The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea

HughPickens.com writes Alastair Philip Wiper writes that at 194 feet wide and 1,312 feet long, the Matz Maersk Triple E is the largest ship ever built, capable of carrying 18,000 20-foot containers. Its propellers weigh 70 tons apiece and it is too big for the Panama Canal, though it can shimmy through the Suez. A U-shaped hull design allows more room below deck, providing capacity for 18,000 shipping containers arranged in 23 rows – enough space to transport 864 million bananas. The Triple-E is constructed from 425 pre-fabricated segments, making up 21 giant "megablock" cross sections. Most of the 955,250 liters of paint used on each ship is in the form of an anti- corrosive epoxy, pre-applied to each block. Finally, a polyurethane topcoat of the proprietary Maersk brand color "Hardtop AS-Blue 504" is sprayed on.

Twenty Triple-E class container ships have been commissioned by Danish shipping company Maersk Lines for delivery by 2015. The ships are being built at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering factory in the South Korean port of Opko. The shipyard, about an hour from Busan in the south of the country, employs about 46,000 people, and "could reasonably be described as the worlds biggest Legoland," writes Wiper. "Smiling workers cycle around the huge shipyard as massive, abstractly over proportioned chunks of ships are craned around and set into place." The Triple E is just one small part of the output of the shipyard, as around 100 other vessels including oil rigs are in various stages of completion at the any time." The vessels will serve ports along the northern-Europe-to-Asia route, many of which have had to expand to cope with the ships' size. "You don't feel like you're inside a boat, it's more like a cathedral," Wiper says. "Imagine this space being full of consumer goods, and think about how many there are on just one ship. Then think about how many are sailing round the world every day. It's like trying to think about infinity."

Comments

waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't these fools know that everything is either 3D printed on site or sent by delivery drone these days?

Re:waste of effort

[Ol Olsoc]

Don't these fools know that everything is either 3D printed on site or sent by delivery drone these days?

If it can't be done with a Smartphone, it isn't worth doing

Re:waste of effort

[AndyKron]

Don't forget that the 3D printer is delivered by drone, too!

Re:waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that the drone is 3D printed!

Re:waste of effort

[paysonwelch]

Actually they missed the boat on this one. They would be better off designing the future of shipping which is a global fleet of ships that autonomously transfer cargo pods mid-transit to optimize deliverr time and reduce the distance and number of trips (hence saving fuel). So just imaging a large ship except it has it's cargo in pods. Two or three ships meet up at locations their AI deem to be most optimal and switch only some of their cargo depending on what is going where and then they continue on. Better efficiency and fuel savings, also the boats could be small to medium sized (relatively speaking compared to large shipping vessels) enabling them to get into more ports.

Re:waste of effort

[hackertourist]

Large pods would just move the inefficiencies elsewhere. You'd have to load the ISO containers into these pods, then load the pods onto a ship.
You can't reliably transfer these pods at sea, so you'll have to do this in port anyway, so your system won't result in shorter routes.
Smaller ships are less efficient than large ships: the longer a ship gets, the more efficient its propulsion system gets. You also get other economies of scale (less crew, for instance).

Re:waste of effort

[ramorim]

I think we need to create bigger ports too. A monster company like Maersk probably think that the bigger is the better in terms of transportation cost. So, if they are right, the world countries need to upgrade all their ports for this new "standard size" for cargo ships (or they think they can create bigger ones in the future?).

Other companies need to built bigger cargo ships too, and probably decide about a standard and innovations like how is the best position for load/unload this massive ships.

Also, I think they have to maintain their short ships too. Let the bigger ones do the massive transportation and the small ones implementing something like a tactical supply in short routes (and support to the bigger ships before and after their standard routes).

Re:waste of effort

[omtinez]

Actually they missed the boat on this one

I see what you did there...

Re:waste of effort

[M8e]

What-you-did-there Ohoy!

Re:waste of effort

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The world's biggest Lego Land. Do they sing "Everything is Awesome!" while they work?

Re:waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

An icebreaker is a fun ride in sea state 4. It has round bottom too.

Re:waste of effort

[RockDoctor]

So just imaging a large ship except it has it's cargo in pods. Two or three ships meet up at locations their AI deem to be most optimal and switch only some of their cargo depending on what is going where and then they continue on.

I take it from this that you've never done ship-to-ship cargo transfer. You talk blithely of transferring loads from one vessel to another, both of them moving with respect to each other, and both of them moving with respect to the sea surface (errr, momentum? remember inertia? Newton's first law?), and the sea surface being both movable and flexible.

Yes, it can be done. We move thousands of tonnes of equipment and supplies onto and off our drilling rig every tear. And we take strenuous efforts to minimise the number of transfers because they're (1) dangerous to personnel ; (2) dangerous to the equipment of the rig ; (3) dangerous to the equipment in the container ; and (4) slow. Ten transfers an hour is pretty damned fast, and that is only if you have all the loads in the right places to lift off, and the returning loads ready to go on the boat, and having space on the rig (and boat) to drop each load into. Once you have to start to play "deck chess", then your transfer rate goes through the floor.

But such crippling objections aside, what do you think you mean by "cargo pods"? They'd need to be cuboid units (which will tesselate perfectly, with no wasted space between units), each with standardised fittings for lifting them with standardised equipment which will operate the same the world over, and which are all the same size (or small range of sizes). you've just described the "shipping container". Changing the name to a "pod" isn't going to change anything.

There is a huge inertia in these systems. You'd have to launch a globally effective system, with at least three ports and three vessels all equipped to handle and transfer the "pods". And you'd probably still find that you'd have a system that worked in multiples of a "shipping container".

Question

[StripedCow]

A man is sitting in this ship, and throws a massive Korean-made LED TV-screen overboard into the water.
As a result, will the water level rise, or drop?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard Kevin Sorbo once tried to drink an entire ocean. The water level didn't even budge.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to say neither, since the ship had been carrying the TV therefore displacing that amount of water already.

Re:Question

[91degrees]

It depends on whether the TV floats or not. Usually the question uses rocks or something that will obviously sink, but the GP was making a joke rather than asking seriously.

The answer though - when in a boat, the displacement is equal to its own weight. When submerged, the displacement is equal to its own volume. In the case of rocks, they have quite a small volume or large mass relative to water. Therefore the water level will go down. I think.

Re:Question

[maroberts]

Lets assume your object sinks - the density of the object is greater than the density of water.

When the object is on the ship, the amount of water displaced will be dependent on the weight of the object.
When the object is under the water, the amount of water displaced will be dependent on the volume of the object.
Since the density of the object is greater than water, the volume of water displaced under the water is less than the volume of water displaced whilst above water

Therefore the water level will rise a teeny tiny amount.
However the water level will fall relative to the side of the ship because the ship will not displace quite so much

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore the water level will rise a teeny tiny amount.
However the water level will fall relative to the side of the ship because the ship will not displace quite so much

Answers may vary. The question is bullshit because it doesn't define how "water level" is measured.

Re:Question

[Thanshin]

A man is sitting in this ship, and throws a massive Korean-made LED TV-screen overboard into the water.
As a result, will the water level rise, or drop?

It depends on the answer to the following questions:
- Was the TV's weight being held by the ship? Or was it held neutral by, for example, helium balloons.
- What water does the question refers to? The Sea outside the ship? Or the captain's quarters' Olympic swimming pool.
- Shall the answer take into account the man's decrease in weight caused by the calorie loss due to the TV throwing? And, in that case, what's the man's lean body mass, BMI, weight and basal consumption rate?

Re:Question

[ihtoit]

Almost. The water level will remain the same since the rock will only sink to the level where the density of the water is equal to it, hence it attains neutral buoyancy.

(proof: pumice floats).

Re:Question

[ArcadeMan]

That's easy. Train A will arrive in New York forty-two minutes before train B arrives in Los Angeles.

Re:Question

[Bengie]

If it floats, it will be neutral because it will displace as much water equal to its own mass. If it sinks, it will displace less water than equal to its own mass.

Re:Question

[deroby]

Interesting line of thought and kind of true: water gets more dense as you go deeper.
But what if there is a barrier preventing the rock to sink all the way to its neutral buoyancy level ? Call it, I don't know... "the bottom" or something...

Re:Question

[bkmoore]

If it floats, it will be neutral because it will displace as much water equal to its own mass. If it sinks, it will displace less water than equal to its own mass.

Only the mass of the object matters if it's inside of the hull of the ship. Shipping 1 ton of feathers is the same as shipping 1 ton of led, at least as far as displacement is concerned.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Go further -- the man throws the entire ship's contents overboard, sinks the ship, drowns himself and the crew. Water level: unchanged.

Re:Question

[LynnwoodRooster]

Is that during or after daylight savings time?

Re:Question

[budgenator]

So does an airliner weight more when the housefly inside is airborne than it does when the fly has landed inside the plane?

Re:Question

[rjstegbauer]

I see two cases.

1. The object floats on top of the water, and displaces it's weight in water and the water level remains the same.
2. The object sinks below the surface of the water and displaces it's *volume* of water and the water level goes down.

--
Randy -- iamnotapysicist,butrememberansweringthistrickquestionbefore,butmayhavemisremembered

Re:Question

[ArcadeMan]

What do you mean? African or European daylight savings time?

Re:Question

[cstacy]

Assume a spherical man.

Re:Question

[91degrees]

Not sure if it makes a difference even if we have an object that is marginally denser than water at surface level. We're still only displacing our volume.

Re:Question

[mccrew]

Interesting line of thought and kind of true: water gets more dense as you go deeper.

Pressure increases with depth, density not so much. Water's an incompressible fluid.

