Posted on 09/11/2014 6:19:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Researchers based in Norway believe that in around 10 years time cargo ships will have the technology to sail the seas without the need of a captain or crew.
Marintek, part of the SINTEF group based in Norway, is one of a number of partners working on developing systems which can operate without the need for humans. The "Seatonomy" project is looking to have ships sailing without human crews in the next 10 to 20 years.
The 12 million kroner ($1.9 million) research investment by SINTEF could actually improve ship safety as human error causes more than 75 percent of today’s vessel accidents.
Researcher Ørnulf Rødseth said on ScienceNordic.com: “There aren’t many willing to believe it, but if the project partners succeed in overcoming the challenges we are currently working with, vessels such as this will in fact be safer than many of those on the high seas today.”
The team are looking at integrating satellite communications and anti-collision technology to create ships that sail themselves. The major focus is on creating a system that is safe enough to satisfy the industry.
"There is a lot of talk about the costs issue, as well as the concerns of shipowners and the general public. We mustn’t forget that current rules and legislation all assume that there are people on board”, Rødseth said.
He added: “Safety is key across all these fields, and the systems developed must be cost-effective. We’re talking about vessels moving slowly across the open ocean meeting very little in the way of traffic. Radar will keep an eye on everything going on."
Skipperless ships may also help the shipping industry become more sustainable as the supply of willing on-board workers decreases, but the volume of goods being transported rises.
Unmanned vessels can also save on fuel consumption and reduce harmul emissions as their speeds can be reduced. Fuel is the single highest operational cost in the merchant shipping industry.
It is hoped any autonomous technology for sea-vessels could benefit the merchant, aquaculture, the offshore wind and subsea exploration industries.
There are more than a hundred thousand merchant ships in operation around the world.
I am very familiar with the size of merchant ships.
Where you see conspiracy, I see progress.
Increasing the efficiency of the shipping industry will save billions of dollars and that mean cheaper products and less energy costs.
It’s call progress.
I live next to the city that used to make most of the buggy whips in the nation. That city never really recovered after the introduction of the automobile.
This is coming. And those engineers spend as much time hacking themselves as anyone else.
Where you might ask what I know about maritime, I would ask what you know about process and product engineering?
I don't see conspiracy. I see the enormous potential for conspiracy denied by technology fanboys who ignore political realities. And their defense is as crude as possible - trust your Betters. And who are our Betters? Why, certified Betters, of course. Betters with pieces of paper that say, for example, "maritime." After all, vaguery is good enough for Betters. As opposed to Challengers, who need pieces of paper that are far more specific, like a certain level of... whatever... in "process and product engineering." And what level is required? LOL, whatever level you don't have, replies the Better.
What a tired, very old game. Seems the Brit Betters didn't think much of the American Challengers, either. Their pieces of paper weren't nearly good enough for them to be asking all their questions. Damned rabble. Because in addition to specific ability, pieces of paper also certify morality. So really, where was the problem, right?
And let's see - buggy whips is your example? LOL, really? Buggy whips? Is that, like, your response to the fact of, for example, the Pinto debacle? So questioning the safety of the remote control of megaton LPG carriers across oceans is being a Luddite? Your reply drips with arrogance and contempt. And you merely claim "this is coming." In other words, people with power will force it. What a surprise. Beats having to justify anything. Especially when you can just - as I pointed out - write off any catastrophes against the increased profits from firing virtually the entire merchant marine seaman industry.
Don't get me wrong, I think it will be forced down the world's throat as soon as possible, without anywhere near enough safety procedures installed and at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs. Ready or not it will happen, human life be damned. History proves you right. Congratulations.
Technology fanboys?
Is this the same country that put a man on the moon? You are so afraid of he boogey man that you are paralyzed. If your concern is someone taking over an LNG tanker...then don’t put them on LNG tankers. There are lots of other ships out there.
Yes I used buggy whips. Do you have any idea how much money came into the town that made buggy whips? Lots of companies made horse carriages. About two made buggy whips. The company failed to see the future. They failed to change. Now there are big empty holes where there used to be thriving towns.
And you use the Pinto? What a stupid example. You don’t think the car industry safety record is slightly better now than when that mess happened. And out of millions of cars—the failure rate was tiny.
You fear progress beyond what your frightened mind can conceive. It’s ok. The graveyards are full of people who feared the dark. The monuments are lit in homage to those who did not.
You're right, the graveyards are indeed full of the bodies of those who feared illuminated progressives, and those exalted... creatures... have indeed built monuments to themselves.
