It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

**WARNING** A 100% Fix for the oil rupture!

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I give it to the kid though, he is much brighter than the buffoons that came up with the junk shot. And if they were to actually use a carrier as a husk they would call it something along the lines of a summer movie block buster titled: Operation Overkill


Sadly the damage is done and will continue to get worse in the mean time. Expect Megadeath.


It would make for a good disaster film anyhoo

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Unknown Soldier]




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanObanion
 


If you want I can post an image of a condom for you. The tip of a condom is the funnel.... Get it now?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Way to take one for the Gipper! I think it could work....

They hollow ships out when they decommission them don't they? I remember seeing a bunch in a ship graveyard on the Potomac, and a man told me they were hollowed out. I don't think they'd be useful though. They weren't as large as this.


YES. They hollow carriers out so they can sink them, to provide for the development of new coral reefs. Screw the USS RR. Take the normal Cruise Ships and apply the same concept being a cruise liner husk is still 200 Tons heavier then the Top-Kill device.

This is why I also suggested cutting a submarine in half and using that.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by SneakAPeek]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
For goodness sake...the first thing they did was stick a 5 story, 100 ton box over this thing and it didn't work. It became plugged up with hydrates. A 500 ton container is not going to work for the very same reason.

It's great that your 8 year old came up with this idea. You should be proud that he/she thought of the very idea that was actually used first, but it just didn't work. You need to work out how to stop the hydrates building up.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by mrwiffler]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
What is preventing us from digging a foundation/trench wider than the leak area and then lowering a cylindrical tunnel over it in order to channel the oil out above the sea and in to various vessels?

I'm not stating this as a solution, just wondering if those with more of a technical knowledge on the situation can tell me reasons why this hasn't been considered?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SneakAPeek
reply to post by xEphon
 


Can you prove to me the first Top Kill piece was over 500 tons in weight?

Edit: Did you even look at the image in the First post the 8 year old did? Guess not with comments like that.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by SneakAPeek]


I don't think the weight is the issue. The sea floor there isn't that stable and silty, if I recall from other threads. The BOP is a balancing act.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SneakAPeek
 


Where on earth do you get this notion that big ships are in the hundreds tonnage wise? The USS Ronald Reagan is 101,400 long tons (113,600 short tons) Source.

Even if you were right, which you aren't if it did only weigh in at 500 tons how do you propose we stand it on end over an oil leek 5000 ft deep? You can't, if nothing else, currents would prohibit it and thats only if we had some super crane to put it there in the first place.

Also you were throwing around the 100,000psi couldn't lift 500 tons. Do you realize that this is about 45 tons per square inch? There are 144 square inches in a square foot. It would be 45*144 generating a lifting force of 6480 tons on one, yes one square foot. So yeah I'm telling ya that 100,000psi definitely would lift 500tons, unless said object had the density of a neutron star.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
i think it would work, if you did it right. but they would probably miss on the first attempt and have to drop the G.H.W. Bush one down there.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by who-me?
 


I was going to post the same thing , as far as the tonnage of the Ronald Reagan , and psi lifting capabilities .

Nice to see that someone else is awake also ...

Good job .



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by who-me?
reply to post by SneakAPeek
 


Where on earth do you get this notion that big ships are in the hundreds tonnage wise? The USS Ronald Reagan is 101,400 long tons (113,600 short tons) Source.

Even if you were right, which you aren't if it did only weigh in at 500 tons how do you propose we stand it on end over an oil leek 5000 ft deep? You can't, if nothing else, currents would prohibit it and thats only if we had some super crane to put it there in the first place.

Also you were throwing around the 100,000psi couldn't lift 500 tons. Do you realize that this is about 45 tons per square inch? There are 144 square inches in a square foot. It would be 45*144 generating a lifting force of 6480 tons on one, yes one square foot. So yeah I'm telling ya that 100,000psi definitely would lift 500tons, unless said object had the density of a neutron star.


Not to mention that the majority of the seafloor in the gulf is mud. I think this post and the ones about the thermal currents (which would topple over anything that long, just will) , combined with the amount of time it actually takes to gut these things (sometimes years), along with the post about you having to cut major amounts of holes into the hull to get it actually sink, the time it would take to actually build a crane that large (never gonna happen) to actually get it down there and the number of tugs it would take to tow it out there, pretty much killed this idea. Oh, and the fact that something that weighed 100 tons and was only 4 stories tall (basically same idea on a smaller scale) couldnt do it and was a pain to get it back up.

And to the op, the condom analogy doesnt even make sense. Where do people come up with this stuff? If the condom dont fit, dont use it homie lol.

And whats gonna syphon all of the seawater out of the ship after it gets down there? Who are going to go down there or what robots do we have build that could plug all the holes that we made to make it sink? What happens when this fails and you have to remove it? Not to mention do you honestly believe that the pressure of the water itself wont crush the boat on the way down there? Maybe not all the way but it will crush it a bit.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
As has been stated before it would not work. Not only becuase of the sheer size, cost and difficulty to place. But the ship would not be leak proof you would effectively be spreading the area of the leak over the whole length of the ship.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by shmo5]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Sounds like this idea or a very similar one is being discussed in this video clip?




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I wouldn't waste a perfectly good nuclear powered aircraft carrier on this. Maybe use one of the old Enterprise Class ships, heck even the Enterprise herself (which is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2013) could boldly go where no other carrier has gone before and cap the well.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SneakAPeek
 


Dude, the problem has been stated repeatedly in this forum that the problem isnt capping the well. They could do that. But IF they cap it, it may speed up the process of degradation down pipe. Which is why they are furiously drillin gthe relief wells.

This is common knowledge, even in the MSM at this point, so perhaps that is the source of the grief.

Unfortunately, while the MSM has put out pieces of the story, their main narrative doesnt focus on this issue, so it leaves the space wide open for people to constantly speculate on simplistic solutions for closing the cap.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


I wasn't looking for a cap and neither is BP or anyone else. They don't want to cap it! They will want to collect it...

I'm looking for something that could surround the wellhead itself, to funnel the oil to a single point[even if that point is 15ft wide] from which the oil can be syphoned to oil tankers above being the PSI is high enough.



Also I want to thank everyone so far that has contributed to this post.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by SneakAPeek]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
So this idea was introduced by an 8 year old ???

Yeah, that sounds about right, I just dont know why we are even discussing it.

You say that 20 million is too much to spend on the gulf project, ... when the USS Ronald Reagan cost about 4.5 BILLION dollars to create.

Thats some logic there, hey let's drop down the statue of liberty or the empire state building while were at it.

This is the worst idea I've ever heard, why anyone would give it any reasonable thought is beyond me.

are you that 8 year old's dad or something ??




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join