Re:Question

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, since it could travel via Arizona, it might be neither. Or maybe both?

Re:Question

[stridebird]

or for more earthiness, an oblate spheroidal man

Re:Question

[witherstaff]

Neither, since there is no daylight saving s time.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Water is for all practical purposes incompressible so that there is very little change in density with depth. Temperature changes will have a greater effect, eg colder water lower down will be more dense, but not enough to matter. Salinity will also slightly affect density. A typical rock might easily have a density more than 2.5 times that of water so will sink all the way to the bottom.
Pumice floats because it is full of bubbles, but can become saturated and sink.
John

Re:Question

[CHIT2ME]

It really doesn't matter as far as the TV goes, the sailor will be fired and thrown off the ship in the next port. Thus, the sea level will drop in proportion to his body mass.

Ho-lee-crap

[Richard_at_work]

20 of the worlds largest vessels, built and delivered in a couple of years, now *thats* a production line worthy of the name!

The size of the vessel may be whats being pushed as the impressive thing here, but really its the fact that they can push out 13 of these at a time - instant fleet renewal! I can't think of one western shipyard which comes close to that capacity - even the two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers are having to be built one after each other due to shipyard limitations, and thats just two vessels, not 13!

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, a cargo ship, while impressive, is slightly simpler to design and construct than an aircraft carrier.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[228e2]

All that mirco-ing in Warcraft/Starcraft is paying off.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Koreans 3 an amazing nation :-)

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NotDrWho]

Hey, someone has to keep the U.S. and Europe supplied with electronics that we used to make here.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

All that mirco-ing in Warcraft/Starcraft is paying off.

That's no accident. Good monkeys have to be trained properly, and from a young age.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[bloodhawk]

No, when you are working on such a massive scale they really aren't simpler, the engineering and sheer weights alone are astronomical.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Livius]

Undoubtedly more complex that a regular cargo vessel, but a ship designed to house a few thousand military personnel will be significantly more complex, much less one where those people are doing their jobs.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. managed to crank out hundreds of so-called Liberty Ships very quickly during WWII. Yes, those times are long gone.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[gyepi]

The dimensions of the Prelude FLNG is 488m x 74m (1,601ft x 243 ft), and thus it is way larger vessel than the Triple E. The hull was already launched last year. The only reason it is not the largest ship is that it does not have its own engines to propel itself.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[hackertourist]

Discovery Channel aired a series of programmes on this project last year. IIRC the main shipyard can house 2 or 3 of these in parallel, not 13. Each ship spends only a few months in this yard (final assembly only). Delivery tempo is one a month.
Modules are built at various other shipyards.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[tburkhol]

These are not really the largest ship ever built, just the largest container ships. The Knock Nevis was a full 200 feet longer and 30 feet wider, and many in-service ULCCs are larger. The triple-E has a capacity of 165k DWT, where the 'standard' size for VLCC supertankers is 280k DWT. The first Triple-E was launched in 2013, so I don't know why they're talking about this like it's a future event.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[stealth_finger]

Not really. A cargo ship of that size is as complex as an aircraft carrier.

Considering this ship is designed to hold however many thousand cargo containers and the crew to support it, it needs a lot of empty space inside. Considering an aircraft carrier is essentially a city at sea, complete with nuclear reactors, aircraft hangars, repair shops, weapons bays, accommodation for a few thousand and mess facilities for the aforementioned plus its own empty space storage areas. I'm willing to bet the aircraft carrier is still more complex in terms of design and construction.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[phoenix_V]

I suspect it is a space limittion more than anything that prevents most western shipyards from building multiple ships that size. While this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... ship is about half the length is is undeniably large. Had no other ships been being constructed while she was on land the yard could have handled building a second one, and *maybe* a third, but that is unlikely. There just would not have been enough ground to fit them on. Cheap labor long ago reduced shipyards in most western countries to building military ships and some extremely spicalised or luxury ships.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[stealth_finger]

No, when you are working on such a massive scale they really aren't simpler, the engineering and sheer weights alone are astronomical.

For the hull sure, but what about the insides?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[The Grim Reefer]

I was thinking the same. Then I found it amazing that the same company that failed miserably in the automotive industry within the US has this kind of manufacturing capability. Daewoo makes all kinds of things. But this was not something that I would have considered. It's very impressive.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[CastrTroy]

While obviously not as impressive in size (441 ft.), the Liberty ship could be built surprisingly fast. As a publicity stunt, they built one in 4 days, 15.5 hours. The average build time was 42 days, and in 1940, they produced 200 ships in a year. Impressive what countries can do during wartime.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[smileytshirt]

In one of the articles..

Right now, the shipyard is in the process of making eight more Triple Es, all in various stages of completion

But what is way more impressive is this:

the Triple E is just one small part of the output of the shipyard, as around 100 other vessels including oil rigs are in various stages of completion at the any time

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[KozmoStevnNaut]

It's bullshit that they're building them in Korea, though.

We have perfectly capable, world-class shipyards in Denmark, practically begging to take on these kinds of tasks. In the old days, when Arnold Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller still ran the company, these orders would have gone to Danish companies. No more, now everything is outsourced to the lowest bidder.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost: Maersk Triple E class, 185 million USD, HMS Queen Elizabeth, 5 billion USD
Crew: Maersk Triple E class, 22, HMS Queen Elizabeth, 679

And so on... actually, empty, such an aircraft carrier displaces more than this "largest ship". They are only considered largest by cargo volume. As a naval engineer, would be glad to have a non-troll explain to me how these are more complex than the construction of a modern supercarrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Triple_E_class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08)

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Deadstick]

Kaiser actually built one in four days in a carefully-choreographed stunt...two or three weeks was typical.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering an aircraft carrier is essentially a city at sea, complete with nuclear reactors,

Most do not... only the Americans and French have nuclear powered aircraft carriers. So the Royal Navy ones being discussed before would not have these.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[CastrTroy]

Why should it not be? As long as the Koreans can build the ship to the same specs as the Danes, I don't see why the jobs should go to one country over the other. Giving the jobs to Danes might mean that they have more jobs and more money to spend, but it would also mean that shipping costs would go up. As a country that is highly reliant on trade with other countries, they should want shipping costs to remain low.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[nabsltd]

Considering this ship is designed to hold however many thousand cargo containers and the crew to support it, it needs a lot of empty space inside.

According to TFA, the crew while at sea is 15 people, which is nothing compared to the 5,000 or so on a fully-populated-for-war aircraft carrier.

When you add in the fact that a warship is supposed to be able to go for at least weeks at a time without any replenishment, needs a much stronger hull for its size, has a lot more electronics that need special cabling and conduits, etc., commercial vessels are actually quite easy to build in comparison.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[IamTheRealMike]

South Korea is hardly the third world. If Danish shipyards can't beat them on price, why not?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Mr D from 63]

Not to mention the design challenges when striking a balance between open cargo space and hull supports.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Because A.P Møller-Mærsk used to a point of pride for Denmark. One of our biggest companies and a big international player with influence all over the world, and they supported little ol' Denmark by making use of local labor and expertise, sponsoring public projects and *gasp* paying their taxes. It was a fully-sustainable business approach, and supported hundreds of other Danish companies, not to mention thousands of Danish shipbuilders, often lauded as the very best in the world.

South Korea is definitely not a third-world country, and I am not denigrating the great skills of their shipbuilders at all, it's a tough job for tough people. But it's still outsourcing tasks to the other side of the world, when they could very easily have been solved at home in way that would have been beneficial to both A.P. Møller-Mærsk and Denmark as a whole.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[91degrees]

True, but they weren't exactly built to last. They were built quickly. They had a tendency to break in two.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are no design tradeoffs when designing supercarriers. None.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Tyr07]

Inflation and higher cost of living means they have to pay higher wages.

I'm super concerned with that, because the super rich people begin to have issues if they have only two private jets instead of 4, and they might have to purchase a smaller private island if they were forced to work inside the country they're extracting money from.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Richard_at_work]

The complexity will come in the outfitting, which for the two aforementioned Royal Navy carriers will come after the ship has been floated and moved out of the construction dock - however, even ignoring the outfitting of the carrier, I am still amazed that the Korean shipyard can build several copies of a much larger ship and deliver them in a time shorter than our shipyards can complete the hull of one single carrier (HMS Queen Elizabeth, laid down in 2009, floated in 2014, still being outfitted). Even going by first joining of major sub assemblies, the RN carrier took 3 years between that and first floating.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[dywolf]

the cargo vessel is little more than a reinforced box.
the aircraft carrier has thousands of rooms with reinforced bulkheads to withstand damage, dedicated to seperates task and thousands of miles of wiring.

its like comparing a box store to a skyscraper

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[dj245]

No, when you are working on such a massive scale they really aren't simpler, the engineering and sheer weights alone are astronomical.

Not really, the numbers are larger but the math is very well understood. This is a very mature industry, perhaps the oldest manufacturing industry in the world. People have been building boats for thousands of years. Ship's aren't redesigned every time one is built either. The bulk of a ship is the exact same "U" profile. Design it once, copy it all down the length of the ship. The bow and the stern are the only complex parts, but contribute little to strength. The bow and stern are generally proven designs which are taken "off the shelf" and adapted to the application with only slight changes. Chopping off the back end of a ship (accommodation, engineering, and propulsion area), refurbishing it, and welding it to a brand new ship hull is not uncommon. Unlike with pleasure craft and cars, "style" has approximately 0 design influence in large ships. Everyone is honing in on the most hydrodynamic designs and you can't copyright the math which describes the curves on a ship.

