11 ms·

Rolls-Royce is designing drone ships to challenge $375B freight industry

137 points by noonespecial 12y ago

dang 12y ago
Url changed from http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/pirates-eat-heart-rolls-royce-envisions-crewless-drone-freight-ships/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/pirates-eat-heart-rolls-ro..., which points to this. Title edited to make clear that these are designs.
- noonespecial 12y ago
  It was a good change. I knew there'd be a better less blog-spammy version but my google-fu failed me tonight. This is one case where the mods are right on the mark and I thank them.
  - fhars 12y ago
    You might have tried the search box at the bottom of this page, it would have found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7297750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7297750 and some others that didn't attract many comments.
    - dang 12y ago
      When a story is good and hasn't had significant attention yet, a small number of reposts is ok. We want good stories to have multiple cracks at the bat.
mbrubeck 12y ago
This is interesting because cargo ships are more fuel-efficient at slow speeds [1][2]. But with a crewed ship, slow speed means higher labor costs. I wonder how much remote piloting or auto-piloting of ultra-slow ships can change this equation. [1] http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_co... [2] http://ultraslowships.com/ http://ultraslowships.com/
- aaron695 12y ago
  I find it unlikely labour costs make much of a difference compared to cargo being delayed on slow ships. I would be more along the lines of, labour free ships don't go on strike/have HR incidents and delay cargo.
  - qq66 12y ago
    Ships actually use very precise algorithms to calculate the relative cost of labor vs. inventory getting delayed, using factors like the depreciation of the cargo, the spot price of fuel, and even changing interest rates in the market. Oil tankers in the middle of the ocean, for example, will speed up and slow down as spot prices of oil increase or short-term interest rates decrease, since the inventory cost of their cargo has gone up and then down.
    - el_benhameen 12y ago
      That's absolutely fascinating. Do you have a source for further reading on those optimizations? I haven't been able to find anything with a bit of googling.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Unfortunately, most of the papers I found by googling are behind paywalls :(
        v3rt 12y ago
        I for one would still appreciate a link - I think those of us on academic networks should be able to see most papers behind paywalls
        toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Google for "oil tanker algorithms"
      - 12y ago
Theodores 12y ago
Can anyone think of a peace-time disaster at sea that was not as a result of human error? Titanic? Exxon Valdez? Costa Concordia? The 'humans are critical for safety' argument is flawed when we don't know how well robot ships will do. Sail augmented with solar needs to make a comeback before we run out of oil, it would be cool if ships just found there own way around the globe, safely crew-less.
- mickeyp 12y ago
  I don't know anything about the maritime world, but playing Devil's Advocate you're suffering from selection bias: you're naming instances where humans caused the errors but not factoring in the unreported instances of humans saving the cargo, the ship, the personnel or all three.
- reportingsjr 12y ago
  I think this is a really good point, but it is also necessary to think about software caused errors. It only takes one error to make a disaster!
- twistedpair 12y ago
  MS München 1978, large freighter lost to a rouge wave. SS Edmund Fitzgerald 1975, large freighter lost in a storm Tamponas II 1981, Passenger ship sinks due to fire, 580 die Mechanical failure, fire, and weather take many of them. Just a few that come to mind above, but you can read the list too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
CHY872 12y ago
So, they're saying it cannot possibly be cost effective, with a global fleet of around 5000 ships, and conservative savings of at least $3000 per day per ship? It cannot be cost effective to develop a product for which the savings would be at least $5 billion per year (of which most can be claimed back in more expensive ships)? Sounds like at least a few people are trying to maintain the status quo already.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  $5 billion on $375 billion is a 1.3% savings, with considerable technological, social, political, and other risks. Seems that there's an argument toward more automation, but a full adoption of the technology to the extent described in the article strikes me as unlikely, and could well have downside costs well in excess of the claimed benefits.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    The potential savings are substantially larger. The article cites a 12%-15% reduced fuel use, as well as increased cargo capacity from losing the bridge.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      I was simply contextualizing CHY872's claimed savings. The stated crew savings should account for a sizable chunk at 44% of operating expenses, unless capital expenses are an even larger share. I don't know the numbers and the article doesn't supply them.
jisaacks 12y ago
I can only image the frustration of someone lost at sea watching one of these slowly drift right passed them and no way to get on board and no crew to signal for help.
- hangonhn 12y ago
  I imagine that some sort of radio beacon receiver can be attached to these drone ships and with enough of them traveling the seas, it might actually increase the chances of finding survivors.
  - josephschmoe 12y ago
    Or even just cover them with cameras on the outside. When something interesting happens, like a ship passing by or a human being waving their arms in the waves, it will alert somebody who can take a closer look and possibly alert the coast guard/navy.
    - electromagnetic 12y ago
      They'll be covered with cameras on the outside, unmanned boats would be way too easy targets for piracy. You wouldn't even have to sneak aboard, just get aboard and find the expensive cargo. Set off a bomb in the engine room and then unload what you can in a reasonably safe time before someone can get close and track you. It could potentially make piracy more viable in currently safe areas. You'd want cameras to track when anything even remotely in sight is moving unexpectedly. Anything coming close would be reported to the coast guard/navy. There'll be heavy monitoring on these ships, even just for liability issue in case some dumb guy in a yacht sails right into them and tried to sue.
- mmphosis 12y ago
  The "safety" seems to only apply to the drone ship, and not to other craft that will encounter these essentially blind moving vessels. I think that there already enough hazards on the sea without adding drone ships to the mix. ALL vessels in the future may need AIS transponders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Identification_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Identification_System
gdilla 12y ago
