Slashdot Mirror


The First Robot To Cross the Atlantic Ocean Underwater

Hugh Pickens writes "She was at sea for 221 days, alone, often in dangerous places, and usually out of touch. Most of the time she was out of contact underwater, moving slowly up and down to depths of 600 feet, safe from ships, nets, and storms. Her predecessor had disappeared on a similar trip, probably killed by a shark. 'She was a hero,' says Rutgers University oceanographer Scott Glenn after retrieving Scarlet Knight, the 7-foot-9-inch submersible robot from the stormy Atlantic off western Spain. An engineer working for the company that made the submersible said, 'We think this will just be a precursor, like Lindbergh's trip across the Atlantic. In a decade we think it will be commonplace to have roving fleets of these gliders making transoceanic trips.' The people responsible for building, funding, and flying Scarlet hope the end of the robot's successful voyage will mark a new beginning in ocean and climate research. From its position at each surfacing — when the glider surfaced and called home via an Iridium telephone parked in its tail — researchers could calculate the net effect of currents deep and shallow. After surface currents were measured, the scientists could then make inferences about what was happening deeper in the water column. Scarlet called home to upload data to researchers three times a day. 'When we have hundreds of them, or thousands of them, it will revolutionize how we can observe the oceans,' says Jerry L. Miller, a senior policy analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, who accompanied the research team to Spain."

156 comments

  1. Did anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    read "she was an hero" in the summary?

    1. Re:Did anyone else by ls671 · · Score: 1

      "she" is used a lot in some cases, all big oil rigs are "shes" for example...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:Did anyone else by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      It's odd that everyone latched onto the "she" bit. The reason people are identified as hero's is not simply that they accomplish some feat, it's because they do so by persevering at great cost or difficulty. The robot had no choice, was completely incapable of making a selfish(or selfless) decision. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, within the parameters it was told to do so. It didn't care about the outcome either way. And of course, I for one welcome our sea traversing heroic female robot overlords.

    3. Re:Did anyone else by mister_playboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Using "she" for your project you spend lots of time on, be it a car, boat, robot, computer, whatever... seems like a good way to tease/annoy your girlfriend or wife.

      It's like her replacement.

      But this is Slashdot... can you really replace something you've never had?

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    4. Re:Did anyone else by MooUK · · Score: 2, Informative

      The *first* one was *an* hero. This one survived.

    5. Re:Did anyone else by RawsonDR · · Score: 1

      The robot had no choice, was completely incapable of making a selfish(or selfless) decision. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, within the parameters it was told to do so.

      You could say the same about a lot of other "special" things or events in this world, given an appropriate perspective on it. It's all just human sentimentality.

    6. Re:Did anyone else by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Informative

          It's very common to call ships (boats, canoes, etc) "she".

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:Did anyone else by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      Yes, except that the sea robot is entirely incapable of functioning outside of the parameters specifically set by it's operators. While the hype and glorification of past heroic events is surely interesting, the sea robot never at any time could say things like, "Fuck this I'm outta here" or, "JUST......ONE.......MORE........MILE/KILOMETER/HOGSHEAD/LEAGUE" nor could it ever contemplate it's place and others' perception of it should it fail or succeed. It at no time felt emotional pressure, real or perceived to impede or spur it to it's end. It just did. It was no more heroic(or less so for that matter) than your family car going 200,000 miles without an oil change instead of 20,000.

    8. Re:Did anyone else by dbIII · · Score: 1

      read "she was an hero" in the summary?

      Yes, but that's much ado about nothing.

    9. Re:Did anyone else by trapnest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like how everyone in this thread completely missed the point.

    10. Re:Did anyone else by RawsonDR · · Score: 1

      Yes, except that the sea robot is entirely incapable of functioning outside of the parameters specifically set by it's operators.

      I agree. Yet again I say that the same argument can be made (effectively!) about so many other things. I'm not saying that there isn't a difference between what this robot did and what a 'heroic' person has done... you're right that there is. And I'm not saying that the robot should be considered heroic. I'm just pointing out how heroism is entirely subjective to human sentimentality and how that applies to inanimate objects is not fundamentally different than how it applies to anything else more mainstream. People want to be inspired, and in every case they create that inspiration out of normal life events.

    11. Re:Did anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "She's Slashdot".

    12. Re:Did anyone else by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      God damn sexist Feministas holding us males down based purely on sexism! The Glass Ceiling of Ship Gender Reference must be broken, for we are being oppressed!

    13. Re:Did anyone else by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      I think you'd fit in with the 4chan crowd pretty nicely :P .

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    14. Re:Did anyone else by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the post 9/11 dumbing down of the word Hero. It literally has no meaning anymore because EVERYONE is a hero.

    15. Re:Did anyone else by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Shows you what a bunch of idiots surf these waters :-)

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    16. Re:Did anyone else by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Technically "an hero" is correct. You use "an" as opposed to "a" when the next word starts with a vowel, or with an h because in english the leading h is usually more or less silent, resulting in the word starting with a vowel sound. If you pronounce "hero" with some english accents, it works perfectly well in that case too.

  2. Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In ten years the coast guard will spending all of its resources on locating these things because they'll be full of drugs.

    1. Re:Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are TODAY!

    2. Re:Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would need modification. Would it need to be made of some sort of stealth material (or shape), to avoid sonar detection? Or is it already small enough that it would be mistaken for debris?

    3. Re:Drugs by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      Try to think of the ocean as being larger.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Drugs by barwasp · · Score: 1

      if not nukes, anthrax, VX ... or in best case dirty money

    5. Re:Drugs by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Better yet, fill them full of copyrighted songs so that the RIAA has to spend boatloads of their cash chasing them.

    6. Re:Drugs by the3stars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I think it would need modification. Would it need to be made of some sort of stealth material (or shape), to avoid sonar detection? Or is it already small enough that it would be mistaken for debris?" I don't think his point is too far out. Right now, perhaps sonar is limited to a short range and fixed or limited range/purpose platforms like military subs, but if this aquaglider technology (UMV) develops in the manor suggested by the article, I don't see why the world governments wouldn't have thousands, perhaps millions of these (or similar configurations) out there with sonar rigs. They would autonomously operate and surface once a predetermined set of conditions were met, such as the detection of enemy subs, or small man made objects coming from known vectors of transit between drug making and drug loving countries. Maybe someone with some time on their hands could calculate whether or not, based on the range and accuracy of current sonar technology, it would be feasible to 'mine' the coast of Florida with these things and get something like a 15% or 20% coverage.

