Future of ships


#42

I can see them having ETO’s as well. I just don’t see how they wouldn’t be worried about cyber terrorism/hackers etc

Also, what will happen when a storm brews up, they get struck by lighting and they loose the signal?


#43

Compared to when? Thirty years ago you had men turning valves by hand. Now one guy sits at a terminal and pushes a button. Thirty years ago it took skill to cross an ocean and arrive close to your expected port. Now a guy with no training can do that to within feet with his cell phone.


#44

[QUOTE=cajaya;182235]I can see them having ETO’s as well. I just don’t see how they wouldn’t be worried about cyber terrorism/hackers etc

Also, what will happen when a storm brews up, they get struck by lighting and they loose the signal?[/QUOTE]

Airplanes are regularly hit by lighting. They don’t fall out of the sky.
Steel ships floating in water are even less likely to suffer sever damages from lighting, since they are well earthed.

If all electronics should be “fried” and even 100% redundancy of all systems does not function, all machinery goes to zero by fail safe systems. Ship is dead in the water, awaiting salvage crew to arrive.

If the ship should suffer severe weather damages and sink, the loss is limited to assets and cargo, which can be replaced and is insured.

In both cases, nobody is in danger of burning to death, drowning, or being hurt when trying to abandon ship.
No need for other people to take risks to rescue crew either.

It may be hard for Americans to believe, but there are countries where the authorities put safety and well being of crew above profitability of companies. What better way to ensure safety of crew then to have none on board?


#45

How better to protect humans, then by eliminating humans? Are you sure you’re not really HAL or SkyNet?

[ATTACH]4410[/ATTACH]


#46

Ship conveys with one “leader” that has humans lol.


#47

[QUOTE=deven;182231]Sure, they have to use 3rd party, which are way, way more expensive. I guess I could put it this way: Why aren’t all ships currently minimally manned in the Engine Room and all preventative and corrective maintenance done to them when they got to Port?[/QUOTE]

Ships have steadily become more and more dependent on shore support. Back in Captain Cook’s day ships were much more self-sufficent. Over time work once performed on ship has been shifted ashore. Ships once purchased livestock and butchered it aboard. Navigation once relied entirely on tools carried on the ship. Today cuts of meat are purchased same as at any home and navigation information is processed to the point where it can be used directly by the autopilot to follow the track.

Things like weather routeing and safety mangement systems can be thought of as shifting the brain-power ashore. No reason to think that trend won’t continue.


#48

[QUOTE=ombugge;182239]Steel ships floating in water are even less likely to suffer sever damages from lighting, since they are well earthed.[/QUOTE]

I don’t know what rock you’ve been living under but almost every time I’ve been on a ship hit by lightning we’ve lost at least one major system. It blows gyros, wind birds, depth sounders, etc. I would imagine the primary difference between ships and planes is we have giant lightning rods sticking up above all other structures with our critical sensors on the tip (and wiring all along it). If the lightning simply struck the hull (like how it runs around the fuselage of a plane) then it would likely do much less damage to equipment.


#49

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;182240]How better to protect humans, then by eliminating humans? Are you sure you’re not really HAL or SkyNet? [/QUOTE]
Isn’t that what the US Armed Forces are doing with all their drones for air, sea and land operations??

If you can keep your own soldiers out of harms way you reduce own casualties while increasing “kill rate” of enemy soldiers. Isn’t that great??

OK so the systems aren’t perfect. You may kill more innocent civilians as well, but that is sanitized by calling them “collateral damage”. Sounds better then calling them “dead women and children”. That may cause the drone operators to feel guilty, or may even develop PTSD.


#50

[QUOTE=deven;182231]Sure, they have to use 3rd party, which are way, way more expensive. I guess I could put it this way: Why aren’t all ships currently minimally manned in the Engine Room and all preventative and corrective maintenance done to them when they got to Port?[/QUOTE]

All ships are already minimally manned. Have you ever seen an owner voluntarily run more crew than required? It doesn’t happen, even in ombugge’s utopia where money matters less than crew comfort and lives. The manning certificates have been steadily degraded by pressure from owners for years such that modern crews are actually too small much of the time and fatigue is a major issue. Why wouldnt the owners get rid of the expensive engineering department, who are onboard every day being paid to go on a cruise, and simply hire some cheap shore side techs when the ships in port. (And yes, 3rd party techs are significantly cheaper. It costs a massive premium to get people to leave home for extended periods of time to work on ships.)


