[HN Gopher] $528M Antarctic icebreaker too big to fit under Tasm...
___________________________________________________________________
$528M Antarctic icebreaker too big to fit under Tasman bridge to
refuel
Author : tosh
Score : 28 points
Date : 2023-08-24 20:08 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| tedunangst wrote:
| What are the tolerances involved? High tide, low tide? What's the
| biggest boat currently allowed under the bridge?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I was wondering the same, and the article raises some other
| issues too:
|
| _"Ensuring our team of highly qualified and experienced marine
| pilots are familiar with this bespoke vessel and the way it
| manoeuvres is pivotal to providing final clearance for the RSV
| Nuyina to undertake its first transit,"_
| aftbit wrote:
| Can't they just bring the fuel to the ship using a tanker?
| Presumably one that is small enough to fit under the bridge, or
| sails from further away.
| intrasight wrote:
| Or a very long fuel hose ;)
| irrational wrote:
| I wonder if it would be cheaper in the long run to build a
| new fuel depot and station on the other side of the bridge.
| Driving back and forth hundreds of extra miles must be
| tremendously expensive in terms of fuel, salaries, wear and
| tear, time, supplies, etc.
| closewith wrote:
| Refuelling underway is an extremely complex and risky
| undertaking and the cost in maintaining training currency and
| the actual time spent refuelling underway would almost
| certainly be more expensive than the longer round-trip
| (possibly by an order of magnitude).
| Gwypaas wrote:
| Bunker barges/tankers are standard everwhere, although not
| underway but docked or at anchor.
|
| Docking at a certain place simply to bunker just doesn't
| happen on larger vessels where utilization factor is
| everything.
|
| https://www.marineinsight.com/guidelines/bunkering-is-
| danger...
| closewith wrote:
| Bunkering at anchor is nearly equivalent to bunkering in
| port, but requires a suitable anchorage. I presume if that
| was available, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I'm aware of that, and that it's a big deal for navies to
| master it, but do you know why and could you explain it to
| land-lubbers?
|
| Of course, you just pull up along side, toss a long hose over
| (ok, fly the rope with a drone, pull over the hose), pump.
| Keep the ships far enough apart to prevent accidents. Easy!
| jcranmer wrote:
| > Keep the ships far enough apart to prevent accidents.
| Easy!
|
| In fact, this is the hard part. Generally, the tanker ship
| and the ship being refueled are different sizes. They have
| different handling characteristics, keeping them at the
| same speed at the same heading is not a trivial task. If
| there's, say, 1 knot of speed differential, after a minute,
| now they're 100ft further (or closer) away. Furthermore,
| ships create wakes which means the handling in the real
| immediate vicinity of a ship is incredibly different from
| more or less open ocean. Drift too close, and now the water
| is literally trying to get the two ships to ram each other,
| with all the disastrous results that implies.
| hedora wrote:
| They could reduce the risk by mooring the tanker to one of
| the Tasman Bridge supports.
| t1234s wrote:
| any reason boats like this aren't nuclear powered?
| burkaman wrote:
| Russian ones are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-
| powered_icebreaker#Lis...
|
| It probably would have been substantially more expensive for
| Australia to build and operate one, since nobody there has ever
| done it before. There's also supply chain risk - most nuclear
| reactor fuel comes from Russia at the moment, and none of it
| comes from Australia. There is uranium in Australia, but it
| would take a long time for them to start producing fuel
| themselves or develop a robust supply chain with a trusted
| trade partner.
| koolba wrote:
| Even if it did exist, I doubt any civilian port would let a
| private nuclear powered vessel dock.
|
| Plus there's the whole piracy angle. A boat in the middle of
| nowhere, with no serious backup, would be a target for
| terrorists to acquire nuclear material.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| It already cost $500M without a nuclear reactor.
| ooterness wrote:
| It's been tried a few times, but largely abandoned due to cost
| overruns.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civi...
| somat wrote:
| Why does it need to go under the bridge anyway? There are
| extensive quay facilities outside the bridge(the cruise ship
| terminal and the tank farm just north of it).
|
| https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-42.8766/147.3363
| bell-cot wrote:
| The Port Authority has excellent reason to be tight-fisted with
| authorizations for large vessels to attempt to pass under the
| bridge:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster
| Invictus0 wrote:
| No it doesn't, if the AAD is right.
|
| > The AAD has previously said Nuyina "fits within the physical
| limitations set out by TasPorts for transiting under the Tasman
| Bridge".
