Slashdot Mirror


The World's Biggest Undersea Robot

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to redOrbit.com, companies installing subsea cables for telecommunications companies and pipelines for the oil industry now have a new tool, the UT-1 Ultra Trencher which is the world's biggest subsea robot. This beauty weighs 60 tons (out of the water) and has a length of 7.8 meters, a width of 7.8 meters and a height of 5.6 meters. In fact, it has the dimensions of a small house but is more expensive, carrying a price tag of about £10 million. It can move at a speed of 2 to 3 knots under the sea. And it can trench pipelines with a 1-meter diameter in deep waters of up to 1,500 meters."

81 comments

  1. Sadly no, by imamac · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...it does NOT run Linux.

    1. Re:Sadly no, by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      But you can stil welcome our new giant robotic under(water)lord!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Sadly no, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha!

    3. Re:Sadly no, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but does it blend?

    4. Re:Sadly no, by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      but does it blend? Quite effectively I would imagine, much to the dismay of sea cucumbers, and other seafloor dwelling creatures.
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re:Sadly no, by socz · · Score: 1

      i am a little late but blend tec blenders will be at costco in alhambra, ca in april i believe. DO you think i can take my own samples to "will it blend?" Would be a nice segway to shredding hard drives. Maybe the white house used a blend tec blender!?!?!?

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
  2. any other featrures? by Hojima · · Score: 0

    How well can it repair pipelines? That's important as well.

    1. Re:any other featrures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's important as well.

      Not as important as how it would do in a fight against MechaGamera.

  3. Not A Robot by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Robots have at least some degree of autonomy. This is a bad-ass RC vehicle.

    Our future overlords are increasingly unimpressed with us taking their name in vain.

    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    1. Re:Not A Robot by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Funny

      Robots have at least some degree of autonomy. This is a bad-ass RC vehicle. "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't cut that undersea cable."
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:Not A Robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think along the lines of the Robotech and Macross world, you don't need autonomy to get the label 'robot'. The robots in those series were controlled by humans in their cockpits (not even remote control really).

      As for a dictionary defintion: a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, esp. one programmable. I guess by that definition, if you can program it to lay cables its a robot.

    3. Re:Not A Robot by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I prefer the term "telefactor", but yes. (And RC is shorter, so it will win out once they become common.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Not A Robot by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Isn't that 'teleffector'? Tele == remote, effector == that which does something?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  4. In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Open UT-1 Ultra Trencher project announced that it has been accepted to Google's Summer of Code. Prospective students must have access to their own UT-1 to be considered.

  5. Pics by bar-agent · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a picture on ZDNET's page.

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    1. Re:Pics by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's a picture on ZDNET's page. There's a picture on Roland's ZDNET page.

      FTFY.

      The image itself is here.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Pics by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      that's cool and all but I like Big O better lol. That's the real biggest undersea robot even if it's not actually real :P

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    3. Re:Pics by Alarindris · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, I was more interested by the picure of Roland and his bright yellow glasses. Goofy lookin dude there...

    4. Re:Pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it possible that for such a hi-tech piece of equipment on which, no doubt, scores of geeks must have laboured for months, then commissioned by more geeks, yet, there are absolutely no REAL pictures of this beast available other than rendered CAD drawings?
      Don't any of those geeks own a camera or is this thing still only a reality on the drawing board?

  6. A picture by The+Ancients · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since the linked article is a bit light on them:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=870

    Spec sheet here (PDF 917KB)

    1. Re:A picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which develops specialized remote controlled submersible robots (ROVs).

      Where the hell did that V come from?

    2. Re:A picture by njh · · Score: 1

      The four pump option delivers less output than the three pump option? Must be a typo I guess.

    3. Re:A picture by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Difference is the 3 pumps configuration being set to 1 Bar more pressure.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    4. Re:A picture by njh · · Score: 1

      I don't understand:

      Water Pumps
        4800m3/hr@7bar (4 pumps)
        6000m3/hr@8bar (3 pumps)

      4800 < 6000, 7 < 8, 4 > 3

  7. So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by toejam13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are a huge number of undersea cables and pipes that currently reside on the surface of the ocean floor. How will they be affected by this device?

    Furthermore, even if the "water knife" does not damage existing infrastructure, it will still be there when you go to run your new cable. Unless you manage to thread your cable under it somehow, there will be points where it will be exposed above the soil where it junctions with existing cable. Perhaps that's an acceptable issue today, but in a century when we have millions of miles of fiber-optics undersea, it may not.

