• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Baltimore Bridge Accident

Conspiracy ideas make me retch. People are so warped by lack of critical thinking these days.

More on the heroism and a system that worked fairly well:

The ship radioed a mayday call that was immediately transmitted to the highway (Beltway) police. Within 4 minutes, it appears, in response to some short directions, the traffic on the bridge was stopped. There was an effort to pull out the construction workers but the bridge had then collapsed.

I don't know how much of that was true but it does mostly fit.

I find this idea interesting (from Washington Post):

The Dali went dark as it lost electrical power just before the bridge disaster, and the pilot lost the ability to control the ship as it veered toward the support structure of the bridge. That power loss could have been caused by dirty fuel clogging filters that lead to the ship’s main generator, said Gerald Scoggins, a veteran chief engineer in the oil and gas industry and the CEO of the Houston company Deepwater Producers.

Dirty fuel is when a mix of industrial products ends up in marine fuel. The supply chain for fuel is not clear and dirty fuel has been implicated in hundreds of engine failures in recent years that have left ships without power and adrift.
 
I fully agree with you. However, in the world we live in now people will want or psychologically need stupid explanations because thats 'better' than just accepting ... shit happens.
I find it awful that actual people, risking their lives to do their job and save lives get ignored, played down or even 'implicated' in utter bollocks that has nothing to do with them.
 
About a year ago the FBI issued a statement to the effect that cyber security was now paramount and to expect future cyber attacks to major infrastructure. It is also for that reason several years ago that Space Force was set up. It's not referring to outer space as many seem to think but rather cyber space.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility the cause was a cyber attack just as it's not beyond the realms of possibility that is was caused by dirty fuel.

What is very real is the disastrous effect it will have on the US economy.

What mustn't be forgotten is the six who lost their lives and the obvious effects their deaths have had on their loved ones, family and friends.
 
kesavaross said:
About a year ago the FBI issued a statement to the effect that cyber security was now paramount and to expect future cyber attacks to major infrastructure. It is also for that reason several years ago that Space Force was set up. It's not referring to outer space as many seem to think but rather cyber space...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the US national cybersecurity effort is represented by a specific organisation within the US Department of Homeland Security, and - although I don't doubt cybersecurity plays a part, certainly in the context of satellite management - that Space Force really is about space.

Edit: The United States Space Force 'about us' page is here.
 
Last edited:
Spookdaddy said:
I'm pretty sure that the US national cybersecurity effort is represented by a specific organisation within the US Department of Homeland Security, and - although I don't doubt cybersecurity plays a part, certainly in the context of satellite management - that Space Force really is about space.

Edit: The United States Space Force 'about us' page is here.
Click to expand...
For some reason that page won't open for me. I get a 404 error, what ever that means.

Space Force monitors communications between satellites, ground to satellite and satellite to ground as well as communications on earth. In that sense I suppose it could be said it's to do with space but primarily Space Force is about monitoring communications in cyber space.
 
Space Force is about space, that is why Space Force has a Star Trek logo.
I think many of the recent outages have been caused by cyberattacks. Messing with navigation could also be done that way. However a power shutdown is a simpler process, which I don't see needs a complex answer like cyberattacks.
 
Xanatic* said:
Space Force is about space, that is why Space Force has a Star Trek logo...
Click to expand...

And why it's operatives are called 'Guardians'! (It really does feel very Galaxy Quest. Maybe this is just what happens when you have to start talking in a nuts and bolts manner about something that has been mythologised in the public mind for decades - everything sounds too serious to be taken seriously.)

For what it's worth, the organisation self identifies - in the USSF Capstone Publication - as defending 'the domain of orbital flight'. It also draws a clear distinction between spacepower and cyberpower:

...The doctrine presented in the following chapters elevates spacepower as a distinct formulation of military power on par with landpower, seapower, airpower, and cyberpower....
Click to expand...

Xanatic* said:
...However a power shutdown is a simpler process, which I don't see needs a complex answer like cyberattacks.
Click to expand...

Yup. There's also the obvious problem that once you've created a loss of power, you've also undermined any ability to then make the thing do what you want - because, well, it has no power. You might be able to shut a ship down, but it would be difficult to guarantee any other result than that?
 
Last edited:
Yithian said:
Any truth to the rumour that captain and crew were transfixed by the Moon appearing to melt into its own reflection on the surface of the water in such a way as to evoke an intuitive perception of the symbiosis of conscious and unconscious that fuels Man's half-blind stumble from the cradle to the grave?
Click to expand...
If I knew what any of that meant I may have had a meaningful response.
Instead you got this !
 
I heard a report on TV blaming dirty fuel for the breakdowns on the Dali.
I had a similar problem with a Landrover Defender a few years back after constantly filling up on cheap diesel from supermarket filling stations.
 