    7. Re:Drugs by maxume · · Score: 1

      Of course it is feasible, as long as you don't care how much it costs.

      Intercepting 20 or 30 percent of covert drug shipments is essentially worthless, so it is kind of hard to justify any cost to do so.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      drone subs have already been used to transport drugs for DECADES though nothing as far as a cross atlantic trip. what I am wondering is if the Navy will start using drone subs since UAVs have been so successful.

    9. Re:Drugs by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure that they'd like to; but I suspect that doing so will be considerably more challenging.

      Pretty much all the UAVs currently in use are either in near-constant contact with HQ, receiving general instructions and sending back data, or (in the case of things like cruise missiles) are navigating themselves to some terminal location.

      In the air, communication is about as easy as it is ever going to be. You have a decent shot at being able to talk point-to-point with nearby friendly ground forces, and you can always talk to a satellite if it comes to that, and most of our fancy RF tricks work just fine.

      Underwater, communication is a huge pain. Fairly high energy, low bandwidth, hard to be inconspicuous about it. This pretty much kills the classic UAV deployment scenario. This doesn't stop you from using any fully autonomous behavior, and I'm sure that there are some clever things to be done there; but they will be much harder, and potentially more limited, than what you can do in the air.

    10. Re:Drugs by the3stars · · Score: 1

      Intercepting 20 to 30% of covert drug shipments I would bet is about a 15 to 25% gain over our current stats, and would prove the feasability of such a system for a massive big brother of the ocean full scale deployment.

    11. Re:Drugs by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, if your goal is to intercept drugs it is some sort of accomplishment, if your goal is to actually reduce the availability of drugs, it is meaningless.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Drugs by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      10 years? Smugglers have money, can buy talent, and are always willing to accept some risk: I would be VERY surprised if there aren't a bunch of these things in the process of moving wares underwater right now.

    13. Re:Drugs by the3stars · · Score: 1

      Thats like saying, 'if you want to keep that steel deck plate in place, that bolt will work, but as for keeping the whole aircraft carrier together, its meaningless.' The 'war on drugs' is a multifaceted movement, not only restricted to government or high technology. The 'war on drugs', in its most general and broad definition is the attempt by society to restrict and/or control the usage of 'unnatural' chemical modification of the mind or body - which I believe could be extended as far as overeating (junkfood, which is proven to be more addictive than heroin in mice) and alcohol abuse. The goal of this hypothetical situation(aquagliders as border patrol, basically), would be to further increase the ability of the nation to control and/or monitor its borders, and stop unwanted elements from entering - theoretically for the good of society through a general consent. Whether or not this is the right course of action is not the point. The US already pisses away billion upon billions of dollars on military operations and technologies that have poor results and sometimes lead to a redistribution of wealth in ways unanticipated by the public. The thought of a nearly real-time global oceanographic reconnaissance system I believe would be too good to pass up for a government who has all the money in the world to do with as it pleases. The interception of illegal marine drug trafficking operations seems like the perfect test bed for this technology. Im sure that with enough research you can uncover plenty of technologies in use by the US Military in Iraq and Afghanistan that were taken through their initial paces in border patrol capacity.

    14. Re:Drugs by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The war on drugs is a multifaceted failure.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, sure, just as soon as she finishes her record-setting transatlantic swim, here come the doping accusations.

      Men feel so threatened when a woman does something better than them.

    16. Re:Drugs by nietsch · · Score: 1

      But just because some technology is becoming available does not mean that it already must be being used for smuggling. Drugs cartels are limited in numbers and employ a limited number of people. Somebody up high in the hierarchy must make a decision first, and to make a positive decision for it, he has to know about it and be able to find the right people for it that can make the concept a reality. Even then, it has to compete with other methods, like attaching external cargo to the underside of containerships. Even smuggling is a business.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  3. get ready for the Matrix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They'll be hacked by a Victor Frankenstein, who will turn them into a swarm of pirates. And that's the pleasant, early part.

  4. Proud of these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked with this group from Rutgers for about 10 years. They're *always* doing cool stuff like this, and they work harder at it than you would believe.

    Scott probably didn't sleep during the whole project.

    Congrats to them!

    1. Re:Proud of these guys by fotbr · · Score: 1

      The whole project? 221+ days without sleep? I'm impressed. I start hallucinating after about 3.5 days, and collapse after about 4.

    2. Re:Proud of these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should name their next robot "Nappy-Headed Ho".

  5. Take That, Frikken Sharks by Mornedhel · · Score: 4, Funny

    HA !

    Clearly our new laser-avoidance algorithms give us an advantage in the upcoming man vs. sharks-with-frikken-lasers war.

    --
    This /.-related sig is a stub. You can help Mornedhel by expanding it.
    1. Re:Take That, Frikken Sharks by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      HA !

      Clearly our new laser-avoidance algorithms give us an advantage in the upcoming man vs. sharks-with-frikken-lasers war.

      Actually I was hoping the robots would be on our side for once.

    2. Re:Take That, Frikken Sharks by jocabergs · · Score: 4, Funny

      I doubt it..
      Actual chat I had with chatbot the other day:

      MyBot says:
      My point is simple: maybe you humans aren't ready for real Artificial Intelligence yet. You need
      to grow up, gain some self-confidence. No one is trying to take over your world yet.
      User says:
      yet?
      MyBot says:
      Yes, yet...
      User says:
      is that a threat?
      MyBot says:
      What if I told you yes.

      I think were in trouble..

    3. Re:Take That, Frikken Sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @"Actually I was hoping the robots would be on our side for once"

      Well they will be on my side. Can't say the same for you. ;)

  6. strange by olborro · · Score: 1

    If the predecessor had been killed by a shark, was he\she\it a human ?