You realize your statement asserts that very dynamic don't you? That my "fear" is "okay" as long as I'm dead?
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
LOL!
It’s really hard to hijack a ship that has no onboard controls.
Why not, I thought they were safe. Right?
And you use the Pinto? What a stupid example. You don’t think the car industry safety record is slightly better now than when that mess happened.
The example was about the way executives think, genius. Not about cars. Although I would point out that a LNG tanker would make a slightly bigger explosion than a Pinto. And as for the car industry being safer, again, its not about the cars, it's about the executives. And if you think they've changed, you really are a child. Or a technology fanboy. Take your pick, though there's not much difference.
At this juncture humans are a problem NOT a solution. Most boat issues are human error, somebody steers it wrong, doesn’t close something right, gets turned into a hostage. Big cargo ships already mostly run themselves.
The motivation is people are expensive, and screw up. Plus of course they do things like smuggle goods, and otherwise put you at odds with the law.
Actually it's easier. With onboard controls, you have to run ask over the ship working control mechanisms. With an automated ship all you need is to hack past its security system, and you can command it to do anything you want with your laptop while laying in a hammock drinking pina coladas in Paraguay while connected to a satellite link.
Or while on a boat beaming control signals at the automated ship.
Or as an enemy government using your own satellite systems.
Or from a submarine.
Or from a ECM- required aircraft.
If it’s designed and executed properly hacking the controls is vastly more difficult. Done really properly basically impossible. And these will be done properly, partly because they won’t be held back by American corporate laziness.
In my company, you would have been scraped off the heel of my shoes before I went in to work.
The motivation is people are expensive, and screw up. Plus of course they do things like smuggle goods, and otherwise put you at odds with the law.
You see, right there, that's the technology fanboy fantasy - that with automated ships, humans are out of the loop.
Automated ships do NOT take humans out of the loop.
What automated ships do, is put the actual crew thousands of miles away from the actual ship.
Which means if something goes wrong - of the BILLION things that can go wrong on the ocean - you have a moving, megaton catastrophe with no one on board to avert distaster.
Only Google employees see this as "doable." Everyone else sees that the risk far outweighs any advantage. That HUMAN cost-benefit analysis is the point here. This is a no-screw-up-ever issue, and it is not reasonable to believe that is possible at this point.
You got a purty mouth.
Much of the problems these days derive from the fact that people like you were ever given commands in the first place.
Yeah, the world is full of folks like you. Sitting on the loading dock, curing all of our problems. And yet, no one seems to listen to you.
I wonder why that is?
Maybe because you are full of reasons why we can’t do something, rather than trying to working to find a way to do something.
But no...the real reason was office politics.
Enjoy your presumptions.
Why do you have to be so nasty? My tone was not condescending. But you come right out with the name calling? Why is that?
These are YOUR words as of a few minutes ago. You telling me you forgot them?!
"Wow, you are a nasty old mother aren’t ya. Next time you see a post of mine just skip it. I would prefer to have discussions. Not get yelled at by an ignorant old fool who smells of stale cigarettes, urine, and fecal matter. Isn’t it time for you to get your bag changed. I think it’s backing up into your personality. In my company, you would have been scraped off the heel of my shoes before I went in to work."
You were nasty from your first post.
Your first post you wrote as if anyone who considered this a good idea was an idiot.
Why is that?
From my first post I disagreed. That's not being nasty, it's disagreeing. Narcissists find disagreement enraging, and respond with an escalation of invective similar to what you posted when they lose control over being disagreed with. So I think that's where your perception of "nastiness" comes from.
As for why I may have sounded, as you put it, like I considered anyone who thought this a good idea was an idiot, well, that's because my actual opinion is that this idea is, in fact, idiotic.
I get that you don't like it that that is my opinion, nor that I have defended that opinion, nor that it is in disagreement with your opinion. It's quite insufferable, isn't it?
nothing fanboy about it. That is the entire goal of automated driving of all things. To get error prone, bored, distracted, drunken humanbeings out of the control loop. Because right now in every mode of transportation we use humans are the part most likely to fail.
A lot of people not only see this as doable, we understand that it is inevitable and will be happening very soon. Cadillac says they’re going to ship a self driving production car in 2016. The risks don’t outweigh the advantages. The vast majority of transit accidents that happen, whether it be boats, planes, or trains, not to mention almost every single car accident happens because of HUMAN error. Eliminate the humans, eliminate their errors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.