The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea 275
HughPickens.com writes Alastair Philip Wiper writes that at 194 feet wide and 1,312 feet long, the Matz Maersk Triple E is the largest ship ever built, capable of carrying 18,000 20-foot containers. Its propellers weigh 70 tons apiece and it is too big for the Panama Canal, though it can shimmy through the Suez. A U-shaped hull design allows more room below deck, providing capacity for 18,000 shipping containers arranged in 23 rows – enough space to transport 864 million bananas. The Triple-E is constructed from 425 pre-fabricated segments, making up 21 giant "megablock" cross sections. Most of the 955,250 liters of paint used on each ship is in the form of an anti- corrosive epoxy, pre-applied to each block. Finally, a polyurethane topcoat of the proprietary Maersk brand color "Hardtop AS-Blue 504" is sprayed on.
Twenty Triple-E class container ships have been commissioned by Danish shipping company Maersk Lines for delivery by 2015. The ships are being built at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering factory in the South Korean port of Opko. The shipyard, about an hour from Busan in the south of the country, employs about 46,000 people, and "could reasonably be described as the worlds biggest Legoland," writes Wiper. "Smiling workers cycle around the huge shipyard as massive, abstractly over proportioned chunks of ships are craned around and set into place." The Triple E is just one small part of the output of the shipyard, as around 100 other vessels including oil rigs are in various stages of completion at the any time." The vessels will serve ports along the northern-Europe-to-Asia route, many of which have had to expand to cope with the ships' size. "You don't feel like you're inside a boat, it's more like a cathedral," Wiper says. "Imagine this space being full of consumer goods, and think about how many there are on just one ship. Then think about how many are sailing round the world every day. It's like trying to think about infinity."
Twenty Triple-E class container ships have been commissioned by Danish shipping company Maersk Lines for delivery by 2015. The ships are being built at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering factory in the South Korean port of Opko. The shipyard, about an hour from Busan in the south of the country, employs about 46,000 people, and "could reasonably be described as the worlds biggest Legoland," writes Wiper. "Smiling workers cycle around the huge shipyard as massive, abstractly over proportioned chunks of ships are craned around and set into place." The Triple E is just one small part of the output of the shipyard, as around 100 other vessels including oil rigs are in various stages of completion at the any time." The vessels will serve ports along the northern-Europe-to-Asia route, many of which have had to expand to cope with the ships' size. "You don't feel like you're inside a boat, it's more like a cathedral," Wiper says. "Imagine this space being full of consumer goods, and think about how many there are on just one ship. Then think about how many are sailing round the world every day. It's like trying to think about infinity."
waste of effort (Score:4, Funny)
Don't these fools know that everything is either 3D printed on site or sent by delivery drone these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't these fools know that everything is either 3D printed on site or sent by delivery drone these days?
If it can't be done with a Smartphone, it isn't worth doing
Re: (Score:3)
Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Insightful)
20 of the worlds largest vessels, built and delivered in a couple of years, now *thats* a production line worthy of the name!
The size of the vessel may be whats being pushed as the impressive thing here, but really its the fact that they can push out 13 of these at a time - instant fleet renewal! I can't think of one western shipyard which comes close to that capacity - even the two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers are having to be built one after each other due to shipyard limitations, and thats just two vessels, not 13!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, a cargo ship, while impressive, is slightly simpler to design and construct than an aircraft carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
No, when you are working on such a massive scale they really aren't simpler, the engineering and sheer weights alone are astronomical.
Re: (Score:3)
No, when you are working on such a massive scale they really aren't simpler, the engineering and sheer weights alone are astronomical.
For the hull sure, but what about the insides?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Interesting)
No, when you are working on such a massive scale they really aren't simpler, the engineering and sheer weights alone are astronomical.
Not really, the numbers are larger but the math is very well understood. This is a very mature industry, perhaps the oldest manufacturing industry in the world. People have been building boats for thousands of years. Ship's aren't redesigned every time one is built either. The bulk of a ship is the exact same "U" profile. Design it once, copy it all down the length of the ship. The bow and the stern are the only complex parts, but contribute little to strength. The bow and stern are generally proven designs which are taken "off the shelf" and adapted to the application with only slight changes. Chopping off the back end of a ship (accommodation, engineering, and propulsion area), refurbishing it, and welding it to a brand new ship hull is not uncommon. Unlike with pleasure craft and cars, "style" has approximately 0 design influence in large ships. Everyone is honing in on the most hydrodynamic designs and you can't copyright the math which describes the curves on a ship.