pirates are gonna love this.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Only if they want to go where the ship is programmed to go.
  - josefresco 12y ago
    Or offload the cargo and be on their way...
    - Phlarp 12y ago
      Onto what? The inflatable they came in?
      - josefresco 12y ago
        Maybe, or maybe the pirates will evolve to use larger ships capable of offloading cargo once these robo-ships become standard. The thought of a few guys on a small skiff taking over a massive container ship was pretty absurd not too long ago but yet we see it happening more and more due to the financial incentive. If the cargo stolen is worth it, they'll find a way.
jeremyt 12y ago
Did anyone else read this and think that it might be a good way to do away with piracy also? If there's no steering wheel to grab a hold of, there's no way to steal the ship, and with an absence of hostages, it would be a lot easier to deal with attempted theft, too.
- carbocation 12y ago
  And, with a ship unattended, there is nobody to impede your progress as you carve through the side of the ship and start offloading prize cargo.
  - smm2000 12y ago
    Pirates usually do not have capacity to offload ship - they use small fishing boats and speedboats that won't hold even one container. Cargo in most containers is not very valuable (who need container of t-shirts 600 miles away from closest shore?). Finding container with valuables (IPhones/etc) is difficult as there is no accessible manifest on the ship and opening containers is time-consuming. I also assume that boat will automatically inform authorities and navy/security will be able to reach ship in a matter of hours. With no hostages on container ship, security can just blow up fishing boat/speed boat pirates used and then wait until they run out of food/water on a container ship. Pirates won't be able to control engine/rudder so there is not much they can do other than to surrender.
- thret 12y ago
  Hmm, but also nothing stopping pirates from looting cargo. Then again, they could just be floating fortresses. Perhaps if it takes long enough to steal cargo aerial support could intervene.
- alexpw 12y ago
  I didn't, but it could also give way to a new breed of piracy by: - circumventing the auto-pilot's security - boarding the ship and hijacking cargo (no one to stop you)
  - 12y ago
dsr_ 12y ago
When the ship is not near shore, there's no doubt in my mind that it is safer in the hands of an automated pilot. It's only when things get crowded and unpredictable -- that is, with lots of non-automated shipping about -- where you will need serious piloting software. I imagine that there will be a long crossover period where ships will set out from a port with a small human crew -- possibly just a pilot and lookouts -- then go autonomously across the ocean to be picked up by another small crew a few hours out from the destination port.
- haptiK 12y ago
  The article mentioned the drone ships will be piloted remotely.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Someone 12y ago
  Many larger ports require larger ships to use a pilot who is familiar with the port near the coast. See for example http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/port_and_shipping/port/pilotage_and_towage/exemption_from_pilotage/general_information.page http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/port_and_shipping/port/pilotage_..., http://www.pla.co.uk/Pilotage/About-the-PLA-s-Pilotage-Service http://www.pla.co.uk/Pilotage/About-the-PLA-s-Pilotage-Servi..., or http://www.loodswezen.nl/en/home/1593/ http://www.loodswezen.nl/en/home/1593/ That system could stay as-is if the normal crew would be automated away.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    You'd still need some sort of pilothouse in that situation, which would tend to negate some of the clear-deck design benefits. There's also the question of who's going to deploy (and untangle) the boarding ladder that pilots use to get aboard vessels. As well as the prospects of hacking that subsystem in order to divert the vessel. http://fixyt.com/watch?v=bcSCNFJDy6Y http://fixyt.com/watch?v=bcSCNFJDy6Y http://fixyt.com/watch?v=UT05TYaQV8w http://fixyt.com/watch?v=UT05TYaQV8w
jeremyt 12y ago
Did anyone else read this and think that it might be a good way to do away with piracy also? If there's no steering wheel to grab a hold of, there's no way to steal the ship, and with an absence of hostages, it would be a lot easier to deal with attempted theft, too.
mkmk 12y ago
There is a fascinating (if somewhat dry) book about the emergence of shipping containers and the freight industry called 'The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger' I enjoyed it. http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/0691136408 http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/...
31reasons 12y ago
So in automated vehicles industry it looks like shipping jobs are the first ones to go. Ships definitely has less navigation complexity than terrain vehicles and longer response times than cars, so deployment and operations of the captain-less ships could be less riskier. If I were working as a crew member its time to jump the shipping! EDIT: I take my words back. The jobs are not going anywhere because of this : "The International Transport Workers’ Federation, the union representing about 600,000 of the world’s more than 1 million seafarers, is opposed."
- twistedpair 12y ago
  Going in a straight line in flat water... yes, easy to automate. However what about hitting waves properly so you don't capsize in stormy high seas? What about that mechanical staff that maintains the engines and keeps everything running properly, because stuff does break down? What about the cost of airlifting a crew to a ship stranded 800mi from shore because the automation failed? I don't see this happening anytime soon. From a person/ton perspective, large cargo ships are the most efficient form of transit ever created. Now, how about automating the loading/unloading of these ships that is VERY slow and labor intensive? Oh yeah... we tried that, remember all the west coast port strikes a few years ago?
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Controlling an automobile is largely a matter of reaction and responding to circumstances. Piloting a ship is a matter of strategy. You've got a vessel of hundreds of thousands of tonnes, a half kilometer or more long, with a stopping distance measured in kilometers, to which you can add or reduce energy (velocity) and/or change course only gradually, moving through a fluid which is itself in motion, often with rapidly changing currents changing direction and speed in only a few meters, through waves exceeding 30m in height, frequently operating in total darkness with few if any route markers, or in fog so thick there's no visibility past a few meters -- you cannot see the boundaries of your vessel let alone other ships or navigational hazards. And that's with modern navigational aids. Consider sailing vessels up through the 1800s which traveled without any artificial light stronger than an oil lantern. As recently as 1923, seven of a squadron of fourteen US Navy vessels sailed at flank speed into well-known and charted rocks at the north end of the Santa Barbara Channel. In the Honda Point disaster, seven destroyers traveling at 20 knots (37 km/h) ran aground. Two other ships grounded but managed to work free. Twenty-three sailors were killed. Radio navigation was available and installed but not trusted. Sailing by dead reckoning in a heavy fog, the squadron commander ordered a course change too early and lead his fleet into the rocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_Disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_Disaster