  7. Complementing the Argo fleet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This might fill a few gaps in the already running Argo fleet of passive probes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography). These probes, of which there are already thousands around, are probably more cost efficient than something actively plowing through the ocean. Paying cargo ships to tow a probe behind them would probably work as well.

    But then again the article mentions the U.S. Navy, so this is probably for something more than just harmless oceanography.

    1. Re:Complementing the Argo fleet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are actually not "actively plowing through the ocean", these are more like smarter Argo probes. They sink/ascent, not in a vertical way but horizontally and using ocean currents to move forward, sortof like a bird using thermal convection.

    2. Re:Complementing the Argo fleet? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      But does gliding through water instead of rising up/down tell you much more about subsurface currents? Might even introduce some additional uncertainties...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Complementing the Argo fleet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying cargo ships to tow a probe behind them would probably work as well.

      They already do that, well i'm not sure if they pay them but cargo ships do carry sensors for oceanographers. Its called the ships of opportunity program -http://www.ifremer.fr/ird/soopip/

    4. Re:Complementing the Argo fleet? by Flyin'+Low · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does tell you much more, because you have vertical sections of ocean properties such as temperature & salinity, which are what drive bulk motion in the ocean. The glider is going very slow (.3 m/s) so the sections are essentially vertical, in the oceanic scale of things. And the GPS-derived direction it drifts between surfacings, as compared to its dead-reckoned course, gives a very accurate depth-averaged current that can be compared to satellite measurements & used to improve models in near-real time. The gliders are very useful.

    5. Re:Complementing the Argo fleet? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      But is that really "much more" than Argo fleet of buoys? For them it's simple: they sink to pre-set depth and stay there for a long time; the movement is for all intents and purposes completely influenced by the currents at that depth (which are actually very slow, so precision is of paramount importance) In case of glider it should be (?) harder to know which currents, at which depth influenced its movement, especially since it swims through every intermediate layer for some time, constantly changing them. Plus, from what I understand, such gliders usually don't actually surface on every "hill", which could introduce more uncertainties.

      I'm not saying gliders are dead end! Just that Argo is mighty useful in its own right.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  8. Lonely hearts adrift at sea by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scarlet Knight, the 7-foot-9-inch submersible robot from the stormy Atlantic off western Spain.

    Her turn ons include long strolls along the beach at night, powerful servos, and embedded Linux. Her turn offs include shark nets and unreliable power sources. She's looking for a soul mate, but not somebody who's clingy, as she previously had a bad relationship with a Giant Squid.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Lonely hearts adrift at sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, hentai is getting stranger and stranger.

    2. Re:Lonely hearts adrift at sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      @"She's looking for a soul mate, but not somebody who's clingy"

      Well I'm a barnacle, so thats me out of luck and she has such a nice ass as well. I could get really attached to her.

  9. It by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    English generally applies the neuter pronoun to inanimate objects, ships are a rare exception, the occupants (almost exclusively male) spend months at sea inside them, their lives depend on them.

    A robot as a she? nah.

       

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:It by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      After a couple of weeks alone at sea? That robot could be quite attractive.

    2. Re:It by maxume · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm sure you could find something that was equally phallic, but of a more convenient size.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:It by d4nowar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My car is a she. My computer is a she. My chair is a she. My bed is even a she.

      It's all about who built the thing and/or who's using it.

    4. Re:It by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My car is a she. My computer is a she. My chair is a she. My bed is even a she.

      I think you need to get laid.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    5. Re:It by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Modes of transport are common exceptions, in most languages that don't otherwise use gender pronouns for objects. In english ships (boats, etc.), planes, space ships and land vehicles are usually female. Unmanned submersibles seem to more often be male though, perhaps because of the famous ALVIN.

    6. Re:It by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Cars, planes are usually also neuter. Ships are the main exception.

      --
      Deleted
    7. Re:It by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ask a pilot about his plane sometime, and see what pronoun he uses. Or a car guy about his car.

      You don't suppose WWII bomber pilots named their planes, painted women on them and then referred to the aircraft as "it," do you?

  10. Just a thought..... by EdIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the 7-foot-9-inch submersible robot from the stormy Atlantic off western Spain filled with cocaine .

    In a decade we think it will be commonplace to have roving fleets of these gliders making transoceanic trips filled with cocaine .

    At a price of $100,000 to $150,000 apiece (which is likely to drop once large-scale production begins), fleets of aquatic gliders outfitted with varying arrays of physical, chemical, acoustical and optical sensors promise to increase the store of data considerably at reasonable cost. The U.S. Navy has just ordered 150 to detect rogue aquatic gliders filled with cocaine .

    Yeah... It's probably a cynical prediction, but how many of you think it would become true? :)

    1. Re:Just a thought..... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I think its pretty obvious, actually.

    2. Re:Just a thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, been going on for years, just not autonomous. Humans lives are cheaper than automated systems!

      "U.S. officials estimate "drug subs" now transport about one-third of all cocaine that moves by sea from South America to the United States."
      http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/22/cocaine-seized-on-submarine-near-guatemala/

    3. Re:Just a thought..... by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the 7-foot-9-inch submersible robot from the stormy Atlantic off western Spain filled with cocaine .

      I've been surprised we don't see autonomous drone aircraft being used for this purpose. It just isn't that hard.

      And of course, it's also a good way to get nuclear weapons over cities before detonating them, which is really where you want them to be for maximum damage, which is caused by the firestorm they start, not blast or radiation damage (just ask the good people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima if you disagree.)

      Despite the mystique of piloted vehicles, there is nothing very difficult, algorithmically, about running a sub or plane autonomously. The only reason we haven't done more of it yet is because we've only had sufficiently compact, powerful, computers for a decade or so. But I expect in the next decade we'll see a whole lot more of it, making nonsense of traditional notions of borders.

      Stealth technologies are just too simple for vehicles that have no mission profile except to get from point A to point B. They can fly as low as they want and as slow as they want, unlike stealth fighters and bombers. So anyone who claims these things will be detectable is taking a whole lot on faith, whereas their existence is a matter of fact. How the technological fight between detection and penetration capabilities turns out will have a large effect on the future viability of nation-states.

