I know that this is early, but it bears thinking about. At some point a test bed is going to be needed for demonstrating the effectiveness of BFRs. Ideally it should be a ship that is not new, but is in good condition. It should be easy to move to a shipyard that is familiar with it for modification work and spare parts. It should be big enough to demonstrate the ability to power large vessels such as carriers. It should be fast and require lots of pwer for the same reason. Well i have the perfect candidate, which I discovered moored in Philadelphia ten years or so ago. I give you the SS United States:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 63478.html
Fast, good looking, big and just ready for a makeover.
A test bed for bfr marine propulsion
Fucus the mind.
That'd really focus the mind of the American People wouldn't it?
There is a conservancy movement underway:
http://www.ssunitedstatesconservancy.org/SSUS/Home.html
This ship was the fastest. I wonder how fast she'd be after the makeover to BFR electric drive?
There is a conservancy movement underway:
http://www.ssunitedstatesconservancy.org/SSUS/Home.html
This ship was the fastest. I wonder how fast she'd be after the makeover to BFR electric drive?
Two reactors of identical design and equal power are what you want. It simplifies maintenance and spare parts.
Because power goes up as the cube of speed a drop of 50% of available power is not going to lower your speed a lot. About 80% of full power speed.
So 38 knots becomes about 30 knots.
Also you have to get some honking big electric motors. And access to the engineering spaces so you could remove the boilers and turbines. And install the BFRs and shielding.
I think one of the newer open deck RO - RO mil ships would be easier.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ip/hss.htm
I have a friend who works for Global Security in Iraq doing medical stuff for the military and the Iraqis. So the above is probably legit.
Here is another similar ship already in service. Youtube has clips as well.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ip/hss.htm
Because power goes up as the cube of speed a drop of 50% of available power is not going to lower your speed a lot. About 80% of full power speed.
So 38 knots becomes about 30 knots.
Also you have to get some honking big electric motors. And access to the engineering spaces so you could remove the boilers and turbines. And install the BFRs and shielding.
I think one of the newer open deck RO - RO mil ships would be easier.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ip/hss.htm
I have a friend who works for Global Security in Iraq doing medical stuff for the military and the Iraqis. So the above is probably legit.
Here is another similar ship already in service. Youtube has clips as well.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ip/hss.htm
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well, the port of Philadelphia reminds me of the FastShip project which was described ten years ago in Scientific American and has remained on paper in the absence of funding. : high-speed transatlantic freight service in less than 4 days.Jccarlton wrote:Well i have the perfect candidate, which I discovered moored in Philadelphia ten years or so ago.
BFR power would offer advantages as a gas turbine substitute.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
The problem with doing this with a passenger ship of this size...
What's the expected top speed, if you put in a BFR? Can somebody do that calculation? Approximate is fine.
Because... well... if the BFR doesn't make it go any faster than it used to... it's going to be a cruise ship. Which may make economical sense in that the fuel costs would be very low. Which I assume is a huge benefit for a cruise line.
But if it goes fast enough, and cheap enough, it may become economical once again for ships to compete with planes as a method of transportation. The ship in question could be reborn as the first passenger ship in decades.
So which would we be making? From what Roger and JCCarlton seem to be saying, it's going to be a cruise-ship, no?
With the size of the BFR, however, which I'm assuming is going to be far, far smaller than the original power plant (can anyone confirm that from the deckplans and from the speculative size of a BFR?), could we put in two or more BFR? Was this a twin prop ship? If so two BFRs might be mechanically straightforward. In any case, what's the speed then?
I have a very romantic idea of being able to drive to the east coast, catch a ship for Bristol for $200 for a 24 hour trip including my stateroom, renting a car there, and taking the chunnel to... well the rest of the world...
Mike
P.S. you can get a 6 night passage from NY to England for $750 at the moment, one way (on the QM2), so $200 for one night doesn't seem out of line. Especially if fuel costs are less.
What's the expected top speed, if you put in a BFR? Can somebody do that calculation? Approximate is fine.
Because... well... if the BFR doesn't make it go any faster than it used to... it's going to be a cruise ship. Which may make economical sense in that the fuel costs would be very low. Which I assume is a huge benefit for a cruise line.
But if it goes fast enough, and cheap enough, it may become economical once again for ships to compete with planes as a method of transportation. The ship in question could be reborn as the first passenger ship in decades.
So which would we be making? From what Roger and JCCarlton seem to be saying, it's going to be a cruise-ship, no?
With the size of the BFR, however, which I'm assuming is going to be far, far smaller than the original power plant (can anyone confirm that from the deckplans and from the speculative size of a BFR?), could we put in two or more BFR? Was this a twin prop ship? If so two BFRs might be mechanically straightforward. In any case, what's the speed then?
I have a very romantic idea of being able to drive to the east coast, catch a ship for Bristol for $200 for a 24 hour trip including my stateroom, renting a car there, and taking the chunnel to... well the rest of the world...
Mike
P.S. you can get a 6 night passage from NY to England for $750 at the moment, one way (on the QM2), so $200 for one night doesn't seem out of line. Especially if fuel costs are less.
Another ship about that vintage was initially "The France", and it had a sordid history. It was restored as "The Norway" and was made flagship of NCL. It turned out to be a headache for them, and was recently scrapped, amid an international furor about the hazardous conditions the workers would be exposed to in the process of "breaking" it. Asbestos was one of the primary culprits.
I wonder if "The United States" could legally be retrofitted to a BFR in this country? Without a doubt, this is a symptom of our overall problem.
I might opt for a more modern platform. Is the Exxon Valdez still afloat?