andrest 12y ago
The maintenance crew is still needed to keep the engines running. It's just that it can be piloted remotely. This, however, is nothing new technologically speaking. We could very well take away pilots from commercial airliners but it will never happen, or not soon enough. Because a human in control gives a nice illusion of safety. When it comes to freighters, the cost of a captain or even a crew is negligible. It pales in comparison to the cost of the ship and the goods it carries. Also, insurance companies would not go down well with this.
- vidarh 12y ago
  It's just a question of time before a ship with a human captain will become uninsurable because the automated alternative is deemed safer. It only seems prudent for a company like Rolls Royce whose marine division includes a substantial amount of ship automation and ship design to invest R&D resources into ensuring they're on the forefront of that development.
josephschmoe 12y ago
Aside from maybe lost comms, I don't see much of a difference between captaining a ship locally versus remotely.
- prawn 12y ago
  With remotely controlled ships, the freight company could use a set of shift workers to control multiple ships at a given time rather than need a team on every ship. I imagine that a fair bit of captaining a ship would be sitting around too, so allocating multiple craft to one captain could work. Support staff (cook, doctor, etc) wouldn't be required either. Space devoted to all that could instead go towards cargo.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
I'm kind of surprised we haven't heard more about self-driving trucks. There is a lot more labor to be saved by removing one truck driver from each of the 20 ton trucks that deliver the cargo to the port than a dozen crew from a 10,000 ton container ship.
- davej 12y ago
  I imagine Google is on that. There's not a huge difference between a self-driving car and a self-driving truck. A self driving ship on the open sea sounds like an easier engineering problem than a car/truck, simply because there is more space with less players. Getting into port may be much tougher to solve, although I'd imagine that a properly calibrated computer could compensate better for the action-reaction lag than humans.
  - zhte415 12y ago
    Many ports, particularly higher volume ones, have dedicated pilots that will board a ship shortly before it enters the port and navigate it in. This seems viable with a drone ship.
- TorKlingberg 12y ago
  Volvo Trucks is doing a lot of work on that. There are various "tricks" like going along a fixed route, or several automatic trucks following a leader truck with a driver.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    So...a train? but more complex and prone to failure?
    - martinald 12y ago
      Arguably so, but freight trains (outside of large countries like the US) have taken a total battering from the truck market. In the UK for example it's just not worth putting stuff from port -> train -> truck -> store. Much easier to do port -> truck. Combine that with the EU's very strict laws on driving time and this is a giant market. When people complain about how insanely sci-fi it feels. I often get the DLR (docklands light railway) in London. It's totally automated - you can sit in the drivers seat if you want. I have no idea how crazy people would of thought of this idea in the 1960s. PS: I am a huge fan of getting rid of trucks on the road, but in the UK it doesn't make any sense.
dredmorbius 12y ago
The article covers many of the predictable objections or challenges: safety, union reception (both sailors and dockworkers, crew costs (up to 44% of containership operations), though harbor pilots would be another), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), regulations, computer hacking, piracy (and ransoming of both crew and cargo). I see particular challenges being: • Small craft safety. There are already considerable concerns among pleasure craft and other small-craft sailors for collisions with commercial shipping traffic. • At-sea mishaps including load shifts and loss of cargo. Containers do fall off ships regularly, as many as 10,000 per year. Hull-strikes with derelict containers are another small-craft concern: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_Overboard__Final.pdf http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containe... • Harbor safety. As with autonomous cars, it's one thing to operate in the largely predictable waters of the high seas, another to navigate a complex and highly trafficked harbor or near-shore waters. If crew were required for such passages, the superstructure elimination benefits would be lost. There's nothing about automation which doesn't preclude augmentation of crewed vehicles for a best-of-both-worlds experience. Crew sizes could possibly be reduced, though not eliminated. Large cargo vessels typically have a 20+ year life. Don't expect any rapid deployment of this technology, though as with other automation, fixed-course or closed-course applications (canals, closed harbors) might see some initial use.
bane 12y ago
Some thoughts: Crew on ships seems to be of two classes (I know nothing about shipping be warned!) 1) Direct crew: captain, engineer, etc. 2) Support for the direct crew: Ship's doctor, cook etc. To eliminate #2, you basically have to eliminate #1 (or get #1 so small and with so many free hours in the day that somebody can dual-hat and handle cooking for whoever's left or even for themselves. Getting rid of decent medical care might be tough though. So let's look at the ship's engineer. Supposedly, there's a reason there's an engineer on board a ship, things break down and need maintenance on a voyage. So automated or no automation, it seems like he's still going to be needed. If he's not, why hasn't that role (and his team) already been eliminated as a labor cost? Not even Star Trek figured out a way to automate away the engineer on a large ship. Smaller vessels don't need an engineer aboard, but their voyage time at sea is shorter, so the "ship's engineer" role is relegated to a land-based job and split across several vessels - we call these guys mechanics when dealing with cars. Here's a video of a container ship engine room https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41priD5GJyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41priD5GJyY It looks pretty automated today, yet there's still a ship's engineer aboard. I bet that the equation is spend a few hundred dollars a day on a guy or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars of cargo because the automated system had a fault on a fuel pump or something. But I suppose you could start splitting duty across ships, have an engineer basically helicopter around to ships to do inspections and solve limited issues. But how many ships