I love the position of the Swedish flag in that photo.

Given that the accident happened in Germany and the ship is Taiwanese.

It is just freaky, I don't know if it is good or bad to be associated with such an incident.

In a plane crash they are usually quick to paint over the name of the airline company to not be associated. I don't think this is the same though.

Can't see the flag, because the whole page is blocked by some BS (presumably in german). Blocking own content or creating obstacles to see it ... what can be more ridiculous. I just close such web pages and never come back.

Same. I had this idea of making a special pi-hole variation where instead of blocking the domains, it actually redirects me to a page of my own creation that explains that the given domain was blocked by me due to [intrusive popups, hiding the article behind a click so it can trigger some JS, whatever other dark patterns]. It's hard to manually remember all the domains to not bother clicking links to :)

The easiest way to achieve this on a desktop browser (or Firefox for Android) may be to add custom, named filter lists to uBlock Origin. The name will show up on the block page ("Found in: $LIST_NAME") It's not network-wide, but at least you can host your lists on the web to keep them up to date across your devices (and to share your efforts with others!).

Ah right, I want something network-wide and not requiring installation of software on any machine, etc. I do appreciate the tip, though! :)

Clicking "Akzeptieren und weiter zu mopo.de" will let you view the page.

I saw a cookies consent popover followed by a “oh no ad block” popover.

I can’t get worked up against them for wanting to get paid, even though I regard adverts as parasites of time, energy, and bandwidth and won’t disable my ad blocker for them — I don’t have solutions, just the aphorism about two wrongs.

It's a GDPR consent banner.

I didn't tolerate it either — I can often figure out which button is "Necessary cookies only", but not in this case.

However, Firefox's reader mode retains the main image: https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d...

Good old GDPR improving our web experience!

The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law.

But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient.

The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.

> You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law.

No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists.

The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing.

If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to notify you of this tracking and obtain consent. You have a right to know, after all, and you might prefer to exercise your rights by declining consent. But nothing requires it to be a large banner, and nothing requires the "reject all" button to be difficult to find.

I know, I should have clarified that. But to be honest, most newspapers use more then the essential tokens.

As I wrote, I find the blocking of the website and the placement of the banner unconvinient. I am also convinced that it should be mandatory to have a "essential cookies only" button.

I just wanted to explain what the banner is for, as the parent comment did not understand the german text.

The law doesn't say that the cookie banner has to cover the entire page. It doesn't say either that the button to reject the cookies must be hidden at the end of the form.

"But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient."

Not the first time the Swedes have had experience with tall ships causing problems.

Ha, you refer to the Vasa, I guess? ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

> It is just freaky, I don't know if it is good or bad to be associated with such an incident.

I think it's not good because of the potential to become politicly charged. Add some "cyber" and it has NatSec types reeling. There is a scenario in Ghost Fleet[1] where a vessel sailing under a Chinese flag blocks the Panama canal in a theater of war with the West. Not going to issue any spoilers but it's a brilliant (fiction) novel for hypothetical future war scenario's.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet_(novel)

I believe the US military was worried about a German or Japanese strike on the Panama canal in WW2. And the Suez Canal was literally blocked by scuttling ships when Egypt took control in the Suez crisis.

The Panama Canal has always been much more vulnerable than Suez, as the latter is sea-level for it's entire length and has no locks.

Destroying or blocking as few as three locks could semi-permanently block all traffic in Panama, or worse, drain Gatun.

Wow, the same ship with a very unusual accident just 14 Months ago. A very bad look and hints to a deeper systemic issue that was not fixed.

The cause for that accident seems to have been strong wind, which apparently makes these huge ships very hard or even impossible to maneuver when they are going slow.

If true, then the "systemic issue" is only that ships are getting too big.

Hi. Skipper here (nothing of the size of the ship in question, obviously:).

Ships of ANY size are hard or impossible to maneuver when they are going slow and have a blackout. The size doesn't matter.

The control surfaces only work when they move with regards to water.

The ship that does not move is uncontrollable with rudder and it needs to use something else to help it maneuver. This something else can be a tugboat that rotates the ship by the force it can generate, or it can be thrusters. Thrusters aren't propulsion method and they are relatively small and can counter only so much wind.

I was referring to the incident in Hamburg, where there was (according to the article) no blackout, the ship had two local pilots on board and a tugboat attached.

And yet, they were unable to prevent the wind from pushing them into a moored ferry they were passing.

Isn't this why new ships are starting to have multiple 360 degree electrical drivers instead of one big propeller? I think they are called iso-pods.

