Talk:Supertanker

message: I heard somewhere that because of their enormous mass, super-tankers actually correct for their own gravity pull when navigating close to each other...is this true?
No, this is very unlikely. Even a metre apart the gravitational attraction between two super-tankers is quite small. A much bigger issue, and I believe they do have to allow for this when coming into harbour, is that between two large vessels there will be an area of calmer water. The additional force of waves on the outside side of the two vessels compared to the inside (calmer) edges, pushes them together. BruceRD 22:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitational pull? 

message: Heh? Would be any American so kind and explain this more precisely? Information is useless without specifying an amount of gas with this added cost. Thank you. Miraceti 16:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That information was according to an episode of "Modern Marvels", a history channel program. The show stated that the cost od shipping oil in supertankers translated to an added cost of only two cents at the pump. TomStar81 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: They probably mean $0.02 of the total cost for a gallon of petrol is because of tanker shipping costs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.116.13.211 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US $0.02 of the cost of gas at the pump 

message: I cut this:
:Links to Google Maps don't work with old browsers (you need IE 6.0+, Firefox 0.8+, Safari 1.2.4+, Netscape 7.1+, Mozilla 1.4+, Opera 8.02+)
because I don't think it's necessary. It evolved from someone adding in a complaint about the links and Opera. Just putting it here in case someone thinks it's valuable info. --Howdybob 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map link comments 

message: I was wondering the job specifications to operate or work on a tanker. What type of hours, wages, or requirements you need to meet in working on a tanker. I am guessing you need a degree in engineering in order to be even considered to work on one. But then again, you will probably need technicians, navigators, crew, cooks, and other such members to operate the behemoth. Is there any type of website or company that I can call  that will answer my questions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cire288 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on the Supertanker 

message: The redirect is not a good idea. What about a short article about supertankers? Miraceti (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any non-oil supertanker class vessels?  There are other bulk liquid cargo hauling ships, but not of this size that I know of...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any non-shuttle spaceplanes? It is very similar to this case. There is currently no non-oil supertankers but this is not the most important thing. Redirecting the general term to the more specific makes problems in interwikis and understanding of the term itself by readers. Miraceti (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not functionally generic to specific - they're functionally synonyms, as there are no non-oil supertankers out there that I know of.  Main article at the most common name for them, redirect from other common names is the manual of style solution for that.  I believe this is all normal and correct.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

text: And to answer your rhetorical question - yes, there are multiple non-Shuttle spaceplanes.  Buran (spacecraft), X-15, NASA X-38, MAKS space plane, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105, Boeing X-37, Boeing X-40.  Buran, X-15, the MiG-105 subscale demonstrators all flew in space.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all Supertankers must be oil tankers