Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#71

Post by yardie »

dingosity wrote: post #16

Do we really need to OWN icebreakers? Maybe we could start a website where countries and companies who own icebreakers can operate them for the benefit of other countries and companies who want to use them. They just walk to the shore in the Canadian north, click the "Call Icebreaker" button on the app and wait for an icebreaker someone else owns to arrive.

Fun times when our Space Shuttle program shutdown we had to rely on Russian Soyuz to get astronauts to and from ISS. Well, whenever Russia didn't like something the US was doing, guess what the bargaining chip was?

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#72

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

deaddodo wrote: post #32
horeszko wrote: post #28

Makes me wonder how much manufacturing knowledge has been lost in the west, and how long it might take to rediscover it all. Does anyone know of any good sources on this?

Strictly speaking, none. The knowledge is all there, the problem is lack of experience/training.

Training is a cost center. Just put out a job req demanding 20 years experience in forging curved steel. Problem solves itself. Now just let me collect my plum consulting fee for this bit of genius business management advice.

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#73

Post by edrxty »

thedaly wrote: post #49
dingosity wrote: post #16

Do we really need to OWN icebreakers? Maybe we could start a website where countries and companies who own icebreakers can operate them for the benefit of other countries and companies who want to use them. They just walk to the shore in the Canadian north, click the "Call Icebreaker" button on the app and wait for an icebreaker someone else owns to arrive.

> Do we really need to OWN icebreakers? That would depend on one's strategic goals and priorities. Personally, I do not believe the US should be the world police so I don't think it is necessary.

I think in this case the US is mostly concerned with securing the increasingly lucrative exclusive economic zone north of Alaska. Anything beyond that we can use air power over sea power, now that we've given up on desert power.

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#74

Post by Baeocystin »

throe37848 wrote: post #48

Does USA even have civilian dry docks to build ships? I thought everything was outsourced to Korea. I know it can build military vessels, but at horribly slow pace. Australia will get their nuclear submarines some time in 2040. I can not imagine building civilian nuclear ice breakers in US.

Yes. The NASSCO shipyard in San Diego. I worked there as a ship welder for a while after the first .com crash, and two of the three ships I worked on were civilian.

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#75

Post by appleiigs »

throwbadubadu wrote: post #53
testfoobar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same industry, but here is an article in the WSJ about declining numbers of petroleum engineers: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-oils-talent-crisis-high-sal... "Big Oil’s Talent Crisis: High Salaries Are No Longer Enough Energy companies scramble to attract engineers as young workers fret over climate and job security Good news from the oil patch: Jobs are plentiful and salaries are soaring. The bad news is…

> The bad news is that young people still aren’t interested And maybe that is also good news, because the youth realizes what we won't and what is at stake? Wouldn't have thought that not everything can be bought.. a little hope for them's still there, as we will ignore it til our deaths ;)

Or maybe this is bad news, because the youth do not realize what is at stake. After all the article is talking about skills that we have lost relative to other countries which may not like the U.S. very much.

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#76

Post by notsurenymore »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #72
deaddodo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strictly speaking, none. The knowledge is all there, the problem is lack of experience/training.

Training is a cost center. Just put out a job req demanding 20 years experience in forging curved steel. Problem solves itself. Now just let me collect my plum consulting fee for this bit of genius business management advice.

> Now just let me collect my plum consulting fee for this bit of genius business management advice.

Come on, you’ve got to at least offer them something other than what they’ve already been doing for years.

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#77

Post by throwbadubadu »

appleiigs wrote: post #75
throwbadubadu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bad news is that young people still aren’t interested And maybe that is also good news, because the youth realizes what we won't and what is at stake? Wouldn't have thought that not everything can be bought.. a little hope for them's still there, as we will ignore it til our deaths ;)

Or maybe this is bad news, because the youth do not realize what is at stake. After all the article is talking about skills that we have lost relative to other countries which may not like the U.S. very much.

Was not referring to the article but apparently to the oil industry specifics the article also doesn't talk about, and try to see everything negative just with a bit of optimism ;)

Thus, you cannot just repeat "bad news" unfair :( Bring a new perspective please.

(And feel free to downvote, yeees I know we need some oil industry.. but no, if we'd do it right still not as much as >95% of it is right now for.. no way around it).

Skills will come and go as needed, the drama is overrated and sensationalism imo (just to ensure more downvotes ;))

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#78

Post by NegativeK »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #67
horeszko wrote: post #28

Makes me wonder how much manufacturing knowledge has been lost in the west, and how long it might take to rediscover it all. Does anyone know of any good sources on this?

I remember a very old WSJ article about "swiss style machinists" and how there are no young American ones any more. This style of machinist makes tiny objects (think of how small things inside a mechanical watch are), where a day's production fits into a coffee cup. It takes a 10 year long apprenticeship to become productive enough that a company is willing to one of these machinists. All of the "younger" ones came f…

There's a lot of discussion about how tradespeople are retiring and leaving big gaps in the workforce, and there's a strong element of truth to it, but America is still producing large and small machined parts.

There's still large machine tools being refurbished in Rockford, Illinois, Haas is building a large new facility in Nevada (delayed; thanks covid) for making CNC machine tools, medical and aerospace parts are still earning machinists a crapton of money, and people are still hobbing enormous gears that are very, very expensive.

It's pretty clear that American machining has lost its production bandwidth due to offshoring, but it's not accurate to say that the field is dead.

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#79

Post by mortureb »

horeszko wrote: post #28

Makes me wonder how much manufacturing knowledge has been lost in the west, and how long it might take to rediscover it all. Does anyone know of any good sources on this?

I think for anything we don’t actively make anymore, we can assume the skill has been lost.

Re: To build ships that break ice, U.S. must relearn to cut steel

#80

Post by bigbillheck »

toss1 wrote: post #70
thedaly wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we really need to OWN icebreakers? That would depend on one's strategic goals and priorities. Personally, I do not believe the US should be the world police so I don't think it is necessary.

OK, the who would you suggest should be the world's police? The post-WWII world order is predicated on the agreement that the age of imperialism is over and that invasion by force to annex another country is illegitimate. It is obvious that all nations do not agree to this. E.g.: China on Tibet, Taiwan, 9-dashed line, etc., Russia in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine. Those authoritarian states think it is perfectly fine to…

> The post-WWII world order is predicated on the agreement that the age of imperialism is over and that invasion by force to annex another country is illegitimate.

Why bother with the 'annex' part when you can just overthrow governments you don't like and replace them with ones you do?

Post reply on HN