Collision avoidance for sailing robot

Professional Mariner Forum
61

[QUOTE=DrSAR;153318]A quick glance in the link you provided seems to exclude explicitly:

Anything that is not remotely controlled but is fully autonomous (’[I]debris[/I]’ as classified by ccaptain) seems to the ICAO can not be integrated into non-segregated airspace.

So given the legal realities maybe I should have phrased my question:

Debris is about to be launched into the Atlantic that can (somewhat) control its course towards Ireland/UK. How would you increase its chances of survival and lessen its chances of hitting (and damaging) anything in its path? (And the answer: “don’t launch it” has been noted, thanks ccaptain)[/QUOTE]

The circular admits of several varieties of control and automated. The point was that the legal frameworks of an internationally engaged bit of ‘controlled debris’ will go down much of the same path as the ICAO work in this and other pubs of theirs. There will be an inherent responsibility on the ‘Flag’ to regulate. Clearly IMO hasn’t gone down this path nearly as far as ICAO has had to deal with. Nor has the CG for domestic work done anything like the work FAA has begun to consider on Amazon drones, pizza drones etc… I would invite you to consider the general principles involved in the basic responsibilities portions more than looking for an ‘out’ for your specific application, it was for that reason that I suggest the reference to aid you in your review.

As for other discussions concerning the floating intelligent ‘debris’ and consultations with CG or other authorities, I’d suggest the Refuse Act/RIvers and Harbors Act permitting provisions be consulted where potential obstructions to navigation may occur on domestic waters. The laws implemented in the Rivers and Harbors Act frame language specifically that where some items are not ‘positively’ authorized by law or reg, that they should fall under the relevant permitting provisions, administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The point of the legislation was to deal with debris, refuse, and anything that might get in the way.

62

Forgot to mention the technology on board the USNA’s sailbot. It uses garage door opener sensors which, when triggered, steer the boat 90 degrees to starboard for a bit of time before it resumes course. a smart idea for collision-avoidance using really inexpensive technology. It has other stuff on board as well, but that’s their primary collision-avoidance solution.

63

I just had a my best brainstorm EVER! build an autonomous vessel what looks like a great white shark…think of all the fun and laughs one could have!

64

what’s that? the Navee already has them you say? Well SUNUVABITCH to that!

[B]The Navy’s New Robot Looks and Swims Just Like a Shark[/B]

By Jordan Golson 12.16.14


The GhostSwimmer vehicle undergoes testing. Edward Guttierrez/US Navy

The American military does a lot of work in the field of biomimicry, stealing designs from nature for use in new technology. After all, if you’re going to design a robot, where better to draw inspiration than from billions of years of evolution? The latest result of these efforts is the GhostSwimmer: The Navy’s underwater drone designed to look and swim like a real fish, and a liability to spook the bejeezus out of any beach goer who’s familiar with Jaws.

The new gizmo, at five feet long and nearly 100 pounds, is about the size of an albacore tuna but looks more like a shark, at least from a distance. It’s part of an experiment to explore the possibilities of using biomimetic, unmanned, underwater vehicles, and the Navy announced it wrapped up testing of the design last week.

The robot uses its tail for propulsion and control, like a real fish. It can operate in water as shallow as 10 inches or dive down to 300 feet. It can be controlled remotely via a 500-foot tether, or swim independently, periodically returning to the surface to communicate. Complete with dorsal and pectoral fins, the robofish is stealthy too: It looks like a fish and moves like a fish, and, like other underwater vehicles, is difficult to spot even if you know to look for it.

Down the line, it could be used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions, when it’s not assigned to more mundane tasks like inspecting the hulls of friendly ships. Animal lovers will be glad to hear that the GhostSwimmer could take the jobs of the bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions the Navy currently trains to spot underwater mines and recover equipment.

The GhostSwimmer joins the ranks of animal-based awesome/creepy robots like the “Cheetah” that can run at nearly 30 mph, the Stickybot that climbs like a gecko, and the cockroach-inspired iSprawl that can cover 7.5 feet per second. And it may get a baby brother: The Department of Homeland Security has been funding development of a similar, smaller robot called the BIOSwimmer.