I'm onboard the Tolteca right now, built in 1954/1955. When we were in drydock, the only difference between this ship and ships built much more recently is the distinct lack of a bulbous bow, and the use of diesel propulsion engines instead of a steam turbine. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Undoubtedly more complex that a regular cargo vessel, but a ship designed to house a few thousand military personnel will be significantly more complex, much less one where those people are doing their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
The complexity will come in the outfitting, which for the two aforementioned Royal Navy carriers will come after the ship has been floated and moved out of the construction dock - however, even ignoring the outfitting of the carrier, I am still amazed that the Korean shipyard can build several copies of a much larger ship and deliver them in a time shorter than our shipyards can complete the hull of one single carrier (HMS Queen Elizabeth, laid down in 2009, floated in 2014, still being outfitted). Even go
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the long build time may simply be to keep the shipyard in business over a longer term. After all, it's not like you can pop out a ship and send everyone home for a couple of years while waiting for the next contract. Building to the pace of the contract acquisition lets you keep your skilled workers on the job.
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly right, and is why the US continues to build new nuclear subs at the slowest... possible... rate...
If you are a business, you want your capital returned as soon as possible. If you are a peacetime military, you just want to retain capability in the cheapest possible way. Totally different goals. During WW2, you saw the goals of industry and the military align, and it was kind of breathtaking.
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Informative)
7/1/31 - 12 Battleships, 3 Carriers, 20 Cruisers, 87 Destroyers, 56 Submarines, 308 Total Active Ships
9/1/37 - 15 Battleships, 3 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 111 Destroyers, 52 Submarines, 335 Total Active Ships
6/30/38 - 15 Battleships, 5 Carriers, 32 Cruisers, 112 Destroyers, 54 Submarines, 380 Total Active Ships
6/30/39 - 15 Battleships, 5 Carriers, 36 Cruisers, 127 Destroyers, 58 Submarines, 394 Total Active Ships
6/30/40 - 15 Battleships, 6 Carriers, 37 Cruisers, 185 Destroyers, 64 Submarines, 478 Total Active Ships
12/7/41 - 17 Battleships, 7 Carriers, 1 Escort Carriers, 37 Cruisers, 171 Destroyers, 112 Submarines, 790 Total Active Ships
12/31/42 - 19 Battleships, 4 Carriers, 12 Escort Carriers, 39 Cruisers, 224 Destroyers, 133 Submarines, 1782 Total Active Ships (growth here was in an explosion of Patrol Boats)
12/31/43 - 21 Battleships, 19 Carriers, 35 Escort Carriers, 48 Cruisers, 332 Destroyers, 172 Submarines, 3699 Total Active Ships (Frigates, PT Boats and Amphibious Craft covers most of the growth)
12/31/44 - 23 Battleships, 25 Carriers, 65 Escort Carriers, 61 Cruisers, 367 Destroyers, 230 Submarines, 6084 Total Active Ships (Amphibious Craft and Auxiliaries covered most of the growth)
8/14/45 - 23 Battleships, 28 Carriers, 71 Escort Carriers, 72 Cruisers, 377 Destroyers, 232 Submarines, 6768 Total Active Ships (Amphibious Craft and Auxiliaries covered most of the growth)
6/30/46 - 10 Battleships, 15 Carriers, 10 Escort Carriers, 36 Cruisers, 145 Destroyers, 85 Submarines, 1248 Total Active Ships
6/30/50 - 1 Battleship, 11 Carriers, 4 Escort Carriers, 13 Cruisers, 137 Destroyers, 72 Submarines, 634 Total Active Ships
6/30/55 - 3 Battleships, 21 Carriers, 3 Escort Carriers, 17 Cruisers, 249 Destroyers, 108 Submarines,1 SSG/SSBNS, 1030 Total Active Ships
6/30/60 - 23 Carriers, 13 Cruisers, 226 Destroyers, 106 Submarines, 7 SSG/SSBNS, 812 Total Active Ships
6/30/65 - 25 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 221 Destroyers, 104 Submarines, 30 SSG/SSBNS, 880 Total Active Ships
6/30/70 - 19 Carriers, 31 Cruisers, 155 Destroyers, 103 Submarines, 41 SSG/SSBNS, 743 Total Active Ships
6/30/75 - 15 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 102 Destroyers, 75 Submarines, 41 SSBNS, 559 Total Active Ships
9/30/80 - 13 Carriers, 26 Cruisers, 94 Destroyers, 82 Submarines, 40 SSBNS, 530 Total Active Ships
9/30/85 - 13 Carriers, 30 Cruisers, 69 Destroyers, 100 Submarines, 37 SSBNS, 571 Total Active Ships
9/30/90 - 13 Carriers, 43 Cruisers, 57 Destroyers, 93 Submarines, 33 SSBNS, 570 Total Active Ships
9/30/95 - 12 Carriers, 32 Cruisers, 47 Destroyers, 83 Submarines, 16 SSBNS, 392 Total Active Ships
9/30/00 - 12 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 54 Destroyers, 56 Submarines, 18 SSBNS, 318 Total Active Ships
9/30/05 - 12 Carriers, 23 Cruisers, 46 Destroyers, 54 Submarines, 14 SSBN, 4 SSGN, 282 Total Active Ships
9/30/10 - 11 Carrires, 22 Cruisers, 59 Destroyers, 53 Submarines, 14 SSBN, 4 SSGN, 288 Total Active Ships
Re: (Score:3)
Oh woops. They were reactivated from 83-91. Not sure how I missed those.
