I was curious how quickly the terms VLCC and soon afterwards ULCC became part of the marine lexicon. The USCG using the term in official paperwork, to me, made it an officially designated term that should be used often at every SNAME meeting that would definitely increase your cool factor and no one would ever ask,
"Just what is a ULCC?"
To me, these two terms got to wander around with no boundaries or accountability and they did seem to have legs. I called the USCG R&D in DC. I wanted to know what the difference between a tanker a VLCC and a ULCC actually was. Talk about poor luck, the one guy that knew, was at a GPS satellite conference. I knew I was in a strong headwind. If everyone knew the definition, well there goes the cool factor.
Restricted by draft, was a term that appeared at the same time. Itâs place in the hierarchy of privilege, had to be determined. I had more faith in government in those days. Instead of giving vessels restricted by draft a black and white solution when heâs coming your way in a harbor it used a term that,
"You shall not hamper the passage of"
Thanks guys. I really wanted to know now. Time to call the deck plate coasties. Back in the days when we wrote answers to USCG questions I spent 10 days with a CWO Boatswain from Savannah who was pulling my questions from thousands of index cards in the MIO. This guy was sharp. I called him, he hadnât retired.
âVLCCs and ULCCs arenât ships. They donât act like ships, drive like ships and they are full of humans. Their dangers are singular. There are holding strength, sail face, maneuvering characteristics, etc. that work for ships that donât work for these giant barges. They arenât ships, weâre not going to kid ourselves.â
Sanko Lines was the largest container fleet in the world at that time and they were all Panamax so the sharing of terms werenât necessary. My feeling is that insuring a ULCC for a load isnât the same as insuring a container ship. Lloyds and other insurers have to have a different term to address the policy.
A town of 1000 folks in MA, a place like Port Huaneme, in CA, that has pot luck suppers planning smoking stack hits, Europe, Scandinavia, off Patagonia, anywhere where a quorum can be raised will shut down $Bs in R&D over a bean supper. My quess is Rolls Royce was in a âmake workâ grant from the government that may have changed with prime ministers. As a third beer discussion itâs as good as 100 uses for duct tape or if they only knew what nice shirts marijuana makes.
Iâm not skeptical. There is obviously a lot of effort to make it happen but I donât have to like it and certainly wonât support it. A lot of âimprovementsâ that we are told are for our own good in fact only benefit the bean counters at our expense.
Skal.
Another puff piece that omits so much information it is it impossible to evaluate. Does this effortâs definition of âautonomousâ mean:
A. Remote piloted with continuous link to shore;
B. Independent course-setting with intermittent updates from shore;
C. Or what the military calls âfire and forget?â
Each of these drives radically different ConOps (thereâs that word again :-)) with radically different approaches to nasty problems like safety and security. Just saying âdonât worry, itâs autonomousâ doesnât cut it for those of us who have been around the block more the once. Iâd also like to see the ops rules for the range safety officer at that place.
In other news, a simple LIDAR jammer can put you and your autonomous vehicle into the wall at full speed:
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;194027]In the proper sense of the word, autonomous should mean your third and maybe your second option. Otherwise itâs not autonomous itâs an ROV.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. But the previous puff piece made it look like it was an ROV with on-board augmentation (the screen shot of the collision avoidance)or a monitored âfire and forgetâ with on-shore override. In any case the necessary semantic content is largely absent. Which makes it a perfect âwave of the future,â forever in the future
I donât think anybody have said that the prototype that will start testing the systems in abt. Q1/2018 will be fully autonomous from day one. It is a process of failing and learning in a safe environment to develop something that will eventually be put to work on bigger vessels, probably initially on ferries, coasters and short sea ships around Scandinavia and eventually the North Sea, (have I said that before?) before they are put out there where there are pirates and other âbad guysâ.
I donât think the videos I have linked to is telling the whole story, or is intended to. Those are meant for general consumption, not necessarily for mariners, engineers and professional security experts.
I also donât think that the people, companies and intitutions who are working on this development are ignorant of the the potential dangers and pitfall, but if you stop searching for new solutions and better technology just because it is difficult we never get anywhere. What was is J.F.Kennedy said some 50 odd years ago?
PS> I wouldnât be surprised if this vessel is going to be involved in early tests of prototype equipment for navigation and avoidance, until the purpose built test vessel gets going: https://www.ntnu.edu/oceans/gunnerus
Oh, sure. But even when writing for a general audience you are obligated to explain the fundamentals of what youâre trying to do. They use âautonomousâ in a way that can mean anything, so it means nothing. That SUV that rolled off the back of the ferry in Australia was âautonomousâ for a short distance. And you can finesse the security issue by saying they are limited to protected waters but that doesnât say anything for the safety issue. One systems diagram, with labelled boxes and zappy lines connecting them would go a long way toward moving my bogometer needle out of the red zone.
[QUOTE=Earl Boebert;194038]Oh, sure. But even when writing for a general audience you are obligated to explain the fundamentals of what youâre trying to do. They use âautonomousâ in a way that can mean anything, so it means nothing. That SUV that rolled off the back of the ferry in Australia was âautonomousâ for a short distance. And you can finesse the security issue by saying they are limited to protected waters but that doesnât say anything for the safety issue. One systems diagram, with labelled boxes and zappy lines connecting them would go a long way toward moving my bogometer needle out of the red zone.
Cheers,
Earl[/QUOTE]
I live next door to one of the main development centers for Roll-Royce Marine, but Iâm afraid I would not be able to get detailed drawings, or even schematics for you. You and me both will just have to watch and see what comes out of this experiment.
One thing for sure, it will not affect any of us oldtimers here on the forum.
Maybe some of the young ones asking âstupid questionsâ now will one day sit in a control room somewhere watching the progress of a dozen ships around the world?
BTW Fundamentals to you may be way over the head of most in the âgeneral publicâ.
[QUOTE=ombugge;194039]I live next door to one of the main development centers for Roll-Royce Marine, but Iâm afraid I would not be able to get detailed drawings, or even schematics for you.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DeepSeaDiver;194045]What? Are you giving me a job to work on? Just a heads up. Some of this stuff takes time, so be patient.[/QUOTE]
Iâm old and cranky and I ran out of patience a long time ago.
For those who want to hear more about how Oskar Lavander of Rolls-Royce Marine is thinking, here is a longer explanation from this yearâs InnoTown Conference 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6cLN361PmM
FYI; InnoTown is an annual event here in Aalesund, Norway and doesnât cover only shipping aspects.
