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."

36 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. 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 maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      Try to think of the ocean as being larger.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

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

      The war on drugs is a multifaceted failure.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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..

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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
  7. 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 :)

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

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

  9. 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 ...

  10. 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 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.
  11. Without help now by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  12. 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!
  13. 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
  14. Re:Did anyone else by MooUK · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  15. 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 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

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

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

  21. 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.