Ocean liners don’t use diesel, they run on bunker oil, a much cheaper alternative.
Make fun of cruise ships if you like, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the two cruises we’ve taken, and I’m looking forward to the next trip. The food is outstanding, and if the ship is large enough, the entertainment is top notch and there is a wide variety. A week on a cruise ship costs less than a condo at the beach, and everything is included on the cruise. You just get the condo at the beach. Food and entertainment is extra.
Good luck with the norovirus on your cruises. Pick one that takes sanitation seriously. We went from Turkey to Greece with island stops and I did enjoy that but the week before it was evidently so rough that no one could leave the ship for the islands. Our pastor was with us and he insisted I give 10% of my casino winnings to the church. I said is that gross or net and Euros or dollars.
The liberty ship in San Francisco is the Jeremiah O’Brian. It is also kept operational through volunteer efforts. I sometimes read that they’re off to somewhere, but don’t know the details. They’re normally docked over near Fort Mason and Aquatic Park, where you can also tour other ships maintained by the Maritime Museum and a WWII submarine, the USS Pompano. The Maritime Museum is one of the most overlooked tourist destinations in San Francisco, despite their attractive location a reasonable walk from tacky Fisherman’s Wharf and their very interesting collection. Too many other things to do. A shame as San Francisco was a great port and so much of the city’s wealth came from the sea. Fort Mason was a supply point for the Pacific Fleet and the embarkation point for so many sailors setting sail for the South Pacific. It’s now occupied by various non-profits. Sailing out of the Golden Gate must have been a rather splendid way of leaving the US mainland, at least if the fog was out.
I am not picking on cruise ships re 18 gallons per mile. @jtsanders I learned something new, still not quite sure how bunker fuel compares to other fuels, but QE2 does appear to be diesel.
QE2’S POWER PLANT IS DIESEL ELECTRIC, a system chosen for its inherent reliability and flexibility. In 1986/87, in an operation costing £100m, nine medium speed MAN L58/64 nine cylinder turbo charged diesel engines were fitted, in place of the aging and fuel thirsty steam plant. The diesel engines drive C.E.C. generators, and each develop 10.5 MW of electrical power at 10,000 volts. Each engine weighs approximately 120 tons.
I’m not really familiar with big ship power plants either, @Barkydog. I know that most ocean liners use low grade bunker fuel because a new US law has tighter emissions standards within US maritime borders. This is particular problem for ships using Baltimore as a port since it is so far north inside the Chesapeake Bay. The Carnival Pride left for a while, relocating to Tampa and then was refitted with additional pollution abatement equipment. It then returned to Baltimore and still uses bunker fuel. The QE2 may use diesel if the engines are efficient enough, or might use bunker fuel if they are set up for it.
Guess how much horsepower the Apollo rockets with Saturn 5 engines produced and compare it to these enormous ships. Get this: one Apollo launch generated more power than all the waterfalls in north America.
“Most of the fuel and oxidizer was used to lift the fuel and oxidizer above it, not the payload.”
I know. Amazing isn’t it? 90 percent of the total weight of the Apollo missions came from the propellants used to build their speed to 17,500 mph to escape earth’s gravity. They burned 16,785 gallons a second.
Rocket very inefficient,but for its purpose its practically unbeatable."we went to the moon on kerosene and of course oxidiser)The space shuttle had horribly polluting solid rocket motors,but the main engine was practically pollution free,but very dangerous.
When you fly across the Pacific by passenger jet, the fuel weighs a lot more than the passengers and their luggage.
A 747 burns about 9500 gallons from Chicago to L.A. At 8 lbs per gallon that’s 67,000 lbs of fuel. The 300 or so passengers weigh about 150 lbs each, so that’s about 45,000 lbs.
A trans Pacific flight is more than twice as long, so figure it out.
I wish I had gone to Cape Kennedy to watch an Apollo or a shuttle blast off. That would have been cool. Eleven stood 378 ft. high. I would have peed myself and puked all over everything just going up to the capsule. Frank Borman has said nothing had prepared him or the other astronauts for the power of the Saturn 5 rocket engines when they kicked in. The violent shaking and the acceleration and the noise were frightening. He thought for sure the spacecraft was breaking apart. When the second stage rockets kicked in, he thought he would be jettisoned through the instrument panel.
Back when we were at Disney World in Orlando during one of the shuttles. There were about 3 or 4 families together and we took off around 2:00 am to see the launch. It had been canceled once or twice by then. We didn’t get within 30 miles with all the traffic and cars parked but you could see it clearly. The entire sky lit up like an atomic bomb. It was really quite a sight and a once in a lifetime experience.
I saw a shuttle launch back before the shuttle disaster. It was an early morning launch…from where we were you could barely see the shuttle…but when it took off…I was amazed how loud and how bright it was. I agree…it’s a lifetime experience.
I Happened To Be In Florida When A Launch Was Scheduled, But It Was Postponed. We Did Take A Guided Bus Trip Through Kennedy Space Center, Though.
I remember how awesome the “crawler” (and the specs) that carries the rocket to the pad, was.
Part of the patter of the tour guide included mentioning that the voluminus and tall “assembly building” was an unusual building for its size, because it was all open space in the interior.
I never verified this, but the guide said the building was large enough to develop its own weather inside and could even drop precipitation.