|
| If the ship fits the limitations set by the Port Authority and
| is denied anyway, then that is not excellent reason, it's
| bureaucratic overreach. The fact that people died in the past
| ignores that there are several new safety precautions in place
| since then.
| bombcar wrote:
| It sounds like "it fits the big size, but lots of approval
| and training is needed" and the second part is not complete.
|
| The question is if it can ever become complete, or if it's
| simply a no-go.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| This is just dishonest. They're not denying the ship because
| of any of the physical requirements - they're denying it
| because the crew hasn't completed the necessary training to
| safely transit the harbor.
|
| > _TasPorts had previously indicated Nuyina may be able to
| pass under the bridge, but only after successful completing
| of training courses and simulation exercises at the
| Australian Maritime College._
|
| > _The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) has confirmed that
| approval has not been granted and the ship must instead
| travel to Burnie this summer, on the island state's north-
| west coast, to receive fuel. This must occur before every
| voyage to Antarctica._
|
| It had conditional approval to transit the bridge last year
| but then ended up being sent to Singapore for maintenance
| work before they had finished. They were performing more
| trials earlier this year but apparently still haven't
| completed everything and are needed in Antarctica so are
| shifting their plans.
| tedunangst wrote:
| What would be involved in helicoptering in a trained crew
| to drive the boat under the bridge?
| eropple wrote:
| They'd also need to be trained on piloting the ship.
| There aren't many of those ships.
| i_am_jl wrote:
| I'm not a ship/boat person, but isn't that the job of
| harbor pilots? They have training on some specific
| dangerous/technical passages/ports and are taken to a
| ship, pilot the ship through the passage or into a berth,
| then leave and go on their way?
|
| I've never heard of the pilots around Port Newark needing
| ship-specific training, even for giants like tankers or
| container ships. Maybe this is somehow different in
| Australia?
| ok_dad wrote:
| I used to be an officer of the deck on navy ships. From
| liking at the bridge and knowing the history, it looks
| like a very narrow and technical route under the bridge,
| and probably slow and prone to wind. At slow speeds, it's
| difficult to get steerage due to less water over the
| control planes, so without auxiliary thrusters it's hard
| to control. That means you need both familiarity with the
| local conditions and also with the ship and its dynamics.
| Going a few hundred kilometers is a day or less and it's
| easier and safer, so it's the best choice when there
| isn't a compelling reason other than saving a bit of time
| once in a while. Maybe next time they'll choose to do the
| training and certification, but this time they didn't.
|
| I think this article tries to make it sound like a huge
| deal, but no one really cares in reality.
| eropple wrote:
| I can't speak to it, but I do know that icebreakers
| aren't in the same maritime class (I forget the specific
| term here?) as those other ships. There just might not be
| somebody who checks both boxes.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Most harbors already use pilots to handle the 'last mile'
| of docking the ship -- part of the trials &
| certifications are ensuring that this one-off custom ship
| will handle in the various conditions in a way that the
| pilots will be able to control.
|
| E.g. If something goes wrong on a windy day and they need
| a tug - how many tugs of what size will be needed to
| control it prevent damage to the harbor?
|
| The vast majority of ships of this size are in very well
| understood classes, so the one-off nature of this one
| necessitates some special testing and consideration.
|
| https://tasports.com.au/news/rsv-nuyina-to-commence-
| harbour-...
| Beldin wrote:
| What would be involved is extensive training - precisely
| the sort that is currently lacking. Basically, they were
| already trying to helicopter in folks. The difficulty is
| that it's rather challenging.
|
| They need folk who are intimately familiar with the local
| water- and weather conditions - aka pilots. On top of
| that, they need folk who can precision-steer the vessel.
| This is hard due to tides, current, wind, waves.
| Moreover, the vessel is too big to stop or turn on a
| dime. Hence the need for training.
| falcolas wrote:
| Nowhere in the quoted second paragraph is there indication
| that the crew did not receive training.
|
| Just that permission was not granted, with no reason given
| in the article.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| There are two conditions to transit the bridge -- the
| size of the vessel must conform (which it does) and the
| crew and vessel must be certified to have completed the
| training. They were working on completing it earlier this
| summer (https://tasports.com.au/news/rsv-nuyina-sea-
| trials) and then just recently announced they don't have
| permission. You're allowed to read between the lines
| there.
| suprjami wrote:
| Build a new refueling port instead of the new stadium?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-24 23:01 UTC)