On the question of "are the containers locked together?":

I know that there are huge numbers of containers adrift in the world's oceans. These have fallen overboard or washed overboard, or lost when ships sank, in numerous incidents. They are a hazard to yachts and other small vessels as they tend to float more or less awash: barely breaking the surface.

I have never read any report of a "floating island" of linked containers.

On the matter of the likely cause, and conspiracy theories:

People die in accidents every day. Most accidents only make the local news. A collision is a collision, whether it is a motorbike and tree, a school bus and a wall, or a ship and a bridge.

Big and unusual accidents make the news, but the causes are usually the same as those of more mundane accidents: some combination of poor maintenance, poor operating procedures, bad judgement, and terrible luck. If the ship had drifted out of control and missed the bridge pillar, we would never have heard of the event.
 
Certain people need conspiracies to make sense of their world. Any major disaster, especially an accident, must in their eyes have a nefarious cause.
In the conspiracist mind there is no such thing as accidents.
Thus, if the ship crashed because it lost power (and therefore) steering then a number of folks will refuse to accept that as fact and another group will nod sagely and say "Ah, but who caused that shut down, eh?"
 
Mikefule said:
...I have never read any report of a "floating island" of linked containers...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the twistlocks are only designed to prevent relatively minor shifts in lateral movement, rather than take the strain of one container actually hanging off another. I'm also not sure how long they'd survive the actions of saltwater compared to the corner castings they are attached to.

The images appear to show clear evidence that some containers are attached - but I actually wonder now if this system is partial. That is, that not all are connected, but that there is a network of linked containers within the whole designed to form some sort of structural integrity.

This commercial site suggests that twistlocks and/or bridge clamps are a mandatory HSE requirement - at least in the UK.

This is from the HSE's site. The main document is specifically related to the method of access to the tops of container stacks - rather than twistlocks per se - but states:

1 Loading and unloading containers from ships usually involves access to the tops of container stacks to remove and place the securing devices holding the stacks together (known as twist locks).
Click to expand...

Again, this is UK based regulation - but I find it difficult to believe that it doesn't reflect a more universal approach. As I've said, I've been involved in building container based structures on dry land; if we are required, in such conditions, to attach containers together because of the potential effect of high winds and possible vehicle impact (and this is on relatively low level structures), I'd find it hard to believe that there will not be similar requirements where the potential actions of rolling and pitching will be pretty major factors.
 
Last edited:
eziofan said:
It certainly brings home the part that fate plays in our day to day lives.
This will spawn many tales of how close people came to becoming a statistic.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying and all. Thing is, it was the bottom line that killed those workers and brought down that bridge, not fate. The greed behind why some low rent hacker was hired to regulate the cargo carrier's mainframe instead of a team of ship-savvy system engineers is why those families are in deep grief and that bay's civil functioning is going to be in turmoil for years to come and why you'd better stay out of the sky and get yourself a super hard hat so the bits that are falling off jumbo jets don't put a thorn in your crown. This is what in olden times was called a reckoning.
 
I don't know what the regulations are, but some containers are (or maybe should be?) braced as well;

sc.jpg
 
skinny said:
I get what you're saying and all. Thing is, it was the bottom line that killed those workers and brought down that bridge, not fate. The greed behind why some low rent hacker was hired to regulate the cargo carrier's mainframe instead of a team of ship-savvy system engineers is why those families are in deep grief and that bay's civil functioning is going to be in turmoil for years to come and why you'd better stay out of the sky and get yourself a super hard hat so the bits that are falling off jumbo jets don't put a thorn in your crown. This is what in olden times was called a reckoning.
Click to expand...

May I refer you to Stormkhan's post above?
 
The ship had been in dock and experiencing electrical problems. So, the idea that it was hacked is not supported.
They also have the ship's data recorder that will provide more specific info.

There are also people saying it was caused by a controlled demolition of the pier, which is nonsense.

Finally, and this is the most disturbing part, the ship appears to have made a sudden move off the standard trajectory. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/28/us/visuals-maps-key-bridge-ship-collapse-dg/index.html

I can't tell if, minus this change, it would have avoided the pier. But I can't stop thinking how they have all that space and they had to hit the pier. I'm not conspiratorial but I can't stop thinking about the odds.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Finally, and this is the most disturbing part, the ship appears to have made a sudden move off the standard trajectory. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/28/us/visuals-maps-key-bridge-ship-collapse-dg/index.html
Click to expand...
This may have been a queued-up sequence of commands that were made to the steering subsystems, that were actioned when the power came back on.
The computers onboard were probably largely unaffected by the power outages, because they probably have a UPS system in place.
However, the same might not apply to the (hydraulic/electric) steering subsystems at the other end of the ship.
Just my theory.
 
Sharon Hill said:
The ship had been in dock and experiencing electrical problems. So, the idea that it was hacked is not supported.
They also have the ship's data recorder that will provide more specific info.

