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.
Well, let me see. If a tug can be considered where is the cable issue? We are not wanting to lift the ship, simply rotate it about its center axis in water. The problem is on a Canal and ships can still get to the area of the blockage so can be used for transport of equipment. There are many engineering companies in the area since the Red Sea is below the canal. Oh, they are called winches I believe. Deisel usually powers them.
I hope they can just dig it out and pull it around with the tugs. I simply offered an alternative and practical IMHO alternative should they not be able to, I don't see the need to be insulting. It's just physics at the end of the day. Hey, they could use floats too, they refloated a massive cruise ship a few years back. A few inches is maybe all that's required. OK, I will shut up.
The scale of these massive container ships is mind boggling, about 30% longer and twice the displacement of the largest US Navy super carrier - and these ships are not the largest ships on the seas. Over 20,000 containers on board.
As an ex-Navy guy, I'm not at all surprised that this type of ship with its massive sail area could be moved by the wind. I've seen much smaller (10,000 ton cruiser sized) ships with far less sail area snap their mooring lines during a thunderstorm. No doubt that they will have to bring in some seriously large dredging equipment and floating cranes to extract that thing from the sand banks, assuming the rest of the canal is navigable to bring in the equipment needed.
It sounds like they now have exactly the right people working the problem.
The scale of these massive container ships is mind boggling, about 30% longer and twice the displacement of the largest US Navy super carrier - and these ships are not the largest ships on the seas. Over 20,000 containers on board.
As an ex-Navy guy, I'm not at all surprised that this type of ship with its massive sail area could be moved by the wind. I've seen much smaller (10,000 ton cruiser sized) ships with far less sail area snap their mooring lines during a thunderstorm. No doubt that they will have to bring in some seriously large dredging equipment and floating cranes to extract that thing from the sand banks, assuming the rest of the canal is navigable to bring in the equipment needed.
It sounds like they now have exactly the right people working the problem.
Agreed, I was on a modest-sized ship that simply could not dock in Chile due to wind even with four tugs pushing it.
You have to wonder if they have reached or passed the size this canal can safely accommodate, winds are probably going to get worse as climate change continues. The size of this, 'like the Empire State Building lying down,' is almost beyond comprehension.
The scale of these massive container ships is mind boggling, about 30% longer and twice the displacement of the largest US Navy super carrier - and these ships are not the largest ships on the seas. Over 20,000 containers on board.
As an ex-Navy guy, I'm not at all surprised that this type of ship with its massive sail area could be moved by the wind. I've seen much smaller (10,000 ton cruiser sized) ships with far less sail area snap their mooring lines during a thunderstorm. No doubt that they will have to bring in some seriously large dredging equipment and floating cranes to extract that thing from the sand banks, assuming the rest of the canal is navigable to bring in the equipment needed.
It sounds like they now have exactly the right people working the problem.
I did a back of the envelope calculation based on length and an assumed height, with a bit of adjustment, and got an area of 1200 feet x 140 feet, and at 30 mph, it's on the order of 300,000 pounds of pressure on the ship, assuming that the wind was orthogonal to the ship's side. Since pressure is a function of velocity squared, there are certainly worse cases to look forward to.
I was working a the Naval Air Station Alameda when the Enterprise got stuck in the mud off of the ship channel. My recollection is that the tide came in and with the help of tugs, the "Big E" was freed within the day, but it certainly wasn't blocking traffic into Oakland.
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.
Even assuming all that could be deployed and installed in a timely/affordable fashion, brute force is not always the best way. Those angles and forces sound like a great way to severely damage the keel, the front of which is buried in the canal bed/bank and may already be damaged beyond seaworthiness by running aground and being twisted to the side once already. Usually, when you think of an idea that is obviously so much better than what the experts are doing, especially when it's an engineering problem and not a social/political one (though often even then) there's probably a very good reason they're not doing it your way, perhaps a reason you'd have to be an expert (or just have more information) to realize.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appalling images!! May this be a warning to all harbor personal: embarrassing pictures will reveal the half empty freighter when you fail to utilize the full container capacity 😵😵😵
Even if the considerations and calculations are slightly off, I’m incredibly impressed with the knowledge being handed out here in this discussion. Well all except for the one who suggest they “blow it up”.
Even if the considerations and calculations are slightly off, I’m incredibly impressed with the knowledge being handed out here in this discussion. Well all except for the one who suggest they “blow it up”.
But you were okay with my suggestion to build a canal bypass using Edward Teller's invention?
Even if the considerations and calculations are slightly off, I’m incredibly impressed with the knowledge being handed out here in this discussion. Well all except for the one who suggest they “blow it up”.
But you were okay with my suggestion to build a canal bypass using Edward Teller's invention?
I agree with Jordan Schultz on this. The level of expertise shown on this topic by many posters in this thread is very impressive. Except for Tzeshan's idea of blowing it up, which even for a novice like me seems to be insane/ridiculous/<any suitable adjective>. And I am not an expert on this topic, to be able to comment on your suggestion, so will leave it to other experts in this forum. My guess is that Jordan Shultz is not expert either, so he also may not be in a position to comment on your suggestion.
A large container ship blocking the Suez Canal will exacerbate existing issues in the global supply chain, including delaying shipments of electronic components and devices for weeks to come -- with that best case assuming it gets dislodged quickly.
