Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Rolls-Royce Wants To Fill the Seas With Self-Sailing Ships (wired.com) 127

Posted by msmash from the whatever-floats-your-boat dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: "Helsinki VTS, thank you for permission to depart," the captain says over the radio. He checks with the Vessel Traffic Service to see if there's anything to be looking out for. Just one other big ship, but also lots of small boats, enjoying the calm water, which could be hazards. Not a problem for this captain -- he has a giant screen on the bridge, which overlays the environment around his vessel with an augmented reality view. He can navigate the Baltic Discoverer confidently out of Finland's Helsinki Port using the computer-enhanced vision of the world, with artificial intelligence spotting and labeling every other water user, the shore, and navigation markers.

This not-too-far-in-the-future vision comes from Rolls-Royce. (One iteration of it, anyway: The Rolls-Royce car company, the jet engine maker, and this marine-focused enterprise all have different corporate owners.) The view provided to the crew of the (fictional) Baltic Discoverer is an example of the company's Intelligent Awareness system, which mashes together data from sensors all over a vessel, to give its humans a better view of the world. But that's just the early part of the plan. Using cameras, lidar, and radar, Rolls wants to make completely autonomous ships. And it's already running trials around the world.

"Tugs, ferries, and short-sea transport, these are all classes of vessels that we believe would be suitable for completely autonomous operations, monitored by a land based crew, who get to go home every night," says Kevin Daffey, Rolls-Royce's director of marine engineering and technology. Suitable, because they all currently rely on humans who demand to be paid -- and can make costly mistakes. Over the past decade, there have been more than 1,000 total losses of large ships, and at least 70 percent of those resulted from human error. [...] Moreover, the economic case for automating shipping is clear: About 100,000 large vessels are currently sailing the world's oceans, and the amount of cargo they carry is projected to grow around 4 percent a year, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Beyond preventing accidents, human-free ships could be 15 percent more efficient to run, because they don't need energy-gobbling life support systems, doing things like heating, cooking, and lugging drinking water along for the ride.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rolls-Royce Wants To Fill the Seas With Self-Sailing Ships More

Rolls-Royce Wants To Fill the Seas With Self-Sailing Ships

Comments Filter:

  • Good. Less problems for the pirates (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @01:47PM (#57487416) Journal
    They dont have to deal with some captain who is armed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nwaack ( 3482871 )

      They dont have to deal with some captain who is armed.

      I was thinking the exact same thing. The really valuable ships would almost certainly need to be accompanied by a small, human-run gunship. Otherwise can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if anyone could just cruise on up to a cargo ship carrying millions of dollars of consumer goods with nobody on board to defend it?

      • Your solution also solves another problem. Many commercial vessels cannot dock at most of the worlds ports with arms onboard. However, a smaller vessel could just escort the cargo ship into port then turn around, guns bristling. If ever there was a place to drop a neutron bomb it is Somalia. That would solve the same problem a lot faster. However, we wouldn't want to be hitting Ethiopia or Eritrea next door. They only kill each other (no piracy).

        • Gee, that's pretty much naive beyond words. It's nice to know people this simplistic aren't in charge of nuclear arsenals... oh wait.

        • If ever there was a place to drop a neutron bomb it is Somalia.

          Neutron bombs were designed to penetrate Soviet armor and kill tank crews. They're "all rays and little blast;" perhaps you were thinking about your mom's farts...

        • The war in Ethiopia and Eritrea is over since decades.
          There were some border clashes, up to 2016, but since mid 2018 they have a formal peace treaty and work on improving relationships.

        • Your solution also solves another problem. Many commercial vessels cannot dock at most of the worlds ports with arms onboard. However, a smaller vessel could just escort the cargo ship into port then turn around, guns bristling. If ever there was a place to drop a neutron bomb it is Somalia. That would solve the same problem a lot faster. However, we wouldn't want to be hitting Ethiopia or Eritrea next door. They only kill each other (no piracy).

          If you are going to hire an army of gunboats might as well pay the pirates "Protection money".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by enjar ( 249223 )

        This problem could be solved with existing technology. Armed drones, water cannons, flamethrowers, electrified decks, tear gas nozzles could all be remotely controlled.

        Or you could take a page from The Simpsons and stock each ship with knife-wielding monkeys who are only deployed in international waters.

      • For that we'll sell you our ED-209 series!

      • Modern pirates make most of their money by ransoming the crew. No crew, no ransom.

      • A ship's crew is something like 20 people and tend to be third world, employed to reduce salaries. How much would the need of a separate escort vessel run?