You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azipod

I think the biggest issue is complexity and resulting unreliability. On a ship that has to be in constant use for decades you want things that are simple and reliable.

"The latest design, the Azipod X, incorporates these improvements, with a view to a service interval of five years, and features bearings that can be taken apart and repaired from inside the pod while the ship is harbored normally"

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. They are working on it:)

Also an important factor on large vessel is fuel efficiency. You don't want anything sticking out unless absolutely necessary, so these would have to be meant for propulsion. But because of complex construction I can expect they are less efficient than just straight through axle and a huge propeller on it.

I expect things like this to be useful on utility vessels of small to medium size where you don't necessarily need so much efficiency but the utility comes from being able to maneuver quickly and in various conditions.

Harbor tugs are more commonly equipped with these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith_Schneider_Propeller

They're quite efficient (although maybe only for lower speeds) and provide extreme maneuverability.

They usually isn't used as the primary means of propulsion on most bigger ships. It's also not uncommon for them to be retractable. If you need a large ship at a very specific position for a week, then you definetly need it, and that is a common use case as it allows for impressively accurate control. Heck, you could avoid moorings altogether and just keep it in place without it if you wanted to.

Can I also ask if it’s true that such a beast like the ever given would have as little as 30% of back maneuver power compare to forward sail?

I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of these beasts, but some common sense here below:

The engine can most likely work both directions equally.

The propeller is optimized to work in forward direction, so it will have worse efficiency going in the other direction.

The rotation would have to be limited when going in reverse because of cavitation (and maybe other structural limitations). That again is a result of the wrong shape of the propeller (when in wrong direction).

The hull will have significantly more drag when in wrong direction.

Now, engine power is defined as whatever it can put out and if the engine works the same way in both directions then power is the same also.

So you can think this way: most likely it has the same power as going forward but it can't use it and whatever it can use will be much less efficiently translated into motion.

For ships that have turbo-electric drive trains rather than big shafts, I wonder if it would be possible to vector the propellers somewhat for better maneuverability, the same way that rockets use gimballing engines? Probably not worth the maintenance though, with sealant and salt water considerations.

This is common on cruise ships. They spend so much of their time going in and out of port the extra manoeuvrability is worth it in requiring fewer tugs.

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

Anything else than straight shaft with a propeller on it is a loss of efficiency and reliability.

When the fuel efficiency and reliability drive your competitiveness that is a huge issue.

Something that people perhaps don't appreciate is that typical large ships like this don't even have a gearbox (which would be perhaps 95% efficient).

They use large two stroke diesel engines which can be stopped and started in reverse. They use an extra valve in the engine head to admit air for starting and have valve gear which controls the direction.

Cruise ships on the other hand have electrical house loads which are almost the same as their propulsion loads. In addition to the manoeuvrability advantages this makes diesel electric drive advantageous.

Megaship engines are so fascinating. Over 100k horse power!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXeBQrio4Uo&t=680s

I like to think of it as: 5.6 million lb-ft of torque at ~100 rpm means if you could get it up to about 5250 rpm, you'd have 5.6 million hp.

It's not uncommon for ships to have thrusters that can move or rotate the ship in any directions. When doing underwater operations the ship needs to stay in place, and eg. GPS and/or triangulation from land or oil rigs is used to make sure it holds the correct position, even in quite strong winds.

>> The cause for that accident seems to have been strong wind

The more descriptive cause is the failure to pay for adequate tug support/escort.

"(Escort tug charge) = 6,600 SDR/tug"

https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11657251_04.pdf

I was talking about the incident in Hamburg, not at the Suez canal. I'm not sure about Suez, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to choose whether and how many tugs you need at Hamburg; the port will decide that.

The article cites a tug captain as saying that they have a very limited ability to react to big ships being pushed by strong wind. They compare it to driving a care on ice.

I believe the cause of the incident here was a blackout [1].

[1] https://gcaptain.com/grounded-mega-ship-blocking-suez-canal-...

AFP reports gust of wind.

> Early reports speculated the vessel suffered a loss of power, but the ship’s operator, Evergreen Marine Corp, told Agence France-Presse it ran aground after being hit by a gust of wind.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/24/huge-container...

Judging by the timeline on https://www.myshiptracking.com it looks like something that would be called pilot induced oscillation in aviation. Obviously speculation on my part, could be that loss of power weakened control authority over the ship and it became hard to manoeuvre.

The ship comes around the curve travelling north close to the outside (right, east, starboard) shore then overcorrect to the west shore then overcorrect more gravely to the east again and run aground.

GAC has pulled that claim, they made it here and now it 404s: https://www.gac.com/news--media/hot-port-news/container-ship...