http://www.history.navy.mil/br... [navy.mil]
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. A cargo ship of that size is as complex as an aircraft carrier.
Considering this ship is designed to hold however many thousand cargo containers and the crew to support it, it needs a lot of empty space inside. Considering an aircraft carrier is essentially a city at sea, complete with nuclear reactors, aircraft hangars, repair shops, weapons bays, accommodation for a few thousand and mess facilities for the aforementioned plus its own empty space storage areas. I'm willing to bet the aircraft carrier is still more complex in terms of design and construction.
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering this ship is designed to hold however many thousand cargo containers and the crew to support it, it needs a lot of empty space inside.
According to TFA, the crew while at sea is 15 people, which is nothing compared to the 5,000 or so on a fully-populated-for-war aircraft carrier.
When you add in the fact that a warship is supposed to be able to go for at least weeks at a time without any replenishment, needs a much stronger hull for its size, has a lot more electronics that need special cabling and conduits, etc., commercial vessels are actually quite easy to build in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody even mentioned that the modern carrier also has a large amount of electronics, sensors and other fancy doodads that no cargo ship will ever have to contend with (they may have a decent weather radar but they don't have any need to scan the sky for aircraft for example).
Re: (Score:2)
the cargo vessel is little more than a reinforced box.
the aircraft carrier has thousands of rooms with reinforced bulkheads to withstand damage, dedicated to seperates task and thousands of miles of wiring.
its like comparing a box store to a skyscraper
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, someone has to keep the U.S. and Europe supplied with electronics that we used to make here.
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Informative)
Discovery Channel aired a series of programmes [worldslargestship.com] on this project last year. IIRC the main shipyard can house 2 or 3 of these in parallel, not 13. Each ship spends only a few months in this yard (final assembly only). Delivery tempo is one a month.
Modules are built at various other shipyards.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it is a space limittion more than anything that prevents most western shipyards from building multiple ships that size. While this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org] ship is about half the length is is undeniably large. Had no other ships been being constructed while she was on land the yard could have handled building a second one, and *maybe* a third, but that is unlikely. There just would not have been enough ground to fit them on. Cheap labor long ago reduced shipyards in most western countries
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it is a space limittion more than anything that prevents most western shipyards from building multiple ships that size. ...... Cheap labor long ago reduced shipyards in most western countries to building military ships and some extremely spicalised or luxury ships.
You just contradicted yourself. Western shipyards aren't limited on space. If you have the demand, you can always get more space / capabilities / labor / raw materials. They are limited by demand.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have stated that it's multiple factors, but space is indeed one for some of the US shipyards:
This is the Ingalls Shipyard in MS https://www.google.com/maps/pl... [google.com] Where some of the larger military ships are built, I can't tell, not knowing when the photo was taken, but my guess is the large ship in the river to the right is LHA-6 before being turned over to the navy. You can see there just is not space to build many at one time.
Yes, there are larger shipyards in the US, but many of them are complete
Re: (Score:3)
Its no longer economical to build these ships in the West, as you said. Maersk, the purchaser of these ships, actually owned a shipyard (Odense) in Europe which it used to build its original E-class ships. Shortly after, that shipyard was put out to pasture. All of the major cargo shipbuilders are located in Asia, like Hyundai Heavy and Daewoo. These things take a lot of labor to manufature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:5, Informative)
It's bullshit that they're building them in Korea, though.