        There are probably cheaper security solutions, one of which is simply carrying insurance. If the pirating take is sufficient low (they are not going to be stripping a panamax bare) simply ensuring against losses might be reasonable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cyn1c77 ( 928549 )

        They dont have to deal with some captain who is armed.

        I was thinking the exact same thing. The really valuable ships would almost certainly need to be accompanied by a small, human-run gunship. Otherwise can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if anyone could just cruise on up to a cargo ship carrying millions of dollars of consumer goods with nobody on board to defend it?

        Don't worry. The T-1000's onboard will take care of issues like that, no problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jtgd ( 807477 )
        If we can have armed flying drones that decide to fire on their own we can certainly have automated guns on ships to shoot pirates.
    • They don't even have to have a ship - just sit at home, hack the controls and become a high-tech version of a Cornish wrecker [wikipedia.org]. This could take online piracy to a whole new level.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Piracy is virtually nonexistent in 99% of the ocean. And an autonomous ship means there's nobody for pirates to kidnap and ransom, and no reason for automated / remotely controlled gun turrets or other defensive systems on the ship to be cautious.

      • Yeah,

        that is obvious if you consider that 99% of the ocean is basically never traveled by a ship ...

        However if you look at typical freight routes, then the percentage of piracy affected segments jumps up considerably.

        Here you have an overview about the 10 most dangerous areas: https://www.marineinsight.com/... [marineinsight.com]

        Here you have a life view: https://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy... [icc-ccs.org]

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Ahh but the biggest enemy of ships, wear and tear. So no crew available to do any maintenance, requiring the ships to lay over at ports for extended periods to carry out maintenance, whilst paying port fees and carrying no cargo, which means coming to the port with just the cargo for that port, pretty high cost trip.

        I know what, we can flag in crap third world countries and hire their untrained, inexperienced, incompetent crews to man ships and pay them cents per day, 'OHH WAIT', that exactly how greed dri

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I recall seeing a post before that most of the reason for the crew now is maintenance. That if something goes wrong they stay pretty crazy busy. Sounds like most of the ship navigation is already automated. Also I'd not say airplane autopilot does everything for you. Pilots are still supposed to control the plane and keep at least one hand on the equipment for most of the flight.... not having kung fu battles in the back of the plane like in the movies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        All the pirates need to do is go to coordinates 0,0 (off the west coast of Africa) and wait for all the autonomous ships that glitched and reset to their default programming to arrive full of cargo. Ship shuts down having reached its destination, and the automated systems help the pirates unload the booty.

    • And no hostages for them to ransom, therefore no incentive to board the ship in the first place. Good luck threatening a computer with a gun.

  • Boy, it would be a bummer to be lost and adrift at sea and have one of these things cruise by a few thousand feet away from you.
    • WILLLSOOONNN!!!!!

    • A ship covered in sensors being monitored 24/7 by an on board AI would be much more likely to spot a life raft or improvised vessel a cast away might build. Consider the AI never sleeps, has 360 degree awareness and would be able to see in the dark.

      I remember in the movie "All is Lost" the main character's life raft was passed by a cargo vessel at night, and the crew didn't notice his flares. An AI system, hopefully programmed for such cases, would have likely spotted the life raft and alerted it's operat

  • Star Trek - The Ultimate Computer (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @01:52PM (#57487460)
    Sheesh - I'm flashing back to Star Trek.
    "DAYSTROM: You can't understand. You're frightened because you can't understand it. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show all of you. It takes four hundred thirty people to man a starship. With this, you don't need anyone. One machine can do all those things they send men out to do now. Men no longer need die in space or on some alien world. Men can live and go on to achieve greater things than fact-finding and dying for galactic space, which is neither ours to give or to take. They can't understand. We don't want to destroy life, we want to save it."

    "KIRK: There are certain things men must do to remain men. Your computer would take that away.
    DAYSTROM: There are other things a man like you might do. Or perhaps you object to the possible loss of prestige and ceremony accorded a starship captain. A computer can do your job and without all that.
    KIRK: You'll have to prove that to me, Doctor.
    DAYSTROM: That is what we're here for, isn't it, Captain? "

  • Better start with the Mariana Trench.

  • Rolls Royce also launched a battery system that can power ships. They are really thinking ahead.

    • Rolls Royce also launched a battery system that can power ships. They are really thinking ahead.

