• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    8 months ago

    Woof… Found a map of the area, and yeah, you can route around the collapse, but the next closest crossing is a ways away…

        • limelight79@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          If you slide down south of the Bay Bridge, there are about 12 ships anchored there. I usually a few when I cross the Bay Bridge, so I’m not sure if that’s a larger-than-usual amount. You have to figure that the ship that was leaving would have triggered another one inbound before long; I doubt they normally leave the dock empty for any longer than absolutely necessary.

    • limelight79@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      And the tunnels (I-895 and I-95) forbid things like propane, so if you have some of that, you’re off to the west side of the Baltimore Beltway, which is already extremely busy. Good luck with that!

      (Relatively local person here who travels around Baltimore frequently. I’ve used the bridge that collapsed on several occasions to avoid the tunnels while carrying propane.)

    • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Except if you’re carrying HAZMATS it’s even worse, they’re not allowed in either of the tunnel crossings, so all that traffic has to reroute aaaaaaall the way off your map via the western half of 695.

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    8 months ago

    Lights on boat began to flicker before incident, suggesting some sort of power failure. Steering a full size car without power steering is possible, but spoiler, steering a huge container ship ain’t.

    Someone commented that exhaust increased noticably as well, possibly because pilot put ship in reverse after losing power (with prop walk veering the ship into the support).

    All just people talking on the Internet at present, but “asleep at the wheel” isn’t necessarily what happened.

    • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      Given how “easily” the bridge fell… Why aren’t ships that size required to 100% be escorted by tugs???

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        At the risk of sounding too Clarke and Dawe, it is very rare that a ship loses power and control, and somewhere it could hit something important, and hits that thing, and the thing is apparently so fragile that it just falls to pieces. It’s been there for 46 years, and the Port of Baltimore currently sees an average of 53 ships in and out per month, so about 3.5 big ships under the bridge per day. That’s a lot of passages over the years without incident.

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          8 months ago

          and the thing is apparently so fragile that it just falls to pieces.

          I mean, it just got hit with a hundred thousand ton hammer. That’ll do a pretty good number on most structures, I imagine.

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            For a structure that normally has these ships pass under it every day, it sure as hell should have had bollards to protect the piers against such an impact.

        • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          no, this is you speaking my language. we do ‘risk assessments’ and yeah I guess it’s a case of severity*likelihood, where risk is never zero.

          but, no matter what, when the risks ‘line up’ into a failure mode, holy shit is that failure catastrophic. crazy terrible regardless.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t know what the likelihood of this would be, but it’s definitely miniscule. I suspect you’d still need safeguards to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, but I’m not sure what exactly you can do once a boat has failed and is going to make imminent impact.

            At that point all you can do is mitigate the fatalities and evacuate.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        Cause then we would have to hire more people to tug all those ships in and it would be less efficient.

        Not very profit margin of you to suggest that.

          • asret@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            This’ll be the real reason.

            My comment was just unhelpful and inappropriate - a bad joke aimed at puritanical Americans.

            • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              I actually don’t disagree with anything you said. I don’t think you should feel bad (unless the comment is edited and I’m misunderstanding)

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Why aren’t ships that size required to 100% be escorted by tugs???

        They likely were, but there are limits on how fast even a group of tugs can influence a ship many times their size/weight/mass.

        The laws of physics still apply.

    • Breezy@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      8 months ago

      There were people on it! Not a whole lot of cars since it happened a couple hours ago. But there were around 50 people working on it at the time. Its so devastating.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s insane. I heard about this on NPR this morning, but I didn’t picture the bridge being so big. Glad it was early when there weren’t hundreds more people on it.

      • Ilsunny@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Most likely a lobbying bailout. Kickbacks will then be given to the executives. Only the unfortunate victims shed tears.

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m thinking there will be many more parties to that lawsuit… Foremost insurers. And their re-insurers.

      However right now it looks like this ship suffered a mechanical failure, so if I had a business in ship building/maintenance you bet I’d be calling everyone in the company to get confirmation that that ship was not on our customer list. And if it was I’d already be in an all-hands meeting with engineering and legal.