True to military form, there’s a whole suite of acronyms to go along with the new toy: The UUV (unmanned underwater vehicle) has been in testing at the JEBLC-FS (Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story), and was developed by the CRIC (Chief of Naval Operations Rapid Innovation Cell) project, called Silent NEMO (actually, this one doesn’t seem to stand for anything). It was developed by the Advanced Systems Group at Boston Engineering, a Navy contractor that specializes in the development of robotics, unmanned systems and something called “special tactical equipment”. The company and Navy haven’t said much about when GhostSwimmer might be deployed or how much it would cost, but next time you’re at the beach and see a fin sticking out of the water, it might be a killer shark—or it might just be a Navy robot.

EFFING NAVEE! They got all the money and they get to have all the cool toys just like the rich kids! My shark would be more awesome though because mine would have teeth!

65

Well, maybe clone CCaptain, kind of a “Mini C”… Or maybe a racon http://www.hansbuch.dk/dyn/files/basic_rightboxes/95-file1/WM-RBII%20RACON%20datasheet%20.pdf Less than a watt. Three cameras and two microphones. Pattern recognition combined with colregs algorithm, Dayshapes, ships, tugs, econstant bearing, decreasing range, pixel counting for range, vhf securitay announcement on low power with lat/Lon voice. Ardurino brain, Sleep/Search cycle set by Zone, I/e more awake near coasts, traffic lanes, etc. jeez, I gotta put a breathalyzer on this thing…

66

The IMO responded:

a) Have the organisers been in touch with IMO as the paragraph suggests? [B]No the organisers have not been in touch with IMO[/B]

b) Is it true that these 4m unmanned boats would be classed as “buoys”? [B]They cannot be classed as buoys as they are moving objects and hence COLREGS should apply[/B]

c) Is it true that COLREGs doesn’t apply to such small autonomous vessels? [B]No see above[/B]

67

Perfect!!! I thought COLREGS should apply!

68

[QUOTE=rob;154130]The IMO responded:

a) Have the organisers been in touch with IMO as the paragraph suggests? [B]No the organisers have not been in touch with IMO[/B]

b) Is it true that these 4m unmanned boats would be classed as “buoys”? [B]They cannot be classed as buoys as they are moving objects and hence COLREGS should apply[/B]

c) Is it true that COLREGs doesn’t apply to such small autonomous vessels? [B]No see above[/B][/QUOTE]

Whales are moving objects with long-range sensors, powerful propulsion means, sophisticated maneuvering capacities including diving. The can be as long as 100ft and weight up to 300 000lbs. How come IMO is not forcing them to follow COLREGS ???

69

On this quiet Sunday morning I was having another look at COLREGS as my son is studying for his boating license.

Rule 3
General definitions
. For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires:
(a). The word “vessel” includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, WIG craft and
seaplanes, [B][U]used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water[/U][/B].

Are we really talking about a “vessel”?

Is the robot used a means of transportation on water? Does it carry people or cargo ? NO

Is it capable of being used as such? It is not designed to do so.Can it carry people or cargo? I suppose it is a matter of size, but a tree trunk could too.

Do COLREGS apply? Not so sure…

70

Pesky right!!! And the FAA really needs to get around to regulating birds. How many of them do you think are currently up to date with their mechanical inspections.

71

As for rule 3. It’s transporting itself, no?

72

As per your quote of rule 3, the first line says it all. “Every description of watercraft…” that’s the end of it right there.

73

I prefer to use a very strict definition that COLREGS apply to virtually anything but a buoy. My interpretation is guided by the question: “Is this an artificial vehicle which can interact with traffic?” With that in mind, these -watercraft- certainly seem capable of transportation. They have an integral means of propulsion, they could be used to tow or to transport a parcel, they are designed specifically to undertake a long-distance voyage…

74

These things have been swimming around in PWS for a while now…

75

We are definitively on a greyish area.

