2 ms·
I get it, but it’s still wild to me that we build massive ships then just kinda dump them in the water. You’d think they’d build it in a drydock and then open
by Waterluvian 4y ago
I get it, but it’s still wild to me that we build massive ships then just kinda dump them in the water.
You’d think they’d build it in a drydock and then open some locks, let it flood, and tow it out. But nope… they deploy ships like my kids do at bathtime.
- hawski 4y agoAren't those also tests of sea worthiness? A ship will have to withstand much harsher conditions. It is better for it to fail early than in the middle of an ocean in bad weather.
- Waterluvian 4y agoHmm, maybe! Are they instrumented for test or otherwise reviewed shortly after? It’s not a test if we aren’t measuring.
- nraynaud 4y agoI'm pretty sure you can't get anything else than roll frequency out of this.
- nraynaud 4y agoI'm pretty sure they are tested again, in a real way, and that it starts with a static stability test before doing anything dynamic. Here is a video that explains a bit the endeavor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F93a7A2ug8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F93a7A2ug8
- nraynaud 4y agoI wonder the same thing, no other industry moves such a big load in close quarter that fast. I suspect it's some kind of supersitious tradition more than any engineering reason.
- capableweb 4y agoFor big ships, you need a even bigger drydock. This way, you can do it in a smaller area. From the video, the canal doesn't look that big, and the process seems a lot faster than having to unfill/fill/unfill a huge drydock. Regardless, the ship will withstand much harder forces while crossing the oceans, so might as well make a spectacle out of it and drop that shit into the waters, see some splashing together with cheering.