I'm onboard the Tolteca right now, built in 1954/1955. When we were in drydock, the only difference between this ship and ships built much more recently is the distinct lack of a bulbous bow, and the use of diesel propulsion engines instead of a steam turbine.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

But it's still outsourcing tasks to the other side of the world, when they could very easily have been solved at home in way that would have been beneficial to both A.P. Møller-Mærsk and Denmark as a whole.

But wouldn't that have been harmful to South Korea? You seem to be valuing the interests of Denmark over the interests of South Korea. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[dj245]

I suspect it is a space limittion more than anything that prevents most western shipyards from building multiple ships that size. ...... Cheap labor long ago reduced shipyards in most western countries to building military ships and some extremely spicalised or luxury ships.

You just contradicted yourself. Western shipyards aren't limited on space. If you have the demand, you can always get more space / capabilities / labor / raw materials. They are limited by demand.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[putaro]

Part of the long build time may simply be to keep the shipyard in business over a longer term. After all, it's not like you can pop out a ship and send everyone home for a couple of years while waiting for the next contract. Building to the pace of the contract acquisition lets you keep your skilled workers on the job.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[PPalmgren]

Its no longer economical to build these ships in the West, as you said. Maersk, the purchaser of these ships, actually owned a shipyard (Odense) in Europe which it used to build its original E-class ships. Shortly after, that shipyard was put out to pasture. All of the major cargo shipbuilders are located in Asia, like Hyundai Heavy and Daewoo. These things take a lot of labor to manufature.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's Danish, shit-for-brains.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[myth24601]

Nobody even mentioned that the modern carrier also has a large amount of electronics, sensors and other fancy doodads that no cargo ship will ever have to contend with (they may have a decent weather radar but they don't have any need to scan the sky for aircraft for example).

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[phoenix_V]

I should have stated that it's multiple factors, but space is indeed one for some of the US shipyards:

This is the Ingalls Shipyard in MS https://www.google.com/maps/pl... Where some of the larger military ships are built, I can't tell, not knowing when the photo was taken, but my guess is the large ship in the river to the right is LHA-6 before being turned over to the navy. You can see there just is not space to build many at one time.

Yes, there are larger shipyards in the US, but many of them are completely surrounded by urban areas and have to room to grow. So it's not the only facter but is a real one.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MightyYar]

This is exactly right, and is why the US continues to build new nuclear subs at the slowest... possible... rate...

If you are a business, you want your capital returned as soon as possible. If you are a peacetime military, you just want to retain capability in the cheapest possible way. Totally different goals. During WW2, you saw the goals of industry and the military align, and it was kind of breathtaking.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Are you suggesting that Danish people aren't rational?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

We have perfectly capable, world-class shipyards in Denmark, practically begging to take on these kinds of tasks.

Not really. No one builds ships of that size in Europe or the US - basically the only yards that work on that scale are Japan, Korea, and China. Maersk built their E-class ships at Odense, but they shut that operation down five years ago.

To be fair, a lot of the upstart Chinese yards have been unable to deliver on time (or even at all), but the real estate, labor costs, environment and environmental regulations hugely favor SE Asian builders over North Sea builders

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Dr. Evil]

It wasn't long ago that South Korea wasn't so advanced, and Daewoo was corrupt.

The national identity has been trying to raise standards in everything, but it still has horrible reminders of its recent past. The Sewoul disaster where hundreds died needlessly, the subway crash where 200 people died, the recent collapse of a sidewalk grate where 16 concert goers just... died.

By "national identity" I mean the health, safety and anticorruption standards are considered part of the national identity and distinct from the standards of many neighbouring countries.

In the past 20 years Korea has been rebuilding everything and has good standards. These stories are making the country obsessive over safety and quality, but there's still junk from the recent past, or people who are wrapped in nepotism and corruption who shouldn't be responsible for anything involving public safety, but can't be removed.

As long as the ship builders are not part of that past, then it's a boon for the country and another milestone for Korea's advancement.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Are you suggesting that Danish people aren't rational?

The (other) AC just hasn't realized that tribalism isn't rational.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[kruach aum]

More like Park Ho Li am I right.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[k6mfw]

Interesting to compare South Korea to North Korea (ok, not much in comparison as so vastly different). What we have is a small nation that is a manufacturing economic powerhouse. I heard when they built their high speed rail, part of govt specs is components have to be made in SK as final assembly may seem way to go in terms of providing jobs in the country. But most of value is the parts manufacturing, and US buys HSR components and systems from SK. I remember 1988 Olympics when SK showcased their modern city Seoul while NK insisted they were the superior Korea and attempted to complete Olympics facilities. However, I read someplace it was not always like that after 1953 Korean War. For couple decades NK had better roads, rails, infrastructure etc. that was built by Japanese during their period of occupation as NK was industrial portion and SK being mostly farmland. But it was in 1970s, while corruption was rampant, the SK govt figured they better modernize into 20th century. Now I don't claim to be authority, too lazy to look up the facts (if they can easily be found, I rarely consult wikipedia), but then building huge ships is impressive, just think of all those boatloads of cheep Chinese stuff coming into Los Angeles and Oakland.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

If you belong to that tribe, it's fully rational.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[k6mfw]

True, but they weren't exactly built to last. They were built quickly. They had a tendency to break in two.

and transmission had only three settings: Forward, backward, and neutral. There was a pic showing one that broke in two because didn't spend time to engineer for steel contraction in very cold water. Must have been terrible when (if it did happen) at sea. Interesting comment from previous post, "Kaiser actually built one in four days in a carefully-choreographed stunt...two or three weeks was typical." Another benefit was Kaiser created employee health benefits as perk to attract workers. Companies did have to compete for employees in those days.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Ew, you're one of those "one world" people.

It's rational to support the culture and the people you grew up with, that share your values, and that you work and live alongside.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Talderas]

7/1/31 - 12 Battleships, 3 Carriers, 20 Cruisers, 87 Destroyers, 56 Submarines, 308 Total Active Ships
9/1/37 - 15 Battleships, 3 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 111 Destroyers, 52 Submarines, 335 Total Active Ships
6/30/38 - 15 Battleships, 5 Carriers, 32 Cruisers, 112 Destroyers, 54 Submarines, 380 Total Active Ships
6/30/39 - 15 Battleships, 5 Carriers, 36 Cruisers, 127 Destroyers, 58 Submarines, 394 Total Active Ships
6/30/40 - 15 Battleships, 6 Carriers, 37 Cruisers, 185 Destroyers, 64 Submarines, 478 Total Active Ships
12/7/41 - 17 Battleships, 7 Carriers, 1 Escort Carriers, 37 Cruisers, 171 Destroyers, 112 Submarines, 790 Total Active Ships
12/31/42 - 19 Battleships, 4 Carriers, 12 Escort Carriers, 39 Cruisers, 224 Destroyers, 133 Submarines, 1782 Total Active Ships (growth here was in an explosion of Patrol Boats)
12/31/43 - 21 Battleships, 19 Carriers, 35 Escort Carriers, 48 Cruisers, 332 Destroyers, 172 Submarines, 3699 Total Active Ships (Frigates, PT Boats and Amphibious Craft covers most of the growth)
12/31/44 - 23 Battleships, 25 Carriers, 65 Escort Carriers, 61 Cruisers, 367 Destroyers, 230 Submarines, 6084 Total Active Ships (Amphibious Craft and Auxiliaries covered most of the growth)
8/14/45 - 23 Battleships, 28 Carriers, 71 Escort Carriers, 72 Cruisers, 377 Destroyers, 232 Submarines, 6768 Total Active Ships (Amphibious Craft and Auxiliaries covered most of the growth)
6/30/46 - 10 Battleships, 15 Carriers, 10 Escort Carriers, 36 Cruisers, 145 Destroyers, 85 Submarines, 1248 Total Active Ships
6/30/50 - 1 Battleship, 11 Carriers, 4 Escort Carriers, 13 Cruisers, 137 Destroyers, 72 Submarines, 634 Total Active Ships
6/30/55 - 3 Battleships, 21 Carriers, 3 Escort Carriers, 17 Cruisers, 249 Destroyers, 108 Submarines,1 SSG/SSBNS, 1030 Total Active Ships
6/30/60 - 23 Carriers, 13 Cruisers, 226 Destroyers, 106 Submarines, 7 SSG/SSBNS, 812 Total Active Ships
6/30/65 - 25 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 221 Destroyers, 104 Submarines, 30 SSG/SSBNS, 880 Total Active Ships
6/30/70 - 19 Carriers, 31 Cruisers, 155 Destroyers, 103 Submarines, 41 SSG/SSBNS, 743 Total Active Ships
6/30/75 - 15 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 102 Destroyers, 75 Submarines, 41 SSBNS, 559 Total Active Ships
9/30/80 - 13 Carriers, 26 Cruisers, 94 Destroyers, 82 Submarines, 40 SSBNS, 530 Total Active Ships
9/30/85 - 13 Carriers, 30 Cruisers, 69 Destroyers, 100 Submarines, 37 SSBNS, 571 Total Active Ships
9/30/90 - 13 Carriers, 43 Cruisers, 57 Destroyers, 93 Submarines, 33 SSBNS, 570 Total Active Ships
9/30/95 - 12 Carriers, 32 Cruisers, 47 Destroyers, 83 Submarines, 16 SSBNS, 392 Total Active Ships
9/30/00 - 12 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 54 Destroyers, 56 Submarines, 18 SSBNS, 318 Total Active Ships
9/30/05 - 12 Carriers, 23 Cruisers, 46 Destroyers, 54 Submarines, 14 SSBN, 4 SSGN, 282 Total Active Ships
9/30/10 - 11 Carrires, 22 Cruisers, 59 Destroyers, 53 Submarines, 14 SSBN, 4 SSGN, 288 Total Active Ships

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

It's rational to support the culture and the people you grew up with, that share your values, and that you work and live alongside.