      Ah shucks sparky.. Batteries are so not environmentally friendly, and you have to haul a huge pile of them to generate the 100,000 horse power currently available on large container ships today for the days on end it takes to sail from one port to the next.

      What we need to do is SAIL and skip any reliance on power, electrical or fossil fueled for the bulk of the transit (outside ports and narrow passages, in the open ocean). And Yes, I mean the old time mast, ropes and canvas contraptions driven by the win

      • Bunker oil is soon to be banned for use in ships.

        • Actually....

          I think the issue here is not bunker oil, but sulfur content of said fuel.

          Right now, I understand that the use of low grade high sulfur fuel outside of territorial waters is common for financial reasons as no single country can unilaterally ban it's use in international waters. I believe what's happening is countries are starting to band together to stop the sale of these fuels or prohibit passage of ships though their territorial waters that carry it in their tanks, even if they don't use it

      • Batteries are so not environmentally friendly

        Yes, they are. Or would you throw away a piece of hardware which's value in raw materials is approximately 50% of its retail price? Batteries get recycled, all over the planet, since decades.

        Although I doubt it's worth it as Fuel is incredibly cheap for these ships,
        Nevertheless it is still one of the main contributions to running costs.

        And "time is money" especially in the shipping business and in the grand scheme of things, shipping emissions are no more than a

        • Container ships are NOT a huge polluter or source of CO2 even. As far as shipping goes, they are hugely efficient forms of transportation in terms of tonnes of cargo per mile. Trains are really efficient too. I point this out to put some context to your claim that shipping good is responsible for a lot of pollution. You are correct, but it's not ships that are the problem, but TRUCKS.

          The "time is money" argument is WHY we use trucks and why sailing ships fell by the wayside in favor of steamers and on

  • What about the cost to helicopter out repair crews when there any kind of break down?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Let's say 1000 automated cargo freighters.

      Typical ship has a crew compliment of 22 - 27 (https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-typical-crew-of-a-cargo-ship-composed-of) with an average salary of $73,590 per year (https://work.chron.com/average-salary-workers-deep-draft-vessels-7101.html)

      So 1000 x 22 x $73,590 = 1,618,980,000 (yep, those zeros are correct) Let's just say 1.6 billion per year to pay crew.

      That's not counting food (they have to eat out there), kitchens, facilities, etc, etc. So the actual cost i

      • What's more, the infrequency of this type of event, plus the geographic remoteness might allow them to offload the cost completely to service organizations that take on contracts to repair stranded robot ships. You don't keep a full time staff on board to go fix the ship, you have a standing retainer with a series of service orgs that can get to a ship along its route.

    • Many places are out of helicopter range using the average helicopter. There have been a small number of Transatlantic flights and Transpacific flights. Those are done with refuelling, special configurations, or taking short flights across.

      Most likely a repair crew will be flown to a nearby port and then take a fast ship out to the ship that has the problem.

  • I wonder how much of shipping costs are due to human labor and onboard living facilities and life support and how much are due to fuel costs and capital costs of ships, docks, etc. Fuel is definitely a major factor and it may become economical to slow autonomous ships down (which uses substantially less fuel) but requires more ships to move the same amount of goods per year.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • monitored by a land based crew, who get to go home every night

    If your ship is crewed by on-site staff, they may work an 8 hour shift, but they're basically on-call the other 16 hours. They're paid a slight premium for this, say 50%. So you're essentially getting the work of 3 employees for the cost of 1.5 since the crew is there mostly to take care of emergencies, not actually doing stuff all the time.

    If your ship is "crewed" remotely by staff which go home every night, you'll need three 8-hour shifts

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Interesting analysis. What about space saved by not having living areas for the crew? Or is that also insignificant?

    • If your ship is crewed by on-site staff, they may work an 8 hour shift, but they're basically on-call the other 16 hours.

      Umm, no. The crew of a ship seldom has time to goof off for 16 hours straight, what with eight hours on watch, followed by eight hours of PM, followed by sleep and everything else you have to do (eat, shower, that sort of thing) in whatever time is left.

      • A crew is not 8h consecutively on watch.

        It is 4h on watch, has 8h break, and is another 4h on watch and has another 8h break.

    • The large ships make their own freshwater. The engines are also used to create electricity for the ship. While all of the systems use a lot of electricity and that won't change with a self-sailing ship there will be a lot of savings too. You won't need all the lighting for one thing. The kitchen uses a lot of electricity. The whole water distillation would take a lot of energy to create water for twenty some people (drinking, cooking, washing, toilets, laundry, etc).

