8 ms·
Contact of Containership Dali with the Key Bridge and Subsequent Bridge Collapse [pdf]
- jagged-chisel 2y agoMatters of Fact, still investigating. All good info to answer the public’s curiosity.
- krisoft 2y agoIt would seem the real mystery is why did the breakers open. I have watched a youtube video where a knowledgeable chief engineer who works on comparable ships was very dismissive of the idea that it might be a cyber attack.[1] He was mainly reasoning that the on-board equipment is air gapped from the internet. Which of course it makes an attack more complicated but it is not like the airgap saved the centrifuges in Natanz. That being said it also does not say that it was a cyber attack. Could be any number of ordinary malfunctions. But i don’t see that the publicly available evidence would exclude the possibility of a cyber attack as of yet. It would be very different if they would have found a damaged shaft in the generator, or a clogged fuel filter. Something hardware-ish. 1: https://youtu.be/9B9znFDwdBI?si=aFSoqVsmrTaaQofY https://youtu.be/9B9znFDwdBI?si=aFSoqVsmrTaaQofY
- cirrus3 2y agoI don’t see that the publicly available evidence would exclude the possibility of aliens causing the breakers to open either.
- krisoft 2y agoWe don’t see any UFO on the videos and there are no reports about little grey ones on-board. Seems pretty much exluded by the evidence that they tripped the breakers in person if you ask me. Did they do it remotely or in a delayed manner? I think that leads back to my question.
- daghamm 2y agoYou are ignoring the existence of underwater UFOs (UUOs). Those are in fact the real UFOs and the Congress have been misleading the public for decades by having everyone chase some made up flying sausage in the sky, as if we are small children. Just the fact that they created the hoax around Area 51, in the middle of a dessert and far from any water should have told you all you need to know. And don't get me started on the 1961 fiasco in Bay of Pigs where CIA failed to capture the damaged UUO that had floated to land. But if we just for a minute step away from the obvious connection between JFK Jr, aliens and the Illuminati... have you ever considered that training LLMs on public forum comments is a bad idea?
- D-Coder 2y agoTHAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK /s (I think)
- qingcharles 2y agoBut aren't they wearing human skins? Unless the NTSB checked for zippers on the crew, we'll never know who is compromised.
- toast0 2y agoProbably time travelers. Most likely to prevent transport of a specific item or person over the bridge at a future date. Perhaps a shadowy group striving to put wrong what once went right.
- magicalhippo 2y agoOr just thrill seekers[1]. [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204686/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204686/
- eru 2y ago1999 was truly the peak of film making.
- AndrewKemendo 2y agoOffice Space, The Matrix, Fight Club Arguably all the same movie
- eru 2y agoWell, the Matrix was about taking red estrogen pills to transition your body to your preferred gender. I'm not sure what the other two were about.
- worstspotgain 2y agoWe can't exclude midi-chlorians either, 5/4 was coming up.
- kornhole 2y agoDEW's (Directed Energy Weapons) are capable of surging power and more likely. https://climateviewer.com/2018/07/05/directed-energy-weapons-101-sonic-microwave-laser-non-lethal-warfare/ https://climateviewer.com/2018/07/05/directed-energy-weapons...
- kornhole 2y agoBreakers are usually tripped when too much power is used. Because the ship was traveling slowly in the harbor using lower power, we need to understand other reasons why a breaker would open.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoFailing breakers commonly trip below current limits. Hopefully they will comprehensively test the circuit path and its components in scope. Someone will have to explain why they weren’t replaced prior to failure if root cause.
- raverbashing 2y agoTrue. But to have both fail at the same time usually means an actual overcurrent for some reason Hopefully they get an actual current measure somehow
- caf 2y agoIt would not be unusual for the protection design to have the LV and HV breakers on either side of the transformer linked, so that if one trips the other does too. So you can't necessarily read anything in to the fact that both tripped.
- londons_explore 2y agoWhy link them? Any failure opening one or other breaker is sufficient to stop fault current. The only reason to even have both breakers is so the transformer can be taken out for maintenance.
