Shipbucket

Today i went to galviston in texas.
But the thing i really wanted to tell you guys is i got on the boardwalk beast at kemah and it was awsome i am thinking of drawing the ship after im done drawing my other ships i took atlot of pictures of the ship i'll post some pictures of it later on.
Hey just came to my mind how many of you guys are in texas?

_________________

Work-list:
1.Candian JSS concept (needs more work on it)
2.Mary celeste (All most done 40% completed)
4.German CV europa (dont know if i should do it)

You poor bastard.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

At least he didn't bring a Mexican "dog" home.

Lol i went with my little cousin... I was actually planing to stay home and finish drawing some of my ships but then i had to go.
Hey ever been to USS texas? Lol im not mexican.

_________________

Work-list:
1.Candian JSS concept (needs more work on it)
2.Mary celeste (All most done 40% completed)
4.German CV europa (dont know if i should do it)

I didn't say you were. A Mexican "dog" is a large rate.

Galveston is so nasty. As soon as you go to a real beach (think Florida, the Bahamas, Carolinas, etc), you'll realize just how nasty it is.

Tarballs, nasty brown water, that funky smell you can't really place but you know is not good, and the 19 merchant ships I counted offshore that are most likely dumping their ballast into the water for me to swim in really put me off the place.

The Texas Gulf coast is a commercial and industrial coast, nothing more nothing less.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

And I thought Orange, TX looked nasty.

Having just been to Bahamas, I have to agree with Colo on this one.
What's so bad about dumping ballast water? It's just sea water. Heck, chances are it's cleaner than the water outside the ship.
Besides, the only time you dump water is when you're taking on cargo, but the ballast has it's own dedicated tank system, so it'll never be mixed with the cargo.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Ballast tank in most older ships were used for bunker-fuel, and so damping ballast had a certain fragrance to it, to say the least. Nowsdays with IMO and 'green' organizasations putting their collective foot down, most ships have separete ballast tanks, but it is not yet universal, and many ships still use their fuel tanks for ballst.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

No, no no no no. And there's a very simple reason why. It ruins the fuel. Now, old single hull tankers used to carry water ballast in their cargo tanks, but double hullers and bottomers doesn't. And no one has build a single andything tanker since the early eighties and by far the majority of those ships have been retired since they aren't allowed to sail in European waters.
Also, the ones who put their foot down wasn't the IMO or the "Green" organisations, it was the ensurance companies and the classification companies.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.