Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Oasis of the Sea
#1
Has anyone here been following the development and opening cruise of the Oasis of The Sea? It's finally arrived in the US home port, and it's one HUGE ship.

A couple of questions about this.

1. What do you all think about it's looks? Do you think it is a graceful looking ship, or is it just a top heavy looking mass of steel rising out of the water.

2. And second, what happens if the ship encounters a very rough sea, or G-d forbid a really large Rogue Wave. We know that these things exist now, because they have been photographed. They can get over 100 feet in height. Will a huge ship like this one, which is sitting very high off the deck, be able to maintain it's stability should it get hit by one?

[Image: oasis520bowshot.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
I'm really not that impressed with the look of the superstructure, either.

I suspect the plan is to keep it in realatively calm water and avoid high seas whenever possible.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#3
It's a pretty ugly ship. Maybe it's better on the inside.
Supposed to have parks with trees and things.
It should make a nice slow target for Somali pirates.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#4
What would really have me concerned most is that the sides of the superstructure are straight up and monolithic. If one of those rogue waves were to come in, and the ship did not pick up on it in time to turn into the wave, the force of the wave would just push the ship completely over in a matter of a few seconds.

I'm sure the builders know what they were doing, but it still appears to be one seriously top heavy vessel. If it went beyond a 45-50% tilt, it might not be righting itself.

Oh well, I am a true lover of the mountains, and not the sea anyway. My four years in Charleston, attending the Citadel, were enough exposure to all that salt, sand, and stench, for me. I like the clean mountain air better. To me a week in the Smokys, or Pisgah National Forest are heaven on earth.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
John L Wrote:...it still appears to be one seriously top heavy vessel.

That's why marine architects do all the tests to ensure the stability of such ships. The bigger and more massive, the more tests are required. I would assume that unless someone was purposefully designing a death-trap, it should be extra stable compared to smaller, but more visually normal-looking ships. If a 100' wave would sink any other ship ever built unless the ship could steer into it in time, the same parameters would be applied to this behemoth. If it is harder to change direction in a timely fashion, then perhaps it has added sideward facing props, or some other safety device.

Perhaps a wave that would sink a lesser cruise ship steaming into it would not sink this monster, so the possibility of a slower turn would be trumped by the ability to survive better once it was turned?

I would also guess that superior electronics might ensure sufficient reaction time to turn into a monster wave.

My biggest concern is that the top of the vessel looks too enclosed compared to other liners. Most ships have a stepped silhouette that allows open-air decks that don't give you nose-bleeds.
Reply
#6
why do I keep on thinking of the Titanic when I see that thing? considering that the two ships look nothing alike....

S5
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply
#7
Or they have proper navigational equipment as well as being able to see things long before they are visible to the naked eye. People didn't engineer this stupidly, they do learn from mistakes sometimes.

I would love to be security on board that thing, just walking around with my arms and hanging out in the sun, hanging out with the bachlorettes, having a couple beers while on duty and partying on the cheap off duty.

It would be wonderful.
Reply
#8
Also, by looking at the different deck floor plans, it is obvious that there is a lot of open space inside, and may not be so top-heavy as she appears.
See here.
Reply
#9
Aurora Moon Wrote:why do I keep on thinking of the Titanic when I see that thing? considering that the two ships look nothing alike....

S5

They do indeed have one thing in common. Both were the furtherest extension of technology at the time, and are/were touted as such. When the Titanic sank, it was a huge blow to the concept that humans can conquer our universe with technology. It had a profound psychological impact, on society. It was unseen, and many did not notice it, but it heralded the end of the thinking at the time. The world fairs back then were where science and the possible future was displayed, and also the Titanic. When she sank, the movement begun by the world fairs, sort of petered out. No more 'pie in the sky' thinking, which was soon followed by world war.

Today, we are seeing the very same thing in this huge ship. It's being lauded, all over, as the height of technological progress. If she sinks before establishing herself, my guess is that the jolt will trigger a new wave of scientific soul searching.

I am completely convinced that this ship is very vulnerable to the effects of an unruly nature. As long as the ship confides itself in the Gulf of Mexico, it has a better chance of survival. But if it ventures into the unpredictable Atlantic, and especially around the horn of Africa, it is looking for trouble IMO.

Also, I find the ship to be less than aesthetically pleasing. Somewhere there is a more equitable compromise in size and shape. Ships this size are vulnerable, and at such a cost, could easly bankrupt a cruise line, should something happen to it. I wonder if it is possible to insure such a vessel?

One other thing. Detecting rogue waves are still pretty much impossible. Satellite surveillance is not capable of such. And the ship, unless it is physically sighted, will not pick it up until it is virtually too late. Only an interwoven series of detector buoys would work. But that would require millions floating around, and that is just too expensive.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#10
I've seen 100 foot swells at sea, they usually don't cause any problems; however, every now and then one leaves a void under the ship and the resulting crash can easily break a ship in half. In fact, that is exactly how the SS Edmund Fitzgerald sank in 1975. Gordon Lightfoot recorded a song about he sinking.
'It's not who votes that matters, it's who counts the votes'  |  György Schwartz, Budapest, Hungary
Reply
#11
WarBicycle Wrote:I've seen 100 foot swells at sea, they usually don't cause any problems; however, every now and then one leaves a void under the ship and the resulting crash can easily break a ship in half. In fact, that is exactly how the SS Edmund Fitzgerald sank in 1975. Gordon Lightfoot recorded a song about he sinking.

