6 ms·

It’s easy to miss the bigger picture here. With a fully automated unmanned ship you could explore business models that you otherwise would never consider. For

It’s easy to miss the bigger picture here. With a fully automated unmanned ship you could explore business models that you otherwise would never consider. For instance, With no humans aboard you could have a ship that is super slow and super energy efficient, it could cast itself out into currents, use a variety of novel locomotive methods in a significantly longer but cheaper journey. With no people aboard to pay, feed, etc, it wouldn’t matter how long it took. While this is one novel scenario, which probably wouldn’t work for a million reasons, there are probably a hundred more ideas that would work for a automated ship that are currently unfeasible.

vidarh 13y ago
> With no people aboard to pay, feed, etc, it wouldn’t matter how long it took. Yes, it would, because it would limit the number of times you can turn over your assets, as more of your assets will be locked up in goods in transit at any time, and no bank will offer you free credit for 100% of its value, so there's a real monetary cost to slower delivery. Of course that doesn't mean that slower delivery can't be a benefit, but there will be a cutoff point where it starts to cost more than you save.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Assuming the goods aren't time-sensitive, then it's just a normal investment. You get a larger reward, but it happens further in the future. Perhaps investors could buy the goods (or make a loan) after they leave the shore, sell them when they get back, and pocket the difference.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Sort of. It's not that simple. You can't just compare the rewards. You also need to compare the time element, because it limits how many rewards you can get. For an illustration of how dramatic this can be, consider that a major factor of Apples success, for example, is that their inventory turnover has skyrocketed - to more than 60 times a year as of 2012, compared to ~36 times a year for Dell (inventory turnover was one of the things Dell used to be famous for) or about 15 times a year for RIM. In other words in 2012, for every $1m of capital locked up in in inventory at any one time, if Apple had 10% margin before considering capital costs for the inventory, they'd make $100k per turnover, for $6m, while RIM would have made $1.5m. That capital is not free - you're either facing borrowing costs or inability to invest it elsewhere. (of course the shipping is clearly not the only thing affecting inventory turnover) > Perhaps investors could buy the goods (or make a loan) after they leave the shore, sell them when they get back, and pocket the difference. Banks have had revolving credit facilities to handle this kind of thing pretty much as long as banks have existed. This changes the numbers but not the overall principle. To be clear: It is likely that there can be savings to make this way - I'm not disputing that. E.g. there's already at least one cargo ship that uses a kite to save fuel costs by relying on wind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails ). Clearly that's one thing that might make it profitable to making smart decisions about routes that maximize fuel savings even if that may slow down the delivery. My point is just that it isn't sufficient to look at the savings for a single shipment - you also need to consider that the shipment will tie up substantial capital, and that has a cost per day too, whether in credit costs or in reduced ability to turn over inventory, and that will create very real limitations on how much you can slow down ships and still see benefits.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    How about an automated factory ship? It not only transports goods, it makes them, and delivers them to the place where they are most needed. Automated ships around the world could then do resupply. Or what about fish farming that works more like cattle grazing: a boat that moves a net of fish around to searching for food and nutrients before returning to land for harvest. A lot of crazy possibilities about the future.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      >How about an automated factory ship? It not only transports goods, it makes them, and delivers them to the place where they are most needed. Automated ships around the world could then do resupply. Sounds crazy, but this has sort of been proposed with seasteading. Taking boats or building in international waters so they don't have to deal with local regulations. For example there was a boat off the coast of California where immigrants could go to work until they could get into the US legally. Or boats that perform abortions outside of places where they are illegal. It's not so much of a stretch that this could be done for manufacturing.
- qq66 13y ago
  Oil tankers actually run sophisticated on-board economic models to decide what speed to sail at. Depending on the price of oil, the cost of financing capital, the depreciation model for the ship, prevailing ocean currents, etc., they decide whether to run faster (ship fuel efficiency drops massively with speed) or slower. As these factors change during the journey, the tanker adjusts its speed on an hour-by-hour basis.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    Any recommended references for this? Sounds like an interesting topic.
    - qq66 13y ago
      Not really, since I learned this from my cousin who is a tanker chief engineer. Maybe these guys? http://www.intertanko.com/Members-Information/benchmark/Optimum-speed-calvulator/ http://www.intertanko.com/Members-Information/benchmark/Opti...
    - lancewiggs 13y ago
