Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 7 of 8  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page « 14 5 6 7 8 »
Author Message
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: December 22nd, 2017, 6:52 pm
Offline
Posts: 5155
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact: Website
Yes, glad to FINALLY see something worthwhile come of this thread!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 12:14 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
Ha, I didn't mean to be a tease. This was more of an inquiry thread than anything. Does the hull so far look kosher in terms of shape, superstructure/reactor placement, etc.?

Also, is there any benefit to using kort nozzles on a vessel of this size and type? I can't find any precedent in real life, but I don't know if it's good or bad. Am I better off going with a conventional propeller?

I'm also aware that a few people here have some strong opinions about the use of bow and stern thrusters. It seems like a good idea for pulling in and out of parallel dock, and I personally think they look neat. (I drew the ones seen here from scratch.) Still, some folks have discouraged them in other threads for reasons that remain nebulous to me.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
odysseus1980
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 12:39 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3430
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 8:53 am
Location: Athens,Hellenic Kingdom
Convevyional prop is the cheap and always working solution. The ship will be expensive, so a ordinary prop would keep cost down from having kort nozzles.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 2:47 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
odysseus1980 wrote: *
Convevyional prop is the cheap and always working solution. The ship will be expensive, so a ordinary prop would keep cost down from having kort nozzles.
Roger. I'm also probably going to go with a more conventional single-skeg, single-reactor configuration. The Triple-E's dual-skeg/engine design, from what I've read, appears to be geared toward addressing issues inherent to fossil fuel-powered ships, and the latest non-Maersk ULCVs (e.g. OOCL Germany) still use a single.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: January 6th, 2018, 12:02 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
She's more or less finished at this point. I ended up creating at least half a dozen new parts for her from scratch, which was fun. :) This one is the ultra-large 20,000(+) TEU variant, shown here mostly "empty" with a stack of containers for demonstration purposes.

[ img ]

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: January 6th, 2018, 12:07 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
If anyone's curious, this is the governmental seal at the stern of the ship:

[ img ]

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: January 6th, 2018, 12:21 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7322
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
question: where is the reactor? because if you are going to refuel her, you need to access that area from above..... (also, modern crews kind of want to sleep away from anything nuclear, I think :P)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: January 6th, 2018, 12:46 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
acelanceloet wrote: *
question: where is the reactor? because if you are going to refuel her, you need to access that area from above..... (also, modern crews kind of want to sleep away from anything nuclear, I think :P)
Reactor sits underneath the above-deck containers in the bay immediately behind the superstructure, taking the place of below-deck containers in that section. Refueling is accomplished when no containers are present by removing the coverings. The reactor itself is a navalized version of an integrated SMR, and the entire vessel can be removed by heavy-lift crane in drydock if necessary. See also the WIP on the previous page.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
odysseus1980
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: January 6th, 2018, 2:17 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3430
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 8:53 am
Location: Athens,Hellenic Kingdom
Nice to see her completed!

Could we see some specs of her?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Practical Nuclear Merchant VesselPosted: January 6th, 2018, 9:35 pm
Offline
Posts: 2867
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
This is a beautiful drawing. I particularly like how the superstructure fits within a single container-length block - this wouldn't be critical from a design perspective, but I can totally imagine it shaking out this way in real life for ease of design and construction.

A few thoughts...
.
  • Perhaps most importantly, it's impossible to imagine such a ship would go to sea without an auxiliary power unit, probably (IMHO) a 1000kW-class diesel. A small exhaust high on the superstructure would be appropriate, perhaps 6px in diameter. An alternative might be to move the superstructure aft 6-8 compartments, locating the reactor perhaps a compartment forward of it (I'd maintain one full compartment between crewed spaces and the reactor room, but no more). The motor room (be it electrical or turbine) might then sit below the superstructure, which is currently dead volume. The auxiliary diesel could then be a direct-drive unit (if your main shaft is steam turbine driven).
  • I think in practice the navigation light would be located on (or perhaps above) the bridge wing, rather than the main block.
  • I'm not actually sure if such ships carry both lifeboats and life rafts (I don't think they do).
  • She probably needs a SOLAS boat, although it might be on the port side.
  • The superstructure radars are dubious, I think (they're sort of generic parts-sheet drawings, rather than representative of real navigation sets). I've got some real S- and X-band navigation radars drawn, if you're interested. I guess to some extent that depends on the era you have in mind for this ship (it looks like it belongs in the present day).
  • I don't really like how 01 and 02 are 18' rather than 12' as the decks above them; I'd insert a deck here and have three 12' decks.
  • There's no reason for 01 to have deck-edge chocks like it does right now - a structural designer would do everything he or she could to not involve the superstructure in ship-wide loads.
  • It's sort of odd, I think, that there are no superstructure doors below 06. Why have external walkways and ladders below this if no access is required? Either the crew needs to access those important spaces, or the spaces are not important and so the companionways might as well be internal.
  • From an artistic perspective, I'd prefer to show deck demarcations on the superstructure at every level or not at all (this is just personal preference).
  • The crane on 04 floats oddly; I'm not sure what it's for in any case.
  • I'd bump the bow navigation radar up a deck level; it's super light, and I can't imagine a reason for it to be shielded from aft views by the aerodynamic breakwater behind it.
.
Anyway, this is really attractive and interesting! I am glad you finally put it all together.

I might humbly suggest that a friendly mod split off the last page or so of this into a new Personal Designs thread...?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 7 of 8  [ 75 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 14 5 6 7 8 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]