There are also people saying it was caused by a controlled demolition of the pier, which is nonsense.

Finally, and this is the most disturbing part, the ship appears to have made a sudden move off the standard trajectory. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/28/us/visuals-maps-key-bridge-ship-collapse-dg/index.html

I can't tell if, minus this change, it would have avoided the pier. But I can't stop thinking how they have all that space and they had to hit the pier. I'm not conspiratorial but I can't stop thinking about the odds.
Click to expand...
I keep wondering the same with regard the movement starboard. I've only read a few newspaper articles and no mention of that was made. Also, how could that happen if the ship had no power?

I could of course have it all wrong and it's explained in other articles that I haven't read.

edit: I posted the above at exactly the same time as @Mythopoeika posted.
 
Once power is lost the rudder looses most of it's authority even if it is still
obeying the helm, yes that turn you can see on the vid is a very severe change
of direction for a 95,000 ton ship but I suspect they dropped one of the anchors
in a attempt to stop the ship but it puller her head round hence the sudden change
of direction.
 
RaM said:
Once power is lost the rudder looses most of it's authority even if it is still
obeying the helm, yes that turn you can see on the vid is a very severe change
of direction for a 95,000 ton ship but I suspect they dropped one of the anchors
in a attempt to stop the ship but it puller her head round hence the sudden change
of direction.
Click to expand...
They did drop the anchor which (from knowledgeable commentators) is not under the electrical control. It's also possible the black smoke was a result of the severe actions taken to stop.

The power seemed to be going on and off, going by the lighting.
 
Sharon Hill said:
I can't tell if, minus this change, it would have avoided the pier. But I can't stop thinking how they have all that space and they had to hit the pier. I'm not conspiratorial but I can't stop thinking about the odds.
Click to expand...
It's a natural emotional reaction to frame it that way. However, given that the loss of control has happened at all, the "What are the odds" question is, "What are the odds of a ship, out of control in a busy sea lane, near a multi span bridge, hitting nothing?"

Put more simply, we would also have heard of the incident, which would have been newsworthy, if it had hit any one one of the other bridge piers, or a passenger vessel, or another cargo ship, or a fishing vessel, or a rocky shoal, or ruptured its fuel tank and polluted the water, etc. We seldom hear of the incidents, errors, cock ups and break downs that do not result in disaster.

A few years ago, in the UK (Lincolnshire if I recall correctly) a tired driver fell asleep at the wheel, crashed, went down into as railway cutting, and his vehicle was hit by a train, derailing it. Many people died.

If he had fallen asleep 10 seconds earlier or later, he would not have gone onto the railway line. If he had gone onto the railway line 10 minutes earlier, perhaps they would have been able to slow down or stop the train. If he had been going a tad slower, perhaps he would not have completely blocked the railway line. And so on.

Many many drivers fall asleep at the wheel (I write as a former claims investigator) and simply go off the road into a ditch, or hedge, or field, or parked car, or wall, and their story never makes the news.
 
Sharon Hill said:
...Finally, and this is the most disturbing part, the ship appears to have made a sudden move off the standard trajectory. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/28/us/visuals-maps-key-bridge-ship-collapse-dg/index.html

I can't tell if, minus this change, it would have avoided the pier. But I can't stop thinking how they have all that space and they had to hit the pier. I'm not conspiratorial but I can't stop thinking about the odds.
Click to expand...

I can't help wondering if the drag caused by the dropped anchor may have caused a sudden shift in position.

Another thing that struck me: I recall when the Ever Given ran aground in the Suez it was suggested that it's initial veering off course may have been caused by high winds hitting the ship at an angle, the mass of the ship effectively acting as a huge sail, even though it was under power. I know bugger all about boats, but I seem to recall that the suggested course of action in such a situation is to increase power, which in turn increases stability*. If you don't have power, then clearly, you cannot increase stability in this way (again, I don't really know, but I'm assuming by increased stability what is meant is creating a situation whereby mechanical power outbids environmental conditions). I'm not sure what the wind conditions were the day of the Baltimore tragedy, but I wouldn't mind betting that a ship without power and with the massive and relatively unbroken side profile of a stacked container vessel can be shifted around by even relatively moderate winds.

Also, I think we tend to assume that the strongest currents are somewhere near the middle of a river, which is obviously not necessarily the case - a lot depends on depth. Possibly the ship was simply caught by a current that took it away from the main arch.

*(In the case of the Ever Given it was suggested that the increase in power didn't work because of specific conditions in the Suez - namely narrowness - which brought a scientific principle into play that I can no longer recall the name of; I'm kind of wanting to say Bertolucci's principle - but it's not that.)

Edit: Bernoulli's principle!
 
Spookdaddy said:
I can't help wondering if the drag caused by the dropped anchor may have caused a sudden shift in position.

