problem is that I was going by the definition of the term. You're right they are the same weight. You can attempt to change the definition all you want, as long as your facts are correct. But this proves you really read and understand what people are saying.
Interesting. Seems like a coupla tugboats could free it, but what do Editorbs know.
The Suez doesn't tow vessels from the shore within its confines. It's looking like there was an engineering casualty that locked the rudder, driving the vessel into the sidewall at transit speed. So, the bow dome is buried pretty deep in the sand at the edge of the canal.
200,000 metric tons plus doesn't stop on a dime, and that's a lot of force behind it, even at just a few knots. And, in that stretch of the canal, there isn't a good way to unload the vessel.
Blow up the ship! Don't try to preserve the ship and containers. The loss of shipping delays are much greater than this. Try to salvage the containers on the water.
200,000 metric tons of vessel and more mass in containers doesn't evaporate. A sunken hull will be harder to remove.
200,000 metric tons is weight of water it expels. The ship is much lighter.
Three minor corrections.
That 200 metric tons is the "maximum load" that the ship can carry (including fuel, ballast, crew & provisions). Normally it carries less than maximum capacity.
Historically shipping was always measured in Long Tons, which are NOT metric tonnes. Metric tons should be spelled "tonnes." And Imperial (Long) Tons should be spelled with a capital "T." So "metric tons" is technically an oxymoron (it should be "metric tonnes"). However starting around 2010 the shipping industry (including the US) appears to have settled on using "metric tonnes" rather than "Imperial Tons." One has to be careful because lots of documentation (pre-2010) still refers to Imperial Tons. The difference between the two is about 10%.
It's not "the weight of water it expels", it's actually "the weight of saltwater it expels" which is 2.5% more weight than regular water per unit volume.
So if you pause to think about it, a large salt water ship that enters the Panama Canal's freshwater system (or the freshwater in the St. Lawrence Seaway which begins at Quebec City) will sink (about a foot, I think) because fresh water is less dense. It just instantly sinks by a foot the moment it reaches fresh water... amazing.
Re: (3)
It's the weight of whatever liquid is being displacing - whether that's freshwater or saltwater. The ship would displace the same weight of saltwater as it would freshwater. It's just that, as you point out, saltwater is denser than freshwater so the volume of saltwater (and thus, generally, the depth of saltwater if the cross section remains the same) that is displaced is less than the volume of freshwater that would be displaced.
I'm surprised that it took someone this long to attempt to correct me. Good job, but the problem is that I was going by the definition of the term. You're right they are the same weight. You can attempt to change the definition all you want, as long as your facts are correct. But this proves you really read and understand what people are saying.
Understood. My point was that what the previous poster said was correct: It is the weight of the water it expels (or displaces). They weren't, I don't think, trying to define any terms but rather stating the reality of the matter.
A (floating) ship displaces an amount of water - whatever water it's in - that's equal in weight to the ship and whatever's in or on it.
Create a landing platform on top of shipping containers, or in front of them, at bow, that is structurally welded to ship.
In the meantime have SpaceX prepare and launch a Falcon Heavy rocket from US and land it vertically on the landing/launching platform
Refuel rocket, and secure it to the launchpad
Evacuate area
At high tide use the rocket lift to ever so slightly nudge bow while simultaneously using tugs / pulleys.
I’m half joking, seriously. Just trying to think outside the box.
Would need to assure all countries in Mid East that the rocket approaching is not a ballistic missile.
Funny you say that, 'Elon to the rescue' was my initial thought except I was thinking small silver submarines for some reason....
I sent Elon my suggestion and he liked it, said his SpaceX engineers are working up the plan. He said if anyone knocks the idea he’s going to refrain from accusing them of being perverts. He said when he terraforms Mars he’ll be sure to make the canals extra wide, or have a parallel redundant channel. He also said to buy more Bitcoin.
If nothing else, this shows how interconnected and vulnerable our international systems are.
One bad driver, gums up half the world.
But was it just a "bad driver"? I'm reading that it was either engine failure, or high-winds and a sandstorm that did it. Maybe it's a combination but if the engines dead, no amount of driver-skill would have helped.
Looks like we may be back to the "Bad Driver" hypothesis:
"On Saturday, the head of the Suez Canal Authority told journalists that
strong winds were “not the only cause” for the Ever Given running
aground, appearing to push back against conflicting assessments offered
by others. Lt. Gen. Osama Rabei said an investigation was ongoing but
did not rule out human or technical error."
Interesting. Seems like a coupla tugboats could free it, but what do Editorbs know.
The Suez doesn't tow vessels from the shore within its confines. It's looking like there was an engineering casualty that locked the rudder, driving the vessel into the sidewall at transit speed. So, the bow dome is buried pretty deep in the sand at the edge of the canal.
200,000 metric tons plus doesn't stop on a dime, and that's a lot of force behind it, even at just a few knots. And, in that stretch of the canal, there isn't a good way to unload the vessel.
Blow up the ship! Don't try to preserve the ship and containers. The loss of shipping delays are much greater than this. Try to salvage the containers on the water.
200,000 metric tons of vessel and more mass in containers doesn't evaporate. A sunken hull will be harder to remove.
200,000 metric tons is weight of water it expels. The ship is much lighter.
Three minor corrections.
