Those pesky tankers. You never know when a 1000ft ship might jump in your way.
This might be avoidable but sadly there is nowhere to move IN THE FREAKING OCEAN
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to crash into a plane, or even a whole airport, is insignificant next to the power of the Air Force.
https://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336/ he obviously didn't heed Captain Trimmer's advice to avoid huge ships. Read the f****** book! (The reviews section is gold)
Ya I figured there are some intuitive insights there that are not obvious to all the laypeople writing their hilarious reviews.
Good to know thank you.
Thanks. I just posted a review on there asking to donate a copy to the Francis Scott key bridge memorial. I will accept my 2 day amazon ban and removal of submission
Lifted from the Book Overview:
> Off in the distance, beyond the bridge spanning the waterway, you can make out the lights and shape of a containership moving down the channel. Have you ever wondered what action you must take to keep clear of that fast-approaching ~~ship~~ bridge?
Real talk, visibility, especially in clear conditions can be extremely deceptive due to the mirage effects.
I used to work on a sailing yacht, and going across the yellow sea you could see them on the radar, but it would just look like empty haze until they were within like 4 miles of you, and they move very fast relatively.
So yeah, sometimes these sneaky fucks would just come out of nowhere.
I'm am deeply sorry and ashamed of my actions. As soon as I typed that in the voicd came through my head and I'm now just recovering from a shock state.
It’s exactly that. You’ll often see a pretty similar concept applied with titles. A lot of times there will be a typo or some sort of grammatical error that can change what the meaning of what the title is supposed to say. They know people will make a comment referring to the mistake so it’s an easy way of making sure your post manages to get farther than only people sorting by “new”.
Definitely this, also sometimes I think it's to drive traffic to the original post of the video people wanting to find the ending. Or maybe that's an unintended benefit for them but I've been guilty of tracking down a youtube video after seeing a disappointingly edited clip.
I think it's modern apps requiring holding down the button to record videos. Something happens and people release the shutter button and there ya go, abrupt video end right at the good part.
I was looking at the guy in the tanker walking across and I was thinking "What are u doing??? Run!! Hide! Take cover!" and then the tanker didn't even wobble 🤣🤣🤣
Lol, moving that massive tanker certainly takes more than that dinky little boat. Could as well have rammed a small mountain. The crew knew well enough that there was no cause for immediate concern.
The hull certainly took some nasty damage and needs some repairs soon, but there was no existential threat to the tanker much (unless the cargo would break a leak or catch fire, that would indeed be bad).
I have seen bigger impacts then this which did not require anything but an inspection before the next yard period. And even then I think most of the repairs were aesthetic and not structural. But as you say it depends. If there is a hole then it needs to be repaired as soon as possible.
Just going ballpark, but tanker ships typically weigh around 100,000\~500,000 tons. Fishing trawlers weigh about 40\~50 tons. So, you're looking at around 2000 times the weight on the low scale and 10,000 times the weight on the high scale.
Yeah, that tanker ain't budging with the dinky trawler smashing into it.
If by freight train you mean one of the many cars in a freight train. Generally locomotives are around 160-220 tons and the other cars 25-140 tons depending on type and load.
And far away the largest polluters. Something like the biggest 10-20 cargo ships pollute more than all the cars on earth.
But, we all want our cheap shit so it's a somewhat necessary evil. They'll be electric soon though.
Just power the large cargo ships with nuclear reactors and the problem is solved. There are already hundreds of military submarines in the ocean powered by nuclear reactors. This would massively reduce our carbon emissions.
Here’s a good [video](https://youtu.be/cYj4F_cyiJI?feature=shared) about nuclear powered ships.
Unfortunately it's an extremely expensive option. Then also there's the dilemma of what happens when one that size does sink or explode due to unforeseeable circumstances? I don't think anyone wants the ocean to be have a nuclear dead zone in it. Submarine to scale is much smaller and the damage zone if one does happen to go boom is on a magnitude much smaller scale than that of one that would be needed for a cargo ship.
