[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

/n/ Transportation

Warning: All the content of this page originally come from 4chan.org. This is only a partial archive made to avoid destruction. Some posts and images may be missing. All the messages below have been posted by anonymous users and we do not guarantee any truth of what they said.
For any illegal content, please contact me so that I can immediatly destroy it!

Anonymous 2015-10-28 15:07:15 No.893262

[Missing image file: ]

What will ships look like 100 years from now?

Also posting an aesthetic vehicle cargo ship


>>
Anonymous 2015-10-31 19:33:18 No.894118
>>893262
>posting an aesthetic vehicle cargo ship
That would be this.

>>
BaconRider 2015-11-12 02:29:33 No.897289
Glidersubs.,, runs on boyancy, fill tank>go down/forward 50 miles,, empty tank> up/forward 50 miles., basks in the sun to recharge,, goes under the ice,, under the pirates,, under the tariffs.
,, fuel? ,,,, we dont need nostinking FUEL!

>>
BaconRider 2015-11-12 02:36:56 No.897291
>>897289
oil tankers (eeEECHY!(), dont need to be presurized,, just a small balastank to offset the seawaters heavyness for the return trip.
,,HURICANE!!,,, yawn.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 06:38:16 No.897323
>>894118
Savannah would have been great and lead to a adoption of nuclear cargo vessels. They just needed to not also try to make her a cruise ship too.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 16:59:43 No.897404
>>893262
The Same. They've hardly changed in the last 100 apart from the switch from steam to diesel.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 20:01:49 No.897433

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 20:01:58 No.897434
>>893262
Container ships will be largely unchanged except probably within 100 years they will be able to devote more space to container capacity. This will be done by making autonomous ships that don't need a crew. More efficient engines could add some space too. So in terms of the look the bridge will be gone since they can just put the computers in a water tight room somewhere.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 20:31:16 No.897451
>>897323

I don't think nuclear cargo vessels will ever work. Being able to travel for months on end without needing to visit a port to refuel is not really a useful feature for a cargo ship.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 20:46:49 No.897453
a long time ago (the 70s) they were talking about making nuclear powered submarine oil tankers

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 22:08:56 No.897481
>>897453
but oil is buoyant, surely it's easier to let it float than to submerge it.

or am I just stupid?

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 22:13:49 No.897484
>>897289
This idea makes me hard

has anyone built such a thing yet?

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 22:19:24 No.897487
>>897484
http://marinesciencetoday.com/2013/10/17/unmanned-submersibles-making-ocean-research-easier/

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 22:19:52 No.897488
>>897453
That way when it hits an iceberg we can have a radioactive oil spill.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 22:22:08 No.897490
>>897481
but dude submarine lmao

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-12 22:47:05 No.897496
>>897289
more pics of this

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-15 00:19:29 No.898013
>>897323
>They just needed to not also try to make her a cruise ship too.

That wasn't the problem. The problem is that ports all over the world NOPE'd the fuck out over the idea of having a nuclear incident in their harbor.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-15 06:41:37 No.898118
>>894118
We /nuclear/ now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship)

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-15 07:19:27 No.898121
>implying you can accurately speculate 100 years in the future when the law of accelerating returns exists

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-15 07:23:32 No.898123
>>897433
likely

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-15 14:43:28 No.898179
>>897453
Thunderbirds episode when?

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-18 02:42:33 No.898875
>>893262
Nuclear propulsion, oil prices will go up.

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-18 04:54:28 No.898926
The rage for radar deflecting angles on ships means everything will look like the visby corvette and zumwalt destroyer

>>
Anonymous 2015-11-18 05:22:06 No.898936
>>898926
Just warships and perhaps smuggling ships. I see no reason why legitimate commercial vessels would ever want to reduce their RCS.

>>
BaconRider 2015-11-29 05:20:37 No.901934

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-06 04:57:22 No.903665
>>898926
Why would commercial ships want a reduced radar profile? If anything this could cause more problems than it could potentially solve.







[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

Contact me | All the content on this website come from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Dofus quêtes

Page loaded in 0.02368 seconds.