does an engineer have to fly around to to make up the cost difference of having him flown around vs just having guys on board? What about the captain? Out at sea a ship can basically go on a kind of autopilot today. https://www.yokogawa.com/ydk/mr/marine/pilot/products/ydkmr-ma-pt500-en.htm https://www.yokogawa.com/ydk/mr/marine/pilot/products/ydkmr-... Better integration with GPS, charts and real-time weather and piracy rerouting data I guess could make blue water sailing a reality. But coastal sailing, docking, berthing, towing, and other complex navigation functions are pretty complex operations. FTA it sounds like they intend a land-based captain to remote control the vessels, but I suppose a system where they navigate to an offshore location and are towed in or a docking captain in flown in to "park" the ship could work. I believe something like this happens with canal transit. I'm assuming there's other direct crew on board, probably with similar issues. For the support crew, as soon as the numbers of the direct crew go to zero, they all disappear...fast. But suppose they don't then you'll need two 12 hour or three 8 hour shifts of people. Let's minimize it and say there's a captain, first mate (backup guy), engineer. Then 3 shifts we'll have 9 people. We'll need a cook for each shift, so we're at 12 people. Add in a doctor and a laundry/room (steward) cleaning person and we're at 14 people. It turns out most container ships have between 15-24 crew, so it doesn't seem I'm too far off. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100924203011AA4Pn7h https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100924203011A... The Xin Los Angeles has 19 crew and it's the most heavily automated, largest container ship at the time of launch in 2006. http://www.gizmag.com/go/5853/ http://www.gizmag.com/go/5853/ Not a container ship, but a bulk goods ship can have dozens of crew (I suppose the cargo handling is more complex) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier#Crew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier#Crew 1 - Captain Deck Department: 1 - Chief Officer 1 - 2nd Officer 1 - 3rd Officer 1 - Boatswain 2-6 - Able Seamen 0-2 - Ordinary Seamen Engines: 1 - Chief Engineer 1 - 1st Asst Eng. 1 - 2nd Asst Eng. 1-2 - 3rd Asst Engr. 0-2 - Jr. Eng. 1-3 - Oiler 0-3 - Greaser 1-3 - Entry Level Steward: 1 - Chief Steward 1 - Cook 1 - Asst. With crew costs being such a significant portion of ship cost, I'd guess that automating away these folks as quickly as possible would be in order. Shipping companies aren't stupid and they replace and buy new ships all the time. It seems to me that we're still quite a ways away from eliminating altogether.
EGreg 12y ago
Now THIS is a good idea!
trhway 12y ago
new kind of piracy - cyber-piracy. Hijacking ship without getting up from couch. The Somali pirates will also need to adapt as after getting the ship boarded they would need to find control room and the actual connector to connect to to change the ship's direction, speed ...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
droithomme 12y ago
This sounds like something a company that had never been at sea in the open ocean would announce in order to capitalize on the faddishness of the word "drone". The crew on freighters is already minimalist and isn't necessary to steer the ship in flat windless seas with no weather. They are there to clean it, keep the engine running, and deal with things that happen because of weather. Saying you are going to get rid of the crew is like saying you are going to get rid of the guys who do robot maintenance and repair at a highly automated automobile plant.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  From TFA: "While the idea of automated ships was first considered decades ago, Rolls-Royce started developing designs last year. Marine accounts for 16 percent of the company’s revenue, data compiled by Bloomberg show." RR have marine experience.
  - Casseres 12y ago
    I believe they just make engines and other machinery. There's a difference between a company that makes a steering wheel and a company that employes a fleet of drivers to drive it's fleet of trucks.
    - roel_v 12y ago
      Let me get this straight, you're saying that f'n Rolls Royce doesn't have the engineering chops to assess the viability of future tech developments? Additionally, you're saying that f'n ROLLS ROYCE builds the equivalent of 'steering wheels' in machinery?
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        Someone who hops onto a thread in which someone has been dressed down for an utter failure to verify facts from an article with further utter lack of research isn't worth the time.
    - 12y ago
aves 12y ago
Wait, are you saying that cargo ships aren't unmanned already?
hosh 12y ago
I would be interested to see how they'll deal with pirates.
ShabbyDoo 12y ago
Most of the comments here presume that it's unacceptable for a drone ship to break down in the middle of the ocean and be without crew to repair it. What if these ships were designed so that nothing too awful would happen if they floated around in the middle of the ocean for awhile awaiting another ship with a human crew to perform repairs. Or, maybe another drone ship or two to tow a broken one back to land? My understanding of container shipping is that customers make SLA choices much akin to us Americans choosing between UPS Ground/2nd Day Air/Next Day, etc. UPS uses these varied SLAs to smooth out its use of fleet capacity and for price discrimination. Shippers operate transshipment ports as part of distribution networks much like the hub & spoke designs of the major airlines. These ports have a bunch of shipping containers sitting around awaiting capacity. Consider the needs of companies that must transport low-value, high weight/bulk cargo. These companies likely already choose the "UPS Ground" equivalent for container shipping. Due to low product value, inventory costs are low (in transit goods are inventory), so it's probably less expensive to have buffers of goods in the supply chain than it is to pay for tight shipping SLAs. Why should these companies care if the variance they experience in shipping duration is due to capacity constraints of manned-ships or that it took an extra two weeks to fix the ship upon which their cargo was in transit?
- LeChuck 12y ago
  It very far from certain that a ship without propulsion will just stay afloat for a while. Even big ships can disappear in a hurry if the weather's bad enough. See for example the sinking of the Derbyshire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tN4xROtMjI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tN4xROtMjI
omilu 12y ago
why design a new ship, just mod an existing ship and done. the floating/propulsion part needs no modifications
richardw 12y ago
Make a ship that is automated, give it a crew and wait. Keep fixing things that the computer can't. When you stop doing that, wait. After a decade without incident, remove the crew. Don't put oil on it until the data proves it's safer.
jackhammons 12y ago
How would drone ships pollute less than current solutions?
hyp0 12y ago
It's like a parallel universe, captains can go and sail the world during the day and still go to parties in the evening

