[quote=“jjimm, post:12, topic:609541”]
Pics of the Costa Favolosa:[ul][li]Costa Favolosa at anchor[]Costa Favolosa with our hotel in the foreground[]Passengers being ferried to and from Dubrovnik[]Costa Favolosa heading out to sea[]Bonus picture of Dubrovnik[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Wow…that thing is HUGE!
Which is exactly what it in fact…is.
Yup - tow it off somewhere, repair it, rename it, re-register it and maybe sell it to a different line in a different country.
I believe there was an intention to do this sort of thing with the Herald Of Free Enterprise, which was involved in a rather similar incident, although they eventually scrapped it instead.
I’m no nautical engineer, but all of these new mega-cruise ships look exceedingly top-heavy and not particularly seaworthy. Like even a minor wind or wave would roll them right over.
I am glad you prefaced it with “i’m no nautical engineer” 
How’s this one - does it look exceedingly top-heavy and not particularly seaworthy?
Yes, it does look very top heavy, and “not particularly seaworthy” in that it does look (to me) like it would be more succeptible to wind and wave than the sort of traditional looking ships I was accustomed to seeing growing up.
Again, not a naval engineer or architect, but it seems to me that for the better part of the 20th century, ship design was more-or-less a refinement of an existing, proven configuration. Bows may have gotten sharper, hull forms more efficient, and such, but overall the superstructures (specifically, the proportion of superstructure-to-hull) remained generally much of a sameness.
Newer designs just look (to me) to have way too much superstructure-to-hull.
Again, I fully and freely admit that this is just a layman’s perspective. I have none and claim no knowledge of the engineering and mathematics that went into these new designs. I’m sure that a lot of engineering and mathemtics did go into these designs, and that they are safe.
But they just don’t look right to me.
I think (hard to figure out exactly) there are 30-50 thousand such ships in the world (bulk carriers, super cargo/container ships, tankers and cruise ships). According to statistics I have seen, on the average 10 sink every year. That’s 0.03% loss every year. I would say that shows these ships are pretty sea-worthy. Unless you run one into a rock or something.
Charts? huh?
Does a huge modern ship rely on centuries old technology?
I know absolutely nothing about boats; but I was once a tourist in Alaska, riding in a small fishing-type boat (20 people sitting on benches) .
And the boat’s “driver” had a computer screen showing the depth of the water underneath us, based on sonic pings or something.
It didn’t look like very expensive technology.
In my not expert opinion refloating is going to be a bitch.
Patching the hole in the bottom is straight forward and probably not that difficult.
Pumping the water out however…
Unlike a navy ship or a freighter this ship has about 1 gazillion windows which are now under water and probably broken. You have to get the water out faster than it can flow back in. Good luck with that.
That one doesn’t because it’s looks wider than it is tall (based on standard container dimensions, it appears to be about 120’ wide by 80’ tall from water line to top of containers)
But the cruise ship looks taller than it looks wide.
Note: I’m not a nautical engineer and I trust the engineers, just commenting that the cruise ship “looks” top heavy to me also.
Just remember that you can’t see how deep the ship extends underwater from those pictures.
Sonar might let you know you’re about to run into a hazard, but a chart will let you avoid going anywhere near it in the first place.
So, yeah, charts.
That stuff just tells you the depth of the water under your boat. Which isn’t particularly helpful, as they found out they were in shallow water when they hit a rock. It’s probably not literally charts at this point. I assume they are computerized and are used with GPS.
I know what you mean - photos like this (even though that obviously includes a bit of fisheye effect) just don’t look at all right.
But the calculation of righting moment, etc is actually fairly straighforward and well understood - so this is really just a case of counterintuitive appearance. By and large, ships fail for all kinds of other reasons, but not because they’re top heavy, despite appearances.
They always do - at least they say they will, when you get on a cruise ship you have to go to boat drill that very day (which evidently they hadn’t yet done on this ship) and they make the women stand in front. I always almost argue but then figure it isn’t really worth making some poor Filipino cabin steward’s life a little harder. If it comes down to it, you can stand and be still to the Birkenhead drill if you like but I’m giving up my seat to a single young father holding a toddler if it’s all the same to you, assuming there are plenty of women around on the planet to assure the continuation of the species.
No cites, but I remember a programme about the Queen Mary 2((picture here- pretty!) in which they compared it to the standard cruise ships. The point they made was that the big fat, high cruise ships just avoid high winds and bad weather where the old liners crossing the Atlantic had to cope. Very little danger to the ship but the passengers don’t want to be out in a rough sea - the drinks would spill and the gambling chips slide off the tables - and that really does cut into the profit 
That’s just what Billy Zane was counting on.
The last time I was on a cruise, there was a Q&A with the captain, and I asked what the ship’s draft was, and he said it was about 40 feet, but that 40 feet is filled with really dense stuff - engines, generators and fuel. Above the waterline, it’s all much lighter - mostly air, by comparison.
For good or bad, cruise ships are fairly modular. Almost all of the passenger cabins can be pulled out as intact units and replaced with new ones, so any decks that were submerged will probably wind up being refitted in this way once the ship is righted and drained out.
Indeed.
There’s a link on the BBC site to a video interview of the Captain where he says he was around 300 meters offshore, and believed the rocks extended out just 150 meters. It’s absolutely astonishing that he intended to pass within 150m of any rock, and obviously at considerable speed (as evidenced by a huge gash visible along the port side).
This can’t be put down to simple “navigation error”, as the Captain was clearly aware of where he was, and at least close to where he intended to be. This sounds like the nautical equivalent of an airplane pilot flying underneath a bridge.
I have been on over 15 cruises on maybe 8 lines and never, ever, ever has this been the case.