    1. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that's an acceptable issue today, but in a century when we have millions of miles of fiber-optics undersea, it may not.

      Hopefully by then we'll have better robotics (or better manned equipment) able to deal with that problem.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Funny

      wow there might be an issue 100 years in the future, better abandon the project.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are a huge number of undersea cables and pipes that currently reside on the surface of the ocean floor. How will they be affected by this device? Remember to Dial Before You Dig, and after you dig, dial again to make sure you severed the cable.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    4. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by iamnafets · · Score: 1

      And... in a century we'll have new generations of these "water knives" that are more like "water scalpels". We don't seem to have too many problems above ground, maybe some analog of the "don't dig here" signs implemented through ultrasonic beacons or something. If the cable emitted a faint signal then it'd be fairly easy for future machines to stop when it "senses" the presence and either route around it or wait for an operator.

    5. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by argent · · Score: 1

      In a century the other cables will already have been buried by our cthonic robotic overlords.

    6. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by plover · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remember to Dial Before You Dig, and after you dig, dial again to make sure you severed the cable.

      Wow, I didn't know my phone installer posted on slashdot! Hi there, remember me? Green house, picket fence, you cut my cable the DAY OF THE SOPRANOS FINAL EPISODE!!! AAAAUUUGGGHH!!!

      --
      John
    7. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by argiedot · · Score: 1

      I'm glad the people who invented polythene bags thought that way.

    8. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great application for RFID.

    9. Re:So if undersea cables criss-cross each other... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. There already are millions of miles of undersea cables.
      2. They are mapped. example
      3. ROVs have cameras and scanning sonar so the pilot can see where he is going. They are not autonomous.
      4. Sonar and magnetometer scans of the cable run are done preburial to verify the ground.

  8. Incorrect... by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Incorrect... by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A weak, unhelpful definition in any context- I operate my computer remotely via a keyboard. If that was the only criterion, the concept of 'robot' as opposed to any 'machine', would be diluted to the point of uselessness.

      But you linked, and so are informative.

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    2. Re:Incorrect... by dwater · · Score: 4, Funny

      But you linked, and so are informative. ..and you disagreed, so you are insightful.
      --
      Max.
    3. Re:Incorrect... by mortonda · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...and you stated the obvious, so you are funny.

      (please be kind, the next step would be that this post was not funny, and therefore modded off topic.)

    4. Re:Incorrect... by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I deserved it. I've been stung by fanboy mods in the last few days, and was needlessly prissy. I laughed....

      Maybe you could get some insightfuls, and we could carry on like this forever.

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    5. Re:Incorrect... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Unbelievable. Both of those got insightful mods. What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, robots. Maybe that explains the mods.

    6. Re:Incorrect... by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
  9. dimensions of a small house... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    it has the dimensions of a small house but is more expensive, carrying a price tag of about £10 million
    Hmmm... judging by the UK housing market, it'll probably soon be cheaper to live in an undersea cable robot worth £10 million... sub-prime mortgages not withstanding...
    1. Re:dimensions of a small house... by solevita · · Score: 1

      Well, it was built in the UK.

  10. Out of water? by MasterC · · Score: 2, Informative

    This beauty weighs 60 tons (out of the water)
    Weight is the affect of gravity on a mass so it still weighs 60 tons but the water provides buoyancy so if you put it on a scale it won't read 60 tons. Granted the gravity will be different 1500 meters down but that wasn't the implication of "out of water".
    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Out of water? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      at 1500m below the pressure on it will be crushing, it would be under 100's of tons of pressure.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Out of water? by Timmmm · · Score: 0, Troll

      A ton is neither a unit of weight nor pressure.

    3. Re:Out of water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) It's spelled "effect". Why can't people figure this out?
      2) That's what weight means... The mass is the same. If there's another force in play, the weight will change. It's not hard to understand, why do you have it wrong? Why do you think orbit is called "weightless"?

    4. Re:Out of water? by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. 1 ton = 2000 lbs. Weight.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    5. Re:Out of water? by Aaron+Isotton · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we want to nitpick...a ton is *not* a unit of weight. It's a unit of mass. Mass != weight. The corresponding unit of weight is the "ton force".

    6. Re:Out of water? by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Huh. Didn't know that. Thanks.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    7. Re:Out of water? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If tons are measured in pounds, then tons are already units of force. And I've never heard of tons being measured in poundals or kilograms.