137 points by noonespecial 12y ago

dang 12y ago

Url changed from http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/pirates-eat-heart-rolls-royce-envisions-crewless-drone-freight-ships/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/pirates-eat-heart-rolls-ro..., which points to this. Title edited to make clear that these are designs.

noonespecial 12y ago
It was a good change. I knew there'd be a better less blog-spammy version but my google-fu failed me tonight. This is one case where the mods are right on the mark and I thank them.
- fhars 12y ago
  You might have tried the search box at the bottom of this page, it would have found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7297750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7297750 and some others that didn't attract many comments.
  - dang 12y ago
    When a story is good and hasn't had significant attention yet, a small number of reposts is ok. We want good stories to have multiple cracks at the bat.

mbrubeck 12y ago

This is interesting because cargo ships are more fuel-efficient at slow speeds [1][2]. But with a crewed ship, slow speed means higher labor costs. I wonder how much remote piloting or auto-piloting of ultra-slow ships can change this equation. [1] http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_co... [2] http://ultraslowships.com/ http://ultraslowships.com/

aaron695 12y ago
I find it unlikely labour costs make much of a difference compared to cargo being delayed on slow ships. I would be more along the lines of, labour free ships don't go on strike/have HR incidents and delay cargo.
- qq66 12y ago
  Ships actually use very precise algorithms to calculate the relative cost of labor vs. inventory getting delayed, using factors like the depreciation of the cargo, the spot price of fuel, and even changing interest rates in the market. Oil tankers in the middle of the ocean, for example, will speed up and slow down as spot prices of oil increase or short-term interest rates decrease, since the inventory cost of their cargo has gone up and then down.
  - el_benhameen 12y ago
    That's absolutely fascinating. Do you have a source for further reading on those optimizations? I haven't been able to find anything with a bit of googling.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Unfortunately, most of the papers I found by googling are behind paywalls :(
      - v3rt 12y ago
        I for one would still appreciate a link - I think those of us on academic networks should be able to see most papers behind paywalls
        toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Google for "oil tanker algorithms"
    - 12y ago

Theodores 12y ago

Can anyone think of a peace-time disaster at sea that was not as a result of human error? Titanic? Exxon Valdez? Costa Concordia? The 'humans are critical for safety' argument is flawed when we don't know how well robot ships will do. Sail augmented with solar needs to make a comeback before we run out of oil, it would be cool if ships just found there own way around the globe, safely crew-less.

mickeyp 12y ago
I don't know anything about the maritime world, but playing Devil's Advocate you're suffering from selection bias: you're naming instances where humans caused the errors but not factoring in the unreported instances of humans saving the cargo, the ship, the personnel or all three.
reportingsjr 12y ago
I think this is a really good point, but it is also necessary to think about software caused errors. It only takes one error to make a disaster!
twistedpair 12y ago
MS München 1978, large freighter lost to a rouge wave. SS Edmund Fitzgerald 1975, large freighter lost in a storm Tamponas II 1981, Passenger ship sinks due to fire, 580 die Mechanical failure, fire, and weather take many of them. Just a few that come to mind above, but you can read the list too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

CHY872 12y ago

So, they're saying it cannot possibly be cost effective, with a global fleet of around 5000 ships, and conservative savings of at least $3000 per day per ship? It cannot be cost effective to develop a product for which the savings would be at least $5 billion per year (of which most can be claimed back in more expensive ships)? Sounds like at least a few people are trying to maintain the status quo already.

dredmorbius 12y ago
$5 billion on $375 billion is a 1.3% savings, with considerable technological, social, political, and other risks. Seems that there's an argument toward more automation, but a full adoption of the technology to the extent described in the article strikes me as unlikely, and could well have downside costs well in excess of the claimed benefits.
- vidarh 12y ago
  The potential savings are substantially larger. The article cites a 12%-15% reduced fuel use, as well as increased cargo capacity from losing the bridge.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    I was simply contextualizing CHY872's claimed savings. The stated crew savings should account for a sizable chunk at 44% of operating expenses, unless capital expenses are an even larger share. I don't know the numbers and the article doesn't supply them.

jisaacks 12y ago

I can only image the frustration of someone lost at sea watching one of these slowly drift right passed them and no way to get on board and no crew to signal for help.

hangonhn 12y ago
I imagine that some sort of radio beacon receiver can be attached to these drone ships and with enough of them traveling the seas, it might actually increase the chances of finding survivors.
- josephschmoe 12y ago
  Or even just cover them with cameras on the outside. When something interesting happens, like a ship passing by or a human being waving their arms in the waves, it will alert somebody who can take a closer look and possibly alert the coast guard/navy.
  - electromagnetic 12y ago
    They'll be covered with cameras on the outside, unmanned boats would be way too easy targets for piracy. You wouldn't even have to sneak aboard, just get aboard and find the expensive cargo. Set off a bomb in the engine room and then unload what you can in a reasonably safe time before someone can get close and track you. It could potentially make piracy more viable in currently safe areas. You'd want cameras to track when anything even remotely in sight is moving unexpectedly. Anything coming close would be reported to the coast guard/navy. There'll be heavy monitoring on these ships, even just for liability issue in case some dumb guy in a yacht sails right into them and tried to sue.
mmphosis 12y ago
The "safety" seems to only apply to the drone ship, and not to other craft that will encounter these essentially blind moving vessels. I think that there already enough hazards on the sea without adding drone ships to the mix. ALL vessels in the future may need AIS transponders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Identification_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Identification_System

gdilla 12y ago

pirates are gonna love this.

