What will ships look like 100 years from now?
Also posting an aesthetic vehicle cargo ship
>>893262
>posting an aesthetic vehicle cargo ship
That would be this.
Glidersubs.,, runs on boyancy, fill tank>go down/forward 50 miles,, empty tank> up/forward 50 miles., basks in the sun to recharge,, goes under the ice,, under the pirates,, under the tariffs.
,, fuel? ,,,, we dont need nostinking FUEL!
>>897289
oil tankers (eeEECHY!(), dont need to be presurized,, just a small balastank to offset the seawaters heavyness for the return trip.
,,HURICANE!!,,, yawn.
>>894118
Savannah would have been great and lead to a adoption of nuclear cargo vessels. They just needed to not also try to make her a cruise ship too.
>>893262
The Same. They've hardly changed in the last 100 apart from the switch from steam to diesel.
>>893262
Container ships will be largely unchanged except probably within 100 years they will be able to devote more space to container capacity. This will be done by making autonomous ships that don't need a crew. More efficient engines could add some space too. So in terms of the look the bridge will be gone since they can just put the computers in a water tight room somewhere.
>>897323
I don't think nuclear cargo vessels will ever work. Being able to travel for months on end without needing to visit a port to refuel is not really a useful feature for a cargo ship.
a long time ago (the 70s) they were talking about making nuclear powered submarine oil tankers
>>897453
but oil is buoyant, surely it's easier to let it float than to submerge it.
or am I just stupid?
>>897289
This idea makes me hard
has anyone built such a thing yet?
>>897484
http://marinesciencetoday.com/2013/10/17/unmanned-submersibles-making-ocean-research-easier/
>>897453
That way when it hits an iceberg we can have a radioactive oil spill.
>>897481
but dude submarine lmao
>>897289
more pics of this
>>897323
>They just needed to not also try to make her a cruise ship too.
That wasn't the problem. The problem is that ports all over the world NOPE'd the fuck out over the idea of having a nuclear incident in their harbor.
>>894118
We /nuclear/ now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship)
>implying you can accurately speculate 100 years in the future when the law of accelerating returns exists
>>897433
likely
>>897453
Thunderbirds episode when?
>>893262
Nuclear propulsion, oil prices will go up.
The rage for radar deflecting angles on ships means everything will look like the visby corvette and zumwalt destroyer
>>898926
Just warships and perhaps smuggling ships. I see no reason why legitimate commercial vessels would ever want to reduce their RCS.
>>898926
Why would commercial ships want a reduced radar profile? If anything this could cause more problems than it could potentially solve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZo33MQeFN4
>>904588
>A ship with the hull shaped like a symmetrical foil, sailing in the apparent wind, will generate a lift, pulling in the speed direction.
Um, this just does not sound correct. A slippery teardrop shape will make less drag, which is good (except in following wind) but the lift will be across the beam. You need a hydrofoil (keel) and airfoil (sail) that can independently rotate around each other to actually 'pull in the speed direction' (drive), right? That's also a fairly enormous amount of windage for the beam, might not be as fun in a storm.
>>904588
That looks retarded.