We have perfectly capable, world-class shipyards in Denmark, practically begging to take on these kinds of tasks. In the old days, when Arnold Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller still ran the company, these orders would have gone to Danish companies. No more, now everything is outsourced to the lowest bidder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
South Korea is hardly the third world. If Danish shipyards can't beat them on price, why not?
Re: (Score:3)
Because A.P Møller-Mærsk used to a point of pride for Denmark. One of our biggest companies and a big international player with influence all over the world, and they supported little ol' Denmark by making use of local labor and expertise, sponsoring public projects and *gasp* paying their taxes. It was a fully-sustainable business approach, and supported hundreds of other Danish companies, not to mention thousands of Danish shipbuilders, often lauded as the very best in the world.
South Korea is d
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't long ago that South Korea wasn't so advanced, and Daewoo was corrupt.
The national identity has been trying to raise standards in everything, but it still has horrible reminders of its recent past. The Sewoul disaster where hundreds died needlessly, the subway crash where 200 people died, the recent collapse of a sidewalk grate where 16 concert goers just... died.
By "national identity" I mean the health, safety and anticorruption standards are considered part of the national identity and distinct from the standards of many neighbouring countries.
In the past 20 years Korea has been rebuilding everything and has good standards. These stories are making the country obsessive over safety and quality, but there's still junk from the recent past, or people who are wrapped in nepotism and corruption who shouldn't be responsible for anything involving public safety, but can't be removed.
As long as the ship builders are not part of that past, then it's a boon for the country and another milestone for Korea's advancement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
More like Park Ho Li am I right.
Re: (Score:3)
Kaiser actually built one in four days in a carefully-choreographed stunt...two or three weeks was typical.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but they weren't exactly built to last. They were built quickly. They had a tendency to break in two.
and transmission had only three settings: Forward, backward, and neutral. There was a pic showing one that broke in two because didn't spend time to engineer for steel contraction in very cold water. Must have been terrible when (if it did happen) at sea. Interesting comment from previous post, "Kaiser actually built one in four days in a carefully-choreographed stunt...two or three weeks was typical." Another benefit was Kaiser created employee health benefits as perk to attract workers. Companies did have
It would be ironic (Score:2)
If they forgot to add toilets.
That's bananas! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm so happy to see we have finally converted to the banana scale. I've been waiting for this since horsepower was invented!
Re: (Score:2)
Just think... now we're just a double entendre away from the "shlong scale".
Re: That's bananas! (Score:3)
MegaBananas are the SI equivalent of the Libraries of Congress that the knuckle-dragging Americans still use. Get with the rest of the world, people!
Re: (Score:2)
MegaBananas are the SI equivalent of the Libraries of Congress that the knuckle-dragging Americans still use. Get with the rest of the world, people!
Well just how many Libraries of Congress can it hold? As an American I won't be able to truly comprehend until it's measured in Libraries of Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
1 Library of congress = 180,3 MegaBananas
(Using 878.835g as the average book weight and 115g for the average banana.)
Re: (Score:3)
enough space to transport 864 million bananas I'm so happy to see we have finally converted to the banana scale. I've been waiting for this since horsepower was invented!
Maybe someone thought they were being clever, but in reality they are just very ignorant. Bananas are almost always transported by vertically-integrated companies who own their own ships. It's like this because generally Bananas are coming from a port which has little to ship aside from bananas, and the bananas generally go to a small number of special ripening warehouses where they ripen for a while. They're a kind of special cargo, not a general cargo to be put on any container ship. Just as an exampl
864 million bananas (Score:5, Funny)
enough space to transport 864 million bananas
Yes, I too calculate volumes in MegaBananas.
Except for astronavegation, where I base all my calculations on Earth's volume of 1.086 PetaBananas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a convenient standard unit. Inexpensive and tasty. Can be used for measuring mass, volume, friction (obviously), and radiactivity (due to its high potassium content). A chest X-ray is equivalent to 70,000 bananas.
Given the other sub-thread asking about the conversion to Libraries of Congress, apparently it can be used to measure data content as well.
is it really the biggest? (Score:2)
Surely the Jahre Viking (one of many names) remains the largest ship ever built? Longer and wider.
inbuilt scrap capabilities (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_breaking
Why no to build-in capabilities for a ship to break itself easily?
