5 ms·

I really have a hard time believing there was no lower cost solution for a 400 km trip by land as opposed to a 9000 km trip by land, sea, and land. What about

by iamjdg 12y ago

I really have a hard time believing there was no lower cost solution for a 400 km trip by land as opposed to a 9000 km trip by land, sea, and land. What about an off road heavy transport trailer for the sections of road they can' t fit through. Or a quick build bridge structure similar to what is used by the military? Or some sort of land version of a lock (water transport)?

FranOntanaya 12y ago
Most of that distance is on fairly calm waters, and they got it as close as 7km of the destination, without having to create ad hoc one-time solutions and live test them with the product to deliver. Any difference in cost is probably tiny compared with the value of that instrument.
tim333 12y ago
Assuming they could even get permission for a land route given the usual max weight is 40 tonnes, not 200.
- iamjdg 12y ago
  they must have, they went by land to and from the sea.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Not according to this article. They went by river to and from the sea.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
pjc50 12y ago
This is the middle of Germany. "Off road" means "across someone else's property, destroying a large strip of it". It looks like they had enough trouble getting it the last 7km. I presume the height of it means it won't fit under bridges on either road or canal.
- smackfu 12y ago
  Right. The better way to look at is is that once you exceed the size of the roads, land is extremely expensive to cross, while water is extremely cheap. So a 8993 km water journey + 7 km land journey can easily be cheaper than a 400 km land journey.
  - broolstoryco 12y ago
    Im a bit surprised that that thing fit under all the bridges on the Danube
- astrodust 12y ago
  Germany is also home to enormously gigantic machines like the Bagger 288 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288) that are so enormous you can see them from space. The scale of this thing is staggering. In one incident it accidentally scooped up a bulldozer: http://imgur.com/gallery/rU3XU http://imgur.com/gallery/rU3XU Also shown there is what it looks like when it's on the move along a carefully planned and prepared route: http://i.imgur.com/51x5NIR.jpg?1 http://i.imgur.com/51x5NIR.jpg?1 I'm sure the budget for moving a scientific device isn't as huge as something involved in mineral extraction where time equals money.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Jeebus that thing is huge. That wasn't a small bulldozer. It's not the biggest they make but it's definitely no joke. It weighs 18 tons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_D6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_D6
  - callesgg 12y ago
    You can't see that thing from space. With optics you definitely would, but with optics you can see a single human from space.
    - astrodust 12y ago
      It wouldn't take more than binoculars. The bare patch of ground this thing has made is gigantic. It's not just the digger, there's this conveyor system that's an integral part of the system that looks miles long. https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8674604,6.6073151,43657m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8674604,6.6073151,43657m/dat...

by iamjdg 12y ago

FranOntanaya 12y ago

Most of that distance is on fairly calm waters, and they got it as close as 7km of the destination, without having to create ad hoc one-time solutions and live test them with the product to deliver. Any difference in cost is probably tiny compared with the value of that instrument.

tim333 12y ago

Assuming they could even get permission for a land route given the usual max weight is 40 tonnes, not 200.

iamjdg 12y ago
they must have, they went by land to and from the sea.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Not according to this article. They went by river to and from the sea.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

pjc50 12y ago

This is the middle of Germany. "Off road" means "across someone else's property, destroying a large strip of it". It looks like they had enough trouble getting it the last 7km. I presume the height of it means it won't fit under bridges on either road or canal.

smackfu 12y ago
Right. The better way to look at is is that once you exceed the size of the roads, land is extremely expensive to cross, while water is extremely cheap. So a 8993 km water journey + 7 km land journey can easily be cheaper than a 400 km land journey.
- broolstoryco 12y ago
  Im a bit surprised that that thing fit under all the bridges on the Danube
astrodust 12y ago
Germany is also home to enormously gigantic machines like the Bagger 288 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288) that are so enormous you can see them from space. The scale of this thing is staggering. In one incident it accidentally scooped up a bulldozer: http://imgur.com/gallery/rU3XU http://imgur.com/gallery/rU3XU Also shown there is what it looks like when it's on the move along a carefully planned and prepared route: http://i.imgur.com/51x5NIR.jpg?1 http://i.imgur.com/51x5NIR.jpg?1 I'm sure the budget for moving a scientific device isn't as huge as something involved in mineral extraction where time equals money.
- msandford 12y ago
  Jeebus that thing is huge. That wasn't a small bulldozer. It's not the biggest they make but it's definitely no joke. It weighs 18 tons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_D6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_D6
- callesgg 12y ago
  You can't see that thing from space. With optics you definitely would, but with optics you can see a single human from space.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    It wouldn't take more than binoculars. The bare patch of ground this thing has made is gigantic. It's not just the digger, there's this conveyor system that's an integral part of the system that looks miles long. https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8674604,6.6073151,43657m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8674604,6.6073151,43657m/dat...