Okay, so, since it's rational, then you won't have any trouble showing the reasoning behind this statement. Right?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work in shipbuilding and you are quite correct. To add to what you're saying, the Mobile Landing Platform currently being built by GD is a ship planned to spend 90% of it's life in port. That's 5 $500M ships that will sit at port most of the time. The reason? To bridge the gap between two long auxiliary ship contracts so the workforce is still employed and the Navy can keep replacing ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Landing_Platform

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MightyYar]

Interesting that the 80s re-activation of the old WW2 Iowa-class battleships does not seem to be reflected in your data.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Talderas]

Oh woops. They were reactivated from 83-91. Not sure how I missed those.

http://www.history.navy.mil/br...

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

That is correct. I have been to the GD shipyard in San Diego. There is exactly ZERO room to grow the shipyard; it's completely surrounded by light industry, a military base, and other shipyards.

That doesn't mean you can't reorganize the shipyard and improve efficiency. You could wipe out building ways and increase the graving dock. You could lease land further south and build ship blocks offsite, floating them up in a heavy barge for assembly. However the staggering cost of recapitalization means this will never happen except in wartime, where DoD will float the cost of recapitalization to increase efficiency. Quite frankly, US shipbuilding commercially is nearly dead; the only commercial ships produced in this country are under the Jones Act; everything that trades internationally is Korean or Chinese built.

Also, I've been on some Korean built ships as well as auxiliary ships for the Navy that haul cargo. Korean ships are like disposable cameras; US Navy ships and US built commercial ships are professional photographer grade cameras. They may be in the same category but they're targeted at a completely different market.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay- not an expert here at all - but when you said "you can't copyright the math..." are you sure? I'm pretty sure Boeing has patented the math (or physics, or whatever) on 'slingshotting around the moon.' Is that substantially different?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[phoenix_V]

That is correct at that location as well, the land it sits on is reclaimed via fill dirt from dredging the river and expensive to add too. The island to the south is now leased by them and could be a growth area, it was a small naval base and has facilities, but not for heavy construction. The road being a huge causeway cannot handle the heavy materals needed for that. To the east sits the old shipyard, in use from the late 30's to the 70's but it was compeletely shut down and stripped of useful construction equipment and large areas filled in because of low level but expensive to clean up radiation left over from building nuclear attack subs in the 70's

In the end it's just cheaper to stay with a steady low level production suited to the needs of really the only customer that US yards have, the US armed forces.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MightyYar]

Wow, cool site. Check out the column from 1939, which is the year Germany invaded Poland, to 1945 when the war ended:
Battleships: 15 to 23 (not amazing, but still impressive given their utility to expense ratio)
Carriers: 5 to 99
Cruisers: 36 to 72
Destroyers: 127 to 377
Frigates: 0 to 361
Subs: 58 to 232

And that is while taking losses the whole time!

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies did have to compete for employees in those days

And they still do. Why do you suppose a good (not superstar) software developer with ten-plus years of experience in the SF Bay Area makes around $150K at a good company? (Answer: The demand for such engineers exceeds the supply.) Why do Costco employees make more than Walmart employees? (Answer: Costco can be more selective because they pay more, Walmart takes those who are not good enough for Costco.) Why do Container Store employees make much more than the typical retail employee? (Answer: The Container Store hires selectively and therefore has to pay more to attract and retain those people.)

Also, it's generally believed that the primary reason that Kaiser introduced health care as a fringe benefit was that wage and price controls prevented him from paying to attract the necessary workers and the health insurance fringe benefit was not counted as "wages" so was not subject to limitations. After wage and price controls were lifted, the fact that the cost of such fringe benefits was an expense (and hence deducted from revenues when computing profits) to the company but not taxed as income to the employee (as a salary increase would be) was a major reason the practice continues to this day.

Re: Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a warehouse to a mall.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because the two share nuclear power plants, go underwater down to 1200 ft or more and back up repeatedly, are designed to fire torpedoes, launch missiles,have massively complex sonar domes and house 120 people.

Submarines take the same amount of time now that they did 30 years ago. It takes about 4-5 years to build out and test a nuclear sub. It takes about the same amount of time to build a nuclear powered aircraft carrier as well.

This isn't due to sloth, but the sheer amount of testing both NDT and DT that has to occur as well as dealing with the 1000's of changes that are requested for each boat or ship by the Navy.

Subs are incredibly complex machines and are subjected to an incredible amount of testing and inspection before being sent out to sea and for good reason.

Container and commercial ships are absolute walks in the park to build comparatively.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

because Korean steel is shit

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Zordak]

I don't know if Boeing patented that method or not, but if they did patent it for the 1969 moon shot, the patent has long since expired. (Yes, I am a patent attorney.)

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Talderas]

1937-1946 were the years that I did a by year breakdown rather than jumping every 5 years. The list I posted as a comment was also what I consider major vessels which I consider to bottom out at destroyers and submarines. I don't consider amphibious craft, frigates, pt boats, or other auxilliary surface boats to be major vessels. I also consider battleships, carriers, and some heavy cruisers (like the Alaska class) to be capital ships with most heavy cruisers, light cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and escort carriers not capital ships.

To say the least, it was pretty obvious that we were gearing for war even if we hadn't yet officially declared war.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

and Korean steel is shit.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[TheTerseOne]

There is a series of articles out there on the Interwebs about a company losing a satellite because they couldn't use the patented Boeing math.

However - back to the original comment - since you *are* a patent attorney - is the original statement "you can't copyright the math" true? or false? Thanks!

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[afidel]

When you add in the fact that a warship is supposed to be able to go for at least weeks at a time without any replenishment

Weeks? Try 6+ months for everything but aviation fuel, and even that is around 10-20 days on active war footing (Nimtz class carries enough fuel for ~20 sorties from the full complement of jets)

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MrHanky]

Supporting local business tends to increase local business, increasing local business. This is good for business. Do Korean shipyards get their ship parts shipped by Maersk?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Supporting local business tends to increase local business, increasing local business. This is good for business.

Doesn't supporting nonlocal businesses tend to increase nonlocal business? Isn't that also good for business? Is there a reason why you seem to be valuing local business over nonlocal business?

Do Korean shipyards get their ship parts shipped by Maersk?

I don't know. Do Danish shipyards get their ship parts shipped by some South Korean shipping company? I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

We have perfectly capable, world-class shipyards in Denmark, practically begging to take on these kinds of tasks.

True, but you don't have proximity to cheap raw materials. Swedish steel is more expensive than Chinese steel.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Add another 5 inches to sea level rise...

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[barc0001]

> But wouldn't that have been harmful to South Korea? You seem to be valuing the interests of Denmark over the interests of South Korea. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?

Are you trying to be deliberately disingenuous? You're asking a Danish national why a Danish company shoudn't source work in Denmark if it means less money for a country 1/3 of the way around the globe?

Have you ever given a family member money? If so, why? That would seem to be valuing the interests of your family over the neighbors you've never met. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MightyYar]

I didn't say there was "sloth". But they run 1 shift and quite literally build them as slowly as is feasible. We don't need the number that they are turning out, but we do need the skill set and facilities.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Are you trying to be deliberately disingenuous? You're asking a Danish national why a Danish company shoudn't source work in Denmark if it means less money for a country 1/3 of the way around the globe?

I'm trying to be deliberately disingenuous in the same sense that Socrates was. I'm asking a person of indeterminate nationality why it is objectively better for a shipping company to source work from Denmark than from South Korea.

Have you ever given a family member money? If so, why? That would seem to be valuing the interests of your family over the neighbors you've never met. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?

Rarely, I have, because they asked and I found it appropriate. I've also done the same for friends and for strangers as well. I have not given money to neighbors who I've never met, because they didn't ask me. However, I don't believe I'm valuing interests of people who I've met over those whom I haven't; it's just that people I haven't met yet couldn't have asked me for money (by definition). Is there a reason why you don't consider this to be rational?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the SE Asian manufacturing companies are huge entities. Zaibatsu is a fair term. Daewoo, Samsung, Hyundai and Hitachi are among the biggest ship builders. Familiar names. Upstarts include Rongsheng and Sasebo, but it's really Daewoo, Samsung, and Hyundai that build most of the world's ships over 150,000 tons DWT. Of course, there's only 1000, or maybe 1500 of those afloat, and they have life expectancies of 30-40 years, so you don't really need that many yards.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Talderas]

They will be the largest ships. The Seawise Giant and the Batillus-class supertankers have all been scrapped and no longer exist except as history.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not particularly surprising. Hulls built with the purpose of floating storage can be built without regard for port depths and canal sizes. They're towed once and then moored at sea. The reason this ship is so interesting is because it points at the direction in which ports will need to develop. It's no coincidence that today a contract was signed for the second Suez Canal, and the second Panama Canal is also progressing.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Talderas]

Battleships in WW2 were used mostly for shore bombardment and help with anti-aircraft screens.

North Carolina class (2 total) - 15 40mm bofors, 75 single/dual mix 20mm
South Dakota class (4 total) - 17 40mm bofots, 77 single/dual mix 20mm
Iowa class (4 total) - 20 40mm bofors, 49 single 20mm

You could also take the bofor and multiply out by 4.

