Nuclear container ships?

[Steve Walker]

Or side.

Many years ago, the company I worked for was asked to build two large, industrial compressors for part of the conversion of an oil tanker to a floating production and storage facility. The bespoke compressors would take 12 months from order to delivery. The client wanted them in 3, as they'd forgotten to order them and the next part of the project would have to be delayed.

The problem was solved by them carrying on with the project, simnply cutting a very large hole in the side of the vessel to install the compressors and then welding it up again.

[newshound]

Well no, not really. To refuel the reactors in the older subs they just cut a big hole in the pressure hull, then weld it up afterwards.

But in a sub you have radioactive water circulating to the heat exchangers that raise steam, all in a limited space. So you have messy plumbing that it is simplest to leave to decay naturally when they are taken out of service.

Agreed.

[newshound]

I remember hearing the great Sir Alan Cottrell telling us, in the early

70's "energy crisis" caused by OPEC, that there was really no energy crisis because there was plenty of coal underground, all you had to do was build automated machinery to extract it.

As I was, at the time, struggling with the problems of getting fuel in and out of nuclear reactors, involving systems wiggling away on the end of mechanical linkages something like 60 feet long, I had a wry laugh and realised that you really could not rely on scientific geniuses to solve real problems.

Similarly, the large unmanned ocean-going ship is still some way off. At the very least, you need someone who can press Ctrl-Alt-Delete when the satellite link and all the backups go down.

And for that matter, what do you do when a pirate phones you up and says "If you don't give me a million pounds, I am going to blow a few holes along the waterline in the next half hour". Isn't your unmanned ship actually going to be more vulnerable?

[invalid unparseable]

bert [e-mail]> wrote

Which is the only viable way to go for most of that traffic.

Another factor was that the initial demo flights were using

Stupid amount of govt money to spend on toffs like that tho.

[tim...]

oh don't be silly

both computing and mechanical solutions have improved significantly in the past 50 years

That's a loss that they will write off for the greater good

A solution that tends not to be popular if people are involved

[tim...]

so the company don't pay

what happens then?

OK

so what happens then?

pirates aren't usually equipped for offloading oil, they can't establish enough value from it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

One of the options for unmanned ships would be to make them go under the water.

Inertial navigation clear of wind and wave and pirates. Just pop a periscope up for a satnav fix

[newshound]

Drone scale, yes. Storm-capable ship scale, no.

[Steve Walker]

It's certainly possible to have a fully unmanned ship, running fully autonomously or remote controlled, but it's not practical. A human can deal with things that go wrong - for example: all it takes is a solenoid failing and you lose control of an air operated valve. That could mean failure to transfer fuel into the day tank. A human can manually open the valve or replace the solenoid, before the day tank runs dry and the engine stops.

[newshound]

Exactly.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Nuclear ships don't have day tanks

But really, you can remote control any function you want via servos

[Chris Hogg]

These are relevant

and but of course, every new technology has its teething troubles.

[Vir Campestris]

But they might have been if it had been built in the USA.

Andy

[newshound]

I bet nuclear ships have several standby diesel generators, and probably a certain amount of "plumbing" with the fuel tanks to provide diversity. (The American aircraft carriers probably have gas turbine generators rather than diesel, probably using the same fuel as the planes)

[tim...]

Well that's a risk, yes

but how does that benefit the pirates

Are they going to spend their life sailing the high seas, hijacking and sinking ships just for the fun of it, to no benefit to themselves.

Nope, don't think so

as above

and how are the going to do that?

really

there's a ready black market for a load of liquid crude oil is there

where?

[The Natural Philosopher]

iran

[tim...]

we seem to have missed a step

when you said lose, I assumed that you meant "sunk"

If the pirates attempt to move the ship to some rogue port I'm sure that the appropriate navy (or air force) will wade in to stop them.

My premise is that technological solutions will be employed so that the hijacked ship will be uncontrollable from on board and any attempt to move it will require a second vessel. That will take time to arrive, leaving sufficient time for action to counter that threat

I mean "looking for ships to hijack, that the can't extract any value from"

If they can get it off

tim

[tim...]

Iran already has more oil that it's allowed to sell

what's it going to do with some more?

[tim...]

yes

well obviously

but that's what I meant my previous answer to refer to

So we missed a step if you moved onto the pirates emptying the ship

because there have always been crew involved

No you are wrong

the ship will be designed so that it can only be navigated remotely and if that's disabled they will be going nowhere (other than where the current takes them)

Obviously there will need to be some form of remote navigation available to pilots etc but this systems wont be routinely owned by pirates.

This is a theoretical new product

It can be designed and developed in any way that is technologically feasible.

There is no straw man.

only if they can get it off the ship

you still don't understand that that will be very difficult for them to do.

but they have to get it there