Costa Concordia to be refloated 16th September

paddy147

...hope it goes to plan,as they only get 1 shot at this.:pac:

Still 2 people classed as missing since it sank.


http://www.today.com/travel/italys-wrecked-costa-concordia-cruise-ship-be-raised-8C11137988#

Brego888

Great

dd972

I'm sure they've got some great €5.80 an hour, 50 hour a week, 30 minutes break per shift vacancies on there

lkionm

Would they not be like those zombies in the well from the walking dead by now?

wazky

Will there a a special offer on its (next) maiden voyage?

biko

Concordia, I remember it well when it crashed into that hotel in Gonesse.

Owen_S

You can see the ship in it's current state on Google Maps!
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&vpsrc=1&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=212059469427545728757.0004b6e2ef5da5d7f6600

paddy147

They started righting the Costa this morning.

They have so far mannaged to raise her about 1 meter up off her side and off the rocks she is stuck on.

Live on Sky News at the moment.

kneemos

paddy147 wrote: »

They started righting the Costa this morning.

They have so far mannaged to raise her about 1 meter up off her side and off the rocks she is stuck on.

Live on Sky News at the moment.

That should be exciting.
Heard it was costing 500m to raise it,what would the scrap value be on something like that.
It didn't cost that much to build presumably.

Mr Benevolent

Italians refloating an cruise ship? This will be entertaining.

gobnaitolunacy

kneemos wrote: »

That should be exciting.
Heard it was costing 500m to raise it,what would the scrap value be on something like that.
It didn't cost that much to build presumably.

Cost 450m to build it.

Maximus Alexander

Anyone know why they are doing this?

markc1184

Have all the dead bodies been accounted for and reclaimed or are there still some inside the ship?

gobnaitolunacy

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Anyone know why they are doing this?

Presume a big fcuk-off rusting ship isn't a very attractive sight.

GLaDOS

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Anyone know why they are doing this?

Environmental reasons would be the first thing to pop into my head.

kneemos

markc1184 wrote: »

Have all the dead bodies been accounted for and reclaimed or are there still some inside the ship?

Two people are still missing.Skeletel remains at this stage I suppose.

seamus

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Anyone know why they are doing this?

I imagine there's a aesthetic component to it, but presumably an environmental one too. While I'm sure all of the fuel could be pumped out of the hull, the rest of the ship would still contain a lot of hazardous material in any electrical equipment onboard.
The insurance company are probably looking at this as cost-saving. If there were to be any environmental effects, they would be on the hook. Plus they can sell the salvaged hull.

If this fails, they will still probably float it with air tanks and then tow it out to the middle of the ocean and sink it. In plenty of places old ships have been sunk to create new reefs and provide an environmental bonus, but that's after the ship has been stripped of hazardous material.

markc1184 wrote: »

Have all the dead bodies been accounted for and reclaimed or are there still some inside the ship?

There are two people unaccounted for, so they're hoping to find them, but that's definitely not why they're doing this. They wouldn't spend €500m to search for two dead bodies.

Maximus Alexander

seamus wrote: »

I imagine there's a aesthetic component to it, but presumably an environmental one too. While I'm sure all of the fuel could be pumped out of the hull, the rest of the ship would still contain a lot of hazardous material in any electrical equipment onboard.
The insurance company are probably looking at this as cost-saving. If there were to be any environmental effects, they would be on the hook. Plus they can sell the salvaged hull.

If this fails, they will still probably float it with air tanks and then tow it out to the middle of the ocean and sink it. In plenty of places old ships have been sunk to create new reefs and provide an environmental bonus, but that's after the ship has been stripped of hazardous material.

There are two people unaccounted for, so they're hoping to find them, but that's definitely not why they're doing this. They wouldn't spend €500m to search for two dead bodies.

See I would have thought this would be a much cheaper option. I'm just surprised that they are prepared to spend that much money on it, but your reasons make sense.

gobnaitolunacy

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Italians refloating an cruise ship? This will be entertaining.