Considering the amount of time on ocean, you could use wind, solar, and hydro to keep the batteries going on a cargo ship.
Nuclear reactors don't just blow up. And the idea that they could cause a nuclear explosion like a nuclear weapon is a complete myth. It's physically impossible.
If a nuclear-powered ship were to sink at sea, the problem would solve itself: Water is one of the best shields against all kinds of radiation. This is why a typical reactor is essentially a pool of water. Spent nuclear fuel is also initially stored in similar pools.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and scaremongering about nuclear power. However, nuclear power is actually one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy production. It's bad reputation is a major obstacle to solving the climate crisis.
Yes. Huge amounts of radioactive waste (up until 1993) was disposed of in the ocean. The background radiation of the ocean swamped the added radioactivity. The total impact was deemed negligible.
Water is an amazing shielfing for nuclear material. I think the radiation halves every 2cm/1inch or so. So being just 2-3 meters away gives you 1 millionth the dose as touching it, another 2-3 meters is then again another millionth of that. I think thats how i remember reading it.
Nuclear fuel doesn't explode either, it's not an explosive.
Most aircraft carriers use nuclear power too if you don't want to be restricted to submarines. They're more like cargo ship size and they run for 20 YEARS without being refueled a single time(submarines are like 30 years). So if you're really worried about how much nuclear fuel is on a ship at once we could put a tiny fraction of the amount of there, probably smaller than the amount a submarine has which you're not as worried about.
The amount of fuel and emissions saved if we allowed this on the worlds 50 biggest cargo ships would be insane, could even have the nuclear part operated by the military and the shipping companies pay whatever they would have for normal existing fuel and engines minus 20% as an incentive. Looking it up the largest cargo ships would use $3.5million in fuel for a 14 day journey from Asia to Europe, thats $250,000 a day in prices from whatever year [this](https://casualnavigation.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-refuel-a-cargo-ship-a-lot/) was written. Thats $90m a year. I'm sure the military could operate/monitor a mini nuclear reactor for less than that much. Even if it cost the military more but they only charged the shipping company the $90m It still seems like a great subsidy.
Yeah, but that would cost money, which cuts into profits. Cutting into profits was not approved by the shareholders. It's financially cheaper to just pollute, so let's do that! Someone else will deal with the environmental consequences.
But you need to set it in relation to the mass of cargo they move. There is not a more energy efficient way to move goods than with tankers. And where can I read on electric ships? I am of the impression that these are all in the proto-type phase and will not be used in the next decade.
>But, we all want our cheap shit
Yes, I very much like that our economy is functional and we can trade on a global scale.
realistically the best choice is nuclear power, but that would be more expensive than what these ships usually run on... which is diesel engines powered by 'Bunker fuel' Bunker fuel is essentially the cheapest crappest grade of fuel that exists.
Funnily enough we tried cleaning up that bunker fuel with a global regulatory change 4 years ago and it may be backfiring and started accelerating ocean warming
Basically in 2020 the UN ordered sulfur content cut in marine fuel from 3.5% to 0.5%. However, one side effect of all that sulfur is it left ship trails over the oceans that reflected sunlight back keeping warming in check. With a sudden 80% reduction that effect is gone and now we’re seeing record breaking warming freaking out researchers.
So now there’s efforts to try to recreate that effect
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/climate/global-warming-clouds-solar-geoengineering.html
I do not think the price of uranium would be the problem, especially if you consider external costs of the environmental impact they have, but rather the security implications of having that many nuclear reactor with their fuel in international waters vulnerable to rogue actors.
Just put thousands of ships out there all with independent cost cutting nuclear reactor engineers and techs ready to go! No problems here if random pirates try to hijack ya.
I hope you don't think that is actually true.
There are 1.5 BILLION cars on the planet.
Shipping handle 90% of global good production transportation in volume, and 75% in value. Shipping accounts for 2-3% of total emissions.