To answer LI_domer: anything that floats is transporting itself even Sargasso seaweed.

To answer Tugboater203: Take a wood log; we agree it is not a watercraft. Now, put a person astride on the log using his feet as a rudder and his hands as paddles. Well then, you do have a watercraft with maneuvering capacities and used as a means of transportation on water; a “vessel” under COLREG rule 3. As a matter of fact it is probably the first vessel ever invented.

To answer Glaug-Eldare: Drones are remote-piloted; they have a permanent human interface. This is not the case with these robots that do not have any mechanical propulsion means and, act and react automatically as programmed. Take a buoy, put on top a radar reflector and an AIS transmitter; it becomes also an artificial vehicle which can interact with traffic. The only difference between a sailing robot and a buoy is a more hydrodynamic shape and the fact that is has a sail activated by sensors and computers. No wind? It becomes as dumb and reactive as a buoy.

This brings me to my last point. Many moons ago, starting my naval training, I was being quizzed by my instructor. He asked: you are navigating offshore, good weather, good visibility. On radar, you spot a ship on your port side, what do you do?

  • Well, I start plotting the ship on the radar to compute its distance, heading and speed.
  • OK, ship is at 25 miles, constant speed and heading, 15kn, right angle, collision course. What do you do?
  • Well, I continue the plot.
  • OK, ship is a large containership; it is now at 10 miles, constant speed and heading, 15kn, right angle, collision course. What do you do?
  • Well, I monitor more closely for any change in route and speed. I keep an eye lookout.
  • OK, ship is now at 5 miles, no changes, on collision course. What do you do?
  • Well, I call him on VHF to check on his intentions, I keep monitoring for any change in route and speed.
  • OK, ship does not answer VHF; it is now at 3 miles, no changes, on collision course. What do you do?
  • I continue on the VHF…
  • OK, ship does not answer VHF; it is now at 2 miles, no changes, still on collision course. What do you do?
  • I continue on the VHF, I give him five whistles; I flash the flood-light towards his bridge…
  • Ship is now at 1 mile, no changes, still on collision course. [U]When do you plan to do something about it?[/U]
  • But I am the stand-on ship; it is up to him to act…
  • [B]TO BE THE STAND-ON SHIP DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU THE RIGHT TO GET SUNK!![/B]!

What is the lesson? If you find yourself on a collision course with a floating object (other vessel, whale, floating container, wood log, buoy, sailing robot or UFO) that can compromise safety, it is up to you to take action and avoid it in the last resort, whatever COLREGS applies. Time to curse afterwards.

76

Everything you just said has a very NOT “Grey-ish” answer in the rules. Maybe you didn’t learn them very well when you were in the navy, but us Merchant Deck Officers need to learn them extremely well.

77

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;155334]Everything you just said has a very NOT “Grey-ish” answer in the rules. Maybe you didn’t learn them very well when you were in the navy, but us Merchant Deck Officers need to learn them extremely well.[/QUOTE]

The way I see it, a child’s/apprentice’s/cadet’s/midshipman’s job is to get the stupid out now so they don’t do it when it really counts. The best place to completely flunk the rules test is in the classroom, after all! :slight_smile:

78

This is true. I always wondered how hard their SWOs had to know this stuff though.

79

[QUOTE=Glaug-Eldare;153171]I’m not a deckie, but I imagine hearing somebody come on the radio is a lot more attention-grabbing in the middle of the Atlantic than at Gibraltar! If you had the power, I think it would be invaluable for vessels in the area to have a complete explanation of what the potential hazard is so they have more information about its maneuvering intentions.

I’m interested in the project and believe that in principle it’s a great exercise in programming and machine autonomy, but I do find it unacceptable to send out an unescorted vessel which is unable to maintain a lookout, unable to make bridge-to-bridge contact, unable to verify the operation of running lights, and unable to render assistance if it does cause damage or injury. One particular point that may cause confusion is that sailing vessels take precedence even over aircraft carriers, according to the COLREGS. If the programming is to be timid, conscientious mariners attempting to give way to it may wind up waiting on a drone that will wait 'til the sun burns out. If the programming is to be bold, that aircraft carrier may invoke the law of tonnage and have a picket ship end your experiment for you. I wish you luck, in any case.

