Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Subdeacon Joe

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Subdeacon Joe

  1. 13 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

    It’s worth a try. I doubt it would be enough to replace all the 20K TEU vessels sailing the seas.



    I can't see the "masts" making big inroads into the containership market, but for general cargo, they may have an impact.  I do see the kite/parasail augmentation possibly making a significant difference in merchant shipping.  The mechanism to deploy and furl the kite style sails wouldn't take much deck space, and could even be in pods mounted on the hull outside the deck. 

  2. Thanks.  These seem to be primarily wind driven, with a back up motor capability. The other threads comments were about using wind to augment the standard motor propulsion.  For many things, such as the car carriers in the example, a few extra days really won't matter.  

  3. 28 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

    Well . . . since you bring it up:


    At the time Pony Express was the fastest way to get mail from one side of the country to the other. It is rational for the government to support such a service.


    But when the Pony Express couldn't financially make it on its own, the service was discontinued after two years. 


    The relatively rapid demise of the Pony Express tends to indicate that the government did not decree that all other mail services had to end, use its regulatory authority to make it difficult, expensive, or impossible to send mail any way OTHER than the Pony Express. It did not impose additional costs on the users of other means of communication, and then use the funds to shore up financial shortfalls in the Pony Express. It did not use government regulating and permitting authority to reward or restrict consumer choices to achieve a government-decreed goal.


    Instead the government let the 'free hand' of the market work, the consumers made their choices, and the Pony Express became a bit of romantic western history.


    Bottom line....something new, government subsidized,  failed.  


    The only "subsidies" this attempt at maritime fuel savings is the usual business tax breaks 

  4. "This carte de visite shows Martha Maxwell (1831–1881) a self-educated naturalist and artist with her gun and dog. She was one of the founders of modern taxidermy who opened the Rocky Mountain Museum in Boulder, Colorado to display the specimens she had hunted and mounted. Her work was exhibited at the Centennial Exposition in 1876 in realistic landscapes."



    • Thanks 5
  5. 6 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

    In a time where everyone is trying to decrease labor costs I could see this increasing them , and this would take skilled labor. 


    Right.....increasing labor costs,  say $5,000/day per vessel is disastrous compared to saving $19,000/day per vessel in fuel costs.


    I  have no idea what a retrofit would cost, but let's say a savings of $15,000 per day of steaming,  that's $4,500,000 savings in 300 days of steaming. Might come close to paying for a retrofit. Even if it took 2 years to pay off a retrofit,  in the 25 to 30 year average life of merchant vessels that still amounts to a significant reduction in fuel costs.   


    But OHMYGAWDTHEARTICALSAIDCARBONEMISSIONS!!!!! So naturally it CAN'T be good and every True American should oppose it!


    Yeah....it might not work out.  But,  like the Pony Express....the heavily subsidized by the government Pony Express (OMG!!!!GOVERNMENTSUBSIDY!!) it's worth a shot.   Industry tries all sorts of things that don't work,  look at the oil industry and dry wells.

  6. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66543643


    Probably had a heck of a time getting it insured.  And certified by government maritime authorities. 


    And, you missed my point about the stupidity of heaping scorn on an emerging technology...and it IS an emerging technology in spite of sails being around for thousands of years unless you can point to 600 foot long, 90,000 ton diesel powered vessels existing thousands of years ago. 

    • Like 1
  7. 13 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

    The additional crew needed to handle the sails would eat up a lot if not all of the savings.


    Mostly because they would have to be paid even if the sails were not in use. 


    I don't know what merchant seamen make, but even if it took a  dozen extra crew - and with modern technology I doubt the kites would need more than that,  and motorized "window shade" sails even fewer- I don't think cŕew salaries would I crease by $20,000 per day per vessel. 


    I  just did a quick search, to Panamax ships:

    "Most  ship engines have been designed for top speeds ranging between 20 and 25 knots per hour, which is between 23 and 28 miles per hour. A Panamax container ship can consume 63,000 gallons of marine fuel per day at that speed.

    Fuel use drops sharply as speeds decrease. A container ship can decrease fuel use close to one-third."



    Set speeds so they cut usage to 30,000 gallons per day  and fuel cost drops to $19,000 per day,  but to maintain schedules shipping lines need to add vessels. 


    It's all the rage to make fun of the OHMYGAWDCARBONFOOTPRINT alarmism  as you can see I don't have much use for those Lysenkoists, but to just blindly ridicule an idea because CNN says something about reducing carbon emissions is just as ignorant as the Lysenkoists.  Maybe even moreso.

    • Like 2
  8. On 2/29/2024 at 9:59 PM, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:



    Naval architects started looking at wind assistant back in the '70s and the first  Oil Crisis. 

    Now the idea is more towards parasail-like kites.  Fuel savings of maybe 30%. On an average sized cargo ship that's,  if I recall the numbers from the last time I  slammed this ignorant - make that STUPID- meme, at today's fuel prices that's a savings of about $22,000 per day.


    I don't know about you,  but I  wouldn't mind getting $22,000 or more every day. 


    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  9. Yeah,   FB is worthless!  Everyone knows that those are three gun mounts, not triple turrets. 



    14-inch (35.6 cm) projectiles on deck of the U.S. Navy battleship USS New Mexico (BB-40), while the battleship was replenishing her ammunition supply prior to the invasion of Guam, July 1944. 

    The photograph looks forward on the starboard side, with triple 14"/50 gun turrets at left. Note floater nets stowed atop the turrets."



    • Like 1
    • Thanks 3
  10. 39 minutes ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

    Pard, seriously, it hasn't been since shortly after WW2.  There are a few separate cavalry brigades that retain the name "regiment" as a historical marker, but they are brigades commanded by colonels.  Other than that, there is no such thing as a regiment and hasn't been since two generations before I was born!


    Next you'll be trying to tell me that NCO chevron point up and this handbook is out of date!




    Again,  well done,  and well deserved.   The organizational skills you possess must be phenomenal. 

    • Haha 2
  11. 8 minutes ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

    They eliminated the “regiment” layer of bureaucracy and reorganized.  So a modern brigade is the same size as the old regiments used to be.  Regiments were commanded by colonels, so it’s the same span of control.  So the brigadier label has been relegated to history.


    So it's no longer








    (which I remember as All Cops Drive Big Red Bad Cars)

    • Haha 1
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.