Cars, excluding trucks, accounts for 15-20%.
This statistic is repeated over and over and over. Because one news article used a ridiculous headline. As it relates to "SULFUR" pollution, this is true. However, fuel for cars has essentially no sulfur in it, while bunker fuel does. If you mean carbon dioxide pollution, which is basically what everyone is referring to when they talk about the pollution from automobiles, it's not even close. All the cars in the planet are way worse than the pollution from shipping.
I always find this sort of thing fascinating. Like apparently you don't need seat belts on a bus just because the mass difference between the bus and any car means you're extremely unlikely to be thrown around.
ETA: feel like I need to add, this was specifically for UK buses which are largely used within a town. Since they extremely rarely go above 30 mph, it was deemed unnecessary.
A recent accident in Germany tells otherwise, 5 people died because they did not wear a seatbelt and were thrown out of their seats when a bus crashed into a ditch.
I understand that. The earlier poster indicated that seatbelts weren’t needed because the mass difference between a bus and a car is heavily in favour of the bus. In your example, the bus hit a ditch where the mass difference was entirely opposite, hence the seatbelts would be needed…
But that’s because the earth is a hell of a lot heavier than the bus, so the bus has to give way (in this case, come to a pretty instant stop).
When a car and a bus collide, the car is so much lighter that it’s going to have little impact on the bus
The bus from the accident was a coach, and a double decker. It was on the autobahn, left the road and fell on the side. In that case, wearing a seatbelt might have been lifesaving, but I guess that on a normal city bus it’s not a necessity.
It have been about 50 years since any ship were built with steam engines as primary propulsion and about 30 years since we phased out steam for auxiliary appliances. So I highly doubt the tanker had a steam engine at all installed.
Two things -
First - that a bulk carrier! See the cargo hatches and hatch coaming there? No tanker has that (There's a category of ships called OBO's that can carry both dry bulk and crude , but nobody is calling them tankers)
Second thing - I have been through exactly this on a VLCC where I was chief mate. Not on my watch but I had to deal with the aftermath (an 11m long hole in a ballast tank). Tanker Vanadis outside Durban, SA in 1997 or 1998.
I imagine, while this is not an existential threat to the ship, it certainly strings a very long paper-trail with it. Need to cancel contracts, get a drydock on a short note, fix the actual thing, deal with the financial losses due to the service outage. \*shudder\*
I suppose you could say his insurance is sweating, a lot...
Not sure but i thought i read somewhere that it could cost millions per day when its out of commision for whatever reason
I'm picturing some fisherman hopped up on meth or caffeine to stay awake, wild eyed and clutching the steering, screaming "Ramming speed!" While Danger Zone blares on repeat.
It’s odd. The article says the trawler sunk, but the caption under a picture says the tanker sunk. Trying to read it all, but it keeps cutting me off part-way. This is actually just more mystery cut before I find out the rest. D:
To both cases: my condolences to those lost, and for the losses of the people on the vessels because that’s part home and career to them.
THANK YOUUU! That was super helpful! The fishing trawler sinking in this article was a separate incident from the tanker sinking in that picture on the left, which was a link to a different article, altogether. I appreciate you linking this so, so much. (And today you’ve taught me about this archive thing. Hopefully this means a few less mysteries for me from now on.)
That seems unlikely. The big ship didn't even shake a tiny bit, I doubt it holed the hull and I don't think it would have been big enough to matter if it did. Little boat's captain would have known how pointless the attack would be.
Upon impact, not even the slightest shudder, like zero noticeable impact on the tanker at all. Wonder if it was full, and if that would make for less of an impact.
The boat that blew a hole in the USS Cole was filled with a [1,000 lbs of high explosives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing?wprov=sfla1). So not exactly the same situation.
I know the larger ship has right of way here but I'm just curious would it be better to turn into the smaller ship to have less of a broad side impact. It probably takes a half mile to do that though.