North Carolina class - 60 40mm guns, 75 20mm guns, 135 total
South Dakota class - 68 40mm guns, 77 20mm guns, 145 total
Iowa class- 80 40mm guns, 49 20mm guns, 129 total

Comparatively, the Fletcher-class destroyer which was the most common destroyer in WW2 was fitted with five twin 40mm bofors (ten 40mm guns) and seven single 20mm. Some versions had two quad bofors and three twin bofors (14 40mm guns vs 10) along with six dual 20mm instead of seven single 20mm (12 20mm guns vs 7). The Allen Sumner-class destroyer had 12 40mm, later upgraded to 16, and 10 20mm out of the dock. The Gearing-class destroyer had 12 40mm guns, later upgraded to 16, and 11 20mm guns. Most of the battleships built during WW2 were worth at least four destroyers in anti-air flak and it was far more concentrated. With the armor and anti-air flak the newer battleships were truly well designed to be flag vessels for the fleet. The carriers were reliant on their escort surface vessels as well as their escort planes. They were also typically slower than the battleships.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[budgenator]

A lot of Lakers are pushing a 1000 ft and you have to be 740ft or less to get through the lower locks, so they're not getting built in Korea. This also make the Saltys we see look kind of puny; but still it's pretty spectactular when they bounce a 740 foot ocean-going freighter off the seawall, they have to run 8MPH just to maintain steering, so that's a lot of momentum going down-bound.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget 2/3rd of the Danish workers are unionized, which ensures effective wage negotiation. That's a short-term benefit, but it's easy to lose in the long term if union negotiators fail to compare wages internationally. After all, their counterparty from the shipping industry does look overseas - it comes naturally to them ;)

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[nitehawk214]

No, when you are working on such a massive scale they really aren't simpler, the engineering and sheer weights alone are astronomical.

Nautical, not astronomical.

Unless you mean this space ship.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[s122604]

exactly
you don't want to be in the situation where you have to hire a bunch of fresh-faced engineers who have never built a sub before, and have no one to ask because everybody who has is either dead or retired

reminds of a story I heard about stained glass.. evidently there are some forms of stained glass made in medieval/renaissance times that we have no idea how to make today...

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Zordak]

Copyrights don't apply in this case. Patents might. The Supreme Court has recently been struggling with drawing a line between "abstract ideas" (which are not patent-eligible) and concrete methods (which are patent eligible). In general, you can't patent the math per se, but you can patent (for example) a space craft programmed to perform that particular maneuver. As applied to ship building, if it's sufficiently novel, you may be able to patent a ship having certain hull parameters, but you won't generally get a patent just for "make it BIGGAR!" The patentability will usually lie in your solution to the problems you encountered in the process of making it bigger, which means that if somebody finds a different way to make it bigger, you may not be able to stop them. (This isn't legal advice, of course.)

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

If you Google Earth for Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, Korea, Geoje-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea you'll see 7 or so of them in various stages of completion. Put poor old Cammell Laird to shame...

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

He's suggesting that Danish people should such patriots that they deliberately harm their stockholders by spending huge amounts of extra money fattening up local Danish shipbuilding businesses, instead of on those foreigners that can do the same quality work for less, but aren't Danish.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MightyYar]

It's probably true, or based on something true. A lot of those old processes were very dependent on the mix of impurities at a certain location... you could only make [sword/knife/dagger] using an ore from [some hill/bluff/valley]. They didn't know that at the time, or if they did they had no idea why.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not the hard-bitten cynic you want to be seen as.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[khallow]

Consider it a huge warning. that your shipyards aren't competitive.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say there was "sloth". But they run 1 shift and quite literally build them as slowly as is feasible. We don't need the number that they are turning out, but we do need the skill set and facilities.

You do NOT know what you're talking about. All shipyards run three shifts; two production and 3rd shift for material prep. Modern nuclear subs are highly complex, intricately designed machines and take 10-15 million man hours to complete.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I am suggesting that they put their investments into the country, society and industries that support them and have enabled them to grow to the large successful company they are today.

Thanks for playing, but your troll-fu is weak.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Price should not be the only metric to be used for measuring competitiveness. Supporting the society and industries that in turn support you should always be prioritized.

Unfortunately, stockholders only care about short-term savings and profits. No one dares to think in the long term, because that would mean slightly lessened profits in the short term.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[dave420]

The silence is deafening :)

BTW I think you are entirely correct. People are people - one person's relationship to another doesn't magically imbue either party with some magic quality, or even if one were to assume it does, that would then apply to everyone else, rendering the "magic quality" moot. It might not be the most comforting thought in the world for some, but the logic behind it is undeniable.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MrHanky]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was talking to an idiot. If local businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping, then it would be better for Maersk to use local businesses, for its own sake. Clearer now?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[khallow]

Price should not be the only metric to be used for measuring competitiveness. Supporting the society and industries that in turn support you should always be prioritized.

South Korea and its industries support Maersk too.

Unfortunately, stockholders only care about short-term savings and profits. No one dares to think in the long term, because that would mean slightly lessened profits in the short term.

What "long term" benefit is there with going with a Danish shipyard? What does that shipyard or Denmark itself offer than South Korea doesn't offer?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Are you suggesting that Maersk is, today, supported exclusively or primarily by the Danish country, society, and industries? Or merely that they somehow owe an implicit debt to Denmark, and though they are not obligated to repay it, should do so anyway?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

What if nonlocal businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping? Considering that Denmark's economy is quite small compared to the rest of the global economy, it is indeed the case that nonlocal businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping, since there are so many more of them. Consequently, your argument that it would be better for Maersk to use local businesses for its own sake doesn't seem valid.

Kudos for the random insult, though.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MrHanky]

> it is indeed the case that nonlocal businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping, since there are so many more of them.

Thanks for the confirmation. You really are an idiot.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Mærsk has always had a hand in Danish politics and in turn, the politicians have always been happy to make changes in order to keep large Danish-owned companies in-country and integrated into the industrial infrastructure.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[KozmoStevnNaut]

By supporting other Danish industries you ensure future goodwill, as well as a well-educated, highly-skilled and very dedicated workforce. In other words, a better society for your children to grow up in.

Money isn't everything.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Mærsk has always had a hand in Danish politics and in turn, the politicians have always been happy to make changes in order to keep large Danish-owned companies in-country and integrated into the industrial infrastructure.

But that doesn't say anything about their influence in the politics of other states, nor does it say anything about any attempts by other states to court Maersk's business and integrate them into industrial infrastructure abroad.

Clearly the people at Maersk have run the numbers and decided that despite all the Danish overtures, South Korea made more sense for Maersk. It's unlikely that they chose South Korea out of some sense of charity, obligation, or favoritism. You're arguing, fundamentally, that they should have instead chose Denmark, not based on merit, but out of some sense of charity, obligation, or favoritism. This may have made sense for Danes, but not for Maersk, and likely not for members of the global economy at large.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

schooled by an idiot. aww.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[MightyYar]

I have no idea what your agenda is. I'm not the one arguing that military ships are "easy". If you think that America's military shipyards are on anywhere near a war footing, or for that matter operating in a manner that would be competitive on the world private markets then you are delusional. They do a fine job of their goal, which is to keep America's ability to produce such weapons alive - a goal which I agree with. Their secondary goal of keeping the fleet fresh is also successful, but let's face it - that goal could be done for considerably less money if we did not insist on building them domestically.

The Korean shipyard is competitive on the world private market, but would probably put out a pretty piss-poor nuclear submarine. They currently operate German diesel-electrics. Daewoo builds them in Korea, but to your point it takes 4 years or so - not anything like the few months one of these cargo ships take.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Money isn't everything.

Neither is tribalism. Do you think Koreans should boycott LEGO because it's not a Korean company? Should they only focus on promoting commerce among their own tribe?

If Koreans can build ships cheaper than Danes, maybe you should ask what Danish shipbuilders are doing wrong.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

you over look that they are building 100 other ships and/or oil rigs concurrently

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither is tribalism.

The opposite of money is tribalism and there is nothing in between?

Do you think Koreans should boycott LEGO because it's not a Korean company? Should they only focus on promoting commerce among their own tribe?

I think Koreans should boycott any company they want for any reason they want. If Danish shipbuilding companies want to discriminate against Danish workers, it's only fair Koreans can do the same to Danish companies.

FYI, Koreans (and many Chinese and other Asian people) in fact do exercise boycotting over reasons that you may consider tribalism. They boycott Japanese products, because of what happened in WW2 (and the attitudes and response of Japan regarding WW2 since). Many Japanese hate them right back. And a lot of Asians hate Westerners in general for similar historic reasons.

Take the recent/on-going democracy protests in Hong Kong. The anti-protest side, including the government, believes that the protests have outside influence. Read: they suspect the West trying to stir up unrest to weaken Hong Kong and China.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[strikethree]

Wait wait wait! It gets even MORE radical when you consider that they are also building 100 other ships AT THE SAME TIME. Oy oy oy. 46 thousand employees indeed. It must be an amazing dance to watch. It sounds like they have some great management there too if they are sustaining this kind of work.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[khallow]

The opposite of money is tribalism and there is nothing in between?

You're the only one proposing this claim. And since you don't take it seriously either, then maybe you shouldn't bother.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[khallow]

By supporting other Danish industries you ensure future goodwill

You do as well with South Korea. And when it comes to "goodwill" you have to ask what is going to come of that goodwill. Maersk will probably get screwed in Europe over the next few decades no matter which shipyard it uses. At least South Korea has reason to remember who threw them some business and humble enough to do something in kind.

I don't think it's just about money. I think it's also about actual capability to do the job on a fast schedule and goodwill.

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the only one proposing this claim.

No I am not. The other AC responded to "money isn't everything" with an argument about tribalism.

