Like most futuristic visions, this one did not come to be, exactly. And I'm still waiting for my flying car and personal jet pack we were all promised to have by now!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:
Like most futuristic visions, this one did not come to be, exactly. And I'm still waiting for my flying car and personal jet pack we were all promised to have by now!

---

I expected that by 2001 I would be going on holiday to the moon! What a dissapointment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:

The one shown looks interesting but more like a smaller passenger ferry (ss Aquarama size) or a coastal ship than a 'superliner'.

---

One philosophy was that, since these vessels would be so fast, you would only be aboard for 2 days, and there would be entire fleets of smaller ships speeding across the oceans, sort of like airplanes or flying boats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:

One philosophy was that, since these vessels would be so fast, you would only be aboard for 2 days, and there would be entire fleets of smaller ships speeding across the oceans, sort of like airplanes or flying boats.

Rich

---

Thanks Rich.

quote:

---

Originally posted by viking109:
Well the jet pack has now actually happened. I think some Swiss guy flew with it last week. Was on all the news here.

---

Actually, Jet Packs (or Rocket Belts) have been around since at least the mid-1960's. I remember seeing one at the 1964 World's Fair.

Here's a video of one at Disneyland in 1966.

You can get your very own for a mere $125,000 from these guys.

Yes, the reason that we don't all use them (apart from the danger) is that the fuel lasted less than 30 seconds. That's worse tham an SUV!

You can get your very own for a mere $125,000 from these ]guys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by moodus2:
i expect the return of smaller ships and
coal fired boilers and steam turbines.
with todays technology low sulphur coal and
mechanical stokers will fire the boilers that will propell tomorrows ships.
the high price of oil will kill the diesel
powered ships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

This will hardly happen. Diesel engines are MUCH more efficient for the propulsion of ships than a steam turbine plant. Even with higher oil prices it would not make any sense at all to go back to steam propulsion. Also, the larger ships we see today will hardly be replaced with smaller units as they are inherently less efficient per unit of cargo than larger ships. (we might see more smaller passenger ships - but they also will not replace the large (more efficient) mainstream passenger ships)

---

And yes, the technology has been quite renewed since the 20s.

Here's an excerpt of a message I had posted in Liners List on January 2003:

Yes they were ordered by TNT (Thomas National Transport) at Italcantieri,
Trieste, in December 1980 and followed the coal propulsion meeting in London
of April 1980.
They were about 75,500DWT, 255m X 35.30 X 12.20, 15.8kts max, 85tr/mn,
17,000hp (19,000 max), consumption of 219,3 t/day for a total of 2,400t,
67,800m3 of cargo.
If you want more technical datas of these ships + engine room scketches,
feel free to ask.
I don't know whet they have became now however, what is sure is the name
CARPENTARIA no longer appeard in 1994.

This order followed the one from another Australian group (Australian
National Line) and they were, if I make no confusion, two ore (beauxite and
aluminia) carrier RIVER BOYNE (1982, 51.035GRT, 76,355DWT, 255m X 35, 16
kts) and RIVER EMBLEY (1983, 51.035GRT, 76,358DWT, 255m X 35, 16 kts) built
at Mitsubishi shipyard and of the rather similar but enlarged type than the
two above ones. They were both still in service in 2000 but I don't know if
this was with their original coal boilers.

At the same period, Belgian shipyard Hoboken Cockerill proposed a similar
ship two either with slow stroke diesel propulsion, either with coal steam
turbines (73,715DWT, 157,800 m3 of cereal, 14.2kts and 180t/day of coal
consumption at tis service speed for the coal version and 73,000DWT, 168,500
m3 of cereal, 14.03kts for the diesel one and 265m X 43 X16.60 for both).

Dominique Vaccaro.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike sa:
Actually I would expect the higher cost of diesel (and I am talking if it went skyhigh) to effect places like New York and to some extent Miami etc as cruise lines would simply move their ships to ports where they would use less fuel to get anywhere, San Juan for instance, fuel consumption would half if they had o0nly a few miles between ports.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by greybeard:

Sorry Mike, but where's the fuel saving? Unless the cruise lines are expecting to rely only on passengers who are resident in San Juan, for example, the passengers still have to get there in order to join their cruise. And they are more likely to be flying from New York or wherever than to be travelling by rowing boat, are they not?

---