#51

[QUOTE=ombugge;182239]Airplanes are regularly hit by lighting. They don’t fall out of the sky.
Steel ships floating in water are even less likely to suffer sever damages from lighting, since they are well earthed.

If all electronics should be “fried” and even 100% redundancy of all systems does not function, all machinery goes to zero by fail safe systems. Ship is dead in the water, awaiting salvage crew to arrive.

If the ship should suffer severe weather damages and sink, the loss is limited to assets and cargo, which can be replaced and is insured.

In both cases, nobody is in danger of burning to death, drowning, or being hurt when trying to abandon ship.
No need for other people to take risks to rescue crew either.

It may be hard for Americans to believe, but there are countries where the authorities put safety and well being of crew above profitability of companies. What better way to ensure safety of crew then to have none on board?[/QUOTE]

That still doesn’t answer the question about cyber terrorists. I mean I know the ships are designed to be unmanned but what if hackers took control of one of them remotely caused it to run into something such as an LNG carrier? Do northern Europeans think they are above this? I mean look what just happened in Brussels, BRUSSELS, of all places. I mean what did Brussels ever do to anybody? Yes, the U.S. military has drones, but they also have cyber security professionals working around the clock. Is Rolls Royce going to have that?


#52

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;182253]I don’t know what rock you’ve been living under but almost every time I’ve been on a ship hit by lightning we’ve lost at least one major system. It blows gyros, wind birds, depth sounders, etc. I would imagine the primary difference between ships and planes is we have giant lightning rods sticking up above all other structures with our critical sensors on the tip (and wiring all along it). If the lightning simply struck the hull (like how it runs around the fuselage of a plane) then it would likely do much less damage to equipment.[/QUOTE]

You should make sure every piece of equipment is properly earthed, (and/or turn them off when there is lighting, if possible)

A j/u rig with three legs and a derrick sticking up high does attract lighting.
When loading rigs on a heavy lift vessel I always ensure that it is earthed by direct steel to steel contact to the transport vessel.

If standing on wood cribbing and that is not the case, earthing arrangements has to be made as soon as the deck is dry to protect not only electronic equipment, but the entire electric system on the rig.

Even so, I always insists on all main breakers not needed during transportation to be open, just in case.

On an autonomous vessel there have to be 100% redundancy of all essential equipment, as is already the case on DP-3 vessels today.


#53

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;182256]…modern [B]crews are actually too small[/B] much of the time and fatigue is a major issue. Why wouldnt the owners get rid of the expensive engineering department, who are onboard every day [B]being paid to go on a cruise[/B], and simply hire some cheap shore side techs when the ships in port…[/QUOTE]
I have no quarrel with your argument. But it seems to me, at least the way you have written it, that you are arguing against yourself. You say crews are too small. Then you say the engineers “are being paid to go on a cruise”. Which might indicate to the casual reader that the expensive engineers are being paid to do very little. If crews are too small wouldn’t the engineers be overworked, and not on a “cruise”? Maybe I’m reading your post incorrectly. And no, I’m not being sarcastic.


#54

[QUOTE=ombugge;182210]That may be the American reality, but not necessarily true everywhere. Crew comfort and safety has high priority already today in some countries.

[/QUOTE]

Which ones are those? I need to know so I can apply for my visa and documents.


#55

I have seldom seen any offshore vessel with only minimum safe manning when in operation. Most can be operated with 10-12 pers. according to SMC, but usually have a crew of 14-15, even for a simple PSV. (S.E.Asia. Don’t know about GOM)

The manning certificates have been steadily degraded by pressure from owners for years such that modern crews are actually too small much of the time and fatigue is a major issue.

No crew on board, no fatigue. Computers don’t need sleep, meal breaks, or to use the toilet.
The personnel manning the control center will work normal shifts and go home after work.
If the control center is in Scandinavia they would work max. 37.5 hrs/week and have 5 weeks holidays a year, which would ensure employment for a number of people, but not as many as required to crew today’s ships.
They will need to be highly qualified in their various fields of expertise.

