6 ms·

I would not be surprised that you can make engine so reliable that it basically never breaks and just need routine maintenance in ports. Also if you have two in

by smm2000 12y ago

I would not be surprised that you can make engine so reliable that it basically never breaks and just need routine maintenance in ports. Also if you have two independent engines and one breaks, you can just use second engine to get to the closest port.

bane 12y ago
So why haven't they already done that and eliminated a 3rd of the on-board crew requirements?
- smm2000 12y ago
  The expensive part is to have crew (A/C, food, cook, doctor, etc) not to have one more person on the crew.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
gk1 12y ago
A ship's power system is more complex than just one engine. Then add on the auxiliary systems (water filtration, sewer treatment, HVAC, etc) on top of that.Yes, much of it is automated, but what happens if a gasket leaks due to poor maintenance and suddenly you have to operate some part of the system manually? That's why there's someone always on watch in the engine room. Adding an automated backup to every system would be a considerable cost, and even then a manual option would be required and some-times relied upon. (Former ship engineer.)
- smm2000 12y ago
  You do not need water filtration, sewer treatment and HVAC on fully automated ship - you can eliminate a lot of stuff that supports humans.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - gk1 12y ago
    Good point, which seemed to completely escape me. Though many ships still would need auxiliary systems such as non-propulsion power, hydraulics, cargo cooling, inert gas systems, fresh cooling water, etc etc. Point is, it'll still be an immense system that is not so easy to fully and reliably automate.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - LeChuck 12y ago
    Not to detract from your general point, but fresh water is used for more than just human consumption.
- 31reasons 12y ago
  What about a tele-presence robot? A technician can just operate the robot and fix whatever needs to be fixed remotely.
  - mikegreco 12y ago
    I can't even replace an o-ring with gloves on, I cannot imagine the frustration of trying to do such a task with a tele-presence robot. I really don't think the technology for something like that is here yet.
    - programmer_dude 12y ago
      I think the tech is already here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery. Though I am not sure if it going to be cost effective.
      - rcaf67 12y ago
        The grippers and tooling on robots like that (for example the "da vinci surgical robot") are way too specialized, and applied only to minimally invasive surgeries. So not something like that more like these robots : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek8GKqmJ7n0#t=70 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek8GKqmJ7n0#t=70 the annoying thing with these robots is that you still have to specialize the hands,grippers, and tools for the task or group of tasks. We don't really have great "really general purpose" robotic manipulators, but we can make really good specialized robots for very well defined tasks, so I don't think the shipping industry is going to pay for an array of expensive special purpose robots. The technology is really not here yet, but getting ever closer, it's the holy grail of robotics and control systems research. Sorry for the ramble.
        programmer_dude 12y ago
        >Sorry for the ramble. No ramble at all I found it useful, thanks for sharing it!
    - 12y ago
Casseres 12y ago
(I'm a 3rd Asst Engr. I just upgraded my license to 2nd, but I'm still sailing as a 3rd.) Maintenance is staggered because there is only so much room for people to work in inside the engine room. For most ships, it would be cheaper for the company to pay for the crew than lose out on shipping contracts due to being in port for maintenance. Engineers can detect a lot of problems that machines can't, be it unusual smells, sounds, vibrations, temperatures, etc. Sure there are probes that can detect vibrations and temperatures, but they would have to be placed everywhere (not just the hundred or so usual spots), and then they have to be programmed. I use a handheld device to measure vibrations on running machinery. It's only as good as it's programming, and it's not that good. Additionally, hoses burst, o-rings leak, filters need changing, etc. We don't have machines today that can fix those problems on the fly. My last ship I was on was Diesel Electric. It was incredibly automated, yet still we had MAJOR problems because some circuit boards died.
- hengheng 12y ago
  One of my father's friends did maintenance on large bucket wheel excavators in the GDR. He told how they added sensors and electronics in the late 80s until the electronics failed as often as it helped, so humans remained indispensable -- if only to tell false positives from actual defects. There seemed a clear point of marginal utility in automation.
- acchow 12y ago
  > "Additionally, hoses burst, o-rings leak, filters need changing, etc. We don't have machines today that can fix those problems on the fly." Lots of these things could be happening on airplanes but generally don't. Why can't we get airplane-level reliability on ships?
  - fancyketchup 12y ago
    Probably because we aren't willing to pay airplane prices and do maintenance on airplane schedules. I suspect that a container ship usually takes longer to travel between two ports of call than an airplane is legally allowed to go between inspections.
  - 12y ago

by smm2000 12y ago

bane 12y ago

So why haven't they already done that and eliminated a 3rd of the on-board crew requirements?