And since you don't take it seriously either

How am I not taking it seriously?

And either? Whos' the other party, you?

then maybe you shouldn't bother.

If I'm not taking it seriously "either", should you not address your comment to yourself as well?

Re:Ho-lee-crap

[Anonymous Coward]

At least South Korea has reason to remember who threw them some business and humble enough to do something in kind.

What makes you think they're any more humble than Westerners? Asians are no more or less immune to being biased and tribal.

When people bash the West or US as being worse than Asia (usually China) or how whitey is evil, slashdotters are quick to point out that Asian history isn't all sunshine and rainbows either. Like, say, the history of South Korea and their northern cousins.

Re: LOL manufacturing

[Anonymous Coward]

+ Like

OH-M-GEE SH-II-P

[DemonOnIce]

46,000 persons, and must be shipping authentic OMG!! PONNIES!! worldwide.

Re:LOL manufacturing

[Anonymous Coward]

Selfie of boobs: (.)(.)

Yay, I'm helping the ecomony.

It would be ironic

[Ukab the Great]

If they forgot to add toilets.

Re:It would be ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

How?

That's bananas!

[smileytshirt]

enough space to transport 864 million bananas

I'm so happy to see we have finally converted to the banana scale. I've been waiting for this since horsepower was invented!

Re:That's bananas!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But to me, she was a slave ship..."

Although as racial epithets go, I wouldn't mind being called a banana.

(Yes, IAAA-A. With a sense of humor. Occasionally.)

Re:That's bananas!

[Anonymous Coward]

enough space to transport 864 million bananas
  I'm so happy to see we have finally converted to the banana scale. I've been waiting for this since horsepower was invented!

That's what I call monkey business!

Re:That's bananas!

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect this will spur a large amount of activity in the research community to find the best banana packing algorithm sphere packing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_packing [wikipedia.org]) research =P.

Give them a few months and I expect the same ship will be able to stock 1.1 billion bananas using the newly published algorithm from the university of xyz...

Re:That's bananas!

[c]

enough space to transport 864 million bananas

I'm so happy to see we have finally converted to the banana scale. I've been waiting for this since horsepower was invented!

Just think... now we're just a double entendre away from the "shlong scale".

Re: That's bananas!

[bill_mcgonigle]

MegaBananas are the SI equivalent of the Libraries of Congress that the knuckle-dragging Americans still use. Get with the rest of the world, people!

Re:That's bananas!

[dj245]

enough space to transport 864 million bananas I'm so happy to see we have finally converted to the banana scale. I've been waiting for this since horsepower was invented!

Maybe someone thought they were being clever, but in reality they are just very ignorant. Bananas are almost always transported by vertically-integrated companies who own their own ships. It's like this because generally Bananas are coming from a port which has little to ship aside from bananas, and the bananas generally go to a small number of special ripening warehouses where they ripen for a while. They're a kind of special cargo, not a general cargo to be put on any container ship. Just as an example, Dole owns at least 6 ships. Chiquita and the other banana companies almost always have their own ships too.

Re: That's bananas!

[ProzacPatient]

MegaBananas are the SI equivalent of the Libraries of Congress that the knuckle-dragging Americans still use. Get with the rest of the world, people!

Well just how many Libraries of Congress can it hold? As an American I won't be able to truly comprehend until it's measured in Libraries of Congress.

Re:That's bananas!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Dole ships sure look like container ships to me. They look to be stacked with truck trailers (probably refrigerated?), just like other container ships. Of course there's no reason that Dole and the like wouldn't own their own ships, just that I don't see how they're special.

dom

Re: That's bananas!

[Thanshin]

1 Library of congress = 180,3 MegaBananas

(Using 878.835g as the average book weight and 115g for the average banana.)

Little brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive. But I think it's false to claim this this is the largest ship ever build. The Knock Nevis supertanker was 200' longer and 30' wider. It now no longer exists; scrapped in 2009. Not all technologies get monotonically bigger and better as time goes on.

Re:Little brother

[bloodhawk]

One of the key limiting factors in ship building is not a technology or construction one, it is fitting into ports, under bridges and through things like the panama and Suez canals The technology within ships though has massively improved.

Re:Little brother

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the key limiting factors in ship building is not a technology or construction one, it is fitting into ports, under bridges and through things like the panama and Suez canals

If I remember right this is one of the reasons why they're adding new lanes to the Panama Canal: it isn't just to allow for extra traffic, the new section is built to accomodate these Triple E ships.

Re:Little brother

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, it was a key factor in the viability of the larger ships, without use of the canal the economics of these mega ships deteriorate rapidly.

Re:Little brother

[Anonymous Coward]

They fit well through China's replacement of the Panama Canal, which should be open for trade in a few months.

864 million bananas

[Thanshin]

enough space to transport 864 million bananas

Yes, I too calculate volumes in MegaBananas.

Except for astronavegation, where I base all my calculations on Earth's volume of 1.086 PetaBananas.

Re:864 million bananas

[91degrees]

It is a convenient standard unit. Inexpensive and tasty. Can be used for measuring mass, volume, friction (obviously), and radiactivity (due to its high potassium content). A chest X-ray is equivalent to 70,000 bananas.

Re:864 million bananas

[swillden]

It is a convenient standard unit. Inexpensive and tasty. Can be used for measuring mass, volume, friction (obviously), and radiactivity (due to its high potassium content). A chest X-ray is equivalent to 70,000 bananas.

Given the other sub-thread asking about the conversion to Libraries of Congress, apparently it can be used to measure data content as well.

is it really the biggest?

[madprof]

Surely the Jahre Viking (one of many names) remains the largest ship ever built? Longer and wider.

Re:is it really the biggest?

[Anonymous Coward]

They mean largest by cargo volume.

inbuilt scrap capabilities

[Max_W]

Ship breaking is very tedious process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_breaking

Why no to build-in capabilities for a ship to break itself easily?

Re:inbuilt scrap capabilities

[frank_adrian314159]

Why no to build-in [sic] capabilities for a ship to break itself easily?

Because it might then break itself while it's underway, rather than waiting until it got to the shipyard?

Re:inbuilt scrap capabilities

[dj245]

Ship breaking is very tedious process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Why no to build-in capabilities for a ship to break itself easily?

Because it adds cost. When a ship has reached the end of its useful life, it's value is approximately the (ship mass * the price of steel). Labor in 3rd world countries is so cheap that it doesn't factor into the equation much. You would never see any return on that investment.

Re:inbuilt scrap capabilities

[Max_W]

I saw how they break ships in a documentary. It is not a ecologically safe process. There is a lot of oxy-fuel cutting, burning, dumping, etc.

I watched and thought: "This is wrong. Why not use some module architecture?"

Re:inbuilt scrap capabilities

[Max_W]

I looked up the shipwrecks statistics of recent years and I do not see that there is an issue with the hull strength.

Besides, the modular design could be as rigid and strong as necessary. Instead of torch cutting the old ships they could be disassembled, and the separate modules could be used as houses. In about the same way as old shipping containers are already being used in construction.

Re:inbuilt scrap capabilities

[jandrese]

Again, it's the third world. The only thing they care less about than their employee's wages is the environmental damage.

Taking apart a multi thousand ton machine that has been in operation for decades will never be a clean process. You can contain the contamination with a lot of work, but it's never going to be a clean process.

Re:World largest cock

[ihtoit]

what are you doing with a chicken in your trouser? Actually, don't answer that.

It's so big ...

[Qbertino]

... they're worrying a bit about the sea-level when they put it to water.

Re:It's so big ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom?

Slight Typo

[Anonymous Coward]

The shipyard is actually called Okpo (if it matters to anyone that wants to look it up)

Largest in service, not largest ever built

[jratcliffe]

The Maersk E class is the largest currently in service, and the largest container ships ever built, but they're definitely not the largest ships ever built. On either length, or gross tonnage, there have been a number of tankers which are quite a bit bigger, although none are still in service.

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

Re:Largest in service, not largest ever built

[Guybrush_T]

Indeed not the largest ever built, and roughly the size of the largest in service currently (be it supertankers, cruise ships, or container ships).

On the container ship category, it is also not a breakthrough (List of largest container ships). Couple of feet larger, couple of feet longer, roughly the same number of containers .. no big deal.

Re:Largest in service, not largest ever built

[jratcliffe]

Agreed. They are substantially higher capacity (14% more containers) than the biggest container ships, but they're not some sort of order of magnitude improvement.

Re:Largest in service, not largest ever built

[Guybrush_T]

The wikipedia page give the Maersk a capacity of 18270 TEU. The article talks about 18000 TEU... where did you find the 14% higher capacity information ?

Re:Largest in service, not largest ever built

[PPalmgren]

Look up the Emma Maersk. E class and EEE clas are different designs. The E class is around 15.5k TEUs.

Whats really mind boggling about these things is the kind of odd issues you run into engineering them. They've gotten so big that you see bowing in the halls during rough seas becaue the halls are so long. It creates odd engineering issues, having to account for a possible resonance with the wave frequency causing a catastrophic failure and severely reduced lifespan due to stresses on the hull if not designed properly. 14% is a really large improvement when you realize they're sitting on the edge of materials capabilities.

Re:Largest in service, not largest ever built

[jratcliffe]

I was looking at the Wiki page, which had the Maersk EEE (i.e. the Majestic, the Mary, the Marie, etc.) at 18270 TEU, with the next biggest (the most recent of CMA CGM's Explorer class) at 16020. So, 14% bigger. The Maersk single E class is at 15500 TEU.

Legoland?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> could reasonably be described as the worlds biggest Legoland

You mean random people can walk in off the street and build whatever they want from parts laying around?

