4 ms·

I'm actually surprised that none of the proposals contain my idea of raising the water level. Mostly copied from 5 minutes ago: > Surround the boat, make a da

I'm actually surprised that none of the proposals contain my idea of raising the water level. Mostly copied from 5 minutes ago: > Surround the boat, make a dam somehow and raise the water level. Concrete is dry in 24-48 hours. Sand and wooden poles could be enough. Some ideas on the how, could be found in this video, on how they created a bridge in the middle ages: https://youtu.be/nJgD6gyi0Wk https://youtu.be/nJgD6gyi0Wk I'm pretty sure engineers could find better/faster solutions than what I'm proposing to raise the water level more quickly. Edit: Omg, a record amount of downvotes for suggesting this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wuVxvQh9Khy7xdIpgCNfVAdo4DqWnhzl/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wuVxvQh9Khy7xdIpgCNfVAdo4Dq... ;) Thanks Arrath for mentioning sheet-pile coffer dams. Edit 2: it seems that timer crib coffer dams are supported for 10-20 meters deep and diagrapragm or cellular cofferdams are used for more than 20 meters. This is the most precise estimate that I could find on duration of construction for a 2100 foot ( 640 meter) cofferdam with a limited workforce ( 16 days! for probably a less sophisticated cofferdam) https://engineering.purdue.edu/CEM/people/Personal/Halpin/Sim/Examples/cofferdams.htm https://engineering.purdue.edu/CEM/people/Personal/Halpin/Si... So, while my suggestion is plausible to execute. It could take too long ( planning + execution). I guess we'll find out if the current solution will work within the current time-frame, since they have a huge amount of dredging to do.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
For that to work, the dam has to go all the way around the boat, all the way to the bottom of the canal, and create a water-tight (or close enough) seal. That's non-trivial. And then, once the boat is unstuck, then your dam is blocking the canal, and has to be removed, all the way to the bottom, or it becomes a hazard.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Did you see the video? Going to the bottom of the canal is "only 24" m. The video I gave before shows some ideas on how to do it. Quick thought: A skeleton where the bottom layer is filled with wooden poles ( to stick them firmly in the ground). The rest is a construction that is quicker to create. The ground of the "canal" could be 3D mapped for precise measurements ( a company i know does this). And you'd need some additional meters on top of this to raise the water level.
  - catillac 6y ago
    This comment gives me serious Dunning-Kruger vibes.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  Could they just push a really big wave at it to temporarily raise the water level?
- Arrath 6y ago
  Sheet-pile coffer dams are a solved problem, but it would take a good amount of time to drive all the piles. Not to mention that removing them again afterwards is not a speedy process, either.
Alupis 6y ago
The canal is very wide, very long, and very deep. It would take an enormous amount of mass to accomplish what you propose, and an even bigger effort to clear the debris afterwards to ensure safe passage of other ships.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Depends if you can fill the outside with poles and the inside with sand. You can suck up the sand ( if it's even required, since normal dredging could be done afterwards) before you destroy the construction again. If it's surrounded by poles, then you just take them out again on the end. The construction on land can be cleaned up afterwards.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    The canal is a minimum of 80 feet deep and over 254 feet wide (a lot wider actually, 254ft is the max boat beam it can handle). It's a little bigger of an issue than dropping some telephone-pole sized rods into the canal. It's one of the most highly trafficked canals in the world, I'm certain if the solution was this simple they would already be doing it.
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      Using traditional things ( eg. Cofferdams) for non-traditional uses ( raising water instead of lowering) aren't always considered by the same experts. The problems that I heard of till now are logistics and duration ( since it also has to be removed). None mentioned the depth/length since it is doable and had been done ( cofferdams, but with more planning ofc) It could have been more plausible if the problem was worse though.
      - nate_meurer 6y ago
        > Using traditional things ( eg. Cofferdams) for non-traditional uses ( raising water instead of lowering) aren't always considered by the same experts. True but I guarantee you that's not the case here. Any engineer who's familiar with canals will have coffer damns in the front of their mind, because that's exactly how locks work. And besides that, it is (forgive me), kinda obvious. I promise you the people working on this have thoroughly explored the possibility of raising the water level, probably by more means than you or I can guess.
chrisseaton 6y ago
Do people on Hacker News genuinely think they’re able to come up with tractable ideas that wouldn’t be considered by the actual experts working on the problem? This person wants to build a damn, someone else wants to use helicopters... waiting for other patronising armchair engineers to weigh in with other reasons why the experts have it wrong.
- awillen 6y ago
  Glad someone else said it... nothing like a bunch of software engineers assuming they're more qualified at major maritime salvage than actual experts.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- gonzo41 6y ago
  Remember elon's cave sumbarine :D
  - nate_meurer 6y ago
    "That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me!" - Spengler in Ghostbusters
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  But the parent comment was pretty gently put. I didn't read it as armchair criticism, but rather more wondering aloud. The idea of cofferdamming the ship is entirely feasible, and I too am curious about how it compares to other interventions in terms of time and effort.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26587692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26587692 > He said it works in theory. > He didn't estimate timeline, but it would take longer than a weight/crane operation. If the situation was much worse (partial capsize, somehow deeper entrenched on the coast), this might be a more plausible option. With the containers in an accessible location, it should be faster to organize a weight redistribution campaign instead. Just thinking about the logistics of safely building and deconstructing the dam made his head spin a little bit.
bentcorner 6y ago
Completely uninformed guess is that what they're doing is faster and cheaper, and the "get it unstuck enough" point will be reached sooner. > Concrete is dry in 24-48 hours. Sure, but building a dam around the entire ship? How much concrete are you going to need, and how long would it take to build? They're pumping sand and dredging right now, today.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

