Extremely quick & cheap transportation

Extremely quick & cheap transportation

Author: David Judbarovski, judbarovski@gmail.com

Linkedin.com

It is not a ground effect vehicle, but much better.

A key element of my ship is to add the thin water steam cocoon created by electric heating a hull of the ship. It flows slightly lower than sea level, and the ship’s nose is tilted and forcing the upstream water to be thrown upward in the air, forming a surface wave along both sides of the ship route. It is new kind of sea ship, breaking all stereotypes.

If ship is L * B * H = 100 m * 10 m * 6 m = 6000 m3 = 6,000 ton displacement, the outer surface S = 2 * (6 +10)  * 100 = 3200 m2, steam cocoon is created by power of Wsc = 5000 W/(m2 * K) * 3200 m2 * 10 K = 160,000 kW, speed of v = 900 km/h = 250 m/s, t = ((6 m/ tan 15) = 22.4 m) / 250 = 0.09 sec, and Wp =  9.81 * (6 m / 2) * (22.4 * 10 * 6 m3) /0.09 = 441,000 kW / 0.85 = 520,000 kW, here 0.85 is a mover efficiency, and totally W = 520,000 + 160,000 = 680,000 kW

It can be an Ultra heavy transport, is better than Pelican Boeing Ultra (ground effect vehicle), was designed for breakthrough military application, but was archived for history only, because one hit of small missile is able to ruin at ones a battalion of troops with 15 tanks on the board. But such conception can be helpful for many civil applications, as a super high speed transport of big payload, while my concept is without a rival. I intend to show some tremendous applications of it bellow, but after comparison with Pelican Boeing Ultra being in order of magnitude more expensive. 

For comparison of my design vs. Boeing Pelican Ultra
Length 120 m vs. 122 m
Wingspan none vs. 152 m
Height of fuselage 6 m vs. 6 m
Wing area none vs. >4000 m2
Useful load about 6,000 metric ton vs. 1273 metric ton
Total power plant 680,000 kW vs. 240,000 kW
Cruise speed 900 km/h vs. 445 km/h in ground effect
Route under water vs. above water surface
Fly route doesn’t need vs. 6000 m ceiling, but it is very vulnerable for attack
Runway isn’t needed vs. very long inland runway
Loading after delivery to the sea vs. inland loading is possible
Energy consume is down to  incredible 0.125 kWh per 1.0 ton-km ( = 680,000 kW / 900 km/h / 6000 t) vs. some times bigger 

Applications:
(1) Liquefied natural gas (LNG) transportation 6000 km from USA to EU instead of export from Russia

Density of LNG is 0.45 < 1.0 can be compensated by weights of engine and ship’s hull.

So a payload can be about 5,800 m3 LNG or 3.7 million m3 natural gas (NG), or about 1.8 milliard m3 NG annually by one ship, so Russian North Stream project can be closed forever and cheaply.

(2) It can be possible to transport fresh agriculture perishable products for extremely long distance extremely cheaply

(3) It can be much more cheap transportation of common cargo vs. convenient ships, and very expensive and long built supertankers can sink into oblivion as dinosaurs being substituted by small and cheap ships of my invention.