Also, be aware of [I]46 U.S.C. § 2302 - Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation[/I][/QUOTE]

Extrapolating forward to commercial applications, it will be interesting to see how the underwriting industry feels about insuring cargoes aboard autonomous vessels. Is there a chance this technical hubris evokes the old engineering principle which cautions that, just because you CAN do a thing does not mean you SHOULD?

80

[QUOTE=valvanuz;155299]We are definitively on a greyish area.

To answer LI_domer: anything that floats is transporting itself even Sargasso seaweed.

To answer Tugboater203: Take a wood log; we agree it is not a watercraft. Now, put a person astride on the log using his feet as a rudder and his hands as paddles. Well then, you do have a watercraft with maneuvering capacities and used as a means of transportation on water; a “vessel” under COLREG rule 3. As a matter of fact it is probably the first vessel ever invented.

To answer Glaug-Eldare: Drones are remote-piloted; they have a permanent human interface. This is not the case with these robots that do not have any mechanical propulsion means and, act and react automatically as programmed. Take a buoy, put on top a radar reflector and an AIS transmitter; it becomes also an artificial vehicle which can interact with traffic. The only difference between a sailing robot and a buoy is a more hydrodynamic shape and the fact that is has a sail activated by sensors and computers. No wind? It becomes as dumb and reactive as a buoy.

This brings me to my last point. Many moons ago, starting my naval training, I was being quizzed by my instructor. He asked: you are navigating offshore, good weather, good visibility. On radar, you spot a ship on your port side, what do you do?

  • Well, I start plotting the ship on the radar to compute its distance, heading and speed.
  • OK, ship is at 25 miles, constant speed and heading, 15kn, right angle, collision course. What do you do?
  • Well, I continue the plot.
  • OK, ship is a large containership; it is now at 10 miles, constant speed and heading, 15kn, right angle, collision course. What do you do?
  • Well, I monitor more closely for any change in route and speed. I keep an eye lookout.
  • OK, ship is now at 5 miles, no changes, on collision course. What do you do?
  • Well, I call him on VHF to check on his intentions, I keep monitoring for any change in route and speed.
  • OK, ship does not answer VHF; it is now at 3 miles, no changes, on collision course. What do you do?
  • I continue on the VHF…
  • OK, ship does not answer VHF; it is now at 2 miles, no changes, still on collision course. What do you do?
  • I continue on the VHF, I give him five whistles; I flash the flood-light towards his bridge…
  • Ship is now at 1 mile, no changes, still on collision course. [U]When do you plan to do something about it?[/U]
  • But I am the stand-on ship; it is up to him to act…
  • [B]TO BE THE STAND-ON SHIP DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU THE RIGHT TO GET SUNK!![/B]!

What is the lesson? If you find yourself on a collision course with a floating object (other vessel, whale, floating container, wood log, buoy, sailing robot or UFO) that can compromise safety, it is up to you to take action and avoid it in the last resort, whatever COLREGS applies. Time to curse afterwards.[/QUOTE]

“The only difference between a sailing robot and a buoy is a more hydrodynamic shape and the fact that is has a sail activated by sensors and computers. No wind? It becomes as dumb and reactive as a buoy.”

But that does not describe a buoy. That describes a “sailing vessel” as defined by the COLREGS. Sails are a means of propulsion; the fact that it doesn’t work with no wind does not change that. If a sailing vessel then activates an auxiliary engine, then it ceases to be a sailing vessel under the COLREGS. But not all sailing vessels have auxiliary mechanical propulsion. Would you call HMS Victory a buoy? There are plenty of yachts on the high seas with no auxiliary mechanical propulsion; using only sculling oars for that purpose – for example, Lin & Larry Pardeys’ “Taleisin”, in which they’ve done a couple of complete circumnavigations, including one around all the great capes in the Southern Ocean.