- caf 2y agoThe idea is to fully disconnect the faulted element from the power system. In particular with transformers, you don't want it backfed from the low voltage side if the high voltage side is isolated.
- jameshart 2y ago‘Airgapped from the internet’ is very much the default state of technology on a ship. Connecting things to the internet seems like something that would require additional steps.
- eru 2y agoAt the moment perhaps, yes. I will predict that will change as satellite internet becomes ubiquitous.
- gumby 2y agoThis should not have been downvoted. I work with the shipping industry and one of our partners just bought a satellite network. All commercial ships these days have WiFi and satellite uplink is becoming ubiquitous. The tech we are building depends on low speed, low volume bidirectional data streaming and we haven’t yet found a ship in 2024 that doesn’t have much more bandwidth than we need
- consumer451 2y agoHere is a video from Chief Makoi on this very topic. He is a highly respected working Chief Marine Engineer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B9znFDwdBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B9znFDwdBI [10:36]
- Eduard 2y agoever heard of AIS, e. g. https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/ https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/ ?
- jameshart 2y agoThat's a VHF transmission emitted from a boat containing a data packet about its position and speed. Quite a long way from an internet connection. But of course I was being flippant - modern commercial ships likely have satellite internet access, onboard networks, and probably at least some equipment on board that accepts over-the-air updates of some kind.
- bagels 2y agoThe fact that they had two explained power failures in port, and they made some changes to the configuration point to more likely causes: they made some faulty reconfiguration or the previously dormant breakers were faulty.
- trebligdivad 2y agoThe report has at least one of the power outages in port is explained (and says it was the only one). They did change config after it though; but still.
- bagels 2y agoIt does give an explanation, but that doesn't mean that they didn't play with other things to diagnose or guess at fixes.
- whimsicalism 2y ago[flagged]
- krisoft 2y agoSaying “we do not know if it was a cyberatack or not” is not the same thing as saying “i think it was a cyberatack”.
- whimsicalism 2y agoi feel that i do know it wasn’t a cyberattack, which is why i am confident taking such odds.
- krisoft 2y agoOk. Well. I do not know if it was a cyberattack so I don't take the bet. Furthermore I don't know even if it was a cyber attack if it will ever be established to anybody. And even further I don't know even if it was a cyber attack and if it is proven to somebody that this information will be released publicly.
- worstspotgain 2y agoAs is often the case these days, the probability that it was an attack is much higher than the conditional probability that it would ever be publicly proven to be if so. The target wouldn't want it disclosed any more than the attacker. 100:1 and you will find takers, though.
- whimsicalism 2y ago100:1 and i’d be better off just investing my cash
- throwup238 2y ago> The target wouldn't want it disclosed any more than the attacker. If it's a cyberattack, the insurance companies involved will absolutely blow the lid open publicly. They're the ones who are going to pay here and they're the ones who have to insure ships in harbors going forward. This wouldn't be some hack like Equifax with hard to demonstrate harm. The insurance companies are going to be on the hook for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars so they're going to want to prevent anything like this in the future. They're explicitly on the hook for some extreme damages if this happens in the Suez or Panama canal especially.
- caf 2y agoI think a cyber attack seems unlikely, if only because going from tripping those breakers to the bridge collapsing is a hell of a rube goldberg machine. (And if that was only an accident, and their only goal was "make the lights flicker", then that seems a bit of a pointless cyber attack).
- kornhole 2y agoThey are not telling us everything. NIST has concocted things in the past. The whole ship crew is still held on the ship with all their communication devices confiscated. When/if investigative journalists get access to them, we will learn more. https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/video/dali-crew-endures-stress-amid-preparations-for-controlled-demolition-of-key-bridge-span/ https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/video/dali-crew-endures-st...
- tadfisher 2y agoGood thing the NTSB wrote this report, then. Definitely can't trust those NIST folks, they're plainly nefarious.
