Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's also probably the ideal vessel for a sail system. Transporting bulky rocket parts below deck makes mounting the sails/masts straight forward, the low density cargo doesn't require a large displacement hull, and the ship probably doesn't need to run on a tight schedule. Container ships would have much more trouble finding room for the sails, and with more draft comes more hydrodynamic resistance, and so a requirement for much larger sails.
But maybe bulk carriers could get foils mounted cheaply and quickly. Even 0.1% fuel savings are a big deal in the industry.
Now I'm wondering what happened to all those startups that tried lashing a robotic kite to cargo ships...
3 Ariane 6 launches in the last year, but it looks like they've got 9+ planned for 2026 ... I looked that up because I was going to talk smack about Ariane flight rates, but 9 Atlantic round trips per year might actually be in the sweet spot between "frequent enough that speed is important" and "infrequent enough that additional capital investment doesn't get a chance to pay off".
The most prominent one seems to have migrated to kite-based electrical generation. Not sure why, but it can't be a great sign for the idea. Is it just that cargo ships don't have much of a keel, so they only benefit from the component of the wind that's parallel to their course?
Can't imagine that's the case. The combination of tens of feet of draft and more than 10:1 aspect ratio of the hull should make significant lateral slip almost impossible. Even if sideward movement would be a problem, a relatively small, retractable foil at the front of the vessel should be able to compensate for that (in combination with the rudder).
I suspect bunker fuel is just to cheap. A kite system is purely additive (you need everything on board you've always needed, and then there's the new kite). So you save a couple of thousand dollars per day on fuel - if you're not becalmed, large parts of the Atlantic and Pacific are notoriously calm - but now need to train crew, maintain a new system, pay off the additional capex and deal with additional risk. The amortization period is probably to long for such a conservative industry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link