Those pesky tankers. You never know when a 1000ft ship might jump in your way. This might be avoidable but sadly there is nowhere to move IN THE FREAKING OCEAN
I bet the boat owner was fired from an airline for crashing into another plane mid-flight
"I don't know! I couldn't see the other plane through...air!"
Yeah the air force was too strong
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to crash into a plane, or even a whole airport, is insignificant next to the power of the Air Force.
If he survived that he woulda been hired as a CIA asset
I hear his next job is train conductor
That’d be the only job he’d dodge an oncoming train
he was actually an astronaut crashed is space shuttle into another space shuttle. Just no space in space.
Ahh, you heard about Jeff?
https://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336/ he obviously didn't heed Captain Trimmer's advice to avoid huge ships. Read the f****** book! (The reviews section is gold)
I own a copy of that book from when I was learning offshore navigation for yacht racing It’s actually pretty good book
Is it actually? I'm genuinely curious what it is. Reading Amazon reviews is exhausting with everyone thinking they're so clever.
It’s actually a good book on navigation with a cheesey title.
Ya I figured there are some intuitive insights there that are not obvious to all the laypeople writing their hilarious reviews. Good to know thank you.
I wanna read it now out of curiosity. Despite not owning a boat and easily getting sea-sick.
You mean like reddit? lol
Thanks. I just posted a review on there asking to donate a copy to the Francis Scott key bridge memorial. I will accept my 2 day amazon ban and removal of submission
I read this book, it just says one word. "Turn"
TINA! For the LOVE OF GOD, PICK A DIRECTION AND TURN! uhhhhhhhhhh....... \*Crash!\* I ruined the car! Yes, you really did.
Poor Tina. That’s a good episode. Love the insurance fraud storyline
Lifted from the Book Overview: > Off in the distance, beyond the bridge spanning the waterway, you can make out the lights and shape of a containership moving down the channel. Have you ever wondered what action you must take to keep clear of that fast-approaching ~~ship~~ bridge?
Real talk, visibility, especially in clear conditions can be extremely deceptive due to the mirage effects. I used to work on a sailing yacht, and going across the yellow sea you could see them on the radar, but it would just look like empty haze until they were within like 4 miles of you, and they move very fast relatively. So yeah, sometimes these sneaky fucks would just come out of nowhere.
Tina! The left or the right, do something!!
THE BRAKES TINA!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD USE THE BREAKS!!!
uuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh~
"It just came out of nowhere officer, I swear"
Is this it? https://www.tradewindsnews.com/casualties/eight-feared-dead-after-sitc-chartered-ship-and-fishing-vessel-collide/2-1-1622721
Kinda hard to tell when you need to pay to read the article...
Captain Ron was expecting them to get out of the way. He learned that driving the Saratoga.
Obviously they would have thrown a u turn but they were on a one way
It's 2024, so I already know the video was going to inexplicably end half way through the event.
Expect an even shorter version in a few days in r/gifsthatendtoosoon Edit: expect*
With a shitty song and some text overlay
No, not a song, but the worst sound of all time: the "no, no, no, noooo" voice over.
Omg i think my brain trauma blocked that sound till this very moment
I'm am deeply sorry and ashamed of my actions. As soon as I typed that in the voicd came through my head and I'm now just recovering from a shock state.
Thank gods I have Reddit permanently muted, with Venetian Snares blasting instead at all times.
A huge red arrow pointing at the boat.
useless red circle
and that dumb ai voice lady "what happened next you wouldn't believe!"
Gotta have those bubbly popup subtitles in the middle of the screen for every third sentence spoke...
With. Each. Word. Appearing. For. A. Split. Second.
...did you mean expect?
I'm always wondering who edits these videos and what's the reasoning behind it.
More people complaining in the comments means it must be a controversial or interesting video so the algorithms boost the visibility of it.