The salvors are a Dutch company.

paddy147

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Environmental reasons would be the first thing to pop into my head.

Most of the oil and fuel has been pumped out.

They seem to be more worried about all the food and drink supplies on board that have gone stale and rotted.....if they leak out into the sea it could polute the immeduate area.

18,000 bottles of wine onboard.:eek::D


Oh and 2 people still missing and unaccounted for.:(

Thrill

The ship has been freed from the rocks and the operation to upright the ship is expected to take 12 hours.

http://live.reuters.com/Event/Raising_the_Costa_Concordia

Engineers attempt one of the most expensive wreck removal operations in history: raising an Italian cruise ship that capsized in 2012.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10311690/Watch-live-Costa-Concordia-recovery.html

Two people are still missing and their bodies have not been found yet.

danniemcq

Threads Merged

paddy147

The Costa Concordia wont be actually moved away till early next Spring.

So it will be an unexpected Island tourist attraction for a fair few more months to come.

Jester252

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

See I would have thought this would be a much cheaper option. I'm just surprised that they are prepared to spend that much money on it, but your reasons make sense.

But with that option the salvage company loses the ship. I think they are going to make more money off scraping the ship for part and selling any goods on board than just sinking it

paulbok

Surely we could have sent a few Hi-aces and the scrap would be gone by morning?

Muise...

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Presume a big fcuk-off rusting ship isn't a very attractive sight.

two or three Spanish trawlers were impounded in Galway docks for ages when I was a young one. Lord save us from the smell in town on a warm day. 'Twas worse than passing Taaffe's.

seamus

paulbok wrote: »

Surely we could have sent a few Hi-aces and the scrap would be gone by morning?

Actually that would be another reason for moving it. There would likely be a not insignificant amount of valuable personal effects on board. The longer it stays aground, the more likely it is that opportunistic people would come along and trying to mount their own impromptu salvage attempts, often by people with nothing more than 3 hours diving training and some cheap tanks. So it's probably costing them a fair bit of cash in ongoing security around the site.

donutheadhomer

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Cost 450m to build it.

Why don't they just blow it up - surely less expensive

gramar

EurasianBadger wrote: »

Why don't they just blow it up - surely less expensive

Or strap it to a rocket and send it into outer space.

Maximus Alexander

gramar wrote: »

Or strap it to a rocket and send it into outer space.

That would definitely be more expensive.

As of 2011 the cheapest cost to orbit for a pound of cargo was $18,149. The Costa Concordia has a displacement of 51,387 tonnes, or 113,289,000 pounds.

Getting it into space at 2011 prices would cost $2,056,082,061,000 or €1,540,945,093,190.88. Over 1.5 trillion Euro. And that's if you had already sliced it up in to chunks small enough for launch.

donutheadhomer

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That would definitely be more expensive.

As of 2011 the cheapest cost to orbit for a pound of cargo was $18,149. The Costa Concordia has a displacement of 51,387 tonnes, or 113,289,000 pounds.

Getting it into space at 2011 prices would cost $2,056,082,061,000 or €1,540,945,093,190.88. Over 1.5 trillion Euro. And that's if you had already sliced it up in to chunks small enough for launch.

how much TNT would it require?

Maximus Alexander

EurasianBadger wrote: »

how much TNT would it require?

Less than 1.5 trillion Euro worth.

gramar

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That would definitely be more expensive.

As of 2011 the cheapest cost to orbit for a pound of cargo was $18,149. The Costa Concordia has a displacement of 51,387 tonnes, or 113,289,000 pounds.

Getting it into space at 2011 prices would cost $2,056,082,061,000 or €1,540,945,093,190.88. Over 1.5 trillion Euro. And that's if you had already sliced it up in to chunks small enough for launch.

You've clearly done your homework.

Maximus Alexander

Sure 'tis only a small bit of maths!

