Argo: zero emission high speed cargo ship

[@indatext]

This my friends, is a Smuggler's Dream! I want one of those

[@Demonator131]

Bruh

[@weatheranddarkness]

Little conspicuous dontcha think?

[@JGL841]

5 meter waves aren't that big in the open ocean. That's the downfall of hydrofoils, they're fast but no good in a strong storm.

[@totallynotlemon6041]

I don't know if it's going to work out but I looks really cool and I hope you guys succeed.

[@Koemi405]

Good for fast smuggling

[@hugofolpp1753]

amazing! It can handle 5m swells! I had no idea hydrofoils could handle such big waves

[@gumby2ms]

foils were always the thing for big waves, navy wanted to use some crazy 90 knot monsters in the coldwar for hunting subs, they could take waves twice as big too

[@glike2]

Also easier to quickly circumvent bad weather, but the short range competition for this will be a startup with a new more efficient type of ekranoplane.

[@stl3414]

What is the mileage for the hydrogen tanks? Could you mount a hydrogen generator onboard and feed the tanks that way?

[@drpoundsign]

The BEST thing we can do (if the War ever Ends) is to bridge the Bering Strait between Asia and North America. Then: 80 mph Trains could move cargo between the Two continents. I realize that the trains would have to go thousands of miles out of their way to cross that strait. However: 1. The Train is MUCH faster than Any ship. 2. Electricity (or, a type of "Green Fuel") could also power the train. The Argo may be practical for transport between the East Coast of the US, and Europe. They could even have rail portage across Greenland, if/when their Glaciers melt (although that would Not be a Good thing.) The Argo is Much Smaller than a Container ship, of course. Also: Liquid Ammonia (converted back to N2+H2) is Safer and more practical than Hydrogen. There is a plasma method of making that conversion, instead of expensive high-temperature catalysts.

[@bayusaputro5002]

Seriously want to ask me, what is the condition of the ship if the expedition is hit by big waves ?

[@deeppurplefan]

Hey you should add some sails or giant kites!

[@edge-rps]

Could this carry 4 cargo containers full of some of that premium booger sugar?, I'm asking for a friend.

[@Reavix1]

Whats the crew compliment? Would have to be a very small crew to make it worth while with such a small cargo capacity.

[@vinishshetty8055]

What would be the cost of building Argo

[@AJ-kc4ry]

With those speeds, how would it compare to big cargo ships that can handle 10 thousand containers

[@slickvisualpoetry]

What I don't get, why not dock boats into foils outside the harbour? Load or unload the ship, have a really wide foil ready to dock outside the harbour, safe massive amounts of energy and money.

[@3nityC]

how much container for this model? 10x 40foot containers?

[@weatheranddarkness]

Looks like it

[@Verton_D]

At those speeds, what if you collided with a whale or dolphins? Are those support stands strong enough to take impact? And also wouldn't rerouting this in the midst of high waves become a challenge?

[@boundarylayertechnologies3180]

Great questions. Limiting impacts to marine life is paramount. First we detect and avoid collisions. Our frontal area is considerably smaller than a traditional hull so the chances of strikes are reduced. The vertical struts will have reinforced leading edges to handle collisions. Beyond that, we do have specifically intended weak point to control the damage to the masts only and maintain safety of crew and cargo, though we might deliver the goods a little later in that even. Yes, we expect to reroute under strong swells above the limit the vessel.

[@Nkdvhn]

Knock knock Who's there? Argo Argo who? Argo announce launch for Q3 2024.

[@jimj2683]

Why not use CO2 neutral synthetic gasoline? Much higher energy density and much cheaper infrastructure/engine.

[@boundarylayertechnologies3180]

We are big fans of all zero emissions fuels At this point we've selected LH2 as it's available and becoming cheaper quickly. H2 also higher energy density on a mass basis, though not volume. We are more sensitive to mass, than volume. We will continue to look carefully at CO2 neutral synthetic gasoline as it comes available.

[@jimj2683]

@@boundarylayertechnologies3180 That is completely wrong. You have to take into account the weight of the heavy LH2 tanks and the heavy fuel cells that make the electricity. E-Gasoline and E-diesel will both have much smaller and lighter tanks and give roughly 3-5x the range for the same weight of the total system. Modern combustion engines only produce negligible bad emissions (NOx, soot etc). If you want to go completely zero emission, ammonia or methanol might be the best hydrogen carriers combined with a fuel cell.

[@jimj2683]

@@boundarylayertechnologies3180 Another big problem with liquid hydrogen is the boil-off: It heats up and has to be vented. Thus you are leaking costly fuel all the time. Usually at a rate of 2-5% per day!

[@jezosborne]

​@@jimj2683 Hydrogen is 5x higher energy density on mass bases than ammonia 120 MJ / kg vs 22.5 MJ/kg. LH2 tanks are heavy on automotive applications and many shipping application. BLT is closer to aerospace application and is developing a light weight tank one quarter the mass of automotive tanks which need to deal with being exposed to highway roads with a hull protecting them. Our partners suggest they can supply fuels cell systems are comparable to gas turbine on power to weight ratios. It won't be easy but it's available. Again if and when synthetic hydrocarbons become available and competitive, it will certainly make our lives easier for the points you raised and BLT would consider using them. Jeremy, CTO of BLT.

[@jezosborne]

​@@jimj2683 While underway, the boil-off is used to creates electricity in the fuel cells keeping the H2 liquid so we have reduced losses. Our calculations suggest far lower than 1% per day can be achieved. Tank surface area and thus heat loss scales with the cube of the mass so by making larger tanks, the heat losses greatly improves.