Why wouldn’t the owners get rid of the expensive engineering department, who are onboard every day being paid to go on a cruise, and simply hire some cheap shore side techs when the ships in port. (And yes, 3rd party techs are significantly cheaper. It costs a massive premium to get people to leave home for extended periods of time to work on ships.)

Them are fight’n words here on this forum I should think.

Again, we are not talking about taking existing ships/boats, cheaply built with 1970s technology,even if built today.
Autonomous vessel must be designed, built and equipped to operate autonomously. The technology, machinery and equipment to do so already exists, but the legal aspects are not yet in place. IT WILL HAPPEN, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.


#56

[QUOTE=freighterman;182264]I have no quarrel with your argument. But it seems to me, at least the way you have written it, that you are arguing against yourself. You say crews are too small. Then you say the engineers “are being paid to go on a cruise”. Which might indicate to the casual reader that the expensive engineers are being paid to do very little. If crews are too small wouldn’t the engineers be overworked, and not on a “cruise”? Maybe I’m reading your post incorrectly. And no, I’m not being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]
I have noticed with some deckies, they seem to look at engineers like their other crewmen…like AB’s that get paid mostly for labor unless they are a watchstander. They seem not to always look at it like engineers are actually a combination of both labor workers and knowledge workers (which are two types of labor that are supposed to be managed differently) I have noticed that alot on limited tonnage vessels. Sometimes its better to have an engineer whose “going on a cruise” but will know what to do when sh*t hits the fan, than a less experienced engineer wbose really good at looking busy but wont really know much about what to do, especially if its on vessel that has techs do the work. But I can see where limited tonnage people would get that from though since apparently they haven’t been required to have licensed engineers that long.


#57

[QUOTE=freighterman;182264]I have no quarrel with your argument. But it seems to me, at least the way you have written it, that you are arguing against yourself. You say crews are too small. Then you say the engineers “are being paid to go on a cruise”. Which might indicate to the casual reader that the expensive engineers are being paid to do very little. If crews are too small wouldn’t the engineers be overworked, and not on a “cruise”? Maybe I’m reading your post incorrectly. And no, I’m not being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]

Ships are undermanned - Seafarer’s perspective (reality)

Engineers (everyone onboard really) being paid to go on a “cruise” - shipowner’s perspective (detached from reality)

[QUOTE=cajaya;182270]They seem not to always look at it like engineers are actually a combination of both labor workers and knowledge workers[/QUOTE]

The owners don’t seem to understand that engineers are anything more than an oil changing monkey. If they can get an “autonomous” ship that doesn’t legally need a crew they can simply replace the engineers with remote sensors and use shore contractors to do all the “engineering” (preventative maintenance) during port calls. Economically it makes lots of sense! Nothing can go wrong!!! (Maniacal laughter ensues.)


#58

[QUOTE=ombugge;182269]I have seldom seen any offshore vessel with only minimum safe manning when in operation. Most can be operated with 10-12 pers. according to SMC, but usually have a crew of 14-15, even for a simple PSV. (S.E.Asia. Don’t know about GOM)[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the owners don’t CHOOSE to over man their vessels, the clients require, and pay extra for, the extra crew.


#59

Our Norwegian friend is right, but again, I think for limited and coastwise service only. Beyond our lifetimes, who knows? Posted to my facebook page today from a colleague:

[video]http://oceantoday.noaa.gov/asvs/[/video]


#60

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;182273]
The owners don’t seem to understand that engineers are anything more than an oil changing monkey. If they can get an “autonomous” ship that doesn’t legally need a crew they can simply replace the [/QUOTE]

Well, thats not necessarily true about the whole lot. I do think deckies have a hard time guaging that though. Like they might or usualy do let their personal feelings get in the way, so maybe there are more oil changers than there should be.

I do think it would be most engineers’ dreams though to let them try something like that and see how horribly it fails. There’s alot of stuff behind the scenes that even oil changers do to keep thinks rolling smoothly.


#61

So, no answer on the security question yet. Have they even thought about it? As this becomes more popular or talked about or even starts…I can see it becoming a target or interest for hackers. I dont know how congested or uncongested the northern European coasts are but I mean in the right set of circumstances I can see it being a pretty bad situation. As in, rogue/hijacked automomous ship hits LNG carrier which blows up passenger ship.