>> no

Then STFU, eh?

59m width and 400m long

[jcdr]

FTFY

Re:59m width and 400m long

[Anonymous Coward]

Boats are measured in feet the world over, just like they use knots and nautical miles.

Re:59m width and 400m long

[jcdr]

Just try to explain this for example: https://www.gov.uk/vessel-clas...
Or this: http://www.pancanal.com/common...
World is changing...

Fun facts

[hackertourist]

The Triple-E is unusual in several aspects apart from its size.
1. It has 2 engines instead of one. This improves packaging (less volume lost to the engine room), mainly because the engines are shorter (8 cylinders in line instead of 14). Earlier ships had one engine to reduce complexity.
2. It's slower, with an operational speed of 35 km/h (down from 45 km/h of its predecessor). This saves fuel.

Re:Fun facts

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I was curious about the engine as well and after looking at the article it appears that they are just using the 8 cylinder version of the engine that they were putting into single engine ships (14 cylinders). Some truly impressive engines.

Re:Fun facts

[hackertourist]

They're using a different type of engines, optimized for running at lower speeds.

Re:Fun facts

[fnj]

Or, for those who wish to use appropriate and accepted units, 19 knots instead of 24 knots.

Re:Fun facts

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Without finding more details other than it is a different engine manufacturer(MAN instead of Wärtsilä) it looks like it is still a giant low speed diesel. The ultra long stroke diesels are very slow engines (the Wärtsilä I mentioned previously had an RPM range of 22 to 102) even in the low speed diesel engine category. I would imagine that it is the standard one-ups-man-ship from the various manufactures since being able to produce one more efficient drives sales to your company until someone beats you out.

Personally I would love to see one of these guys up close in operation after getting to see an old 2 stroke 5 cylinder diesel Fairbanks engine (~13,000 cu in displacement) start and run. It wasn't loud in the traditional sense but was a you felt it in your chest loud as it shook the concrete floor and building. That one was a medium speed engines that ran at like 200 RPM peak and put out ~300 hp but was a pre war engine from a factory.

Re:Fun facts

[hackertourist]

Industry-specific units of measurement rarely serve any purpose other than to befuddle outsiders. We decided on an actual standard long ago, these nautical types need to get with the times.

Re:Fun facts

[hackertourist]

I checked the MAN 'giant marine diesel' portfolio: they offer 4 different stroke lengths, with rpm ranges that top out at 72 rpm for the longest-stroke version.

Re:Fun facts

[NumberGod]

I've just finished watching the Discovery channel doco too. It's available from Amazon UK.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the reason for standards like nautical miles etc, is for navigation as it ties to navigation.

A nautical mile (symbol M, NM or nmi) is a unit of distance that is approximately one minute of arc measured along any meridian. By international agreement it has been set at 1,852 metres exactly (about 6,076 feet).

Try navigating in kilometres, and you'll rapidly get lost.

Round the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then think about how many are sailing round the world every day" - if they're too big to get through the Panama Canal, then the answer will be approximately none.

Here's the address for looking it up on the map

[bazorg]

Found the address on their website: 3370 Geoje-daero, Geoje-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea

Googled for "Opko, South Korea" and it took me to a city called "Mopko" which is far away.

Re:Here's the address for looking it up on the map

[hackertourist]

That's because it's Okpo, on Opko.
DSME also takes you there.

Re:Here's the address for looking it up on the map

[hackertourist]

that should have read "Okpo, instead of Opko"

Re:Here's the address for looking it up on the map

[bazorg]

oh that explains it then. Somehow I thought the shipyard would be bigger. looks like 2 x 2 kms on Google maps.

Re:Here's the address for looking it up on the map

[turp182]

Here it is:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...

That boat is bigger than Larry's!

[operator_error]

Larry Ellison doesn't have a boat that comes close to that. C'mon Larry, you're losing your Mojo dude! And its made in Korea!

Of course his (Russian) Mig29 could probably sink it.

What's it gonna be Larry? Are you gonna kick ass or chew gum?

... The Harder They Fall...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just take a quick look on the stuff these ships are carrying:
- DIOXANE
- TRIBUTYLAMINE
- 1,1,1,2-TETRAFLUOROETHANE (REFRIGERANT GAS R 134a)
- BENZYL CHLORIDE
- XYLENOLS, SOLID

One particularly nasty incident in the North Atlantic in 2012:
http://www.odin.tc/2012/mscflaminiaen.asp

Wait a minute

[ArcadeMan]

Most of the 955,250 liters of paint used on each ship is in the form of an anti- corrosive epoxy, pre-applied to each block. Finally, a polyurethane topcoat of the proprietary Maersk brand color "Hardtop AS-Blue 504" is sprayed on.

Can't we get the same thing for our cars? Is it available at some professional paint shops?

Re:Wait a minute

[jratcliffe]

Well, you CAN, but when some Danish guy shows up, hands you a package, and demands you drive it to its destination, don't complain to me.

Re:Wait a minute

[PPalmgren]

That paint is really thick, really heavy, and actually quite expensive. The point is to reduce drag in the water, and more importantly, to prevent buildup of barnacles, which ruin fuel efficiency. The cost isn't worth the benefit on cars.

Re:Wait a minute

[nitehawk214]

Maybe his car has a barnacles problem.

Re:Wait a minute

[riverat1]

Maybe the can be laid on thick and scalloped with dimples like they did on Mythbusters.

Bigger pirate booty!

[funkymonkjay]

Can you see the smiles on the somali pirates? Hope you got some anti pirate features on those things cause it's a great big bulls eye.

Re:Bigger pirate booty!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still confused as to why the world is so butthurt over arming merchant ships.

Are the powers that be really worried that a container ship is going to run in amongst a carrier battle group, firing both sides as they pass?

Ship pollution due to fuel type

[Anonymous Coward]

These shps burn the cheapest dirtiest fuel available - stuff that is leftover from refinining crude into everything else - it is asphalt. It contains up to 4.5 % sulfur.

"Just 16 of the world's [ formerly ] largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world's cars."

Re:Ship pollution due to fuel type

[tomhath]

I doubt this ship uses the same fuel as the ones emitting all that sulfur. This appears to be diesel powered rather than steam with bunker crude.

Re:Ship pollution due to fuel type

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Without knowing exactly what engine it is using but based off of previous engines put in these ships and from the pictures in the article it looks like the engine is one of these but uses 2 8 cylinder ones instead of 1 14 cylinder one. And yes these engines run on heavy fuel oil, aka bunker oil.

Re:Ship pollution due to fuel type

[tomhath]

Yes and yuck. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Ship pollution due to fuel type

[afidel]

That would be incorrect, and switching just 7% of their fuel usage from 1%+ bunker fuel to 0,1% low sulphur fuel is expected to cost Maersk almost a quarter billion dollars, meaning that completely switching to the more processed fuel would cost on the order of $3.8B per year.

Re:Ship pollution due to fuel type

[nitehawk214]

And even if they do, they will still use less fuel than ship the same amount of cargo with smaller ships. Economies and ecologies of scale.

perhaps I can shed light on this project

[nimbius]

Here at maersk We've dreamed of a futuristic system, perhaps a ship of some sort, that could in theory transport 864 million delicious bananas. The future is here and its an amazing time to be alive. We've found ourselves at the pinnacle of banana transport systems with this new ship, and we've chosen to push the envelope in unimagineable ways. Maersk hopes to deliver, on our glistening fleet of 20 new ships, 17,280 billion delicious, yellow bananas. Imagine it: bananas for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and whenever you want. The world will never know that pesky scourge of having to sit through a TV show without the comfort of a banana. Long gone will be the days when people had to use the toilet without bananas, walk their dogs without bananas, and even do their taxes without the aid of a banana in hand.

"Okpo" not "Opko".

[Zanadou]

Both this and the original source at Wired have the name of the Korean place wrong, it's "Okpo", not "Opko".

Signed, your local friendly Korean geography nazi.

Everything is awesome!

[captainpanic]

There, let me put that song back into your head.

Did anyone say smiling workers at Legoland? "Everything is awesome" is the first thing I thought about.

mileage

[EE101]

What do you think the gallons per mile mileage will be?

Re:mileage

[afidel]

21,200 gallons per day @19knots ~= 46.5gallons/nautical mile or .000042 gallons per ton/mile which is about the most fuel efficient way to transport something ever invented.

Can carry 20,000 containers

[tompaulco]

So it can carry 20,000 containers. A better question would be how many WILL it carry? 30,000? 40,000?

Re:Can carry 20,000 containers

[PPalmgren]

These ships don't work like that. If anything, it will usually carry less than the max. The rating is based off of a arbitrary weight for each container which is about half the max weight per container. If overloaded or loaded incorrectly, they can list or even split. Here's two pictures of things that can happen:

http://www.railroad-line.com/f...
http://shariaunveiled.files.wo...
http://www.marineinsight.com/w...

Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[Mysticalfruit]

Last I knew these mega ships emit staggering amounts of CO2 because their giant engines burn the cheapest dirtiest fuel possible.
I think it's time to rethink civilian nuclear power for mega ships.

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cargo ships are the most efficient form of transportation on the planet. By orders of magnitude. You want to decrease their CO2 output, ship less stuff.

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

While they emit a large amount of CO2 they make much better use of their fuel than smaller ships. The correct metric is how many tons of cargo can be moved 1 mile on one gallon of fuel. This is the best way to gauge such things and given that this is suppose to release 50% less CO2 than other ships I would assume it is based off of that metric.

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[iggymanz]

The world's 15 largest ships do emit more sulfur than all the world's automobiles. http://www.gizmag.com/shipping...