      If I was in charge of whichever government entity is in charge of maritime traffic, I’d be discretely asking why the fuck boats big enough to bring a bridge down by slowly booping into it were allowed to be boating under the bridge. I would refute responsibility of course… but some maritime traffic rule changes might happen down the line.

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        To your last comment, ships never just boop. It smothers.

        Let’s say 100k tons for a ship, and make it long tons to make it an even 100,000,000kg. This ship was moving roughly 4m/s… Thus the kinetic energy was somewhere around 800 MJ. A stick of dynamite is about 1MJ.

        I’m pretty sure 800 sticks of dynamite could’ve fucked that support up pretty good, too, bringing down the bridge deck.

        It’s more like either you give up on bridges or give up on ships if you are concerned about the two coexisting and breaking stuff in a low speed collision.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          While using energy to measure the destructive power of a collision is… not great, OF COURSE no bridge pillar can withstand a direct collision with cargo ship that size (although I don’t think it would necessarily be unfeasible to build the pillars on artificial concrete islands ? Depending on currents and topology, it might just be very expensive).

          There are also ways to mitigate risk (many of which surely are already implemented) around critical infrastructure. Slower speeds, backup generators, and for instance in Suez they have tugboats as well. They had one high-profile incident recently but they have way more traffic in a way more challenging environment.

          Whether it makes economic sense to implement new safety measures in Baltimore I suppose depends on how likely such a collision is determined to be. Maybe it was a freak accident. Maybe with the amount of modern shipping traffic it’s bound to happen every few decades, and the risk/reward calculations should change to accommodate mitigation strategies.

  • rustyfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    8 months ago

    Roughly 20 people are still missing. Water is almost 0 degrees. I think this will be the death toll.

    I also wonder how TF this happened.

    • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The temperature in the river was about 47 degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius) in the early hours of Tuesday, according to a buoy that collects data for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

      Edited to add:
      Replies seem to think that I think 8°C water isn’t cold or dangerous. I don’t think that.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s also the Patapsco River. Once it hits the city area it’s no longer the quiescent river that’s fun to play with. It’s basically the bay already, just not named as such yet. One thing that could save people though is the tide was low and moving in at the time.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’ll wear a t-shirt outside for 10 minutes when it’s 47 degrees outside. But 47 is a whole new level of cold when it’s water.

        I have a little pond in the yard, so I occasionally have to reach in there throughout the year. Right now it’s close to that 47F mark, and it’s like past “this is cold” to “this hurts!”

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          We always knew when Coach had set the pool to the 45° F ice bath he would have us train in part of the time, cause the first person jumped in and almost came back out of the pool. When he set it to 75° that felt like a sauna and made me sleepy.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Water temp of 47 can be lethal very quickly.

        Water cools the body about 25 times faster than air of the same temp. A diver in 70-degree water may go blue in the lips even with a wetsuit. 47 degrees will have your body going numb super quickly. Then you lose dexterity and start having muscle cramps all over. You lose the ability to swim away or even tread water.

        It’s bad.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          In the grand scheme of things, so is the temperature of boiling water.

  • graycube@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is likely to disrupt shipping in a major US port. This will have repercussions throughout the economy until the port is fully reopened.

    • Breezy@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 months ago

      Im sorry, i wasnt aware of that rule. I just wasnt seeing a video up on here at the time so i grabbed one off the live stream to post for others to see. I posted the link you gave in the description instead of the main url so people can still quickly pull it up. If theres a problem still ill do what i can to change it, or you can go ahead and delete this post since there are now more videos and such up online.

      • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nope. You did great. Our rules state that a post must contain a link to an article. Keeping the video as primary, and adding a link as the comment suffices. We usually don’t give the warning, but I felt that your post added good context for the news surrounding the breaking news.

        • LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          8 months ago

          You guys (mods) are doing a helluva good job. A very civil request for the OP to correct the slight omission, encouragement and polite follow up, didn’t just silently delete the post.

          Kudos!

    • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      That went down way more quickly than I expected

      Id say it fell at roughly the speed of gravity.

      • Veedem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        My point is that it didn’t collapse it pieces. It just fell straight down with seemingly no structural resistance.