That 200 metric tons is the "maximum load" that the ship can carry (including fuel, ballast, crew & provisions). Normally it carries less than maximum capacity.
Historically shipping was always measured in Long Tons, which are NOT metric tonnes. Metric tons should be spelled "tonnes." And Imperial (Long) Tons should be spelled with a capital "T." So "metric tons" is technically an oxymoron (it should be "metric tonnes"). However starting around 2010 the shipping industry (including the US) appears to have settled on using "metric tonnes" rather than "Imperial Tons." One has to be careful because lots of documentation (pre-2010) still refers to Imperial Tons. The difference between the two is about 10%.
It's not "the weight of water it expels", it's actually "the weight of saltwater it expels" which is 2.5% more weight than regular water per unit volume.
So if you pause to think about it, a large salt water ship that enters the Panama Canal's freshwater system (or the freshwater in the St. Lawrence Seaway which begins at Quebec City) will sink (about a foot, I think) because fresh water is less dense. It just instantly sinks by a foot the moment it reaches fresh water... amazing.
Re: (3)
It's the weight of whatever liquid is being displacing - whether that's freshwater or saltwater. The ship would displace the same weight of saltwater as it would freshwater. It's just that, as you point out, saltwater is denser than freshwater so the volume of saltwater (and thus, generally, the depth of saltwater if the cross section remains the same) that is displaced is less than the volume of freshwater that would be displaced.
I'm surprised that it took someone this long to attempt to correct me. Good job, but the problem is that I was going by the definition of the term. You're right they are the same weight. You can attempt to change the definition all you want, as long as your facts are correct. But this proves you really read and understand what people are saying.
Understood. My point was that what the previous poster said was correct: It is the weight of the water it expels (or displaces). They weren't, I don't think, trying to define any terms but rather stating the reality of the matter.
A (floating) ship displaces an amount of water - whatever water it's in - that's equal in weight to the ship and whatever's in or on it.
I think we understand each other, even if we disagree on words.
My dad came to Australia as a kid from Ireland via the "ten pound ticket" scheme. He told us kids that when the cruise ship went through the Suez Canal there were Arabs on horseback shooting at it. He wanted to watch but his father pulled the whole family into a safer position (the cabins).
My own suggestion is to use helium balloons to lift the containers a few metres into the air, tethered either to the stuck ship or the nearby tugboats. Lots of risk - if a container slips/falls then hull damage is almost certain, and/or another navigation hazard to avoid - but the benefit is that you could lift the entire top layer of containers more or less simultaneously and thus reduce the stress on the hull. You might even be able to stage things so that multiple layers of containers can be lifted in order.
Glad I'm not on the engineering team trying to solve this one, though. Best case scenario is that the ship gets refloated in a reasonable timeframe and you avoid getting blamed for the foul-up. Any delays or slip-ups and I suspect people will start to forget about the cause of the issue and vent their anger on the failure to remediate.
Comments
Yep, you’re right of course. Many engineering challenges. Nothing is ever simple.
This is like having a skyscraper on its side lodged in the sand.
Once they dig out the front and/or there's a high tide, they'll be able to get it floating again. Potentially they can offload the containers using helicopters or another ship but it can carry up to 20,000 containers so that could take days/weeks to offload enough weight. Maybe offloading containers from the front would be enough to reduce pressure on the sand but even just the first row is about 250 containers, it would need around 5 rows or more removed to impact the weight.
Maybe they could have multiple helicopters lift the front of the ship while the boats push/pull the back of it. They'd need to be able to release it if the helicopters became unstable.
There's a lot of money involved so I'm sure they have some top people on the case.
If you want to use Google Earth to find the exact location, use this string: 30.01759N, 32.58022E
I think I can see the very house in the photo provided above, but it's tricky because there is no Street View in that area.
It's the weight of whatever liquid is being displacing - whether that's freshwater or saltwater. The ship would displace the same weight of saltwater as it would freshwater. It's just that, as you point out, saltwater is denser than freshwater so the volume of saltwater (and thus, generally, the depth of saltwater if the cross section remains the same) that is displaced is less than the volume of freshwater that would be displaced.
A (floating) ship displaces an amount of water - whatever water it's in - that's equal in weight to the ship and whatever's in or on it.
Looks like we may be back to the "Bad Driver" hypothesis:
"On Saturday, the head of the Suez Canal Authority told journalists that strong winds were “not the only cause” for the Ever Given running aground, appearing to push back against conflicting assessments offered by others. Lt. Gen. Osama Rabei said an investigation was ongoing but did not rule out human or technical error."
But a pound of gold does not weigh the same as a pound of feathers. Here's why: https://www.mygemologist.com/learn/jewelry-metals/measuring-gold-weight/ <--
My own suggestion is to use helium balloons to lift the containers a few metres into the air, tethered either to the stuck ship or the nearby tugboats. Lots of risk - if a container slips/falls then hull damage is almost certain, and/or another navigation hazard to avoid - but the benefit is that you could lift the entire top layer of containers more or less simultaneously and thus reduce the stress on the hull. You might even be able to stage things so that multiple layers of containers can be lifted in order.
Glad I'm not on the engineering team trying to solve this one, though. Best case scenario is that the ship gets refloated in a reasonable timeframe and you avoid getting blamed for the foul-up. Any delays or slip-ups and I suspect people will start to forget about the cause of the issue and vent their anger on the failure to remediate.