461–470 of 1001 posts
Quite the arrogance here of mostly software devs trying to out -solutionize marine/shipping experts who undoubtedly have been consulted and are already looking for the quickest way to resolve the situation. With billions of dollars in stake, I'm sure even the most expensive experts are involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had the exact same idea but the canal bank is very shallow.. so you would have to build around the whole ship (as you said). This also seems like a major undertaking. I am excited to see how they will solve the problem though!
If the bank is very shallow and mostly sand, maybe instead of building a damn all around the ship it would be easier to just dredge a new passage that goes around the stuck ship. After all the real problem isn't that the ship is run aground, it's that the canal is blocked for everyone else.
You're basically asking why can't they just make a whole new canal in less than a week?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you build a temporary barrier around the ship and the section of the canal, bring in some massive pumps, and temporarily raise the water level around the ship? Edit: Something like this https://www.hydrologicalsolutions.com/aqua-barrier-cofferdam...
Imagine the pressures on the temporary barrier too, and what a failure would mean. Even bigger disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand [1] properly, the Chinook can lift 13 tons[2]. The Evergiven's maximum weight is 200000 tons. So that would be 15000+ Chinooks lifting it. A sight to behold. Added: Only about 1200 were ever produced, so that won't fly. [1] https://www.army.mil/article/137584/ch_47_chinook_helicopter [2] 26000 pounds
Okay but what about rockets?
Probably more expensive than most other solutions, and I doubt that the Evergiven will be in a good condition afterwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this had gotten stuck in 1960s Russia they would have done that already.
And 70 years later the radiation levels would be getting back to normal.
Site author here, I guess this is why the New York Times API keeps hitting rate limits.
Quite the arrogance here of mostly software devs trying to out -solutionize marine/shipping experts who undoubtedly have been consulted and are already looking for the quickest way to resolve the situation. With billions of dollars in stake, I'm sure even the most expensive experts are involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read that there aren't any tall enough cranes in that area to do it, so they're considering unloading some containers by helicopter.
Even if you could unload a container per minute you could only unload less than 1000 containers per day (assuming it's too dangerous to work at night) so at least 3 weeks of continuous helicopter operations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You're basically asking to build a port in the middle of the egyptian desert. No. Helicopters. 10 helis, 1 container/sortie, 10 sorties/hour = 10000 containers in 5 days.
> 10 helis, 20tons each, 10 sorties/hour = 200k ton in 5 days. Among the many problems with this calculation is that shipping containers can't be freely subdivided and recombined, and can have a loaded weight over 30 tons. EDIT: And to address the crossing edit: > 10 helis, 1 container/sortie, 10 sorties/hour = 10000 containers in 5 days. ...and the heaviest-lift helicopters can't lift 30 tons.