- kornhole 2y agoBelieve everything the government tells you. Do not question.
- fbdab103 2y agoWait - they are still stuck on the ship after all this time? Is this a company/government rule? Some kind of maritime law? Not like I expect any of them to keep their jobs after this, even if they acted impeccably during the failure.
- caf 2y agoIt seems to be pretty common in the maritime industry. There were crews stuck on ships for months during the pandemic.
- 2y ago
- kornhole 2y ago[flagged]
- howenterprisey 2y agoA website claiming to tell the truth about why one of the World Trade Center buildings collapsed doesn't sound like the best source to prove how NIST was wrong, due to the historical accuracy of such websites. I admittedly don't have a source off the top of my head that specifically addresses this website, though.
- kornhole 2y agoThis is not just a random website. This is a University of Fairbanks study conducted by the head of structural engineering and two other PHD's who spent two years trying to model what NIST said happened.
- howenterprisey 2y agoI do not doubt the academic credentials of anyone involved, and I'm sure they earned them fairly, but that doesn't influence my view of their report. If we're talking about the background of the report, I need go no further than noting that it was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
- kornhole 2y agoI am as skeptical as you and agree many scientific studies are designed to produce the results that funders want to see. I did not find that here. Dr. Leroy Hulsey has an impeccable reputation and explained many times how he was given no constraints or guidance on this research. You can find many interviews with him here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpqJvjekM&t=19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpqJvjekM&t=19 and elsewhere. BTW I don't know what is wrong with A&E for 9/11 Truth, but perhaps you know something more.
- 2y ago
- usernamed7 2y agowow i had no idea they had some much generation and distribution going on. That's a lot of power they're moving. That's a lot of things that can go wrong. Even with all the backups, complex systems are complex, and there's obviously a gap in redundancy. Still, better a system failure than a human one. It was interesting that on the video you can see the ship lose/regain/lose power, and now it makes sense.
- gizmo686 2y agoThe ship left port weighing 112,383 metric tons (ship+cargo). Travelling at it's loaded full speed of 16.8 knots, that comes out to be about 10.6 GigaJoulese or 3 Megawatt-hours of kinetic energy. TNT has an energy density of about 4.2MJ/kg. So the kinetic energy of the Dali at full speed is equal to about 2.5 metric tons of TNT. According to the report, the Dali was running at slow speed, which is 10 knots, giving "only" 0.7 tons worth of TNT in kinetic energy. Granted, ships operate in a relatively low friction environment, so you do not need that much power to get it moving. However, modern shipping vessels are massive.
- smegsicle 2y agotnt is the more commonly used metric but to put it in more practical civilian terms that would be around a trunkload of anfo (might need to share the back seat but who uses all that legroom anyway)
- troydavis 2y agoThe company that acted as salvor, Resolve Marine, publishes detailed explanations of past ship salvage projects: https://resolvemarine.com/services-capabilities/salvage-wreck-removal#projects https://resolvemarine.com/services-capabilities/salvage-wrec...
- jlmorton 2y agoInteresting. When the disaster first unfolded, a lot of experts came out to say the bridge appeared to lack protective barriers to help absorb the energy from a ship impact. [1] However, the NTSB says the bridge did have these barriers. There were large protective "dolphins" directly in front of the bridge piers, but the ship managed to careen in between them at an angle, missing them, but still hitting the bridge. In addition, there were large protective barriers surround the bridge pier that was struck: > In addition to the dolphins, pier nos. 17 and 18 were each surrounded by a 100-foot-by- 84.5-foot crushable concrete box and timber fender system , as seen in figure 12. These systems were comprised of hollow, thin-walled , concrete box structures attached to the piers. The timber portions of the fender were attached to the outer face of the concrete box and utilized a combination of vertical and horizontal members. Additionally, steel plates were secured at the base of the vertical timber members. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/baltimore-key-bridge-structure-support-pier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/baltimore-key-bridge-s...