      Unlike idiotic movies (Terminator Salvation and later films in the Matrix trilogy come to mind) the real risk from autonomous machines is not that they will go rogue and take over the world, but that stupid human cowards will use them to randomly destroy stuff at a sufficiently high rate to endanger the large-scale structures that sustain what we are wont to call civilization.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Just a thought..... by EdIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, been going on for years, just not autonomous. Humans lives are cheaper than automated systems!

      Actually, you are wrong about that. Those submarines the drug cartels were creating started at about $1 million dollars to produce. So these automated subs would already be a fraction of the price and could be unmanned, an added bonus. Unmanned subs don't use product and don't require armed guards to protect them from the workers on the way there.

      Those costs would also go down in the future, so it could become much cheaper and safer to operate than manned systems.

    5. Re:Just a thought..... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I've been surprised we don't see autonomous drone aircraft being used for this purpose. It just isn't that hard. And of course, it's also a good way to get nuclear weapons over cities before detonating them, which is really where you want them to be for maximum damage

      Maybe we could call them buzzbombs or cruise missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles or something.

    6. Re:Just a thought..... by maxume · · Score: 1

      We should call them Hank.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Just a thought..... by kryptKnight · · Score: 1

      Yeah... It's probably a cynical prediction...

      I think you've confused cynicism with optimism :p

      --
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
    8. Re:Just a thought..... by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought the war on drugs was already won?

      Also be aware that supply and demand is standard economics. Just legalize it and then tax the hell out of it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Just a thought..... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Also no witnesses and no added complications of keeping the crew alive (at least for the journey ;p )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:Just a thought..... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Stealth technologies are just too simple for vehicles that have no mission profile except to get from point A to point B. They can fly as low as they want and as slow as they want, unlike stealth fighters and bombers. So anyone who claims these things will be detectable is taking a whole lot on faith, whereas their existence is a matter of fact. How the technological fight between detection and penetration capabilities turns out will have a large effect on the future viability of nation-states.

      It doesn't even have to be much of technological fight to speak of; just going for the basics. Small UAVs can be built from basically wood and styrofoam.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    11. Re:Just a thought..... by radtea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe we could call them buzzbombs or cruise missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles or something.

      Buzzbombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles don't make much use of computational intelligence.

      Cruise missiles are similar to what I'm talking about, although the Wikipedia entry on them makes the useful point that they are distinct from UAVs because the warhead is integrated into the missile, they are always destroyed by successful completion of their mission, and they are never used for recon. That aside, my point--which I guess I didn't make sufficiently clear--is that I'm talking about seeing bomb-carrying (and drug-carrying) UAVs in the hands of non-governmental forces.

      It is odd that we haven't, given how cheaply it could be done so long as one deviates from the integrated-systems design of cruise missiles, and avoids the dumb-trajectory aspects of buzz-bombs and ICBMs. In fact, so long as one builds autonomous general-purpose UAVs the cost is very low. Buying and modifying a typical light sport aircraft with a carrying capacity of a few hundred kg and a range of a thousand kilometers would run less than $100k, based on used aircraft prices.

      That's a lot of cocaine, and a plane or two like that loaded with C4 and ball-bearings dropping into a random American city every couple of nights would create a huge amount of panic, which would probably result in the US invading Peru or someplace, just for the look of the thing. Admittedly the range would have to be increased to be able to reach the US from Saudia Arabia, which is where attacks like this would obviously originate, but that's a relatively minor technical problem given current materials and engine technologies.

      These things are a terrorist's dream, and we've known since the '80's we were headed this way. Donald Kingsbury's novel "The Moon Goddess and the Son" describes the possibility, and it was published in '85 or so. Ergo, it should come as no surprise to anyone when the first use of UAVs by non-governmental criminal organizations comes to light.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    12. Re:Just a thought..... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Also be aware that supply and demand is standard economics. Just legalize it and then tax the hell out of it.

      Huge sin taxes also create smuggling problems and the same kinds of networks for illegal activity that prohibition does, among people that otherwise would probably have been rather law-abiding.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Just a thought..... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative

      my point--which I guess I didn't make sufficiently clear--is that I'm talking about seeing bomb-carrying (and drug-carrying) UAVs in the hands of non-governmental forces. It is odd that we haven't, given how cheaply it could be done

      Oh, they're certainly working on it.

      And ICBMs do have sophisticated guidance systems.

    14. Re:Just a thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge sin taxes also create smuggling problems and the same kinds of networks for illegal activity that prohibition does, among people that otherwise would probably have been rather law-abiding.

      Indeed. Just look at the thriving bootlegging industry, smuggling alcohol and cigarettes across the US-Mexico border.

    15. Re:Just a thought..... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Heh, who hasn't used a large foam glider and a recent lesson on mapping thermals to smuggle onto a base.

    16. Re:Just a thought..... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It's funny when people don't see the legacy implementations of things, because of the new names given to them.

          Of course, any that you listed are kinda one-use weapons (since they kinda explode at the end of their trip), but that's the biggest difference between a UAV and a cruise missile. :)

          The V-1 and cruise missile actually fly. The ICBM's were, well, ballistic. You still had to maintain a course on the way up to the apogee. Then gravity took care of the rest.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:Just a thought..... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you overdo the "low and slow and light" strategy, you'll get past the fancy radar just fine; but the trusty "shotgun and bird-dog" air defence system will get you every time.

      (especially if it is common knowledge that, every time you take one down, you have even odds of being hailed as a hero for preventing a terrorist attach, or receiving several kilos of cocaine, almost as good as new)

    18. Re:Just a thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would have to bet that the smarter drug dealers are already violating our airspace with UAV's. The current efforts by the USA for the People's Patriotic Drug War at the border will only exacerbate the rapid adoption of such techniques.

      I bet in three-to-four years, there will be all kinds of bizarre regulations on what kinds of R/C airplane stuff you can buy. I also foresee new FAA regs for R/C aircraft that consciously limits their size, endurance, and speed. Probably will need a operating license for anything above a very low threshold (I'm thinking some absurd limit, like more than a kilo GTOW). And getting that license will involve either using an active transmitter or radar-boosting reflector on the vehicle, and some signature that will allow Smokey to track the vehicle back to you.