    • If your ship is "crewed" remotely by staff which go home every night, you'll need three 8-hour shifts. Increasing personnel costs by 2x.

      You can put the same remote crew on a bunch of ships at once. Your three 8 hour shifts might be able to monitor 20 ships. They also demand less pay because they don't have to leave their families and be stuck at sea.

      • They also demand less pay because they don't have to leave their families and be stuck at sea.
        No, they likely demand more pay.

        A crew on ship is considered working "extra territorially", hence they don't pay income tax. If they work on shore, they have to pay taxes, and depending on tax percentage that will add 20 - 30% on the wages.

  • The Navy Already Does (Score:3)

    by Jim Sadler ( 3430529 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @03:29PM (#57488144)
    If what I read a while back was true the US Navy is already ahead on automated ships. The idea was something like an old battle barge with limited propulsion and water sloshing over the decks. It would be towed into place by a large war ship and set free for the last two or three hundred miles. It would stop at a pre determined location and wait for the weapons to be used if need be. I do not know the degree to which it is a drone or if it can attack without any human contact. Being unmanned, the danger to seamen is vastly reduced as well as this war machine not needing to carry food and sleeping areas etc..

  • Attack Surface (Score:3)

    by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @04:39PM (#57488626)
    As a malicious user I love the idea of being able to remotely pilot a Qmax lng tanker into my target. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that. Not a thing.

  • human-free ships could be 15 percent more efficient to run, because they don't need energy-gobbling life support systems, doing things like heating, cooking, and lugging drinking water along for the ride.

    How do you fulfill your shipwrek victim rescue duties, when your ship cannot support life?

    • I just looked at all the maritime disasters in the last 15 years, most were ferries capsizing in rivers, lakes and near shore. The rest were refugees usually sinking near land.... seems it's a rare thing on the open sea in cargo shipping lanes.

      • It happens a lot in Mediterranean Sea nowadays, with people trying to reach Europe on ships not suitable for sailing high sea.

        • I don't think having unmanned vessels going all over the world in the main shipping lanes will have much bearing on how many of those people are rescued when their "ship" capsizes and sinks, or in some cases ignorant idiots on them set fires to be noticed and burn their ship down to the waterline.....

  • When did the future get so complicated? (Score:3)

    by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @06:09PM (#57489058)

    I must say, I grew up in the '80s. I got tours of airplane cockpits. I saw lots of buttons. Never did I think that in the future there'd be MORE controls. Technology promised to remove clutter, to make things simpler.

    It hasn't.

    Being able to see every vessel and marker and shoreline around you doesn't make things easier. It makes things harder. Automating with more information just shifts the hard to setup, installation, configuration, planning, maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair.

    Explain to me how ten-thousand ants can stream through a tiny crack in my kitchen wall. Explain to me how hen-thousand bees can work together in a single hive. Explain to me how fifty-thousand humans can fill and empty a baseball stadium. thousands of small birds. mosquitoes. schooling fish. flocks, schools, pods, herds, murders.

    In every existing system, many millions of years old, there is no augmented reality. There is wide-angle overview. They all work brilliantly.

    If your system requires more information to be present, then it's not the better solution. Here's hoping it gives you a better perspective on the better solution. ...and if you're anything like me, you're picturing bumper boats, bumper ferries, and bumper cruise ships!

  • That would be one way to help partially address some of the sources of climate change, and at the same time address any possible future where fossil fuels aren't as cheap to obtain reliably. That would be more forward-looking. Too bad.

    • Speaking of sails, I do remember /. had some article a few months ago about a solar sailboat. I guess it could be interesting if useable for big things.... but I feel like I remember it looking to be about the size of a speed boat and the entire thing was covered in solar panels. Might be a bit much for anything other than a small passenger boat.

  • The biggest cargo ship in operation at the moment is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    180kt.

    It has a crew of 31. Assuming the crew consists of 100kg heavy hard working muscle men, they would weight 3.1t.

    Considering that hot water usually is made from waste heat of the engines, and cooking is done with gas stoves or electric, considering that the ship probably carries 100 times more water as ballast than freshwater for the crew, it is in no way plausible that such a small crew in relation to the size of the ship and cargo would save 15% fuel. They hardly will need so much light aka electricity for their TVs and room lighting either ...

  • What are we going to do with all the extra seamen??
  • Here's something that you could do on a ship, autonomous or not. At the highest point on the ship (crows nest) you could have high-powered telescopes with video and A.I. analysis constantly scanning the horizon for people in disabled/life boats.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close