Another thing that struck me: I recall when the Ever Given ran aground in the Suez it was suggested that it's initial veering off course may have been caused by high winds hitting the ship at an angle, the mass of the ship effectively acting as a huge sail, even though it was under power. I know bugger all about boats, but I seem to recall that the suggested course of action in such a situation is to increase power, which in turn increases stability*.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

A small boat is steered either by the rudder, or by turning the outboard motor. The rudder only works if water is passing over it at sufficient speed; the outboard only steers the boat if it is running. If the boat is drifting or moving slowly, the wind will catch the biggest surface area of the boat and tend to turn it around its deepest point under water.

(Not quite that simple, but that's the gist of it. As a dinghy sailor, I think in terms of "centre of effort" (for the sail) "centre of windage" (for the hull above the water) centre of lateral resistance (hull below the water) and centre of mass. In all cases, "centre of..." is a single point on which the described force can be treated as acting.)

For a large vessel, steering can come from the rudder, from different levels of thrust from 2 or more propellers, and from "side thrusters".

Side thrusters are propellers in tubes, aligned to push the vessel sideways. Bow and stern thrusters allow fine control of the vessel when docking, for example.

The rudder works better the faster the vessel is travelling. Below a certain speed, the rudder doesn't work at all. It needs what is called "steerage way" to work. A rudder needs water passing it in the same way as a kite won't fly on a calm day.

Without power, control of the rudder would either be impossible or very limited. Without power, of course there would be no propellers or side thrusters. The vessel would retain any momentum it had, but be acted on by the wind and currents. Over the length of a ship, there might be substantial differences in strength and direction for both wind and water currents, especially in a narrow channel.

Also, without power, the crew might have no access (or limited access) to navigational and directional information.

Anyone who has helmed a boat will tell you, things happen slowly until suddenly they happen very fast.
 
Spookdaddy said:
*(In the case of the Ever Given it was suggested that the increase in power didn't work because of specific conditions in the Suez - namely narrowness - which brought a scientific principle into play that I can no longer recall the name of; I'm kind of wanting to say Bertolucci's principle - but it's not that.)

Edit: Bernoulli's principle!
Click to expand...
Or is it the Venturi Effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

I'm not sure which.
 
Mikefule said:
It's a natural emotional reaction to frame it that way. However, given that the loss of control has happened at all, the "What are the odds" question is, "What are the odds of a ship, out of control in a busy sea lane, near a multi span bridge, hitting nothing?"

Put more simply, we would also have heard of the incident, which would have been newsworthy, if it had hit any one one of the other bridge piers, or a passenger vessel, or another cargo ship, or a fishing vessel, or a rocky shoal, or ruptured its fuel tank and polluted the water, etc. We seldom hear of the incidents, errors, cock ups and break downs that do not result in disaster.

A few years ago, in the UK (Lincolnshire if I recall correctly) a tired driver fell asleep at the wheel, crashed, went down into as railway cutting, and his vehicle was hit by a train, derailing it. Many people died.

If he had fallen asleep 10 seconds earlier or later, he would not have gone onto the railway line. If he had gone onto the railway line 10 minutes earlier, perhaps they would have been able to slow down or stop the train. If he had been going a tad slower, perhaps he would not have completely blocked the railway line. And so on.

Many many drivers fall asleep at the wheel (I write as a former claims investigator) and simply go off the road into a ditch, or hedge, or field, or parked car, or wall, and their story never makes the news.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right.
 
More on the immediate troubles with this news event.

The Amateur Bridge Engineers Have Logged On​

In Baltimore, we have a mix of official information, verifiable information obtained via reporting, random speculation from well-meaning experts, random speculation from well-meaning amateurs, actively bad conspiracy theories.
https://www.404media.co/baltimore-amateur-bridge-engineers-have-logged-on/
 
Mythopoeika said:
Or is it the Venturi Effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

I'm not sure which.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was Bernoulli's principle. The massive amount of water displaced by the Ever Given was forced at speed through the narrow gap between the ship and the shore. Increase in the speed of fluid is matched by a decrease in pressure (this is Bernoulli's principle, roughly speaking...I think) and in the particular circumstances the ship was actually drawn towards the shore, the increase in speed essentially made counterproductive by the narrowness of the channel, the speed of the displaced water, the accompanying drop in pressure.
 
Spookdaddy said:
I'm pretty sure it was Bernoulli's principle. The massive amount of water displaced by the Ever Given was forced at speed through the narrow gap between the ship and the shore. Increase in the speed of fluid is matched by a decrease in pressure (this is Bernoulli's principle, roughly speaking...I think) and in the particular circumstances the ship was actually drawn towards the shore, the increase in speed essentially made counterproductive by the narrowness of the channel, the speed of the displaced water, the accompanying drop in pressure.
Click to expand...
In hydrodynamics this effect is known as squat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top