Zigurd 12y ago
Only if they want to go where the ship is programmed to go.
- josefresco 12y ago
  Or offload the cargo and be on their way...
  - Phlarp 12y ago
    Onto what? The inflatable they came in?
    - josefresco 12y ago
      Maybe, or maybe the pirates will evolve to use larger ships capable of offloading cargo once these robo-ships become standard. The thought of a few guys on a small skiff taking over a massive container ship was pretty absurd not too long ago but yet we see it happening more and more due to the financial incentive. If the cargo stolen is worth it, they'll find a way.

jeremyt 12y ago

Did anyone else read this and think that it might be a good way to do away with piracy also? If there's no steering wheel to grab a hold of, there's no way to steal the ship, and with an absence of hostages, it would be a lot easier to deal with attempted theft, too.

carbocation 12y ago
And, with a ship unattended, there is nobody to impede your progress as you carve through the side of the ship and start offloading prize cargo.
- smm2000 12y ago
  Pirates usually do not have capacity to offload ship - they use small fishing boats and speedboats that won't hold even one container. Cargo in most containers is not very valuable (who need container of t-shirts 600 miles away from closest shore?). Finding container with valuables (IPhones/etc) is difficult as there is no accessible manifest on the ship and opening containers is time-consuming. I also assume that boat will automatically inform authorities and navy/security will be able to reach ship in a matter of hours. With no hostages on container ship, security can just blow up fishing boat/speed boat pirates used and then wait until they run out of food/water on a container ship. Pirates won't be able to control engine/rudder so there is not much they can do other than to surrender.
thret 12y ago
Hmm, but also nothing stopping pirates from looting cargo. Then again, they could just be floating fortresses. Perhaps if it takes long enough to steal cargo aerial support could intervene.
alexpw 12y ago
I didn't, but it could also give way to a new breed of piracy by: - circumventing the auto-pilot's security - boarding the ship and hijacking cargo (no one to stop you)
- 12y ago

dsr_ 12y ago

When the ship is not near shore, there's no doubt in my mind that it is safer in the hands of an automated pilot. It's only when things get crowded and unpredictable -- that is, with lots of non-automated shipping about -- where you will need serious piloting software. I imagine that there will be a long crossover period where ships will set out from a port with a small human crew -- possibly just a pilot and lookouts -- then go autonomously across the ocean to be picked up by another small crew a few hours out from the destination port.

haptiK 12y ago
The article mentioned the drone ships will be piloted remotely.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Someone 12y ago
Many larger ports require larger ships to use a pilot who is familiar with the port near the coast. See for example http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/port_and_shipping/port/pilotage_and_towage/exemption_from_pilotage/general_information.page http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/port_and_shipping/port/pilotage_..., http://www.pla.co.uk/Pilotage/About-the-PLA-s-Pilotage-Service http://www.pla.co.uk/Pilotage/About-the-PLA-s-Pilotage-Servi..., or http://www.loodswezen.nl/en/home/1593/ http://www.loodswezen.nl/en/home/1593/ That system could stay as-is if the normal crew would be automated away.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  You'd still need some sort of pilothouse in that situation, which would tend to negate some of the clear-deck design benefits. There's also the question of who's going to deploy (and untangle) the boarding ladder that pilots use to get aboard vessels. As well as the prospects of hacking that subsystem in order to divert the vessel. http://fixyt.com/watch?v=bcSCNFJDy6Y http://fixyt.com/watch?v=bcSCNFJDy6Y http://fixyt.com/watch?v=UT05TYaQV8w http://fixyt.com/watch?v=UT05TYaQV8w

jeremyt 12y ago

mkmk 12y ago

There is a fascinating (if somewhat dry) book about the emergence of shipping containers and the freight industry called 'The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger' I enjoyed it. http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/0691136408 http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/...

31reasons 12y ago

So in automated vehicles industry it looks like shipping jobs are the first ones to go. Ships definitely has less navigation complexity than terrain vehicles and longer response times than cars, so deployment and operations of the captain-less ships could be less riskier. If I were working as a crew member its time to jump the shipping! EDIT: I take my words back. The jobs are not going anywhere because of this : "The International Transport Workers’ Federation, the union representing about 600,000 of the world’s more than 1 million seafarers, is opposed."

twistedpair 12y ago
Going in a straight line in flat water... yes, easy to automate. However what about hitting waves properly so you don't capsize in stormy high seas? What about that mechanical staff that maintains the engines and keeps everything running properly, because stuff does break down? What about the cost of airlifting a crew to a ship stranded 800mi from shore because the automation failed? I don't see this happening anytime soon. From a person/ton perspective, large cargo ships are the most efficient form of transit ever created. Now, how about automating the loading/unloading of these ships that is VERY slow and labor intensive? Oh yeah... we tried that, remember all the west coast port strikes a few years ago?
dredmorbius 12y ago
Controlling an automobile is largely a matter of reaction and responding to circumstances. Piloting a ship is a matter of strategy. You've got a vessel of hundreds of thousands of tonnes, a half kilometer or more long, with a stopping distance measured in kilometers, to which you can add or reduce energy (velocity) and/or change course only gradually, moving through a fluid which is itself in motion, often with rapidly changing currents changing direction and speed in only a few meters, through waves exceeding 30m in height, frequently operating in total darkness with few if any route markers, or in fog so thick there's no visibility past a few meters -- you cannot see the boundaries of your vessel let alone other ships or navigational hazards. And that's with modern navigational aids. Consider sailing vessels up through the 1800s which traveled without any artificial light stronger than an oil lantern. As recently as 1923, seven of a squadron of fourteen US Navy vessels sailed at flank speed into well-known and charted rocks at the north end of the Santa Barbara Channel. In the Honda Point disaster, seven destroyers traveling at 20 knots (37 km/h) ran aground. Two other ships grounded but managed to work free. Twenty-three sailors were killed. Radio navigation was available and installed but not trusted. Sailing by dead reckoning in a heavy fog, the squadron commander ordered a course change too early and lead his fleet into the rocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_Disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_Disaster

andrest 12y ago

The maintenance crew is still needed to keep the engines running. It's just that it can be piloted remotely. This, however, is nothing new technologically speaking. We could very well take away pilots from commercial airliners but it will never happen, or not soon enough. Because a human in control gives a nice illusion of safety. When it comes to freighters, the cost of a captain or even a crew is negligible. It pales in comparison to the cost of the ship and the goods it carries. Also, insurance companies would not go down well with this.

