Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

For comments like this, it would be useful if you could identify the source where you “just read” something, even if you don’t provide any supporting details. So far I’ve read things online from maritime sources and from people quoting random other people posting on FB or Yahoo. The credibility of the sources is not the same.

It’s hard to know exactly how long it will take to “clear the harbor” although credible sources (see what I mean?) that I’ve read are talking “weeks” to get the shipping channel navigable. Similarly, funding and resources haven’t been nailed down re: rebuilding the bridge, and I haven’t seen anything yet about assessments to determine if what’s left of the current bridge can be reused in some way — which would impact any timeframes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

Two out three observations are wrong. Time to clear the harbor will depend on how far away the necessary equipment is and that might be the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. Probably two to three weeks to open the harbor when it's in place.

The bridge will depend on whether or not the foundational supports are intact and can be reused. If so, it shouldn't take but a year or so. If not, two. Ten is ridiculous, unless the gubbernmint screws the whole thing up.

None of this is simple, true.

I have no background in construction or engineering, and I know bridges are wildly different than highways. But weren’t the recent highway collapses in Philly and Florida predicted to take a significant time and then were super short? Combination of eliminating government red tape and collaboration among contractors to get it done?

Not that I expect a bridge to be built in a month, but I do look forward with hope that there’s a way to expedite clean up and rebuilding in a way that brings us all some pride that we got it done faster than 10 years.

I also wonder what kind of bridge will replace it. Is there a better type? Will it be higher? Fancier in design to be an iconic replacement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

Two out three observations are wrong. Time to clear the harbor will depend on how far away the necessary equipment is and that might be the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. Probably two to three weeks to open the harbor when it's in place.

The bridge will depend on whether or not the foundational supports are intact and can be reused. If so, it shouldn't take but a year or so. If not, two. Ten is ridiculous, unless the gubbernmint screws the whole thing up.

None of this is simple, true.

As pessimistic as the PP was, you are overly optimistic.

The equipment isn't that far. There are floating cranes up and down the east coast and barges all over. Even so, 2 to 3 weeks is a ridiculously short time span to clear all of the wreckage and dredge the channel.

Rebuild in 2 years? Ha! The environmental impact statement will take at least 2 years and then the endless litigation by supporters of Chubby the Homeless Minnow. Once that is resolved, it will take years to construct that.

The rebuild?

Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

Two out three observations are wrong. Time to clear the harbor will depend on how far away the necessary equipment is and that might be the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. Probably two to three weeks to open the harbor when it's in place.

The bridge will depend on whether or not the foundational supports are intact and can be reused. If so, it shouldn't take but a year or so. If not, two. Ten is ridiculous, unless the gubbernmint screws the whole thing up.

None of this is simple, true.

i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

Lack of maintenance on the ship resulting in the power loss

The government is the best at maintenance and safety. See the Space Shuttles for examples of the government's fine work.

Contractor Morton Thiokol was ultimately found at fault for the Challenger explosion. Suggest you watch a documentary.

I suggest you watch the documentary again.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Challenger-disaster

+1. NASA owned a HUGE part of this tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:What is competitive paleontologists

a joke

Several of the containers contained hazardous material and some have been breached according the BBC radio coverage I heard. The ship is also full of fuel. Apparently a sheen has appeared on the surface of the water.

What is competitive paleontologists

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

No concerns about shaped charges and the environmental health of the Bay?

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to ask, but was there one person piloting the ship? Was the pilot injured? I don’t recall hearing a thing about who was in control aboard the Dali except that it was a local crew.

Is the local crew being sequestered/protected - I mean for good reason, just curious and thinking about the trauma the Dali crew is experiencing.

Instead of being sorry, isn't it easier to read online news reports?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have steered around the pier

Tell me you didn't read much more than headlines about the crash without telling me you didn't read much about the crash.

I think there are some bored third graders on here who have never even driven a car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

Lack of maintenance on the ship resulting in the power loss

The government is the best at maintenance and safety. See the Space Shuttles for examples of the government's fine work.

Contractor Morton Thiokol was ultimately found at fault for the Challenger explosion. Suggest you watch a documentary.

I suggest you watch the documentary again.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Challenger-disaster

No one is saturation diving at 50 feet. It will be a major operation but that’s absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

No, that won't work too well. You'd end up with a bigger mess of tangled steel. They will send in teams of underwater salvage divers to cut and lift pieces that will then be lifted from the surface of the water to a barge. It will be a very difficult job . Divers will be limited to 80 minutes without needing to go through decompression on the way up. Obviously more time since they are all decompression certified. They may be able to rig some sort of a saturation dive platform that will allow the divers to work without decompression for up to a month. And remember, the guys who will be working down there will have terrible visibility and that will compound the problems.

Don't hold your breath. It will be a long time to clean this out.

Why decompression? The amount of time under? It’s only 50 feet deep. My knowledge of scuba diving is limited.

Using air, the no decompression time is 80 minutes according to Navy dive tables (and you handy dandy dive computer). The need for decompression is a function of time, depth and oxygen content (or rather absence of nitrogen).