      I suspect that the term "ton" was invented before the concept of mass was invented. (People still get mass and force confused, so it can't be obvious. I wonder who holds the patent.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Out of water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, I saw that and figured the poster was an ignoramus who doesn't know the difference between mass and weight, since he gave a mass and implied it was different out of water -- send the poster back to high school...

    9. Re:Out of water? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Tons might be pounds, but 1 Tonne = 1000kg.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
      "A tonne (t) or metric ton (M/T), also referred to as a metric tonne or tonne de metrice, is a measurement of mass equal to 1,000 kilograms. It is not an SI unit but is accepted for use with the SI. The proper SI unit for a tonne would be a "megagram" (Mg, see SI prefix), but this term is rarely used in practice. Though the spelling tonne predates the introduction of the SI system in 1960 (it has been used in France for centuries, where it comes from), it is now used as the standard spelling for the metric mass measurement in English. The comparable imperial and US customary units are spelled ton in English.
      In the USA this unit was defined in 1866 as a millier or a tonneau (both French words). This measure was used in Europe centuries earlier. However, neither of these latter words are in use in the USA and though they still appear in the statute, they have been declared obsolete by NIST." ...
      "Like grams and kilograms, tonnes gave rise to a (now obsolete) force unit of the same name: 1 tonne-force = 9.80665 kilonewtons (kN), a unit also often called simply "tonne" or "metric ton" without identifying it as a unit of force. Note that it is only the tonne as a unit of mass which is accepted for use with SI; the tonne-force or metric ton-force is not acceptable for use with SI."

    10. Re:Out of water? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      It will be under more pressure than that. 1500MSW = ~150 ATM x 14.2 PSI/ATM = 2130PSI. This means that the device will operate at a pressure equivalent to the inside of an almost full LP steel* scuba tank. * Not all tanks are created equally. Generally speaking, LP Steel tanks fill to 2400 PSI, Aluminum to 3000, HP steel 4500, and some nifty carbon fiber tanks from the deep cave project go to 6000 psi. -ellie

  11. Obligatory Movie Reference by kmahan · · Score: 1

    Maybe it has a bumper sticker that says "We Stop For No One".

    --
    Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
  12. got my hopes up... by owlnation · · Score: 1

    ... for mechaGodzilla.

  13. The Abyss? by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is it just me or does that look like it came right out of the movie The Abyss? It looks like a yellow, miniature version of their habitat. I'm sure the MPAA is working on their patent lawsuit.

    1. Re:The Abyss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acually most of what you see in The Abyss are off the shelf subsea ROVs and equipment that existed before the movie. "Big Geek" is s Super Sea Rover and "Little Geek" is a Mini Rover Mark II. The layout and color scheme (yellow foam pack) are industry standards. Yellow is easy to see in water. For more fun search for ROV or DEEP DRONE in wikipedia. As a side note this monster is not a revolution in technology. It is too shallow, 1500 meters won't get you down to most subsea cables. Full ocean depth (ability to work in 98% of the worlds oceans) is more like 6000 meters.

  14. Ah ha! the culprits! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

    Remember about a month or so ago, all those undersea cables cut. Seemed far too coincidental for so many to be cut at one. Now someone unveils a machine to bury them to keep them protected! A motive me thinks, creating demand for their product?


    I'm taking my gang over there in my VW microbus right now to unmask the cable cutting ghost as old man Jones, the creepy submarine maker.

  15. Crafty excuse for the wife by DTemp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wife: Aww, you're gonna be out a couple days working again?

    You: Yep, I'll be out laying pipe.

  16. Without a photo by Adam8g · · Score: 1

    This story is worthless

    1. Re:Without a photo by dwater · · Score: 1

      This story is worthless Yeah, what *is* with that?

      ...and, no, that CG image isn't a photo.
      --
      Max.
  17. Sorry .... by pauljuno · · Score: 1

    Well, I've been waiting for it and haven't seen it yet. So I'm just gonna get it out of the way and be done with it.... I for one welcome our Underseas Robotic Overlords. Now, back to our topic! By the way, thanks to the fellow/gal who posted the link to the picture!

  18. Heh, the MPAA probably can't afford it by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    I don't know what it costs to hire this thing, but don't count on the MPAA using it anytime soon.

    Only the really big, evil, greedy types can afford this sort of thing - like oil companies and the telcos... I am sure they wouldn't spend money on expensive stuff like this just to deliver the goods people want, nah, I am sure they are more into the environmental aspects of digging up the ocean floor for fun and profit.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  19. The Terrible Secret of Oceans by plover · · Score: 2, Funny
    I was more interested in knowing if it was a pusher robot or a shover robot.