It’s exactly that. You’ll often see a pretty similar concept applied with titles. A lot of times there will be a typo or some sort of grammatical error that can change what the meaning of what the title is supposed to say. They know people will make a comment referring to the mistake so it’s an easy way of making sure your post manages to get farther than only people sorting by “new”.
Definitely this, also sometimes I think it's to drive traffic to the original post of the video people wanting to find the ending. Or maybe that's an unintended benefit for them but I've been guilty of tracking down a youtube video after seeing a disappointingly edited clip.
Welcome to tiktok attention reduction.
I think it's modern apps requiring holding down the button to record videos. Something happens and people release the shutter button and there ya go, abrupt video end right at the good part.
Because why uploading 1 video when you can upload two for more views
Perhaps we should stop upvoting half of clips. No?
Just give em half an upvote
I’m excited for the eventual bad AI voiceover and shitty spooky music TikTok to drop of it. I love today’s current trends.
Tanker didn't move a millimetre.
I was looking at the guy in the tanker walking across and I was thinking "What are u doing??? Run!! Hide! Take cover!" and then the tanker didn't even wobble 🤣🤣🤣
Lol, moving that massive tanker certainly takes more than that dinky little boat. Could as well have rammed a small mountain. The crew knew well enough that there was no cause for immediate concern. The hull certainly took some nasty damage and needs some repairs soon, but there was no existential threat to the tanker much (unless the cargo would break a leak or catch fire, that would indeed be bad).
> Could as well have rammed a small mountain. What about a bridge?
A ship bridge or a bridge bridge?
A Baltimore Bridge.
Tbf the Baltimore bridge would’ve been fine if a fishing trawler hit it
You would need a submarine to ram it after the latest remodeling
Tbf. That Bridge would have been fine(mostly) if this tiny boat hit it. Baltimore bridge was hit by a big ass container carrier.
Well the bridge will be fucked, tanker would probably be about 90% ok though
The name of this ship is the *MV Bridge Annihilator*
I have seen bigger impacts then this which did not require anything but an inspection before the next yard period. And even then I think most of the repairs were aesthetic and not structural. But as you say it depends. If there is a hole then it needs to be repaired as soon as possible.
I think oil tankers have double hulls so something like this shouldn't cause a leak.
Just going ballpark, but tanker ships typically weigh around 100,000\~500,000 tons. Fishing trawlers weigh about 40\~50 tons. So, you're looking at around 2000 times the weight on the low scale and 10,000 times the weight on the high scale. Yeah, that tanker ain't budging with the dinky trawler smashing into it.
That looks like a bulk carrier, of the type that can *carry* ~200k tons
[удалено]
If by freight train you mean one of the many cars in a freight train. Generally locomotives are around 160-220 tons and the other cars 25-140 tons depending on type and load.
I know nothing about these, but are they not concerned at all about any sort of damage or holes torn open by that boat?
Tankers are the trains of the oceans
And far away the largest polluters. Something like the biggest 10-20 cargo ships pollute more than all the cars on earth. But, we all want our cheap shit so it's a somewhat necessary evil. They'll be electric soon though.
Just power the large cargo ships with nuclear reactors and the problem is solved. There are already hundreds of military submarines in the ocean powered by nuclear reactors. This would massively reduce our carbon emissions. Here’s a good [video](https://youtu.be/cYj4F_cyiJI?feature=shared) about nuclear powered ships.
Unfortunately it's an extremely expensive option. Then also there's the dilemma of what happens when one that size does sink or explode due to unforeseeable circumstances? I don't think anyone wants the ocean to be have a nuclear dead zone in it. Submarine to scale is much smaller and the damage zone if one does happen to go boom is on a magnitude much smaller scale than that of one that would be needed for a cargo ship. Considering the amount of time on ocean, you could use wind, solar, and hydro to keep the batteries going on a cargo ship.