      One of Bill Gates' recommended books (1) was a great read: "Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines" (2) The very large and very slow rotating diesel engines used to power ships are incredibly efficient. Oil tankers run very slowly, gas a little faster, then bulk carriers, container ships (time value of those containers is higher than commodity oil and bulk, so they move) and fastest and least efficient of all are cruise ships. The size of some of those engines is fantastic. It's really nerdy and awesome. (1) http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Personal/Prime-Movers-of-Globalization http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Personal/Prime-Movers-of-... (2) http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Movers-Globalization-History-Turbines-ebook/dp/B005FL8HOK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393404978&sr=8-1&keywords=prime+movers+of+globalization+the+history+and+impact+of+diesel+engines+and+gas+turbines http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Movers-Globalization-History-Tur...
      - qq66 13y ago
        Another great book about international shipping is "The Box," a history of containerization.
205guy 13y ago
I like your idea, but I think delivery time is still hugely important for the owners of the cargo. It is still inventory on somebody's books. BTW, I feel this is one of those "why didn't anyone think of this before" situations. Hundreds of thousands of people in the maritime industry, and I bet this was totally off their radar (pun intended). It is still far-fetched, but now that someone has researched the details, it feels possible. I especially like the idea of more tech and comms jobs replacing difficult and dangerous work. If you're interested in following the various maritime industries, gcaptain.com is a good website. They cover many aspects (shipping, drilling, ports, finance, insurance, piracy, wrecks, and rescues), and usually have great photos.
- johnpaulett 13y ago
  In certain market conditions, floating-oil storage would be an excellent use case of this technology. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15iht-oil.4.19398944.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15i...
- woah 13y ago
  Hey, I'm wondering why warehouses exist.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  It might be ideal for moving commodities like iron ore, scrap iron, all sorts of recycling scrap. Agree with you about gCaptain btw.
samolang 13y ago
This reminds me of Google's internet balloon project. The balloons navigate solely by changing their elevation and relying on the fact that the wind travels in different directions at different elevations. http://www.google.com/loon/how/ http://www.google.com/loon/how/
nitrogen 13y ago
How would the ship defend itself against pirates?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jgh 13y ago
  How would pirates gain control of this ship? Edit: Just read the comment below.. I see that they are taking cargo and not the ship.
  - rolleiflex 13y ago
    When you can legally consider anything moving on board to be a target, the stigma of unmanned drones mostly disappear. You can use a bunch of heavily armed drones circling around a ship on the high seas.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      To do what? International doesn't sanction killing people in defense of property; deadly attacks on pirates are only permisible in the name of self-defense. See http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/ http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/ especially section III.a. Besides the ethics of whether to treat pirates as criminals or not, you can't automatically assume anyone moving on board is a pirate; they could also be in need of rescue. Ships are supposed to render aid to distressed travelers on the high seas, AFAIK.
    - dalke 13y ago
      That's a lot of dead birds. "Occasionally, hundreds of birds may land on a vessel in a single night." http://www.scillypelagics.com/seabirdslandingonships.pdf http://www.scillypelagics.com/seabirdslandingonships.pdf . Some might be endangered or otherwise protected. Big waves can reach the deck, causing water motion. (Eg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5qf_ATRDk0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5qf_ATRDk0 ) Big waves can cause the ship to flex, causing internal motion. (Eg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Mw6L69b6Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Mw6L69b6Y ). Where do the drones go in case of storm or breakdown? To the ship? If so, that's more motion on board. The Coast Guard and the Navy like to board ships in order to carry out an inspection.
anigbrowl 13y ago
I agree about exploring new ideas, but I don't think the drifting ship is a good example. Intercontinental shipping is already dirt cheap thanks to containeraization, well under $50/ton IIRC. Also, a drifting or super-slow ship would have to run in such a way that it didn't present a hazard to other mariners by drifting across shipping lanes or suchlike, so managing that risk and insuring against wouldn't be cost-free. What this unmanned slow boat would be good for would be trash pickup, something that's not really economical now but is nevertheless a real problem, especially int he pacific.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
You mean like using kites to pull ships to generate hydrogen by electrolysis? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/hydro-paraplant/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/hydro-paraplant/
joe_the_user 13y ago
Actually, Sailing ships of the 1890s were very cost effective. They still were made outmoded by the reliability of steam ships. The cost of the crew really isn't that big an impediment. The cost of cargo sitting around is much, much larger.