I wonder if "The United States" could legally be retrofitted to a BFR in this country? Without a doubt, this is a symptom of our overall problem.
I might opt for a more modern platform. Is the Exxon Valdez still afloat?
We're deep in speculation here, but wouldn't the same efficiency benefits apply to planes as well, albeit with some time lag in devising solutions accomodating the relative heft of an airborne BFR powerplant?Mike Holmes wrote:But if it goes fast enough, and cheap enough, it may become economical once again for ships to compete with planes as a method of transportation.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Perhaps.
I would say that capital expenses are higher for planes per passenger, but that's somewhat mitigated by the fact that you have to have full ammenities on a ship (though these can also turn a profit, too).
Heck, the economics might be the same, the cost of both being equal. That is, maybe flights will get down to $200, or even less, as well. People will still take the ship. It's a floating hotel room. Yes it takes far longer to get there. But you have fun doing it. And you can still tour Europe for a few days on a 9 day vacation. With only one day at sea each way.
Uh... semi-cruise?
I prefer to take the train over flying, if I can get my own room (if I'm going to be in a crowded seat, I'd like to get there ASAP). But ironically it currently costs more than flying. Slower methods can be made more attractive again by making them simultaneously cheaper and more luxurious than they are now. Not neccessarily cheaper than the fast method. But competitive, where you trade time for luxury.
This is, after all, what a cruise is. An enjoyable trip. As opposed to transportation you merely endure.
Of course this also means that for people who are willing to ride the train from Chicago to California in a small seat, taking 30 or more hours (been there, done that), that they might be willing to ride in a "mass-passenger" ship to Europe. Forget staterooms, you just get a seat. Imagine how many passengers you could take on a ship if they were all stuffed in like train passengers? I imagine the ticket would be about $50. Round trip.
Not sure if there's enough passengers for such a service. But such a service might create them.
If, in fact, we think of fusion as creating a truely "post-scarcity" economy, then all of this speculation is off, and we can imagine much more exotic ideas. I'm trying to remain within the realm of skepticism on what's eventually possible. If we assume everything is so cheap that we can discount the costs entirely, then I'm going to just take my flying palace (fast dirigible) all over the world all the time, wherever I want to drive it.
Mike
P.S. With a plane, you could maybe include staterooms, and all the ammenities of a ship, at the same cost... but it's so fast, what would be the point? You won't have any time to enjoy them.
I would say that capital expenses are higher for planes per passenger, but that's somewhat mitigated by the fact that you have to have full ammenities on a ship (though these can also turn a profit, too).
Heck, the economics might be the same, the cost of both being equal. That is, maybe flights will get down to $200, or even less, as well. People will still take the ship. It's a floating hotel room. Yes it takes far longer to get there. But you have fun doing it. And you can still tour Europe for a few days on a 9 day vacation. With only one day at sea each way.
Uh... semi-cruise?
I prefer to take the train over flying, if I can get my own room (if I'm going to be in a crowded seat, I'd like to get there ASAP). But ironically it currently costs more than flying. Slower methods can be made more attractive again by making them simultaneously cheaper and more luxurious than they are now. Not neccessarily cheaper than the fast method. But competitive, where you trade time for luxury.
This is, after all, what a cruise is. An enjoyable trip. As opposed to transportation you merely endure.
Of course this also means that for people who are willing to ride the train from Chicago to California in a small seat, taking 30 or more hours (been there, done that), that they might be willing to ride in a "mass-passenger" ship to Europe. Forget staterooms, you just get a seat. Imagine how many passengers you could take on a ship if they were all stuffed in like train passengers? I imagine the ticket would be about $50. Round trip.
Not sure if there's enough passengers for such a service. But such a service might create them.
If, in fact, we think of fusion as creating a truely "post-scarcity" economy, then all of this speculation is off, and we can imagine much more exotic ideas. I'm trying to remain within the realm of skepticism on what's eventually possible. If we assume everything is so cheap that we can discount the costs entirely, then I'm going to just take my flying palace (fast dirigible) all over the world all the time, wherever I want to drive it.
Mike
P.S. With a plane, you could maybe include staterooms, and all the ammenities of a ship, at the same cost... but it's so fast, what would be the point? You won't have any time to enjoy them.
-
Jeff Peachman
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:47 pm
Nah, I thought Ligon's idea above was the best, I'm surprised no one commented on it.
Note: It's been renamed the Mediterranean, but apparently still afloat.
That would send one hell of a message. If Exxon feels it has to convert to a polywell company just to keep alive it would be a good idea to convert the ship as a publicity stunt.Tom Ligon wrote:I might opt for a more modern platform. Is the Exxon Valdez still afloat?
Note: It's been renamed the Mediterranean, but apparently still afloat.
- Jeff Peachman
Actually, I like the Cole better!
Any of the Arleigh Burke class would technically be a good fit.
The Stethem might also send a message. It is named for a US sailor killed by hijackers in that TWA airliner hijacked to Lebanon.
There is a comparable class of cruisers, including the Ruben James, that would be good candidates as well. I was surprised when I saw that one docked next to the Stethem ... after the hard luck the first two Ruben James destroyers had, to use the name a third time says they really liked that brave young man.
Any of the Arleigh Burke class would technically be a good fit.
The Stethem might also send a message. It is named for a US sailor killed by hijackers in that TWA airliner hijacked to Lebanon.
There is a comparable class of cruisers, including the Ruben James, that would be good candidates as well. I was surprised when I saw that one docked next to the Stethem ... after the hard luck the first two Ruben James destroyers had, to use the name a third time says they really liked that brave young man.