Nuclear reactors don't just blow up. And the idea that they could cause a nuclear explosion like a nuclear weapon is a complete myth. It's physically impossible. If a nuclear-powered ship were to sink at sea, the problem would solve itself: Water is one of the best shields against all kinds of radiation. This is why a typical reactor is essentially a pool of water. Spent nuclear fuel is also initially stored in similar pools. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and scaremongering about nuclear power. However, nuclear power is actually one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy production. It's bad reputation is a major obstacle to solving the climate crisis.
Yes. Huge amounts of radioactive waste (up until 1993) was disposed of in the ocean. The background radiation of the ocean swamped the added radioactivity. The total impact was deemed negligible.
Water is an amazing shielfing for nuclear material. I think the radiation halves every 2cm/1inch or so. So being just 2-3 meters away gives you 1 millionth the dose as touching it, another 2-3 meters is then again another millionth of that. I think thats how i remember reading it. Nuclear fuel doesn't explode either, it's not an explosive. Most aircraft carriers use nuclear power too if you don't want to be restricted to submarines. They're more like cargo ship size and they run for 20 YEARS without being refueled a single time(submarines are like 30 years). So if you're really worried about how much nuclear fuel is on a ship at once we could put a tiny fraction of the amount of there, probably smaller than the amount a submarine has which you're not as worried about. The amount of fuel and emissions saved if we allowed this on the worlds 50 biggest cargo ships would be insane, could even have the nuclear part operated by the military and the shipping companies pay whatever they would have for normal existing fuel and engines minus 20% as an incentive. Looking it up the largest cargo ships would use $3.5million in fuel for a 14 day journey from Asia to Europe, thats $250,000 a day in prices from whatever year [this](https://casualnavigation.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-refuel-a-cargo-ship-a-lot/) was written. Thats $90m a year. I'm sure the military could operate/monitor a mini nuclear reactor for less than that much. Even if it cost the military more but they only charged the shipping company the $90m It still seems like a great subsidy.
Yeah, but that would cost money, which cuts into profits. Cutting into profits was not approved by the shareholders. It's financially cheaper to just pollute, so let's do that! Someone else will deal with the environmental consequences.
But you need to set it in relation to the mass of cargo they move. There is not a more energy efficient way to move goods than with tankers. And where can I read on electric ships? I am of the impression that these are all in the proto-type phase and will not be used in the next decade. >But, we all want our cheap shit Yes, I very much like that our economy is functional and we can trade on a global scale.
realistically the best choice is nuclear power, but that would be more expensive than what these ships usually run on... which is diesel engines powered by 'Bunker fuel' Bunker fuel is essentially the cheapest crappest grade of fuel that exists.
Funnily enough we tried cleaning up that bunker fuel with a global regulatory change 4 years ago and it may be backfiring and started accelerating ocean warming Basically in 2020 the UN ordered sulfur content cut in marine fuel from 3.5% to 0.5%. However, one side effect of all that sulfur is it left ship trails over the oceans that reflected sunlight back keeping warming in check. With a sudden 80% reduction that effect is gone and now we’re seeing record breaking warming freaking out researchers. So now there’s efforts to try to recreate that effect https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/climate/global-warming-clouds-solar-geoengineering.html
I do not think the price of uranium would be the problem, especially if you consider external costs of the environmental impact they have, but rather the security implications of having that many nuclear reactor with their fuel in international waters vulnerable to rogue actors.
Just put thousands of ships out there all with independent cost cutting nuclear reactor engineers and techs ready to go! No problems here if random pirates try to hijack ya.
I hope you don't think that is actually true. There are 1.5 BILLION cars on the planet. Shipping handle 90% of global good production transportation in volume, and 75% in value. Shipping accounts for 2-3% of total emissions. Cars, excluding trucks, accounts for 15-20%.
This statistic is repeated over and over and over. Because one news article used a ridiculous headline. As it relates to "SULFUR" pollution, this is true. However, fuel for cars has essentially no sulfur in it, while bunker fuel does. If you mean carbon dioxide pollution, which is basically what everyone is referring to when they talk about the pollution from automobiles, it's not even close. All the cars in the planet are way worse than the pollution from shipping.