smm2000 12y ago
The expensive part is to have crew (A/C, food, cook, doctor, etc) not to have one more person on the crew.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

gk1 12y ago

A ship's power system is more complex than just one engine. Then add on the auxiliary systems (water filtration, sewer treatment, HVAC, etc) on top of that.Yes, much of it is automated, but what happens if a gasket leaks due to poor maintenance and suddenly you have to operate some part of the system manually? That's why there's someone always on watch in the engine room. Adding an automated backup to every system would be a considerable cost, and even then a manual option would be required and some-times relied upon. (Former ship engineer.)

smm2000 12y ago
You do not need water filtration, sewer treatment and HVAC on fully automated ship - you can eliminate a lot of stuff that supports humans.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- gk1 12y ago
  Good point, which seemed to completely escape me. Though many ships still would need auxiliary systems such as non-propulsion power, hydraulics, cargo cooling, inert gas systems, fresh cooling water, etc etc. Point is, it'll still be an immense system that is not so easy to fully and reliably automate.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- LeChuck 12y ago
  Not to detract from your general point, but fresh water is used for more than just human consumption.
31reasons 12y ago
What about a tele-presence robot? A technician can just operate the robot and fix whatever needs to be fixed remotely.
- mikegreco 12y ago
  I can't even replace an o-ring with gloves on, I cannot imagine the frustration of trying to do such a task with a tele-presence robot. I really don't think the technology for something like that is here yet.
  - programmer_dude 12y ago
    I think the tech is already here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery. Though I am not sure if it going to be cost effective.
    - rcaf67 12y ago
      The grippers and tooling on robots like that (for example the "da vinci surgical robot") are way too specialized, and applied only to minimally invasive surgeries. So not something like that more like these robots : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek8GKqmJ7n0#t=70 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek8GKqmJ7n0#t=70 the annoying thing with these robots is that you still have to specialize the hands,grippers, and tools for the task or group of tasks. We don't really have great "really general purpose" robotic manipulators, but we can make really good specialized robots for very well defined tasks, so I don't think the shipping industry is going to pay for an array of expensive special purpose robots. The technology is really not here yet, but getting ever closer, it's the holy grail of robotics and control systems research. Sorry for the ramble.
      - programmer_dude 12y ago
        >Sorry for the ramble. No ramble at all I found it useful, thanks for sharing it!
  - 12y ago

Casseres 12y ago

(I'm a 3rd Asst Engr. I just upgraded my license to 2nd, but I'm still sailing as a 3rd.) Maintenance is staggered because there is only so much room for people to work in inside the engine room. For most ships, it would be cheaper for the company to pay for the crew than lose out on shipping contracts due to being in port for maintenance. Engineers can detect a lot of problems that machines can't, be it unusual smells, sounds, vibrations, temperatures, etc. Sure there are probes that can detect vibrations and temperatures, but they would have to be placed everywhere (not just the hundred or so usual spots), and then they have to be programmed. I use a handheld device to measure vibrations on running machinery. It's only as good as it's programming, and it's not that good. Additionally, hoses burst, o-rings leak, filters need changing, etc. We don't have machines today that can fix those problems on the fly. My last ship I was on was Diesel Electric. It was incredibly automated, yet still we had MAJOR problems because some circuit boards died.

hengheng 12y ago
One of my father's friends did maintenance on large bucket wheel excavators in the GDR. He told how they added sensors and electronics in the late 80s until the electronics failed as often as it helped, so humans remained indispensable -- if only to tell false positives from actual defects. There seemed a clear point of marginal utility in automation.
acchow 12y ago
> "Additionally, hoses burst, o-rings leak, filters need changing, etc. We don't have machines today that can fix those problems on the fly." Lots of these things could be happening on airplanes but generally don't. Why can't we get airplane-level reliability on ships?
- fancyketchup 12y ago
  Probably because we aren't willing to pay airplane prices and do maintenance on airplane schedules. I suspect that a container ship usually takes longer to travel between two ports of call than an airplane is legally allowed to go between inspections.
- 12y ago