My understanding is that perhaps one or two large hatches may have been unsecured, and quickly filled with water, causing it to go under, bow first, not being able to resurface. Any large wave, or swell, could accomplish this, especially if the upper decking is low enough.

However, there is a big difference between a one hundred foot swell, and a one hundred foot wave. The wavelength is much longer in a swell, and very short in a wave, leaving only a high wall with the later, and a ship is totally unable to ride the extended wave upward, resulting in untold force/pressure brought to bear on the ship.

I've done some extensive reading, above the science programs, which have highlighted the rogue wave situation. Nothing is more dangerous at see IMO, and the odds of a ship surviving contact with one, are much less than 50%. In fact, there are very few ships that have survived such encounters. But the number of unexplained sinkings are quite numerous and equally mysterious, before the actual confirmation of the existence of Rogue Waves being fact.

The ocean is a very dangerous place to live, and I am glad I live more than one hundred miles away from the shoreline. If the west face of "Cumbre Vieja", on La Palma Island fell into the sea, there is a good chance that a 1000 foot tsunami would impace the east coat of the US, and I want to be nowhere near the coastline when something like that comes ashore.

you can keep the sea as far as I am concerned. I'll take the mountains any day of the week, month, year, decade,.................................
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#12
The ship looks top heavy and ugly to me, like a rabbit warren for the sea. Maybe it would be attractive to people who live in crowded cities and don't go outside much. I would not step foot on such an densely inhabited ship.

Perhaps the mass of the top is not so much, but its size would make it vulnerable to strong winds or gusts should they catch her from the side.

I wonder what it looks like under the water line. How have they planned that for stability? What is the draft?
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#13
And speaking of "Cruise" ships, I was going through a Google search of "Cruise Ships", and then all the pictures of the many, many different vessels. They showed a lot of them, and also some that sank. They can also watch these sinking on YouTube too.

But on the fourth or fifth page was this.

[Image: Liquidators_Cruise_ships.jpg]

What the devil? It looked like a good number of Civil War Monitors parked in a row. So I went a little deeper and lo-and-behold, I arrived at this page. Now this is Very, Very strange, to say the least. These are cruise ships? WoW! Then I got to thinking: it must be so, because only the communists could come up with something so UGLY and obviously not interested in aesthetics.

Now, am I wrong here? Are these really Soviet cruise ships? Or is this just a hoax? I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would consider going on a cruise on one of those things, when they were in use.

Also, I have always known that Chernobyl was in Ukraine, but did not know just how close to Belarus. In fact the lion's share of contamination was actually in the neighboring country, not Ukraine. Interesting. But those 'so called' cruise ships really intrigued me. How could there be so many of them in the middle of the continent.

So I got out the Maps and look around. Google gave me the best shot. And two things stood out. Chernoblyl was only a little over 10km from Belarus. And also, the Dnieper River flowed right through that immediate area, so it was entirely possible that all of those 'cruise' ships could have been moved there. Most likely they consisted of All the Black Sea Soviet cruise liners.

Anyway, this is very interesting history, and I would not have discovered this had I not been searching for pictures of different cruise ships.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#14
There appear to be at least 5 decks beneath the waterline, and if the weight is enough, it could be self-righting - even if it looks top-heavy. Most of the cabins are on the outside shell, while a few decks have additional interior cabins that look down on a cavernous internal space with trees and green spaces. I agree it doesn't look aerodynamic - but then, it really doesn't need to fly.

Let's see, it has 18 decks (minus the unlucky 13th deck) and if five are below the waterline, that means a hundred-foot wave would top out at about the 14th or 15th deck. I sure hope the curtain airbags work for side impact collisions.
Reply
#15
If Abraxas comes back as him about it. He is studying naval design.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#16
The Fitzgerald was found in 2 seperate sections. I don't buy the water got in the hatches line. I think she broke even with water and went on down and the stress snapped her hull.

Full of iron ore,26 tons or more,plus the net weight. Wouldn't be so hard to imagine in those rough waters she just broke even with water and went on down. "Boys it's been good to know ya". The fact the Captain McSorley could not even make 1 urgent transmission indicates a rapid descent.





Music
Reply
#17
Here is the layout of the wreck on the bottom. Unless she was in shallow water, the close proximity of the two pieces show that she did not break up on the surface, but on the way down.

Also, note the stern being upside down. My guess is that it still had a pretty good amount of air in it's holds, while the bow section is upright. it was most likely full of water, along with the iron.

I believe the experts were correct on this one. She filled up with water, having open forward hatches, and when she hit a big wave, or waves, her lowered bow started moving her downward, under the surface. Air pressure caused an eruption of the superstructure, as it found a place to erupt out of the ship. And that place was most likely along another hatch, where the break is located.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#18
Well hell John. That just makes too much sense. I'm gonna have to repent and agree now. You sure know how to hurt a fellas pride!

Just kidding.
Reply
#19
Does anyone have any comments on the Soviet 'cruise ships' that were used to house all of those poor "liquidators", who were responsible for cleanup of the site?

How would you like to go on a cruise with one of them? Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#20
How deep is deep? She lies in 530 feet of water according to this report:
http://www.boatnerd.com/fitz/
As for "Cruise ships". Having been on 2 cruises and experiencing the Cattle Car effect of the cruise I do not believe I will be on or recommend anyone to participate in what could be considered a masochistic endeavor. Of course if you are of the Herd Mentality then you might actually like it. I know Democrats like cruises 10 to 1 over more intelligent people.
I took 2 because I gave the benefit of doubt and sailed on a smaller ship but the experience was similar just less "Cattle" to be herded.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)