However for carbon dioxide they only emit a third as much as all the world's cars.

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[hackertourist]

The CO2 emissions have little to do with impurities in the fuel. They emit so much CO2 because they require a lot of power for propulsion. The Triple-E is a lot more efficient than the previous generation of ships, so CO2 emissions are some 20% lower despite carrying more containers.

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[iggymanz]

Coal in power plants is still the biggest sulphur offender, dwarfs the ship's contribution

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 is not "dirt", Sparky.

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[Mysticalfruit]

Great, so we're still having a competition to see who's shittier... Hopefully Lockheed will get on with it and we can replace all these nasty polluting ICE engines in these ships with fusion reactors...

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[iggymanz]

Power producing fusion reactors don't exist in this world, internal combustion engines do. Businesses aren't going to wait for magical farting unicorn, we live in the present. Intelligent alternative energy might be sail assist

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[iggymanz]

There are and were nuclear powered commercial vessels, but using reactor tech that requires expensive maintenance, wouldn't scale up.

There are self-contained reactors with 25 year service life that would be ideal

Re:Largest single emitter of CO2 on Earth?

[Mysticalfruit]

However, with the right people and precautions, you could instead use a nuclear reactor. The reactors they're currently putting in the Virginia class has the same power output as one of these engines and has an estimated life span before refueling of 33 years.

The shipping industry never learns...

[jchawk]

It's interesting that the shipping industry never seems to learn. They continue to bring on more and more capacity while shipping prices are at historic lows.

Perhaps the plan is to flood the market with even cheaper capacity and drive a bunch of competition out of business so they can raise rates later... Then the cycle will start all over again.

Re:The shipping industry never learns...

[u38cg]

You try offering agile services in a cyclical correlated market that requires multi-year massive upfront capital investment, smarty-pants.

Re:The shipping industry never learns...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Perhaps they're planning to replace a few less-efficient ships with this one and consolidate shipping lanes and sailing times? It can be lower cost to run one mega-ship versus two smaller ships...

Cracked up when I saw this photo

[Pollux]

Did anyone else think that, when they saw the second photo on the Wired.com article that some awkward conversation took place prior to the photo that went something like this:

Photographer: "Tell your worker there to look busy. I need photos for the article."
Manager: "What do you want him to do?"
Photographer: "I don't know! What does that machine do over there?"
Manager: "That's our automated steel blaster."
Photographer: "That sounds important. Have your guy go over there and operate it."
Manager: "But it's fully automated. Everything's set the way it needs to be."
Photographer: "But I need -something-! Just have him stand next to it and look like he's reconfiguring it."
          Manager to Technician: "Technician, go over to the panel and look busy."
          Technician: "Sir, I don't work on this machine. And there are signs all over it saying 'Do Not Touch!'"
          Manager: "I don't care! This American fool needs a photo!"
          Technician: "How foolish! The entire system is automated! Did you tell him this?"
          Manager: "Of course I did! He didn't listen."
          Technician: "What am I supposed to do then?"
          Manager: "I don't know! Just go over there and look like you're pushing a button."
          Technician: "But I don't want to break the machine! It is a masterpiece!"
          Manager: "Fine, fine, just, um, just point at the button with your finger. And touch the button. Yes, yes, that looks convincing."
          Technician: "Does it really look like I'm pressing it?"
          Manager: "No, you look stupid. But just stay there, like that, alright?"
          Technician: "Stupid Americans. No wonder their economy sucks."

Re:Cracked up when I saw this photo

[Anonymous Coward]

While hilarious, the wear pattern on the floor indicates that it is an often used console.

Re:Cracked up when I saw this photo

[TimothyDavis]

While hilarious, the wear pattern on the floor indicates that it is an often used console.

They killed the last guy who was pushing buttons. The "wear pattern" is from scrubbing the floor to remove the bodily fluids and other evidence.

why link to wired?

[argStyopa]

Why would the post link to Wired, which reads more like a paen to the photographer?
Instead, go to the photographer's blog directly http://alastairphilipwiper.com... sheesh.

"Flaminia" is German for FIRE

[Thud457]

Maybe it was a bad idea to name it the Flaminia.

Re:World largest cock

[oldmac31310]

choking it?

Korean Legoland

[Anonymous Coward]

The shipyard, about an hour from Busan in the south of the country, employs about 46,000 people, and "could reasonably be described as the worlds biggest Legoland," writes Wiper. "Smiling workers cycle around the huge shipyard as massive, abstractly over proportioned chunks of ships are craned around and set into place."

World's biggest Legoland? Do those smiling workers go all day singing "Everything is awesome?" And do they watch the TV show "Where's my pants" at home?

Before you start bashing me over this comment, please let me clarify that I have two small children, you insensitive clods.

Surely not Lego

[oldmac31310]

Are they building these ships with plastic? I think not. Then surely it is more like Meccano (or Erector Set to the yanks).

Finally big enough?

[hAckz0r]

Is this one big enough to be a real Biblical ARK? Probably still not large enough to carry two of every species, but still fun to calculate how close it would come to that goal. I'm guessing (seat of the pants/armchair calculation) we are roughly about half the way there if we discount things like bacteria, fungi, and viruses (the actual majority of lifeforms on earth). Waste disposal would be one heck of a problem, and with only one window, to shovel it out, yikes!.

Re:Finally big enough?

[Skater]

I saw a documentary that demonstrated the Exxon Valdeez was large enough to support life for quite a few people...as long as no one dropped a match into the tanks, of course.

Re:Finally big enough?

[fnj]

Noah had it easy back then. No one knew about bacteria, and no one ever dreamed in their wildest dreams that there were such things as viruses (whose status as life forms is debatable anyway). That's why all you ever see in the illustrations is giraffes, elephants, cattle and so on. As far as I can tell, it never occurred to anyone to wonder how insects were dealt with.

The ark was only 159 meters long if you take the Egyptian royal cubit as 529 mm. I'm pretty sure the animals had special orders not to eat or shit for the duration, because then it would have required a LOT more than two of each, eh? Also, losses must have been waved away - same reason.

Re: Finally big enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waterworld?

Not for long

[Muad'Dave]

They're already cutting steel on one that will handle 1000 more containers than the triple-E's.

I like big boats

[Junior J. Junior III]

And I cannot lie.

Not the largest being built - see Prelude project

[advid.net]

The Shell Prelude vessel is larger:

Once complete, the facility will have decks measuring 488 by 74 metres (that's more than 1600 feet long and 243 feet wide).

It is built in Goeje, South Korea, and this will be the largest hull ever sent to sea.

Bloatware

[dorpus]

At what point will they learn to downsize these vessels? Will there not be a linux of the shipping world, microscopic ships that deliver one molecule at a time from Asia to Europe?

Re:Bloatware

[iggymanz]

Fuel economy decreases with size, the largest ships are the most efficient transportation on the planet, with three times the fuel efficiency of rail.

Meanwhile in North Korea...

[BenSchuarmer]

there's not much going on (unless you count the conspicuous absence of the young leader in recent weeks).

Bannnanas?

[ai4px]

864million bannananas? Come on, put it units I can visualize. How many LoC's?

"Smiling workers"?!

[Radical Moderate]

I'm sorry, but something about that just sets my teeth on edge. Reminds me of old Soviet propaganda newsreels. I refuse to believe all 46,000 employees at the shipyard are smiling all the time...and if they are, something's seriously wrong. Unless he was there at 4:20

I also have a hard time believing someone named their son Alastair Philip Wiper, but the world is a strange place.

How Much?

[JimSadler]

How much Ebola can be packed onto such a ship? And how lovely is the exhaust? But don't worry folks. If the port is too small for these big ships we simply rip up sensitive wet lands and fish breeding grounds to enlarge the ports. But on the upside the slave labor around the world can keep busy filling shipping containers with junk products from China and similar nations. And we know if the ship sinks the plastic will float endlessly.

Doesn't the Danes know Korea's steel is shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Korean steel is shit. One of the many reason not to buy a Kia or Hyundai

Metric units, please!!!

[LongearedBat]

So... there are Imperial units and even banana units, but still no metric units?!? Sure, I can roughly work the specs out in my head, and call me lazy, but it would be so much nicer if one person did it once when submitting the summary.

According to this there are only three (yes, 3) countries left in the world that don't use metric units: US, Myanmar and Liberia. ie. Lots of slashdotters around the world who won't be used to imperial.

Please, could we make an unwritten rule for /. that metric units are always included? Don't need to replace the imperial values, just put the metric values in brackets.

Stupid new Blue.

[dbc]

Unfortunately, Maersk changed their corporate blue color before ordering these ships. Which means that the Lego color palette lost an interesting blue, as the new Maersk is essentially regular Lego light blue. The Lego EEE model is therefore a non-event. Curse you, Maersk. Can't you take the needs of Lego fans into account when making important decisions like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

a self guided tour, now that would be my favorite

[k6mfw]

from TFA:

I was expecting a tour of the ship from someone who knew it inside and out – instead I was just told “here it is – off you go!”. “Er OK do you have a map?”. “No. The engine is that way, the bridge is that way. Have fun, and make sure you aren’t on board in 5 hours because the ship will be leaving for Russia.” So off I went

How do you sink a ship built in korea ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it in water

I wish we would build spaceships this big

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the challenges are a magnitude or two (or three) greater, but damn I wish this planet would start building stuff in space this big, instead of hauling crap around the planet. No offense to ISS, but let's get on this space thing for real. 2001 Space Odyssey style

Capitalism is SO COOL

[Ferretman]

What a neat ship design!

Ferret