here's the perfect customer for BFR's
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -ship.html
Right now this ship just became a huge white elephant due to its size and the amount of fuel its powerplant will use. With BFR's thats not a problem.
Customer for BFR
I was thinking the same thing.
Frankly I think that BFRs would be an ideal marine powerplant. They would separate a ship from refueling problems and most new ships already use electric propulsion(Diesel electric) already with propulsion units in pods rather than direct screw propulsion. BFRs are also high density power sources, perfect for marine use. Using BFRs would also mean the space currently used for bunkerage could be used for something else. Maybe Dr Nebel should send some proposals to shipping companies.
Frankly I think that BFRs would be an ideal marine powerplant. They would separate a ship from refueling problems and most new ships already use electric propulsion(Diesel electric) already with propulsion units in pods rather than direct screw propulsion. BFRs are also high density power sources, perfect for marine use. Using BFRs would also mean the space currently used for bunkerage could be used for something else. Maybe Dr Nebel should send some proposals to shipping companies.
That's a very interesting thought. BFRs aboard a ship will be practical long before they will fit on aircraft. Petro is going to get nothing but more expensive while it's still used as a fuel. Traveling between continents by ship may end up being competitive with traveling by air. How retro.olivier wrote:And what about a fast transatlantic liner : Europe-America in two days!
I live in a city which used to be a very LARGE transatlantic harbor and is now maybe the largest (almost) EMPTY deep water harbor in the world. The mayor will build us a statue if we bring back ocean liners to his town!
An interesting thing about cruise ships is that they almost always putter along just fast enough to maintain steerage. Their engines are built to be able to move the ship at a decent speed, but most 4-day, 3-night Caribbean cruises (et. al.) only need a fraction of the power available. Guess what that does to the fuel efficiency of the trip?
Regular trans-continental passage became uneconomical after aircraft were able to make the trip safely and comfortably. Making trans-continental passage by cruise ship economical again will let the ships stretch their legs on the type of voyage they are best at - long-distance travel in comfort. Cool!
Until liners are equipped with BFRs, this is my minute of ships nostalgia... Cliché!
A radically different way to use BFRs in transatlantic travel : an underwater railway tunnel. The TransAltlantys project sounds incredible...
...for it IS incredible (viral marketing by the French railway company).
BFRs aboard ships make more sense.
A radically different way to use BFRs in transatlantic travel : an underwater railway tunnel. The TransAltlantys project sounds incredible...
...for it IS incredible (viral marketing by the French railway company).
BFRs aboard ships make more sense.
Might be best to dodge the word "nuclear" as much as possible if/when the BFR proves out.drmike wrote:Wow. Imagine when that whole ship gets sick....
A nuclear powered cruise ship would be an interesting thing to try to sell!
"Clean fusion" or "clean hydrogen boron fusion," not "clean NUCLEAR fusion."
Too much baggage with the word 'nuclear,' and the watermelons are still powerful. Play Sapir-Whorf games with the language.
Duane
Vae Victis
-
Curtis Faith
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:59 pm
What do we call it?
I like "Static Electric Generator". I like "Bussard" in the name too; So maybe "Bussard Static Electric Alpha Generator" The short answer to "How do you power this thing?" would, of course be: "It's got a Bussard Wiffle Ball."