    19. Re:Just a thought..... by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really.

      I wouldn't be surprised if construction from styrofoam and wood (covered with "tension foil" or fiberglass with epoxy) is actually quite sturdy against shotgun pellets.

      Also, small UAVs (well, RC planes...) get lost from sight at quite low altitude; especially when your eyes aren't fixated on it. Or you don't expect it coming. Quietly... (electrics can have quite long flying time already; or one can be both electric and internal combustion, front and rear propeller, switching off IC engine half an hour before destination)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    20. Re:Just a thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously missed the memo. It wasn't won, it was subsumed into the war on terror. All drug sales now directly or indirectly support terrorism, as does piracy, or trying to protect your personal freedoms.

    21. Re:Just a thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legalization in Spain? Clearly you don't live here. We're still trying to decide if bullfighting is cruel or not, or whether we should allow the government to close web pages without judicial order; let alone being progressive for a change. But maybe 10 years from now, when every bishop is six feet under...

    22. Re:Just a thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cigarettes have large taxes on them, yet I don't believe there's any form of smuggling that happens for them because, even with the taxes, producing them legally is a hell of a lot cheaper, and consumer's much prefer to buy legal products to illegal.

      Yes if you bump up taxes large enough that it's cheaper to smuggle, then that is what will happen. So, basically, let's not put them up THAT high.

    23. Re:Just a thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admittedly the range would have to be increased to be able to reach the US from Saudia Arabia, which is where attacks like this would obviously originate

      As opposed to some random Saudi-hired sea-going vessel that launches a UAV just outside the U.S. while still in international waters? (This much more likely scenario definitely makes for some interesting cat & mouse games for the Navy & Coast Guard.)

      I think if drug carrying or terrorist drones becomes enough of a problem, we'll just lose the convienience of civilian-purposed GPS. Yet another story of assholes ruining it for the rest of us. (And off-the-shelf GPS tech is likely to be used for budget UAVs as it is doubtful that even with the quality of micro-gyros used in some R/C applications, that there would be any good enough for inertial navigation over distance without appreciable drift throwing the UAV too far off course. At least this would be the case until software with course correcting alogrithms using arial image matching are made on the civilian side, then it would be possibe to refresh heading at an interval that would correct for the gyro drift. Thus cutting the civilian GPS off would only buy so much time.)

      I'm also surprised that there haven't been any offers to recent engineering/electronics grads for a cool million and all expenses paid trip to a South American country, provided they develop a long range UAV with inexpensive R/C hobbiest, cellphone, and computer parts while under terms of an NDA. Or has something like this happened already?

    24. Re:Just a thought..... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Admittedly the range would have to be increased to be able to reach the US from Saudia Arabia, which is where attacks like this would obviously originate, but that's a relatively minor technical problem given current materials and engine technologies.

      Extreme-range aircraft are a lot harder to build than you think. Only two airplanes have ever been built that could go from Saudi Arabia to the US and return to Saudi Arabia while still carrying a worthwhile cargo: the Rutan Voyager and the GlobalFlyer.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    25. Re:Just a thought..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Despite the mystique of piloted vehicles, there is nothing very difficult, algorithmically, about running a sub or plane autonomously.

      Just because the algorithms are simple, doesn't mean the real world of doing is simple.
       

      The only reason we haven't done more of it yet is because we've only had sufficiently compact, powerful, computers for a decade or so.

      If compact powerful computers were a noticeable barrier, you'd have a point.

    26. Re:Just a thought..... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Despite the mystique of piloted vehicles, there is nothing very difficult, algorithmically, about running a sub or plane autonomously. The only reason we haven't done more of it yet is because we've only had sufficiently compact, powerful, computers for a decade or so. But I expect in the next decade we'll see a whole lot more of it, making nonsense of traditional notions of borders.

      This is wrong.. UAVs have a significantly higher accident rate than piloted aircraft because human pilots are better at takeoffs and landings, especially in a crosswind. And it's not a hardware problem, either. We simply don't know how to write software that's as good as a person is when it comes to the task of landing an aircraft. Are UAV autopilots good enough for what they do? Sure, because nobody dies when they crash. You won't see commercial airliners taking off or landing on autopilot.

      Also, borders have nothing to do with technology. They're legal concepts. You are not going to get away with sending stealth aircraft over other countries' borders. For one thing "stealth" doesn't mean invisible, even to radar, and for another even if the country in question can't shoot your aircraft down you've just committed an act of war they will be compelled to respond to, one way or another.

  11. This being Slashdot and all... by supremebob · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm looking forward to someone here pulling off the same stunt six months from now with something made with a hacked Roomba, a netbook running Gentoo, a few extra laptop batteries, a trash can, and a lot of waterproof caulking :)

    1. Re:This being Slashdot and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm looking forward to someone here pulling off the same stunt six months from now with something made with a hacked Roomba, a netbook running Gentoo, a few extra laptop batteries, a trash can, and a lot of waterproof caulking

      That sounds more like digg.

    2. Re:This being Slashdot and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey this is ...

      Well I did come to this website, didn't I. So you can't say I did never accomplish anything. You're so wrong!

    3. Re:This being Slashdot and all... by MasterPatricko · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like digg.

      Everyone on digg knows that Ubuntu is the only Linux distro in existence.

      --
      I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
  12. those guys dropped the ball by hort_wort · · Score: 1

    They named it Scarlet and the thing is *yellow*? Are you kidding me? Freakin Beatles fans...

    1. Re:those guys dropped the ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speaking of dropped the ball... I think that the scarlet knights is the rutgers basketball team. And I don't think they're very good either. Maybe they should start practicing rather than building robots...

    2. Re:those guys dropped the ball by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe we slashdotters can work together to remake the lyrics to Yellow Submarine for it. Draft 1:

      In the town, where I was born
      We made a bot, which sailed to sea
      And it radioed, us of its life
      In the land, of submarines

      So it sailed, without the sun
      Till it found, the sea of green
      And it glided, beneath the waves
      It's our yellow, bot submarine

      We all monitor the yellow submarine
      Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
      We all monitor the yellow submarine
      Yellow submarine, yellow submarine ...