vidarh 13y ago

> With no people aboard to pay, feed, etc, it wouldn’t matter how long it took. Yes, it would, because it would limit the number of times you can turn over your assets, as more of your assets will be locked up in goods in transit at any time, and no bank will offer you free credit for 100% of its value, so there's a real monetary cost to slower delivery. Of course that doesn't mean that slower delivery can't be a benefit, but there will be a cutoff point where it starts to cost more than you save.

Houshalter 13y ago
Assuming the goods aren't time-sensitive, then it's just a normal investment. You get a larger reward, but it happens further in the future. Perhaps investors could buy the goods (or make a loan) after they leave the shore, sell them when they get back, and pocket the difference.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Sort of. It's not that simple. You can't just compare the rewards. You also need to compare the time element, because it limits how many rewards you can get. For an illustration of how dramatic this can be, consider that a major factor of Apples success, for example, is that their inventory turnover has skyrocketed - to more than 60 times a year as of 2012, compared to ~36 times a year for Dell (inventory turnover was one of the things Dell used to be famous for) or about 15 times a year for RIM. In other words in 2012, for every $1m of capital locked up in in inventory at any one time, if Apple had 10% margin before considering capital costs for the inventory, they'd make $100k per turnover, for $6m, while RIM would have made $1.5m. That capital is not free - you're either facing borrowing costs or inability to invest it elsewhere. (of course the shipping is clearly not the only thing affecting inventory turnover) > Perhaps investors could buy the goods (or make a loan) after they leave the shore, sell them when they get back, and pocket the difference. Banks have had revolving credit facilities to handle this kind of thing pretty much as long as banks have existed. This changes the numbers but not the overall principle. To be clear: It is likely that there can be savings to make this way - I'm not disputing that. E.g. there's already at least one cargo ship that uses a kite to save fuel costs by relying on wind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails ). Clearly that's one thing that might make it profitable to making smart decisions about routes that maximize fuel savings even if that may slow down the delivery. My point is just that it isn't sufficient to look at the savings for a single shipment - you also need to consider that the shipment will tie up substantial capital, and that has a cost per day too, whether in credit costs or in reduced ability to turn over inventory, and that will create very real limitations on how much you can slow down ships and still see benefits.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  How about an automated factory ship? It not only transports goods, it makes them, and delivers them to the place where they are most needed. Automated ships around the world could then do resupply. Or what about fish farming that works more like cattle grazing: a boat that moves a net of fish around to searching for food and nutrients before returning to land for harvest. A lot of crazy possibilities about the future.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    >How about an automated factory ship? It not only transports goods, it makes them, and delivers them to the place where they are most needed. Automated ships around the world could then do resupply. Sounds crazy, but this has sort of been proposed with seasteading. Taking boats or building in international waters so they don't have to deal with local regulations. For example there was a boat off the coast of California where immigrants could go to work until they could get into the US legally. Or boats that perform abortions outside of places where they are illegal. It's not so much of a stretch that this could be done for manufacturing.
qq66 13y ago
Oil tankers actually run sophisticated on-board economic models to decide what speed to sail at. Depending on the price of oil, the cost of financing capital, the depreciation model for the ship, prevailing ocean currents, etc., they decide whether to run faster (ship fuel efficiency drops massively with speed) or slower. As these factors change during the journey, the tanker adjusts its speed on an hour-by-hour basis.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Any recommended references for this? Sounds like an interesting topic.
  - qq66 13y ago
    Not really, since I learned this from my cousin who is a tanker chief engineer. Maybe these guys? http://www.intertanko.com/Members-Information/benchmark/Optimum-speed-calvulator/ http://www.intertanko.com/Members-Information/benchmark/Opti...
  - lancewiggs 13y ago
    One of Bill Gates' recommended books (1) was a great read: "Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines" (2) The very large and very slow rotating diesel engines used to power ships are incredibly efficient. Oil tankers run very slowly, gas a little faster, then bulk carriers, container ships (time value of those containers is higher than commodity oil and bulk, so they move) and fastest and least efficient of all are cruise ships. The size of some of those engines is fantastic. It's really nerdy and awesome. (1) http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Personal/Prime-Movers-of-Globalization http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Personal/Prime-Movers-of-... (2) http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Movers-Globalization-History-Turbines-ebook/dp/B005FL8HOK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393404978&sr=8-1&keywords=prime+movers+of+globalization+the+history+and+impact+of+diesel+engines+and+gas+turbines http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Movers-Globalization-History-Tur...
    - qq66 13y ago
      Another great book about international shipping is "The Box," a history of containerization.