Re: (Score:2)
Why no to build-in [sic] capabilities for a ship to break itself easily?
Because it might then break itself while it's underway, rather than waiting until it got to the shipyard?
Re: (Score:3)
Ship breaking is very tedious process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org] Why no to build-in capabilities for a ship to break itself easily?
Because it adds cost. When a ship has reached the end of its useful life, it's value is approximately the (ship mass * the price of steel). Labor in 3rd world countries is so cheap that it doesn't factor into the equation much. You would never see any return on that investment.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched and thought: "This is wrong. Why not use some module architecture?"
Re: (Score:3)
Taking apart a multi thousand ton machine that has been in operation for decades will never be a clean process. You can contain the contamination with a lot of work, but it's never going to be a clean process.
It's so big ... (Score:2)
... they're worrying a bit about the sea-level when they put it to water.
Largest in service, not largest ever built (Score:4, Informative)
The Maersk E class is the largest currently in service, and the largest container ships ever built, but they're definitely not the largest ships ever built. On either length, or gross tonnage, there have been a number of tankers which are quite a bit bigger, although none are still in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. They are substantially higher capacity (14% more containers) than the biggest container ships, but they're not some sort of order of magnitude improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the Emma Maersk. E class and EEE clas are different designs. The E class is around 15.5k TEUs.
Whats really mind boggling about these things is the kind of odd issues you run into engineering them. They've gotten so big that you see bowing in the halls during rough seas becaue the halls are so long. It creates odd engineering issues, having to account for a possible resonance with the wave frequency causing a catastrophic failure and severely reduced lifespan due to stresses on the hull if not de
Re: (Score:2)
I was looking at the Wiki page, which had the Maersk EEE (i.e. the Majestic, the Mary, the Marie, etc.) at 18270 TEU, with the next biggest (the most recent of CMA CGM's Explorer class) at 16020. So, 14% bigger. The Maersk single E class is at 15500 TEU.
59m width and 400m long (Score:4, Informative)
FTFY
Fun facts (Score:5, Interesting)
The Triple-E is unusual in several aspects apart from its size.
1. It has 2 engines instead of one. This improves packaging (less volume lost to the engine room), mainly because the engines are shorter (8 cylinders in line instead of 14). Earlier ships had one engine to reduce complexity.
2. It's slower, with an operational speed of 35 km/h (down from 45 km/h of its predecessor). This saves fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're using a different type of engines [worldslargestship.com], optimized for running at lower speeds.
Here's the address for looking it up on the map (Score:2)
Found the address on their website: 3370 Geoje-daero, Geoje-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea
Googled for "Opko, South Korea" and it took me to a city called "Mopko" which is far away.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it's Okpo, on Opko.
DSME also takes you there.
Re: (Score:2)
that should have read "Okpo, instead of Opko"
Re: (Score:2)
oh that explains it then. Somehow I thought the shipyard would be bigger. looks like 2 x 2 kms on Google maps.
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3... [google.com]
That boat is bigger than Larry's! (Score:2)
Larry Ellison doesn't have a boat that comes close to that. C'mon Larry, you're losing your Mojo dude! And its made in Korea!
Of course his (Russian) Mig29 could probably sink it.
What's it gonna be Larry? Are you gonna kick ass or chew gum?
Wait a minute (Score:2)
Can't we get the same thing for our cars? Is it available at some professional paint shops?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you CAN, but when some Danish guy shows up, hands you a package, and demands you drive it to its destination, don't complain to me.
Re: (Score:2)
That paint is really thick, really heavy, and actually quite expensive. The point is to reduce drag in the water, and more importantly, to prevent buildup of barnacles, which ruin fuel efficiency. The cost isn't worth the benefit on cars.
Re: (Score:2)
"Okpo" not "Opko". (Score:5, Informative)
Both this and the original source at Wired have the name of the Korean place wrong, it's "Okpo" [wikipedia.org], not "Opko".
Signed, your local friendly Korean geography nazi.
Everything is awesome! (Score:2)
There, let me put that song back into your head.
Did anyone say smiling workers at Legoland? "Everything is awesome" is the first thing I thought about.
