Ro/Pax Ferries of this type/size have a tendency to operate between two (or more) points, with “own docks” at each end of the route.
That is the same no matter where in the world the ferry operates and whether by diesel or electric propulsion.
Yes Auto docking works and has been in use for some years now in Denmark, Finland, Japan, Norway and more.
Even the mooring process is automated:
Auto mooring combined with fast charging connection for ferries with electric propulsion:
OK I could have picked a different vessel (with a more pleasing colour) of similar size for comparison. Is this better?
Same way for both; by STS cranes.
At the other end of the spectrum are these USVs:
PS: I don’t see anywhere how these USVs gets to and from the survey areas. Do they sail from and return to an operating base autonomously, or are they deployed from a larger vessel at the field of operation?
I suppose if you chose your weather they could be launched from a local boat ramp from a road trailer and a “gaggle” of them could be escorted to the survey area by a locally hired launch.
I retired at a fortunate time.
Um, how do you unload that concept vessel with cranes? The only way I can see would be to first remove all that aerodynamic covering and put it somewhere while you load/unload, which seems like a lot of trouble.
The second container vessel you present would seem to be almost empty - if it were full, would the air drag be much different if you remove the house structure and replace it with a mast & platform (for cameras, radar, etc.)?
That is one way it could be done I presume. But is that how it IS done?
To launch with a heave compensated crane can be done by placing the USV on a suitable frame with lifting lugs. Using spreaders the USV can be lifted and lower into the water.
When the frame is deep enough under water the USV can sail off the frame under remote control. But is this how XOCEAN does it?
It is a typical feeder used as an illustration, since you didn’t like the earlier one.
Here is an existing autonomous ship that is sailing today:
Windage reduction is not the ONLY advantage with uncrewed vessels.
By removing crews from the ship to a remote operating center ashore you can do away with all the systems and equipment associated with upkeep and survivability of the crew on a ship today.
As seafarers this may sound as a treat to a way of life and livelihood, but so did the change from sail to steam and from steam to diesel.
Not to mention the new ship types, improved equipment and onboard automation that has reduced the crew from 40 - 50 on a cargo ship like this in the1960s:
To a crew of 20-25 on a ship like this today:
A message from those who went to sea in ships similar to the Lykes Line vessel to the box boat crew “Are we having fun yet?”
Well, Mr. Bugge, I think you have set some sort of record in utterly failing to answer some very simple questions. In your original message, you showed two pictures, comparing some sort of concept vessel with a VLCC and stating that “Just the difference in windage value would save $$MIN per year…”
I then asked if the two vessels were truly comparable in terms of cargo capacity and then asked how one would load & unload the concept vessel.
You then changed the comparison vessel from a VLCC to a smaller container vessel with a smaller load and stated that both vessels would be loaded and unloaded with STS cranes. Then I pointed out that the new vessel was lightly loaded and asked if the fully loaded windage would be significantly reduced by replacing the house with a mast and platform. I then asked the original second question again pointing out that (presuming the concept vessel was hauling containers) loading and unloading with cranes would involve removing the aerodynamic covering from the cargo area.
Instead of addressing my questions, you elected to throw in an unrelated paragraph about USV launching, then presented a large quantity of links and verbiage extolling the value of autonomous vessels and comparing crew counts between old and new.
You have consistently and persistently avoided even attempting to answer what should be legitimate questions about a statement you made, instead attempting to sidetrack the discussion with unrelated information and advertising. I recognize that you consider yourself an advocate for autonomous vessels, but simply admitting you had made an overly optimistic statement might have been more appropriate.
P.P.S … and no news yet on that XOCEAN USV collision with a crew transfer vessel (post #90)
The Letitia Lykes brings back a memory or two. I was 1st Engineer on her for a short while back in the early 80’s. Sailed on 2 of her sisters before that plus several other Lykes Brother ships. It was an end of an era to be sure.
F1 teams are going to design ships now as with simple aerodynamic changes they can make them green and save millions..
Crew on deck have to wear these hats and always look to windward
You are persistently refusing to understand the concept of “illustration”.
Hint; it’s NOT about comparing one against the other to minute details.
Um, Mr. Bugge - I think it is you who fails to understand “illustration”. In the post in question, you presented two pictures - the first some sort of concept vessel: an “artists concept”, the second an actual photograph of a VLCC, with the word “versus” between them, followed by the sentence: “Just the difference in windage factor would save $$ Mln. per year in fuel costs.”. Clearly, you wished your reader to visually compare the two vessels and understand the difference in windage would be financially significant. Whether windage is a “minute detail” or not, its the ONLY detail you were highlighting!
But the ONLY way this comparison is even remotely relevant is if the subjects of the two illustrations are otherwise equal - or at least close. My point was that those two illustrations were not even remotely equal, and when I challenged you by asking about it, you insisted on presenting other examples that were also not even remotely equal!
The final picture you presented, of an actual autonomous container vessel would be a good example, if you had paired it with a picture of a more conventional vessel with the same approximate capabilities. THAT would have been both interesting and informative!
I am not opposed to change, but I do believe that the proponents of change need to be able to answer hard questions from knowledgeable sources and to be willing to undertake realistic study to determine feasibility. Not every claimed “big leap forward” works out - some just fade away, other get implemented but never turn out to be as big a benefit as originally thought [example: rotary IC engines in cars]. While autonomous ships would seem to offer some definite advantages (in some areas), I doubt anyone thinks they are likely to become universal in the foreseeable future. I have some questions about their implications myself, but I should probably defer to those with more knowledge of the industry than I have!
The Yara Birkeland is a ship that can succeed as an autonomous vessel.
Hatchless and small enough so that tier weights are not exceeded. No lashing required,
running a short distance between company berths within relatively sheltered territorial waters and electric.
Apart from the idea of a hatchless container vessel getting pummeled by the tonnage rules the company is onto a good thing. The trouble is it is a pretty unique set of circumstances.