  • Hubi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I feel like the whole thing shouldn’t have come down as easy as it did…

    Edit: Nevermind, I didn’t realize how large this ship actually is.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t think integrity after getting a support annihilated by a massive ship is a reasonable design objective. You’d need way more supports and structure, at least doubling the weight and cost of the structure, I’d guess maybe 4x. As far as stress tests go, getting one of your two supports knocked out is an extremely stressing condition.

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        8 months ago

        I learned recently that in engineering there’s a saying that anyone can build a bridge that will stand, but only an engineer can build a bridge that barely stands.

        Which seems dark, but bridges are built on budgets while adhering to aesthetic, material, and site/traffic (on, under, and sometimes over) requirements.

        And besides, that ship was between 210 to 257 million pounds, traveling at whatever speed it was going. I’m not a physicist, but I recon that’s enough force to knock down a bridge. (As evidenced.)

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Even moving very slowly, that’s a hell of a lot of force exerted on something designed to take a sideways load caused by, at most, wind.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        getting one of your two supports knocked out is an extremely stressing condition.

        Bridges need therapists too!

    • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      if you ever made a bridge out of toothpicks in school, the lesson is how much force it can hold straight up and down. Something super heavy whacking at its side while also dead on nailing one of the major support structures… yeah thing crumbled like toothpicks

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              27
              ·
              8 months ago

              “Bump” is a galactically humble description of a collision with a container ship weighing nearly 200 million pounds.

              To illustrate this more cleanly, the momentum of a loaded Boeing 787 flying near top speed is 17,760,000 N.s. For this ship going at just 10 km/h, the momentum is about 260,600,000 N.s. In other words, the bridge would need to be able to sustain the equivalent of 14 9/11 attacks, simultaneously.

              The way to tolerate incidents like this is to add multiple points of isolated failure so that even if one point is catastrophically destroyed, only a portion of the bridge goes down while the rest remains intact. I don’t think there are many, if any, structures on the planet that can withstand that much force

              • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                8 months ago

                This right here. You’d need a frankly ridiculous amount of solid stainless steel to build pylons for seaway protection, and that’s for low speed impacts.

                Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity!

                I’m not a sailor it anything, but I suppose requiring tugboats for all harbor travel of shops over a gross weight might be a good thing. Makes more jobs, at least.

              • bbuez@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Also in designing such a resilient bridge, don’t forget one of the design requirements is to allow access to a busy shipping port

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              8 months ago

              Saying the bridge was bumped by the cargo ship is like saying someone got bumped in the head after having a brick thrown at them.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          The crazy thing is it isn’t even the bridge being shoddy. It’s terrifyingly simple physics. High mass objects moving slowly and low mass objects moving quickly are both incredibly destructive. I’m not entirely sure how you build safeguards against a collision like that. It would need military grade protection – assuming even the military has something which could withstand that.

          Think of it like this. A bridge is designed to distribute weight and force and stand up. It isn’t designed to take a hit like this.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not just that the ship is as big as it is. A ship half it’s size could have done it too. Bridges like this are very strong in the way of supporting their deck. But the way they achieve it is by spreading the weight out over a very large area. Interrupt that and the whole thing comes down.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      the whole thing shouldn’t have come down as easy as it did

      Like jet fuel to a steel beam?

      (Is it too soon if I was an eyewitness?)

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    Lights on boat began to flicker before incident, suggesting some sort of power failure. Steering a full size car without power steering is possible, but spoiler, steering a huge container ship ain’t.

    Someone commented that exhaust increased noticably as well, possibly because pilot put ship in reverse after losing power (with prop walk veering the ship into the support).

    All just people talking on the Internet at present, but “asleep at the wheel” isn’t necessarily what happened.

  • Dog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    Welcome to Baltimore (bawlmore, for the locals). A local here, it’s so devastating.

    • Breezy@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I read it was a ship from Singapore, idk what they have against us though. Probably russian assets taking revenge for the concert shooting.

    • Franklin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Sailing a ship is way more precarious than it may seem at first and if you’re not careful small mistakes can snowball.

      I doubt this was anything more than a incredibly regrettable mistake.