vidarh 12y ago
It's just a question of time before a ship with a human captain will become uninsurable because the automated alternative is deemed safer. It only seems prudent for a company like Rolls Royce whose marine division includes a substantial amount of ship automation and ship design to invest R&D resources into ensuring they're on the forefront of that development.

josephschmoe 12y ago

Aside from maybe lost comms, I don't see much of a difference between captaining a ship locally versus remotely.

prawn 12y ago
With remotely controlled ships, the freight company could use a set of shift workers to control multiple ships at a given time rather than need a team on every ship. I imagine that a fair bit of captaining a ship would be sitting around too, so allocating multiple craft to one captain could work. Support staff (cook, doctor, etc) wouldn't be required either. Space devoted to all that could instead go towards cargo.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

I'm kind of surprised we haven't heard more about self-driving trucks. There is a lot more labor to be saved by removing one truck driver from each of the 20 ton trucks that deliver the cargo to the port than a dozen crew from a 10,000 ton container ship.

davej 12y ago
I imagine Google is on that. There's not a huge difference between a self-driving car and a self-driving truck. A self driving ship on the open sea sounds like an easier engineering problem than a car/truck, simply because there is more space with less players. Getting into port may be much tougher to solve, although I'd imagine that a properly calibrated computer could compensate better for the action-reaction lag than humans.
- zhte415 12y ago
  Many ports, particularly higher volume ones, have dedicated pilots that will board a ship shortly before it enters the port and navigate it in. This seems viable with a drone ship.
TorKlingberg 12y ago
Volvo Trucks is doing a lot of work on that. There are various "tricks" like going along a fixed route, or several automatic trucks following a leader truck with a driver.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  So...a train? but more complex and prone to failure?
  - martinald 12y ago
    Arguably so, but freight trains (outside of large countries like the US) have taken a total battering from the truck market. In the UK for example it's just not worth putting stuff from port -> train -> truck -> store. Much easier to do port -> truck. Combine that with the EU's very strict laws on driving time and this is a giant market. When people complain about how insanely sci-fi it feels. I often get the DLR (docklands light railway) in London. It's totally automated - you can sit in the drivers seat if you want. I have no idea how crazy people would of thought of this idea in the 1960s. PS: I am a huge fan of getting rid of trucks on the road, but in the UK it doesn't make any sense.

dredmorbius 12y ago

The article covers many of the predictable objections or challenges: safety, union reception (both sailors and dockworkers, crew costs (up to 44% of containership operations), though harbor pilots would be another), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), regulations, computer hacking, piracy (and ransoming of both crew and cargo). I see particular challenges being: • Small craft safety. There are already considerable concerns among pleasure craft and other small-craft sailors for collisions with commercial shipping traffic. • At-sea mishaps including load shifts and loss of cargo. Containers do fall off ships regularly, as many as 10,000 per year. Hull-strikes with derelict containers are another small-craft concern: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_Overboard__Final.pdf http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containe... • Harbor safety. As with autonomous cars, it's one thing to operate in the largely predictable waters of the high seas, another to navigate a complex and highly trafficked harbor or near-shore waters. If crew were required for such passages, the superstructure elimination benefits would be lost. There's nothing about automation which doesn't preclude augmentation of crewed vehicles for a best-of-both-worlds experience. Crew sizes could possibly be reduced, though not eliminated. Large cargo vessels typically have a 20+ year life. Don't expect any rapid deployment of this technology, though as with other automation, fixed-course or closed-course applications (canals, closed harbors) might see some initial use.