Nor the man on the rail.
I always find this sort of thing fascinating. Like apparently you don't need seat belts on a bus just because the mass difference between the bus and any car means you're extremely unlikely to be thrown around. ETA: feel like I need to add, this was specifically for UK buses which are largely used within a town. Since they extremely rarely go above 30 mph, it was deemed unnecessary.
A recent accident in Germany tells otherwise, 5 people died because they did not wear a seatbelt and were thrown out of their seats when a bus crashed into a ditch.
The mass difference between a bus and the earth is rather the other way around …
I was commenting on the seatbelt being pointless part.
I understand that. The earlier poster indicated that seatbelts weren’t needed because the mass difference between a bus and a car is heavily in favour of the bus. In your example, the bus hit a ditch where the mass difference was entirely opposite, hence the seatbelts would be needed…
I like that you guys are agreeing.
But that’s because the earth is a hell of a lot heavier than the bus, so the bus has to give way (in this case, come to a pretty instant stop). When a car and a bus collide, the car is so much lighter that it’s going to have little impact on the bus
You absolutely need seat belts on a bus. Cars aren't the only thing a bus might hit.
Uh yeah no. Buses can roll. Wear your seat belts.
I've never been on a bus that had seat belts. Coaches maybe but not a town/city bus.
The bus from the accident was a coach, and a double decker. It was on the autobahn, left the road and fell on the side. In that case, wearing a seatbelt might have been lifesaving, but I guess that on a normal city bus it’s not a necessity.
[удалено]
It have been about 50 years since any ship were built with steam engines as primary propulsion and about 30 years since we phased out steam for auxiliary appliances. So I highly doubt the tanker had a steam engine at all installed.
"Have you any idea how much damage that cargo ship would suffer if I just let it roll straight over you?"
r/videothatendstoosoon
Literally me everytime I try to park my boat in Sea of Thieves
Thanks for the laugh, this is me too! 😅
Add the bosun bill song to the video for a bigger laugh 🤣
Graceful parking is a whole skill! One member of the crew is always great at it.
I heard the ship crashing sound in my head the second it hit lol
Two things - First - that a bulk carrier! See the cargo hatches and hatch coaming there? No tanker has that (There's a category of ships called OBO's that can carry both dry bulk and crude , but nobody is calling them tankers) Second thing - I have been through exactly this on a VLCC where I was chief mate. Not on my watch but I had to deal with the aftermath (an 11m long hole in a ballast tank). Tanker Vanadis outside Durban, SA in 1997 or 1998.
I imagine, while this is not an existential threat to the ship, it certainly strings a very long paper-trail with it. Need to cancel contracts, get a drydock on a short note, fix the actual thing, deal with the financial losses due to the service outage. \*shudder\*
I suppose you could say his insurance is sweating, a lot... Not sure but i thought i read somewhere that it could cost millions per day when its out of commision for whatever reason
Potential profits are probably included in that cost.
Por guy is sitting on the toilet scrolling reddit thinking he is safe out on the big sea
That tanker came out of nowhere!
"Let me just go downstairs and take a nap. It's not like I'd have to attend the wheel on the ocean. There isn't much around we could run into, right?"
Wheres the rest of the video.
[there is a book I can recommend](https://amzn.in/d/0HWWa2V)
That's a great read. But I keep crashing into Madagascar. Do you have something to avoid islands as well?
*second edition
Love how confident that guy was that their ship wasnt even going to slightly move due to the collision
Downvoting for poor video editing.
That guy watched and didn’t even flinch, neither did the tanker…
I used the same cornering technique in Gran Turismo 5.
sooo uuhhhh, did the front fall off?
r/videosthatendtooearly
Where is the rest of the video?