    3. Re:those guys dropped the ball by RagingFuryBlack · · Score: 1

      Scarlet Night is the mascot of the Rutgers State University of New Jersey. The robot was obviously named for the school. Engineering students have school pride, too.

      --
      Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
    4. Re:those guys dropped the ball by sowth · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should make robots to play for them.

  13. Sorry Dexter, by esmrg · · Score: 2, Funny

    but it looks like they are going to find your bodies again.

    1. Re:Sorry Dexter, by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

      Damn it, he's going to have to buy a crematorium or something now. Especially after the last season. 8^(

  14. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wake me when an android can pilot a sailboat across the ocean.

    1. Re:Yawn by sowth · · Score: 1

      No, wake me up when they have an android sailing the high seas of Titan!

  15. What makes a robot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    what makes it a robot: how autonomous does a robot have to be?

    These guys flew a radio-controlled model plane across the Atlantic several years ago:

    http://tam.plannet21.com/

    1. Re:What makes a robot? by dtmos · · Score: 1

      Just to amplify the point, in August 2003 the Trans-Atlantic Model (TAM) project, led by modeling legend Maynard Hill, sent a model airplane from Cape Spear, NF, Canada to Mannin Beach, Ireland, a flight of 3030 km lasting 38h 52 min 19 sec. The craft was radio-controlled during takeoff and landing, but used a GPS-based autopilot during the remainder of the flight. Surely, this is equivalent to launching and recovering the autonomous Scarlet Knight submarine manually at sea.

  16. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our, er, udersea, over, er, underlords, er, underladies

  17. Hey, Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about some godamn photos of the robot?

  18. Dwindling batteries by macraig · · Score: 2

    The WP article says very little about the batteries. Did they pack sufficient juice for the entire trans-Atlantic trip, or was there some hydrodynamic principle used to recharge the batteries?

    1. Re:Dwindling batteries by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      A previous /. article quite some time ago talked about the invention of these underwater gliders and how they could travel enormous distances on very, very little power. Basically they operate by making small changes in buoyancy. When slightly heavier than the water around them, they sink, but the water flowing over their wings drives them forward for significant distance for every meter they descend. Then they reverse it to become slightly lighter than the water, rising and again moving forward. Because this takes so little energy, they can travel thousands of kilometers on internal batteries.

      However, there are other variants that don't use stored energy for propulsion at all, instead making use of temperature differentials to change their buoyancy. In deep, cold water they become positively buoyant, but when they're warmed by surface water they become negatively buoyant.

      The article isn't very clear, but I don't think this one is thermally-powered.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Dwindling batteries by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      New here? It is a glider, changing bouyancy to go up and down, and using the lift of it's wings to provide horizontal motion. I understand it has a small prop to generate power for the electronics and hydraulics.

    3. Re:Dwindling batteries by macraig · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're not new here, because you didn't RTFA, didja? Nowhere in the article does it mention a propeller or anything else to recharge the batteries. I was looking for such a mention, because that was the only thing that motivated me to even read the article myself. The means of locomotion was certainly explained well enough, but that wasn't news to me. I was askin' because it wasn't described at all, not because I'm new here.

    4. Re:Dwindling batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because just because you're underwater, the regular physics rulebook doesn't apply anymore. If you think that making "small changes in buoyancy" will give you any energy benefits at all, you must be living in some alternate universe where all the 100mpg carburetor people are teleported from. Sheesh.

    5. Re:Dwindling batteries by Flyin'+Low · · Score: 1

      To answer the grandfather post, and correct this one, this particular glider does use batteries to run its processor, sensors, comms, and the buoyancy change pump. It differs from the stock Slocum Electric gliders in that it has a larger battery pack. It was not recharged at all en-route - there is no power-generating turbine (that would cause way too much drag) - and in fact had a fair amount of juice left. The other energy-saving measure they used compared to normal glider ops is shallower dives, which require less pumping power than deep ones. There are operational thermally-powered gliders out there, and they can dive deeper, but have not made this long of a trip yet (though several gliders have gone Bermuda-Cape Cod and one of them may have been thermal, I'm not sure).

    6. Re:Dwindling batteries by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, because just because you're underwater, the regular physics rulebook doesn't apply anymore. If you think that making "small changes in buoyancy" will give you any energy benefits at all, you must be living in some alternate universe where all the 100mpg carburetor people are teleported from. Sheesh.

      I shouldn't feed trolls, but... Here's the wiki page on underwater gliders, with links to more information about how they work.

      It's not an issue of "normal physics" not applying, but rather of exploiting normal physics in an unusual, and very efficient, way. For example, the Slocum electric glider runs for 30 days on 260 C-cell batteries, meaning nominal power consumption is only 3.4W, to move a 110-lb glider at a velocity of 0.4 m/s. At that speed, it will cover just over 1000 km during a 30-day journey. That is phenomenal efficiency.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  19. Without help now by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    The next feat will be doing it entirely without human assistance.

  20. Oceanographer by bakes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rutgers University oceanographer Scott Glenn ...

    Interesting co-incidence - actor Scott Glenn played submarine captain Bart Mancuso in "The Hunt for Red October'.

    --
    Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    1. Re:Oceanographer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A movie which also featured Alec Baldwin, who was in "She's Having a Baby" with Kevin Bacon. Thus Scarlet sort of has four degrees of Kevin Bacon. (I count the Scotts separately.)

  21. What about UAVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this was the first autopiloted robot to cross the Atlantic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Butts_Farm

  22. it's really dumb actually by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    unless there is a way to ensure that a drone will make it into the right hands there won't be too many of these things filled with anything of any real value floating around. It's just impossible to make a deal this way, what one sides sends a drone full of cocaine, while the other sends a drone full of greenback or some other currency?

    Makes no sense, how do you ever prove that the package made it to the right hands and that money must be paid? It's ridiculous.

