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

181–190 of 190 posts

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

#181

Post by pydry »

jfengel wrote: post #179
pydry wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the extremely high cost, why do you think countries with nuclear weapons have conventional military at all?

Nuclear weapons prevent an all-out invasion, but they're not much good at anything else. The US, for example, could not have used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US is something of an outlier. Most countries maintain much smaller militaries. They have them on hand for a variety of purposes: disasters, foreign peacekeeping, border patrol, and keeping their hand in Just In Case. NATO countries, for example,…

>keeping their hand in Just In Case.

Just in case of what? Nukes are the perfect defense and the only one you need you said it yourself. You think 4% of the GDP is wasted.

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

#182

Post by jfengel »

pydry wrote: post #181
jfengel wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear weapons prevent an all-out invasion, but they're not much good at anything else. The US, for example, could not have used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US is something of an outlier. Most countries maintain much smaller militaries. They have them on hand for a variety of purposes: disasters, foreign peacekeeping, border patrol, and keeping their hand in Just In Case. NATO countries, for example,…

>keeping their hand in Just In Case. Just in case of what? Nukes are the perfect defense and the only one you need you said it yourself. You think 4% of the GDP is wasted.

That was what I was trying to explain. Nukes are a blunt weapon, and they want to have a bit more precision. They're not going to nuke Russia if Wagner group made a little, deniable cross-border excursion.

Nukes get MAD real fast. If their only weapon is a nuke, their bluff could easily be called.

Very few countries spend 4% of GDP on the military, and most of them are at war. Not even the US, which comes in at 3.5%. NATO countries are supposed to spend (IIRC) 2%, but most don't.

It's a 2% that they might like to have back, but militaries are pretty good make-work programs. Even Japan, whose constitution prevents it from having a military, still spends 1% on its military.

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

#183

Post by westurner »

loeg wrote: post #21
fsckboy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need mass to break ice. this is one of the narrow cases where pounds comes off the bench to say, "actually, you need weight" (icebreakers slide/ride up on top of the ice and the weight of the ship breaks breaks it ice downward)

On Earth's surface, it's not like gravity is optional.

To get real technical about it, gravity is inconstant at constant altitudes when varying latitude and longitude.

9.8m/s^2 at sea level, and it decreases with altitude all the way out to Lagrangian points where the gravitational attraction of the sun (and other local masses) is equal to that of earth; but solar pressure presumably displaces objects at zero-gravity rest.

Gravity is 'optional' with quantum locking. Gravity is a weak force.

Gravity is maybe the least lossy form of potential energy storage?

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

#184

Post by credit_guy »

pydry wrote: post #172
credit_guy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> geographical vulnerability of Russia's western border This is Russia's argument, but it is nonsense. Nobody would attack any Russian border, western or otherwise, because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. It's as simple as that.

Given the extremely high cost, why do you think countries with nuclear weapons have conventional military at all?

Not clear what your point is? Are you saying that indeed there was any chance of Nato invading Russia? I think that was what you're implying, but I'm not sure, since you replied to me with a question.

Do you have any scenario of how that would happen, so that Russia's invasion of Ukraine makes any sense as a preemptive move?

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

#185

Post by loeg »

westurner wrote: post #183
loeg wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Earth's surface, it's not like gravity is optional.

To get real technical about it, gravity is inconstant at constant altitudes when varying latitude and longitude. 9.8m/s^2 at sea level, and it decreases with altitude all the way out to Lagrangian points where the gravitational attraction of the sun (and other local masses) is equal to that of earth; but solar pressure presumably displaces objects at zero-gravity rest. Gravity is 'optional' with quantum locking. Grav…

A key feature of ice-breakers is that they operate at sea level, and in fact rely on gravity.

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

#186

Post by westurner »

loeg wrote: post #185
westurner wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get real technical about it, gravity is inconstant at constant altitudes when varying latitude and longitude. 9.8m/s^2 at sea level, and it decreases with altitude all the way out to Lagrangian points where the gravitational attraction of the sun (and other local masses) is equal to that of earth; but solar pressure presumably displaces objects at zero-gravity rest. Gravity is 'optional' with quantum locking. Grav…

A key feature of ice-breakers is that they operate at sea level, and in fact rely on gravity.

They are also surrounded by fluid that as ballast affects the density/volume/buoyancy/displacement(?) of the hull (and the inertia of the craft), which could be steel-plated [3d printed and/or pressure molded] biocomposite that lasts for spec years in seawater.

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

#187

Post by EliRivers »

cpursley wrote: post #130
EliRivers wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soviet-era high-quality STEM education The last batch of such manufacturing apprentices went through in the mid-eighties. They're just about all gone from the workplace.

Tell that to the US aerospace industry which is full of Russian and Soviet trained engineers (who are not in their 90s).

Soviet trained engineers; last batch was in the eighties, so the youngest of them are now in their fifties and the majority of them are retired or dead.

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

#188

Post by dingosity »

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.

Just sort of realized I know a guy in San Francisco who owns an Icebreaker. So... I guess the answer is... yes, SOMEONE needs to own an Icebreaker.

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

#189

Post by dingosity »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #112
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? Maybe we could start a website i can't tell what is parody and whats real life

Oh yeah. This was a snarky comment. Serves me right for trying to be clever over a text channel. It is very easy to misinterpret this as a legit comment.

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

#190

Post by dingosity »

fragmede wrote: post #116
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we really need to OWN icebreakers? Maybe we could start a website i can't tell what is parody and whats real life

Anyone interested in angel investing for my startup? It's like Uber, but for $50-100 million specialty ships of which there are only a handful in the world, owned and operated by only a few nations, one of which is currently sanctioned by the US government. Move fast and break ice!

I like the cut of your jib, @fragmede. Though it's probably more like "Move at a moderate speed and break ice." (Which DOES sound like my company's product development process.)
Post reply on HN