Mr Benevolent

EurasianBadger wrote: »

how much TNT would it require?

It depends what you want to do. Blowing it up doesn't make much sense as it'd ruin the environment around the island. It'd be quicker and cheaper to blow up the rock shelf underneath it and have it slide into the ocean.

Maximus Alexander

Interestingly, if NASA's budget remained constant and they did nothing but strap chunks of the Costa Concordia to rockets and blast them into space, it would take them over 80 years.

That wouldn't be great for science.

gramar

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sure 'tis only a small bit of maths!

A small bit of maths for you but a serious effin problem for mankind.

I still think they should launch it into space. 1.5 trillion would kick start the world economy.

shruikan2553

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That would definitely be more expensive.

As of 2011 the cheapest cost to orbit for a pound of cargo was $18,149. The Costa Concordia has a displacement of 51,387 tonnes, or 113,289,000 pounds.

Getting it into space at 2011 prices would cost $2,056,082,061,000 or €1,540,945,093,190.88. Over 1.5 trillion Euro. And that's if you had already sliced it up in to chunks small enough for launch.

Thats orbit so unless we want our second moon to be a sunken ship we can just throw that thing out of our atmosphere like a crisp packet out of the window of a car. Might have a good few million by doing it that way.

Maximus Alexander

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Thats orbit so unless we want our second moon to be a sunken ship we can just throw that thing out of our atmosphere like a crisp packet out of the window of a car. Might have a good few million by doing it that way.

It costs even more to break out of orbit!

kneemos

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Interestingly, if NASA's budget remained constant and they did nothing but strap chunks of the Costa Concordia to rockets and blast them into space, it would take them over 80 years.

That wouldn't be great for science.

What if they built the rockets from the ship.Didn't allow for that did ya?

Maximus Alexander

kneemos wrote: »

What if they built the rockets from the ship.Didn't allow for that did ya?

Now that's thinking outside the box!

gramar

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Thats orbit so unless we want our second moon to be a sunken ship we can just throw that thing out of our atmosphere like a crisp packet out of the window of a car. Might have a good few million by doing it that way.

It wouldn't be a sunken ship, it would be floating in space. I'm sure Richard Branson will be able to get passengers up there for space cruises.

Mal-Adjusted

we could fly the bits up into the atmosphere and drop them, letting them burn up. surely that'd save a bit on fuel? either that or sell tickets for space cruises

donutheadhomer

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

we could fly the bits up into the atmosphere and drop them, letting them burn up. surely that'd save a bit on fuel? either that or sell tickets for space cruises

From my Secondary School reading of science - all the pieces will eventually reattach themselves anyway - then we could bring the ship back to Italy again (hopefully not crashing this time)

intellectual dosser

I just saw the latest Sky News report and the ship has been 'dislodged' from the reef that was sticking into it and has moved around 3 degrees. As a result small parts of the ship previously submerged are now above the surface and look pretty mank.

I can only imagine the families of the two remaining missing people are very anxious that they get some closure out of all this.

The Backwards Man

I haven't seen anything as slow to rise up since the last time I got lucky on a night out.

Thrill

The animation of the operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TniE69CvDaE

MadYaker

Them 18,000 bottles of wine on board should still be grand. I bet some of it is good stuff too.

vicwatson

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The salvors are a Dutch company.

Americans and Italians

On April, 21st, 2012, Costa Crociere and the Costa Concordia Emergency Commissioner’s Office announced that the tender for the removal of the ship from Giglio Island has been awarded to Titan Salvage in partnership with the Italian firm Micoperi. The work begun in early May after final approval from the Italian authorities.
Titan Salvage is an American-owned specialist marine salvage and wreck removal company, part of the Crowley Group, and is a world leader in its field. Micoperi is a well-known Italian marine contractor with a long history as a specialist in underwater construction and engineering.

donutheadhomer

Gigilo Island?

Mr Benevolent

Anyone know how the Costa Coffee Concordia is doing now? No Sky News here.