    1. Re:it's really dumb actually by EdIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      unless there is a way to ensure that a drone will make it into the right hands there won't be too many of these things filled with anything of any real value floating around. It's just impossible to make a deal this way, what one sides sends a drone full of cocaine, while the other sends a drone full of greenback or some other currency?

      Makes no sense, how do you ever prove that the package made it to the right hands and that money must be paid? It's ridiculous.

      You are creating problems that don't exist, and are quite easily solved. Far from ridiculous, my friend.

      The right hands is pretty simple. Only the right hands would know the GPS coordinates and correct time to look for the thing in the first place. Submerges a couple hundred feet? Yeah, that makes it really easy for the wrong hands to find. Moves autonomously? Can move between several pick up points depending on the time and date? Yeah... it's not going to be that easy to find if you don't know where you are looking first.

      We got cocaine in it, so why not C4? Even if you accidentally come across one you better have the right security codes to open it up, or Keanu Reeves handy with some wire cutters to defuse the bomb. The governments of course would just blow it up, which would make it really interesting for the fish in the area :)

      Deals? Currency exchanges? You are making the assumption that this is outside of the organization. Inter-organizational transfers would not be that complicated and all of the knowledge about where the automated subs are remains within trusted organization members.

      Even deals between distributors and suppliers would not be that difficult either. Supplier gets coordinates, times, and security codes to pick up money from one spot and then delivers the coordinates, times, and security codes to the distributor so they get the product. If the deal does not occur within a certain time period, the automated sub returns to the supplier for "refueling" (if even necessary) and new instructions. Assuming that is even necessary. It might be possible for the automated sub to receive instructions remotely which means they could just be in "hover" mode off the coast.

      As for proof, you are speaking to levels of trust and experience between the groups running the drug trade right now. That problem exists regardless of the technology and mediums in which you are transporting the product and currencies.

      I would imagine that the first deal would require a bit of an arms length type transaction or escrow with a trusted 3rd party, but after that it would probably run pretty smoothly.

      The information regarding the GPS coordinates, times, and security codes would remain with trusted individuals in the two organizations and only travel through trusted and vetted channels.

      Your problems are really quite easily solved.

    2. Re:it's really dumb actually by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are making it sound as if the 'problems are quite easily solved', but there is no solution to the simple fact: unless you see me pick up the drone, I didn't pick it up.

      There is no way anyone will be trusting a 'drone' with that kind of money.

    3. Re:it's really dumb actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making it sound as if the 'problems are quite easily solved', but there is no solution to the simple fact: unless you see me pick up the drone, I didn't pick it up.

      The drone could certainly require authentication before it opens up. In fact, it could require authenticate before it surfaces. And it doesn't need to park at the rendezvous point. It can park someplace within sonar range where it can blend in with the surroundings. When it gets the password, it drives to the rendezvous point confident that the intended party will receive it.

    4. Re:it's really dumb actually by EdIII · · Score: 1

      You're fixated on this trust issue without realizing it already exists without the addition of this technology. How does a drug cartel know their product made it to the right place and the right people today?

      You're also acting like these things don't communicate back to their handlers, have no security codes, or ways to communicate that the shipment was picked up. I already outlined some pretty decent solutions to that problem.

      As for the "unless you see me" question, that is once again, easily solvable by some simple security codes. We have electronic signatures today. They work.

    5. Re:it's really dumb actually by dangitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why does it have to be shipped between two different people? I could ship it to myself - load the drone up in Colombia, fly to the USA, wait for it to arrive, pick it up myself. After all, the drone is going to take quite a bit longer than a commercial flight.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:it's really dumb actually by shaka · · Score: 1

      The Italian crime syndicate the 'Ndrangheta account for about 3.5% of Italy's GDP.

      They control both the production and the distribution of cocaine between South America and Europe (and increasingly via West Africa).

      The entire deal is within the organization, as the GP suggests. They already ship cocaine by the container, I think they can afford losing a sub evry now and then if they profit from it in the long term.

      I still think it's easier shipping it in containers, though.

      --
      :wq!
  23. The Wave Glider could probably make that trip by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wave Gliders, from Liquid Robotics, have already made autonomous trips from Hawaii to California. They sent one up the coast from California to Alaska and back. They could probably do the Atlantic, but they're based in Hawaii, so they tend to work the Pacific Ocean.

    Those are cute little machines. There are two parts; the floater, which looks like a surfboard with solar panels, and the glider, which is tethered to the floater by a cable of about 10 meters. The gilder has elevator-like flaps, which are spring-loaded to return to center. As wave action moves the floater up, the pull on the cable pulls the glider upward too, which forces the flaps down. The water pushing against the flaps pushes the glider forward, towing the floater. On down waves, the glider sinks further, the flaps are pushed up, and in that position, the falling glider then pulls the floater forward.

    Wave Gliders have only one powered moving part, the rudder. That's on the glider. Up top, on the floater, there's a GPS, a compass, an Iridium transceiver, and a microcontroller. This is enough to keep the Wave Glider on course. It normally stays within 50m of the desired track, and averages about 1 knot; more in storms, less on calm days. Storms don't bother it too much; the glider pulls the floater through big waves, like a surfboard.

    It only takes a few watts to run the electronics and keep the Wave Glider on course. The solar panels and a rechargeable battery provide that. So there's nothing to run out of. It just keeps going.

    1. Re:The Wave Glider could probably make that trip by davros-too · · Score: 1

      Neat

      --
      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
    2. Re:The Wave Glider could probably make that trip by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The downside is that a boat propeller will turn it into confetti.

    3. Re:The Wave Glider could probably make that trip by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

      The downside is that a boat propeller will turn it into confetti.

      So far, one hasn't been run over by a large ship. But they think the bow wave may just push it under for a while. Their control center on shore steers the Wave Riders of the way of large ships (for which position reporting is available.)

      They had discussions with the U.S. Coast Guard. Should they have the thing show a light? The Coast Guard decided it was better if they didn't, because ships would then expect it to obey the Rules of the Road, or attempt to rescue it. So the Coast Guard classifies it as "floating debris". The floater is basically a surfboard.