Can carry 20,000 containers (Score:2)
Re:Can carry 20,000 containers (Score:5, Informative)
These ships don't work like that. If anything, it will usually carry less than the max. The rating is based off of a arbitrary weight for each container which is about half the max weight per container. If overloaded or loaded incorrectly, they can list or even split. Here's two pictures of things that can happen:
http://www.railroad-line.com/f... [railroad-line.com]
http://shariaunveiled.files.wo... [wordpress.com]
http://www.marineinsight.com/w... [marineinsight.com]
Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth? (Score:2)
I think it's time to rethink civilian nuclear power for mega ships.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth? (Score:4, Interesting)
The world's 15 largest ships do emit more sulfur than all the world's automobiles. http://www.gizmag.com/shipping... [gizmag.com]
However for carbon dioxide they only emit a third as much as all the world's cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal in power plants is still the biggest sulphur offender, dwarfs the ship's contribution
Re: (Score:2)
The CO2 emissions have little to do with impurities in the fuel. They emit so much CO2 because they require a lot of power for propulsion. The Triple-E is a lot more efficient than the previous generation of ships, so CO2 emissions are some 20% lower despite carrying more containers.
The shipping industry never learns... (Score:2)
It's interesting that the shipping industry never seems to learn. They continue to bring on more and more capacity while shipping prices are at historic lows.
Perhaps the plan is to flood the market with even cheaper capacity and drive a bunch of competition out of business so they can raise rates later... Then the cycle will start all over again.
Cracked up when I saw this photo (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else think that, when they saw the second photo [wired.com] on the Wired.com article [wired.com] that some awkward conversation took place prior to the photo that went something like this:
Photographer: "Tell your worker there to look busy. I need photos for the article."
Manager: "What do you want him to do?"
Photographer: "I don't know! What does that machine do over there?"
Manager: "That's our automated steel blaster."
Photographer: "That sounds important. Have your guy go over there and operate it."
Manager: "But it's fully automated. Everything's set the way it needs to be."
Photographer: "But I need -something-! Just have him stand next to it and look like he's reconfiguring it."
Manager to Technician: "Technician, go over to the panel and look busy."
Technician: "Sir, I don't work on this machine. And there are signs all over it saying 'Do Not Touch!'"
Manager: "I don't care! This American fool needs a photo!"
Technician: "How foolish! The entire system is automated! Did you tell him this?"
Manager: "Of course I did! He didn't listen."
Technician: "What am I supposed to do then?"
Manager: "I don't know! Just go over there and look like you're pushing a button."
Technician: "But I don't want to break the machine! It is a masterpiece!"
Manager: "Fine, fine, just, um, just point at the button with your finger. And touch the button. Yes, yes, that looks convincing."
Technician: "Does it really look like I'm pressing it?"
Manager: "No, you look stupid. But just stay there, like that, alright?"
Technician: "Stupid Americans. No wonder their economy sucks."
why link to wired? (Score:2)
Why would the post link to Wired, which reads more like a paen to the photographer?
Instead, go to the photographer's blog directly http://alastairphilipwiper.com... [alastairphilipwiper.com] sheesh.
Surely not Lego (Score:2)
Finally big enough? (Score:2)
Not for long (Score:2)
They're already cutting steel on one that will handle 1000 more containers than the triple-E's [gcaptain.com].
I like big boats (Score:3)
And I cannot lie.
Re: (Score:3)
A man is sitting in this ship, and throws a massive Korean-made LED TV-screen overboard into the water.
As a result, will the water level rise, or drop?
It depends on the answer to the following questions:
- Was the TV's weight being held by the ship? Or was it held neutral by, for example, helium balloons.
- What water does the question refers to? The Sea outside the ship? Or the captain's quarters' Olympic swimming pool.
- Shall the answer take into account the man's decrease in weight caused by the calorie loss due to the TV throwing? And, in that case, what's the man's lean body mass, BMI, weight and basal consumption rate?
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy. Train A will arrive in New York forty-two minutes before train B arrives in Los Angeles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer though - when in a boat, the displacement is equal to its own weight. When submerged, the displacement is equal to its own volume. In the case of rocks, they have quite a small volume or large mass relative to water. Therefore the water level will go down. I think.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Almost. The water level will remain the same since the rock will only sink to the level where the density of the water is equal to it, hence it attains neutral buoyancy.
(proof: pumice floats).
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting line of thought and kind of true: water gets more dense as you go deeper.
But what if there is a barrier preventing the rock to sink all the way to its neutral buoyancy level ? Call it, I don't know... "the bottom" or something...
Re: (Score:2)
One of the key limiting factors in ship building is not a technology or construction one, it is fitting into ports, under bridges and through things like the panama and Suez canals The technology within ships though has massively improved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Flaminia" is German for FIRE (Score:2)