For that to work, the dam has to go all the way around the boat, all the way to the bottom of the canal, and create a water-tight (or close enough) seal. That's non-trivial. And then, once the boat is unstuck, then your dam is blocking the canal, and has to be removed, all the way to the bottom, or it becomes a hazard.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Did you see the video? Going to the bottom of the canal is "only 24" m. The video I gave before shows some ideas on how to do it. Quick thought: A skeleton where the bottom layer is filled with wooden poles ( to stick them firmly in the ground). The rest is a construction that is quicker to create. The ground of the "canal" could be 3D mapped for precise measurements ( a company i know does this). And you'd need some additional meters on top of this to raise the water level.
- catillac 6y ago
  This comment gives me serious Dunning-Kruger vibes.
maerF0x0 6y ago
Could they just push a really big wave at it to temporarily raise the water level?
Arrath 6y ago
Sheet-pile coffer dams are a solved problem, but it would take a good amount of time to drive all the piles. Not to mention that removing them again afterwards is not a speedy process, either.

Alupis 6y ago

The canal is very wide, very long, and very deep. It would take an enormous amount of mass to accomplish what you propose, and an even bigger effort to clear the debris afterwards to ensure safe passage of other ships.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Depends if you can fill the outside with poles and the inside with sand. You can suck up the sand ( if it's even required, since normal dredging could be done afterwards) before you destroy the construction again. If it's surrounded by poles, then you just take them out again on the end. The construction on land can be cleaned up afterwards.
- Alupis 6y ago
  The canal is a minimum of 80 feet deep and over 254 feet wide (a lot wider actually, 254ft is the max boat beam it can handle). It's a little bigger of an issue than dropping some telephone-pole sized rods into the canal. It's one of the most highly trafficked canals in the world, I'm certain if the solution was this simple they would already be doing it.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Using traditional things ( eg. Cofferdams) for non-traditional uses ( raising water instead of lowering) aren't always considered by the same experts. The problems that I heard of till now are logistics and duration ( since it also has to be removed). None mentioned the depth/length since it is doable and had been done ( cofferdams, but with more planning ofc) It could have been more plausible if the problem was worse though.
    - nate_meurer 6y ago
      > Using traditional things ( eg. Cofferdams) for non-traditional uses ( raising water instead of lowering) aren't always considered by the same experts. True but I guarantee you that's not the case here. Any engineer who's familiar with canals will have coffer damns in the front of their mind, because that's exactly how locks work. And besides that, it is (forgive me), kinda obvious. I promise you the people working on this have thoroughly explored the possibility of raising the water level, probably by more means than you or I can guess.

chrisseaton 6y ago

Do people on Hacker News genuinely think they’re able to come up with tractable ideas that wouldn’t be considered by the actual experts working on the problem? This person wants to build a damn, someone else wants to use helicopters... waiting for other patronising armchair engineers to weigh in with other reasons why the experts have it wrong.

awillen 6y ago
Glad someone else said it... nothing like a bunch of software engineers assuming they're more qualified at major maritime salvage than actual experts.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
gonzo41 6y ago
Remember elon's cave sumbarine :D
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  "That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me!" - Spengler in Ghostbusters
nate_meurer 6y ago
But the parent comment was pretty gently put. I didn't read it as armchair criticism, but rather more wondering aloud. The idea of cofferdamming the ship is entirely feasible, and I too am curious about how it compares to other interventions in terms of time and effort.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26587692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26587692 > He said it works in theory. > He didn't estimate timeline, but it would take longer than a weight/crane operation. If the situation was much worse (partial capsize, somehow deeper entrenched on the coast), this might be a more plausible option. With the containers in an accessible location, it should be faster to organize a weight redistribution campaign instead. Just thinking about the logistics of safely building and deconstructing the dam made his head spin a little bit.

bentcorner 6y ago

Completely uninformed guess is that what they're doing is faster and cheaper, and the "get it unstuck enough" point will be reached sooner. > Concrete is dry in 24-48 hours. Sure, but building a dam around the entire ship? How much concrete are you going to need, and how long would it take to build? They're pumping sand and dredging right now, today.