- Tanoc 2y agoWhen the bridge was originally constructed the concept of such protective impact barriers was quite new. The ship is also very different from the comparatively snub-nosed envisioned C7 types, trans-Atlantic cruisers, and barges that would've gone through when the bridge was designed in 1972. Cargo ships entering the harbour used to have wider bows with a shallower draft of thirty to thirty eight feet with a very shallow prow overhang because they were built for Atlantic voyages only. There's few barges going through the harbour these days, and cargo ships now are global and mostly built to the variety of post-Panamax standards making them extremely long with a very deep draft of forty five feet or more. That means the spacing and height originally thought to be needed to deflect barges and C7s was far too broad and short for the Neo Panamax II class MV Dali or any other modern cargo ship, and the deep draft that required a narrow bow and long prow allowed the bow to slide right in between the barriers and then ride up until it hit the bridge support. Essentially the nose had an overhang long enough that it hit the bridge support long before the rest of the ship hit the protective barrier.
- rkagerer 2y ago
- AlphaWeaver 2y agoThis is a fantastic example of clear technical writing! The NTSB goes out of their way here to define domain-specific terms (in the footnotes) to ensure this report is digestible by a public audience, which I think is really neat. We need more examples of this type of technical communication from government agencies.
- eganist 2y agohttps://www.plainlanguage.gov/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/ is an underutilized resource within the federal government, but it's evident that the NTSB has made an effort.
- causality0 2y agoIf you're interested in supremely detailed breakdowns and animations of accidents caused by safety failures, check out the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's youtube channel. It strokes the brain just right. https://www.youtube.com/@USCSB https://www.youtube.com/@USCSB
- londons_explore 2y agoWhy did this ship have 5-way redundancy in electrical power generation, yet zero redundancy with propulsion? I understand power is more important, but even so, isn't 5x redundancy overkill? Wouldn't they have been better to switch out 1 of those diesel generators for a 1000 HP propulsive engine, allowing the ship to limp home at 2 knots if the main engine fails (speed is very nonlinear with power)?
- LeChuck 2y agoIt's not 5x redundancy in that sense. There are times when the ship needs all five auxiliary engines. There are five smaller engines because it allows for more efficient utilization. The main engine, which provides the propulsion, is a two-stroke engine connected directly to the propeller shaft. If the ship needs to reverse the engine is stopped, and started again going the other way. Consequently, there's no way to make use of some sort of fall back propulsion. Lastly, I doubt a 1000 HP engine is powerful enough to do anything useful. Especially because it would only be needed for emergency maneuvering.
- londons_explore 2y agoLooks like the whole ship power system was designed to be multi way redundant, but not to provide continuous power. Makes perfect sense for dealing with issues that occur mid voyage, where you can send someone below deck to mess with circuit breakers for 20 mins to get everything going again. Doesn't make sense in port where loss of steering or propulsion will lead to a crash.
- londons_explore 2y agoNote that a bunch of commenters suggested reverse thrust was used after the power failure which caused prop walk which turned the ship into the bridge. That appears not to be the case.
- londons_explore 2y agoI am rather impressed that every crew member tested negative for drugs and alcohol. I was under the impression that 2 month voyages across the ocean could get rather dull and personal stashes of all kinds of substances were common.
- pqdbr 2y agoThe report mentions that "Six victims were later recovered by divers". I can't imagine how terrifying it must be to a diver when he actually finds a dead body underwater. I guess there's no amount of experience that desensitizes you for that encounter.
- smitty1e 2y ago>The day before the accident, the Dali had experienced two in-port blackouts, prompting the crew to switch the main electrical bus configuration, which was in use when the ship departed. ... >The NTSB is now investigating the electrical configuration and its potential impacts on the accident voyage. As a retired Navy ship driver, the whole incident is astounding. Shipping was foundational in the development of the concept of insurance[1] for precisely the reasons underscored by this tragic fiasco. One surmises that this particular srew-up wasn't the first time these people rolled the dice, but it's likely to be their las. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance#Medieval_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance#Medieval_...