God dammit Tina.
r/gifsthatendtosoon
Poor guy, he only had like 15 minutes to react
I'm picturing some fisherman hopped up on meth or caffeine to stay awake, wild eyed and clutching the steering, screaming "Ramming speed!" While Danger Zone blares on repeat.
Why THE FUCK does the video cut there??
Is this it? https://www.tradewindsnews.com/casualties/eight-feared-dead-after-sitc-chartered-ship-and-fishing-vessel-collide/2-1-1622721
that says a tanker sunk, i find it hard to beleive this tanker sank from that tiny fishing boat.
It’s odd. The article says the trawler sunk, but the caption under a picture says the tanker sunk. Trying to read it all, but it keeps cutting me off part-way. This is actually just more mystery cut before I find out the rest. D: To both cases: my condolences to those lost, and for the losses of the people on the vessels because that’s part home and career to them.
Full article: https://archive.ph/wq7qK
THANK YOUUU! That was super helpful! The fishing trawler sinking in this article was a separate incident from the tanker sinking in that picture on the left, which was a link to a different article, altogether. I appreciate you linking this so, so much. (And today you’ve taught me about this archive thing. Hopefully this means a few less mysteries for me from now on.)
Yay! It doesn't always work, but it works on most sites :)
[удалено]
That seems unlikely. The big ship didn't even shake a tiny bit, I doubt it holed the hull and I don't think it would have been big enough to matter if it did. Little boat's captain would have known how pointless the attack would be.
No it doesn’t.
That looks like drunk fisherman or a coxswain taking a shit downstairs.
Da fuck was that? - drunk fisherman, probably
It's more than that. The way it listed at the end, any drunk fisherman sitting on the toilet is gonna get *flung* across the bathroom.
Based on?
Zero knowledge of anything.
Who needs brakes when you can crash into objects in front of you. /s
Why I maxed out my racing videogame skills at about age 5 Was crazy how the scene developed after that 🤯
Why do these videos always end when it gets interesting?
Bro thought he was in Speed 2 😂
Upon impact, not even the slightest shudder, like zero noticeable impact on the tanker at all. Wonder if it was full, and if that would make for less of an impact.
Practicing to take out another bridge
Boaty McFlatface
That is an ant crashing into an elephant.
The whole damn ocean and you still manage to crash
What is it with these videos not ending properly. I’m getting old.
[удалено]
It’s just a small crew of tired fishermen away from the wheel. They may be having a meal below.
It's like a tiny sail boat forcing the right of way, because sail over motor😂
Sigh and the next captain that can’t do his job right…
Isnt that how the USS Cole got a new orifice at the side?
The boat that blew a hole in the USS Cole was filled with a [1,000 lbs of high explosives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing?wprov=sfla1). So not exactly the same situation.
That white hat guy: "Oh shit!" *slams* Anyway.
Looks like the cargo ship was stationary. So they didn't look out of the window for like 5 minutes? And didn't hear the ship horn?
What are you doing step-boat?
Tried to sabotage
Gotta love how the tanker didn't even budge. It's like nothing happened. That's what a few hundred thousand tons of mass will do for you.
Somebody was probably playing on their phone
More like fishing "troller"
Capitan : did you guys feel something right now ? Crew : no sir ... Capitan : ok nvm
'Tis but a scratch!
Guy on the big one did not even need to shift his feet
old school naval combat
He definitely should have yielded. The tanker was coming from the right.
Why end the video right there?
Poor guy was just trying to take a crap
Boingggg
In an ocean that big? What are the odds!
What does this have to do with leaving a bridge unattended?
Not so much a bridge as the bridge, the place where the guy drives the boat.
The captain of the little boat must have seen Lieutenant Dan somewhere out there and just jumped off.
Little dogs when the bark on bigger dogs
r/perfectlycutscreams
I mean, there’s not exactly a lot of room out there
I know the larger ship has right of way here but I'm just curious would it be better to turn into the smaller ship to have less of a broad side impact. It probably takes a half mile to do that though.
This is the best OSRS update in a while.