    Grandma is protected at the bottom of the ocean.

    --
    John
  20. Not so fast, A bigger robot trencher precedes this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1980 Brown & Root, Inc. built a sub sea trencher called the MUT. This ROV rode on dual tractor treads. Here is its astounding specs: length = 50ft, width 40ft, weight= 135 short tons.

  21. Send it to Europa by sanmarcos · · Score: 1

    Good, now send it to Europa where it can do some history making work.

  22. Damn all this techonology to build robots by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    ...and the first thing we decided to build was Cable Guy...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  23. Interesting, but how useful? by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Current undersea trenching is done using plows pulled by ships. I highly doubt that even this large robot is going to be able to match the power of a 60,000 ton ship pulling a plow. And considering the need to dig fairly deep below the seabed in order to protect from wayward anchors and fishing nets, I have to question the usefulness of this robot. It might be useful for smaller, brown-water cables where you need the protection but can't afford to hire a ship to plow the trench, but the big ocean-spanning cables probably won't use this robot.

    1. Re:Interesting, but how useful? by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 1

      I hate to answer my own question, but could it have to do with the physics of the situation? I'm no physicist, and I have no idea how to calculate the answer, but is it possible that this robot could have more straight-ahead force than a ship forced to tow a plow at an angle?

    2. Re:Interesting, but how useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The trencher doesn't use a plow, no. It uses a pair of jet-cutters. A jet-cutter is a large pump connected to a very small nozzle that blasts the sea floor away with high pressure water. One jet-cutter on either side of the pipe or cable and the blast of water excavates the earth in between. Subsea cables are not usually buried more than a meter deep. The reason to bury them is to keep marine life and anchors off of them. Occasionally a cable may be set deeper at a crossing point or when coming into land near a harbor but that is the exception. The advantage a ROV has is that it can make sharp turns, a plow cannot. Also ROVs can bury an installed pipe or cable where a plow would certainly damage it. You are right though 1500m is far too shallow for most oceanic cable and some rigs. I'm betting that this is meant for oil rig pipe burial as oil rigs are ussually set in relativly shallow water ( 2000m ).

    3. Re:Interesting, but how useful? by nut · · Score: 1

      Umm, yeah right. Somebody spent 10 million pounds building huge fsck-off undersea robot, but they didn't bother to do any research into whether it would work, or if there was a market for it...

      I think it's likely to be useful enough to pay for itself. Nobody puts up that kind of money without some fairly convincing evidence it will make a profit.

      --
      Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
    4. Re:Interesting, but how useful? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Yup, even the robot home base ship will be several orders of magnitude more powerful than this little robot.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    5. Re:Interesting, but how useful? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I have to question the usefulness of this robot.

      Even though you don't have any actual experience in the field. That folks with experience in the field are willing to spend 10 million pounds on the machine, plus more for a dedicated (and new build) support vessel should tell you something.
       
       

      It might be useful for smaller, brown-water cables where you need the protection but can't afford to hire a ship to plow the trench, but the big ocean-spanning cables probably won't use this robot.

      With your complete lack of knowledge in the field, you probably don't know that "brown water" and "ocean-spanning" are two ends of a spectrum - with quite a large amount of room in between them.
       
       

      Current undersea trenching is done using plows pulled by ships.

      Sure, except for all the undersea trenching that isn't done by plows - which is quite a bit of it actually. This is merely the largest such trenching ROV, not the first, not by a long shot.
  24. Not just autonomy... aesthetics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll be impressed when the robots start modifying their trenches to be more aesthetically pleasing to other robots, and then they start publishing Robot Trenching Review and Dig Your Own Trench periodicals.

  25. I can be nitpickier than you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since this is a ship, they're probably using displacement tons, which is neither mass nor force. It measures Volume of water it displaces.

    1. Re:I can be nitpickier than you by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. The datasheet says:
      Weight in air: 60t
      Submerged weight: neutral

      So what they could say is
      Mass: 60t (== 60000kg, it's a British company so those are 99.99% certain to be metric tonnes)
      Submerged weight: neutral

    2. Re:I can be nitpickier than you by JaBob · · Score: 1

      Would you rather they say 60t buoyant force when submerged in seawater? Then OMG people would actually have to gasp think of what that means. I'd bet that they list that so you know how big a damn boat you need to haul that thing out to where ever you need to use it.

  26. 60 tons of fun in the by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Deep, dark, and wet. is itt a thruster or an auger, a tapper or a slapper?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"