this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
501 points (99.0% liked)

TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name

3794 readers
758 users here now

/c/TenFoward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!

Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.

~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.

~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.

~ 3. Use spoiler tags. This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.

~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.

~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.

~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.

~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'

~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.

Fun will now commence.


Sister Communities:

!startrek@lemmy.world

!memes@lemmy.world

!tumblr@lemmy.world

!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!


Honorary Badbitch:

@jawa21@startrek.website for realizing that the line used to be "want to be added to the sidebar?" and capitalized on it. Congratulations and welcome to the sidebar. Stamets is both ashamed and proud.


Creator Resources:

Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)

Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)


founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 54 points 8 months ago (3 children)

People are saying this?

You can see the boat crumpled the bridge like a piece of foil. It can obviously do it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 50 points 8 months ago (1 children)

People are crazy. People claim planes didn't hit the twin towers.

And in both cases, there are the "the planes/boat didn't do it alone" people.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Lisa's Reverse Vampires.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It was full of cargo at the time, right?

Even without it, it would have pulverized that bridge.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Yeah it was over 100,000 tons going at around 8 knots. Not exactly high speed, but think of the momentum of something that's 100,000 tons.

[–] exanime 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Oh yes... Right here on Lemmy some person said they should just drop some heavy concrete blocks near the bridge bases to stop the ship ...

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

No, they said they should add them to deflect the ship away from the pylons.

Fenders are common on modern bridge designs and work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_protection_systems

Were you the person who was downvoted for constantly arguing that nothing could be done despite being given lots of information otherwise?

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

We MUST construct additional pylons.

[–] exanime 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Nope, I did argue that it was not as easy as someone was claiming (dropping "heavy blocks")

Only one person replied with a link, but their very link said no protection would stop this specific accident

PS: you should also read your links. They are not super detailed in that wiki article but nothing there detour, much less stop, the ship that knocked down the Baltimore bridge

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Seems like those are to deflect canoes and pontoon boats, maybe a small pleasure craft or fishing boat. Not a fully loaded cargo ship. I don't see anything that could have prevented this short of using tug boats to navigate the channel. The boat lost power and drifted into the bridge. Nothing short of a land mass was going to stop it once it lost power.

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

No it does not seem like that.

These systems are designed to protect bridges before a ship hits it.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-baltimore-bridge-collapse/

Look at what the fucking engineers are all saying, it all boils down to “We would expect to see measures in place to redirect the ship because a bridge cannot survive a direct hit.”

The bridge was built in the 70s and nobody wanted to spend the money to update the safety measures to protect from modern cargo vessels.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

"From the photos I can see what appears to be a solitary dolphin-type structure on each side of the two main piers. If so these look to be inadequate to deflect anything other than small vessels. I do not know what measures were planned or installed when the bridge was opened in 1977, but the sizes and weights of cargo vessels have increased enormously to the present with the globalisation of container sea transport.”

I see what you mean. Very cool site. Thanks for sharing. I hope the fediverse is used to marshal actual expert, similar to how this site does it, but more crowd sourced, like Wikipedia. Anyhow, seems like the bridge should have been replaced in addition to deflection devices.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The very article you linked, from the first of the experts, states, “There was no way to protect the bridge, even if there was a warning system in place. If a ship like this collides on with any bridge it may take it down.”

Each expert after basically says the same thing. Even with extra protections using modern technologies, a head-on collision from a boat of this size and weight would destroy almost any bridge, and there is no practical fender system to effectively deflect a ship of this size. Most suggestions are that a more modern bridge would simply have a wider channel, but a modern bridge with modern fenders and plant of dolphins would not have stopped a head-on collision like this. And a wider channel wouldn't matter if a boat if this size still ran directly into one of the (wider spaced) direct supports.

Other experts here note radar and sonar protections and lighting, none of which would have mattered here because the problem is the Dali lost power and navigation, which is what caused them to run directly into the bridge pylon. The pylon could have been made out of neon lights: they couldn't turn. I don't think you're taking into account just how massively heavy this ship is.

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That says there is no way to stop a head on collision, which is true. Hence why you divert the boat before it hits the bridge structure.

As I have already mentioned and as many of the other professionals in that site point out:

“It is almost impossible to design a bridge pier to withstand this kind of impact. Therefore, we tend to design impact protection measures to prevent it from happening instead.

And

“From the photos I can see what appears to be a solitary dolphin-type structure on each side of the two main piers. If so these look to be inadequate to deflect anything other than small vessels.

And

I do not know the history of this bridge, but it looks like an old bridge that was designed neither for ship impact nor had any ship impact barrier to avoid the problem.

And

”I do not know what the arrangements were for this bridge but major bridges over shipping lanes must have substantial protection for piers or columns. These protections are either in the form of structural protections like ‘sacrificial dolphins’, which are made of steel and embedded in the seabed to stop or divert a ship.  They can also be in the form of artificial islands; these are for very large ships and mean the ship will never reach the bridge pier itself. If piers are not protected adequately then they are vulnerable to ship collision. Clearly the protection of the piers in this instance was inadequate.

And

Bridges in shipping lanes are sometimes designed with strong, stout piers, or additional protective structures around the piers to prevent ships from coming into contact with the bridge structure. It doesn’t appear that the Key Bridge had either of these features

[–] Liz@midwest.social 7 points 8 months ago

That's basically what a "dolphin" is and you can build them arbitrarily large. The only reason this bridge wasn't retrofitted with adequate protection was money. As with any large-scale disaster, there are multiple failures that lead to the incident. The boat is clearly to blame, but so is the bridge protection system.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I've seen videos of much smaller ships running aground, and they manage to win against the earth itself for a considerable distance before they stop. Some rebar and concrete pylons aren't going to cut it.