205guy 13y ago

I like your idea, but I think delivery time is still hugely important for the owners of the cargo. It is still inventory on somebody's books. BTW, I feel this is one of those "why didn't anyone think of this before" situations. Hundreds of thousands of people in the maritime industry, and I bet this was totally off their radar (pun intended). It is still far-fetched, but now that someone has researched the details, it feels possible. I especially like the idea of more tech and comms jobs replacing difficult and dangerous work. If you're interested in following the various maritime industries, gcaptain.com is a good website. They cover many aspects (shipping, drilling, ports, finance, insurance, piracy, wrecks, and rescues), and usually have great photos.

johnpaulett 13y ago
In certain market conditions, floating-oil storage would be an excellent use case of this technology. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15iht-oil.4.19398944.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15i...
woah 13y ago
Hey, I'm wondering why warehouses exist.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
It might be ideal for moving commodities like iron ore, scrap iron, all sorts of recycling scrap. Agree with you about gCaptain btw.

samolang 13y ago

This reminds me of Google's internet balloon project. The balloons navigate solely by changing their elevation and relying on the fact that the wind travels in different directions at different elevations. http://www.google.com/loon/how/ http://www.google.com/loon/how/

nitrogen 13y ago

How would the ship defend itself against pirates?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jgh 13y ago
How would pirates gain control of this ship? Edit: Just read the comment below.. I see that they are taking cargo and not the ship.
- rolleiflex 13y ago
  When you can legally consider anything moving on board to be a target, the stigma of unmanned drones mostly disappear. You can use a bunch of heavily armed drones circling around a ship on the high seas.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    To do what? International doesn't sanction killing people in defense of property; deadly attacks on pirates are only permisible in the name of self-defense. See http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/ http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/ especially section III.a. Besides the ethics of whether to treat pirates as criminals or not, you can't automatically assume anyone moving on board is a pirate; they could also be in need of rescue. Ships are supposed to render aid to distressed travelers on the high seas, AFAIK.
  - dalke 13y ago
    That's a lot of dead birds. "Occasionally, hundreds of birds may land on a vessel in a single night." http://www.scillypelagics.com/seabirdslandingonships.pdf http://www.scillypelagics.com/seabirdslandingonships.pdf . Some might be endangered or otherwise protected. Big waves can reach the deck, causing water motion. (Eg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5qf_ATRDk0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5qf_ATRDk0 ) Big waves can cause the ship to flex, causing internal motion. (Eg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Mw6L69b6Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Mw6L69b6Y ). Where do the drones go in case of storm or breakdown? To the ship? If so, that's more motion on board. The Coast Guard and the Navy like to board ships in order to carry out an inspection.

anigbrowl 13y ago

I agree about exploring new ideas, but I don't think the drifting ship is a good example. Intercontinental shipping is already dirt cheap thanks to containeraization, well under $50/ton IIRC. Also, a drifting or super-slow ship would have to run in such a way that it didn't present a hazard to other mariners by drifting across shipping lanes or suchlike, so managing that risk and insuring against wouldn't be cost-free. What this unmanned slow boat would be good for would be trash pickup, something that's not really economical now but is nevertheless a real problem, especially int he pacific.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

You mean like using kites to pull ships to generate hydrogen by electrolysis? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/hydro-paraplant/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/hydro-paraplant/

joe_the_user 13y ago

Actually, Sailing ships of the 1890s were very cost effective. They still were made outmoded by the reliability of steam ships. The cost of the crew really isn't that big an impediment. The cost of cargo sitting around is much, much larger.