Credit: BBC
The Ever Given, one of the world's largest shipping vessels, ran aground in the Suez Canal on Wednesday. The vessel, wedged sideways and blocking one of the world's busiest trade routes, has already caused a logjam consisting of hundreds of ships, and wider ramifications for navigation spreading much farther away. Although authorities are working to dislodge the ship within a few days, even a short logjam can have an impact on the global supply chain, CNBCreported Thursday.
Some of the immediate effects will include higher gas prices and extended shipping delays for most consumer products, including everything from furniture to electronics, logistics experts said.
The impact of the logjam is already being felt in "just-in-time" shipping chains. Other supply-side delays will be dependent on how quickly the ship can be dislodged. If the Ever Given remains stuck for a week or more, it will snarl shipping routes and add at least 10 extra shipping days just accounting for increased navigation time around Africa. Even if it's refloated more quickly, consumers will still feel the effects.
'A perfect storm' for the chip industry
About 12% of total global trade moves through the Suez Canal. And while most consumer products shipped to the U.S. reach the West Coast from Asia, rerouted traffic will congest ports that are already experiencing delays and backlogs due to the coronavirus pandemic and a surge in demand for consumer electronics.
It's hard to put a specific number on the delays that will impact the global electronics industry, which is currently suffering a severe chip shortage. But The Wall Street Journal reports that the blockage is only the latest in a series of problematic events for the semiconductor industry.
Most chipmakers ship their time-sensitive materials by air, so it isn't clear how much the assemblers will be impacted. Because of that, the Suez Canal incident is more likely to "affect the finished goods than the chip manufacturers themselves," Gartner Research analyst Alan Priestley told The Wall Street Journal.
Although the chip industry is used to rises and falls in demand, recent months have seen the market plagued by exaggerated effects that it isn't used to. One chip industry insider called the blockage and recent supply issues a "perfect storm." Many in the chip industry are monitoring the blockage for potential effects.
The cost could be passed to consumers
While authorities could refloat the vessel by the end of Thursday, some believe that's too optimistic of a timeline. Even then, waiting vessels won't immediately be able to move through the canal. Inspections of the trade route, as well as speed limits, will slow down a return to normal traffic. That's all assuming that the Ever Given hasn't suffered damage that would require it to be towed out of the canal slowly.
The longer the delay, the higher the price that could eventually be passed down to consumers.
"There are millions of dollars of commodities in the other ships, and if it is not cleared quickly then they will look to take other routes, meaning longer time, more fuel and more costs that could eventually be seen passed down to consumers," said marine cargo attorney Ian Woods.
Compared to other device makers, Apple has not been as affected by the global chip shortage. Additionally, it doesn't ship much via freight for mailed deliveries to customers after new launches. However, the company has seen supply issues in the past related to freight logjams, since it does periodically supply store stock by container vessel while simultaneously fulfilling customer orders by air.
Humm? Is this Chinese sabotage? Not to be controversial, but they due own/claim a lot of African territory.
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.
AFAIK. the GT, not displacement, is about 200,000 mtn, but I could be wrong and I don't think I'm going to be able to break my use of the '90's mtn abbreviation in logs. Also afaik, the ship is listed as presently loaded at 275,000 mtn.
Regardless, the comment that spawned mine remains a bad solution. Even 2,000 tons of metal won't evaporate if detonated, and a carcass on the bottom of the canal is a worse engineering problem.
Comments
I hope they can just dig it out and pull it around with the tugs. I simply offered an alternative and practical IMHO alternative should they not be able to, I don't see the need to be insulting. It's just physics at the end of the day. Hey, they could use floats too, they refloated a massive cruise ship a few years back. A few inches is maybe all that's required. OK, I will shut up.
You have to wonder if they have reached or passed the size this canal can safely accommodate, winds are probably going to get worse as climate change continues. The size of this, 'like the Empire State Building lying down,' is almost beyond comprehension.
I was working a the Naval Air Station Alameda when the Enterprise got stuck in the mud off of the ship channel. My recollection is that the tide came in and with the help of tugs, the "Big E" was freed within the day, but it certainly wasn't blocking traffic into Oakland.
"Have you tried turning it off, then on again?"
If ping pong balls don't work, because it's on land, they should use hydrogen-filled balloons instead.
Even assuming all that could be deployed and installed in a timely/affordable fashion, brute force is not always the best way. Those angles and forces sound like a great way to severely damage the keel, the front of which is buried in the canal bed/bank and may already be damaged beyond seaworthiness by running aground and being twisted to the side once already. Usually, when you think of an idea that is obviously so much better than what the experts are doing, especially when it's an engineering problem and not a social/political one (though often even then) there's probably a very good reason they're not doing it your way, perhaps a reason you'd have to be an expert (or just have more information) to realize.
Edward Teller once described how to build canals very quickly and cheaply with something he called Project Plowshare.
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.
May this be a warning to all harbor personal: embarrassing pictures will reveal the half empty freighter when you fail to utilize the full container capacity 😵😵😵
Regardless, the comment that spawned mine remains a bad solution. Even 2,000 tons of metal won't evaporate if detonated, and a carcass on the bottom of the canal is a worse engineering problem.
was thinking how Elon might approach this...
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.