bane 12y ago

Some thoughts: Crew on ships seems to be of two classes (I know nothing about shipping be warned!) 1) Direct crew: captain, engineer, etc. 2) Support for the direct crew: Ship's doctor, cook etc. To eliminate #2, you basically have to eliminate #1 (or get #1 so small and with so many free hours in the day that somebody can dual-hat and handle cooking for whoever's left or even for themselves. Getting rid of decent medical care might be tough though. So let's look at the ship's engineer. Supposedly, there's a reason there's an engineer on board a ship, things break down and need maintenance on a voyage. So automated or no automation, it seems like he's still going to be needed. If he's not, why hasn't that role (and his team) already been eliminated as a labor cost? Not even Star Trek figured out a way to automate away the engineer on a large ship. Smaller vessels don't need an engineer aboard, but their voyage time at sea is shorter, so the "ship's engineer" role is relegated to a land-based job and split across several vessels - we call these guys mechanics when dealing with cars. Here's a video of a container ship engine room https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41priD5GJyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41priD5GJyY It looks pretty automated today, yet there's still a ship's engineer aboard. I bet that the equation is spend a few hundred dollars a day on a guy or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars of cargo because the automated system had a fault on a fuel pump or something. But I suppose you could start splitting duty across ships, have an engineer basically helicopter around to ships to do inspections and solve limited issues. But how many ships does an engineer have to fly around to to make up the cost difference of having him flown around vs just having guys on board? What about the captain? Out at sea a ship can basically go on a kind of autopilot today. https://www.yokogawa.com/ydk/mr/marine/pilot/products/ydkmr-ma-pt500-en.htm https://www.yokogawa.com/ydk/mr/marine/pilot/products/ydkmr-... Better integration with GPS, charts and real-time weather and piracy rerouting data I guess could make blue water sailing a reality. But coastal sailing, docking, berthing, towing, and other complex navigation functions are pretty complex operations. FTA it sounds like they intend a land-based captain to remote control the vessels, but I suppose a system where they navigate to an offshore location and are towed in or a docking captain in flown in to "park" the ship could work. I believe something like this happens with canal transit. I'm assuming there's other direct crew on board, probably with similar issues. For the support crew, as soon as the numbers of the direct crew go to zero, they all disappear...fast. But suppose they don't then you'll need two 12 hour or three 8 hour shifts of people. Let's minimize it and say there's a captain, first mate (backup guy), engineer. Then 3 shifts we'll have 9 people. We'll need a cook for each shift, so we're at 12 people. Add in a doctor and a laundry/room (steward) cleaning person and we're at 14 people. It turns out most container ships have between 15-24 crew, so it doesn't seem I'm too far off. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100924203011AA4Pn7h https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100924203011A... The Xin Los Angeles has 19 crew and it's the most heavily automated, largest container ship at the time of launch in 2006. http://www.gizmag.com/go/5853/ http://www.gizmag.com/go/5853/ Not a container ship, but a bulk goods ship can have dozens of crew (I suppose the cargo handling is more complex) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier#Crew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier#Crew 1 - Captain Deck Department: 1 - Chief Officer 1 - 2nd Officer 1 - 3rd Officer 1 - Boatswain 2-6 - Able Seamen 0-2 - Ordinary Seamen Engines: 1 - Chief Engineer 1 - 1st Asst Eng. 1 - 2nd Asst Eng. 1-2 - 3rd Asst Engr. 0-2 - Jr. Eng. 1-3 - Oiler 0-3 - Greaser 1-3 - Entry Level Steward: 1 - Chief Steward 1 - Cook 1 - Asst. With crew costs being such a significant portion of ship cost, I'd guess that automating away these folks as quickly as possible would be in order. Shipping companies aren't stupid and they replace and buy new ships all the time. It seems to me that we're still quite a ways away from eliminating altogether.

EGreg 12y ago

Now THIS is a good idea!

trhway 12y ago

new kind of piracy - cyber-piracy. Hijacking ship without getting up from couch. The Somali pirates will also need to adapt as after getting the ship boarded they would need to find control room and the actual connector to connect to to change the ship's direction, speed ...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

droithomme 12y ago

This sounds like something a company that had never been at sea in the open ocean would announce in order to capitalize on the faddishness of the word "drone". The crew on freighters is already minimalist and isn't necessary to steer the ship in flat windless seas with no weather. They are there to clean it, keep the engine running, and deal with things that happen because of weather. Saying you are going to get rid of the crew is like saying you are going to get rid of the guys who do robot maintenance and repair at a highly automated automobile plant.

dredmorbius 12y ago
From TFA: "While the idea of automated ships was first considered decades ago, Rolls-Royce started developing designs last year. Marine accounts for 16 percent of the company’s revenue, data compiled by Bloomberg show." RR have marine experience.
- Casseres 12y ago
  I believe they just make engines and other machinery. There's a difference between a company that makes a steering wheel and a company that employes a fleet of drivers to drive it's fleet of trucks.
  - roel_v 12y ago
    Let me get this straight, you're saying that f'n Rolls Royce doesn't have the engineering chops to assess the viability of future tech developments? Additionally, you're saying that f'n ROLLS ROYCE builds the equivalent of 'steering wheels' in machinery?
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      Someone who hops onto a thread in which someone has been dressed down for an utter failure to verify facts from an article with further utter lack of research isn't worth the time.
  - 12y ago

aves 12y ago

Wait, are you saying that cargo ships aren't unmanned already?

hosh 12y ago

I would be interested to see how they'll deal with pirates.

ShabbyDoo 12y ago

Most of the comments here presume that it's unacceptable for a drone ship to break down in the middle of the ocean and be without crew to repair it. What if these ships were designed so that nothing too awful would happen if they floated around in the middle of the ocean for awhile awaiting another ship with a human crew to perform repairs. Or, maybe another drone ship or two to tow a broken one back to land? My understanding of container shipping is that customers make SLA choices much akin to us Americans choosing between UPS Ground/2nd Day Air/Next Day, etc. UPS uses these varied SLAs to smooth out its use of fleet capacity and for price discrimination. Shippers operate transshipment ports as part of distribution networks much like the hub & spoke designs of the major airlines. These ports have a bunch of shipping containers sitting around awaiting capacity. Consider the needs of companies that must transport low-value, high weight/bulk cargo. These companies likely already choose the "UPS Ground" equivalent for container shipping. Due to low product value, inventory costs are low (in transit goods are inventory), so it's probably less expensive to have buffers of goods in the supply chain than it is to pay for tight shipping SLAs. Why should these companies care if the variance they experience in shipping duration is due to capacity constraints of manned-ships or that it took an extra two weeks to fix the ship upon which their cargo was in transit?

LeChuck 12y ago
It very far from certain that a ship without propulsion will just stay afloat for a while. Even big ships can disappear in a hurry if the weather's bad enough. See for example the sinking of the Derbyshire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tN4xROtMjI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tN4xROtMjI

omilu 12y ago

why design a new ship, just mod an existing ship and done. the floating/propulsion part needs no modifications

richardw 12y ago

Make a ship that is automated, give it a crew and wait. Keep fixing things that the computer can't. When you stop doing that, wait. After a decade without incident, remove the crew. Don't put oil on it until the data proves it's safer.

jackhammons 12y ago

How would drone ships pollute less than current solutions?

hyp0 12y ago

It's like a parallel universe, captains can go and sail the world during the day and still go to parties in the evening