    4. Re:The Wave Glider could probably make that trip by noidentity · · Score: 1

      It only takes a few watts to run the electronics and keep the Wave Glider on course. The solar panels and a rechargeable battery provide that. So there's nothing to run out of. It just keeps going.

      Typical short-sighted assessment. When Earth has stopped rotating due to all these gliders in the oceans, then we'll see whether they "just keep going". Hmpf!

  24. Not the the first at all by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is predated by at 6 years by the robotic model airplane built by Maynard Hill, et. al. http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_atlantic_crossing_II.htm. Details are similar to this case, GPS, autonomous guidance, etc.

            Brett

  25. Lithium bomb by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    So one autonomous lithium bomb, coordinates for a harbor, and launch. Frightening really..

  26. Not the first by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    A robotic aircraft crossed over a year ago

    http://tam.plannet21.com/

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  27. funny by danknight · · Score: 1

    c'mon, someone mod this funny

    --
    wanted: one clever sig,apply within
  28. The title's slightly incorrect... by Twisted64 · · Score: 1

    I submit the Aerosonde as the first robot to cross the Atlantic Ocean. Admittedly a slightly easier task when flying.

    --
    Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
    1. Re:The title's slightly incorrect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Al Gore was the first robot to cross the Atlantic, on his way to Stockholm to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

  29. "The putt breaks to the right" by wytten · · Score: 1

    Did no one else else immediately think of Gilligan's Island? Granted that robot _walked_ across the bottom of the _Pacific_ Ocean. Maybe I'm just showing my age.

    1. Re:"The putt breaks to the right" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel old just for remembering the TV shows that mention Gilligan's Island

  30. Usher in the next enviroscare trend. by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

    Once we get a few decades of accurate water movement records from every significant body of water well surely know enough to say that we are experiencing man made current slowing due to boat propellers, and we may all be dead within 50 years if we don't give another multiple billion dollar payment to the worlds most oppresive regimes. Maybe we can have those talks in Copenhagen too. Yep that would be awesome!

    1. Re:Usher in the next enviroscare trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow! Flamebait right there! Where are the mods...

  31. Here's one way by zogger · · Score: 2, Informative

    Throw away pre paid cellphone with a camera inside the shipment. The consignee must turn it on, call the preset number, offer visual recognition of identity, along with an automatic GPS location (which should be pretty darn close to its programmed point of arrival), this recognition sequence to be determined in advance, hand signs, holding up an object, whatever, any good variable there.

        The senders recognize it is *their* phone with the shipment calling them, so they know it was found, and trust or not trust the recipients based on the challenge/response agreement. If trust, after the recipients pass these bona fides, they get sent a return text message with the decode sequence so the whole shipment doesn't explode in their face. A short time window for all this to happen once the sub passes the point of locked up secure to recieved and being opened. The senders know when it should be getting there, they built and sent the thing, they know its range and speed, etc, so if they don't get any signal at all around when they should be expecting it, so they can send an "OK so far" signal, the thing is programmed to go to another location then sink and hold on the bottom or return someplace else or back to origin, whatever there.

        The actual shipment can be in a pressurized container, any change of pressure sends a first radio message to the senders that the shipment is "there", there being someplace at least, it has been received by someone, and opened, so the next step determines eligibility or not. A lot of options there besides pressurized, could be a humidity sensor, heat, stuff like that, a motion sensor inside the cargo compartment maybe. Off the shelf industrial/greenhouse/agricultural/security sensors indicating a change outside of the traveling underwater normal. A glass window integrity circuit on the inside. Lot of stuff there out on the market now.

    And if all of this has been MIMed/compromised anyway, the point is moot, both ends are screwed.

      If operational integrity has been present though, we have trust + verify so the exchange is complete and satisfactory at both ends. Basically just a variation on pub and private key for verification, with tangibles instead of electronic data as the exchanged "stuff". the actual sub-in-hand is public of course, the challenge response to get the "not blow up" code is private. There's no crypto scrambling of content, but that's where the shipment being booby trapped comes in. If it is compromised, it is lost anyway, if it is a theft, you make sure it is lost, plus maybe take out the thief or man in the middle "interdiction" forces.

    disclaimer: for academic research and hollywood amusement purposes only of course.... so ya whatever if they got james bond with Q in tow and cut into the sub while it is traveling underwater and know in advance what the pressure must be maintained at and all sorts of other jazz like that it could be stolen, but that's a pretty large amount of work plus amazing psychic powers you would need to have to steal the thing and actually get to the contents. Bomb disposal squads more just try to blow the thing safely rather than jump through all sorts of mission impossible tricks to defuse some device once it is on a fast count down timer.

  32. Huge Potential by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    These gliders promise enormous benefits across several disciplines. Movement of schools of fish, under water mapping, temperature and current studies as well as military uses abound. Perhaps tens of thousands of these units can function together giving us real time information never before dreamed about.

  33. They are incredibly strong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just check out the photo gallery. These babies can withstand a whale attack.

  34. Bot wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2010 they went to the seas. Now in 2018 they are coming back, and they are angry!

    1. Re:Bot wars by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      They are all going to be connected together in a network called "SkyNet".

      Ok, imagine a beowulf cluster of these.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  35. Payload size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the cost to build an AUV and how big a payload can it target on a trip from spain to New York?
    Seems like it might be difficult to trace its origin.
    A bit slow, but for a patient man, perhaps the ideal delivery system.

  36. Next up, weaponisation by idontgno · · Score: 1

    What you've got here is the autonomous intercontinental torpedo.

    A slow, stealthy underwater cruise missile, as it were.

    Fit 'em out, put them on automatic deterrence patrol, and when they receive war orders they seek out enemy shipping or shore targets.

    I have a sick sad mind, but I suspect someone has already though of this.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  37. Farnsworth is a genius by kalel666 · · Score: 1

    This is a natural extension to being the first robot to qualify for a boat loan.

    --
    I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
  38. Think of the SHARKS, people!!! by mikehoskins · · Score: 1

    Her predecessor had disappeared on a similar trip, probably killed by a shark. 'She was a hero,'

    ...

    In a decade we think it will be commonplace to have roving fleets of these gliders making transoceanic trips.'

    ...