Japan To Launch Self-Navigating Cargo Ships 'By 2025' (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BBC: Japanese shipping companies are working with shipbuilders to develop self-piloting cargo ships. The "smart ships" will use artificial intelligence to plot the safest, shortest, most fuel-efficient routes, and could be in service by 2025. The AI will also be used to predict malfunctions and other problems, which could help reduce the number of maritime incidents. The companies plan to build about 250 self-navigating ships. Shipping firms Mitsui OSK Lines and Nippon Yusen are working with shipbuilders including Japan Marine United to share both costs and expertise, according to the Nikkei Asian Review. The first ships will retain a small crew to oversee certain operations, but there are plans to develop completely autonomous vessels in the future.

Comments

poor Gilligan, no one to see his fire signal

[turkeydance]

now they'll NEVER get off that island

Predict Malfunctions

[Anonymous Coward]

The AI will also be used to predict malfunctions

"Just a moment... Just a moment... I've just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure within 72 hours."

Re:Predict Malfunctions

[slickwillie]

Open the pod bay doors HAR.

Re:Predict Malfunctions

[beckett]

big deal - i already know i'll be sick next friday for work.

Re:Predict Malfunctions

[Picodon]

Yeah, and I love how those futuristic designs always seem to magically solve all problems with some future key technology that is just about to be ready, so do not worry about anything, dear investors.

Well, if they have a fantastic AI that can “predict malfunctions and other problems”, why don’t they commercialise it right now, for use in crewed ships, to “help reduce the number of maritime incidents” right now? And if they don’t have it right now, why don’t they start there and wait till they have it ready, demonstrated and deployed on crewed ships, before selling us an automation pipe dream?

For crying out loud, they’re talking about autonomous airliners and ships while they’re not even yet able to track airliners that go missing over the ocean!

Re:Predict Malfunctions

[110010001000]

Because tech is always going to get better and better! I had a C64 when I was a kid, and look at computers NOW! Progress is inevitable! Tech will get better and better and...oh wait, you mean Moore's Law is dead and Intels newer processors aren't any better than their last generation? Ooops.

Re:Predict Malfunctions

[Marxist Hacker 42]

They haven't collected enough data to feed the AI yet for all potential malfunctions. And you need a beowulf cluster of raspberry pi to run it.

Pirates

[manu0601]

I wonder how AI will handle pirates. Perhaps this is the "certain operations" why they retain a minimal crew?

Re: Pirates

[backslashdot]

Less crew the worse it will be for pirates. Especially if the ship itself is armed with weapon systems that operate autonomously or semi autonomously with remote authorization. Pretty sure an armed cargo ship is no match for even a squadron of boats trying to take it over (a manned crew would perform even worse against that btw). Also, just because it is unmanned or lightly manned doesn't mean there can't be a team monitoring the ships remotely in case backup systems need to be activated.

Re:Pirates

[ShanghaiBill]

I wonder how AI will handle pirates. Perhaps this is the "certain operations" why they retain a minimal crew?

Pirates usually target the crew, and hold the crew as hostage. If there is no crew, the bridge needs no windows or ventilation, so the pirates can't take over the ship unless they bring a welding torch to cut their way in. It is hard to buy acetylene in Somalia.

Re: Pirates

[peragrin]

Per maritime law if you put one fixed mount gun of any caliber larger than x it is a naval vessel and can be I pounded and siezed by any port it enters.

Putting armed men on a ship also sets it at the same restriction.

Armed men now deboard outside of port limits. Just for that. Yes it is as annoying as it sounds. They transfer around until they return to a port where they can get out.

Re:Pirates

[blindseer]

It is hard to buy acetylene in Somalia.

Cutting torches can be found for a number of different fuels like gasoline and propane. I'd think the limiting factor would be more in the access to bottled oxygen. This isn't going to be precision work by any means so compressed air and whatever they use to fuel their boats should be sufficient.

It's been a while since I've seen anyone use a torch so I don't recall exactly what one needs to make it work. I've heard of people making "water torches" that electrolyze water and burn the resulting oxygen-hydrogen mix. I don't know if this is suitable for cutting through a steel bulkhead in any reasonable time though.

Pirates usually target the crew, and hold the crew as hostage.

You don't think the cargo has any value? Or the ship itself? I'd think just the fuel in the tanks would be a valuable target for theft, and I don't mean a tanker ship. Any ship at sea will need a lot of fuel to propel itself and that is worth money.

If they can cut through the bulkhead, disable the navigation systems, then they have all kinds of time to take what they can get. They might not be able to take the ship, or even much of the cargo, but they can strip the ship of parts, siphon off its fuel, or just make it clear it will be scuttled if ransom isn't paid.

Taking the crew hostage is likely the highest pay off for the least skill and labor in piracy. Lacking that they can still get a lot out of a ship lacking a crew. It just means they have to find someone with a cutting torch that knows how to use it. That should pay for itself on the first time out.

Re:Pirates

[ShanghaiBill]

You are dealing with a situation where people have weeks to break in

They have from the time the boarding is detected by sensors, until the closest naval patrol can reach the vessel. That may be measured in hours, or even less if they dispatch a helicopter gunship.

Stopping the boat is easy when you have explosives but moving it where they want to is hard.

When pirates seize a ship, they can reroute it because they have the crew as hostage, so the ship cannot be forcibly retaken. If there is no crew, that is not an issue. Anti-piracy patrols can respond with force, and shoot anything that moves.

Re: Pirates

[nasch]

Will there even be anything to break into?

Re:Pirates

[AHuxley]

The costs are in a caption, crew, medical, cooks, shifts of crew to look after the engine.
Replace that with a few contractors, some food, a cook, a doctor that have then report to the deck when needed?
Pirates try to approach, the private sector goes to work on the side of the ship.
Ship sails on and the cargo and contractors are safe.

Re: Pirates

[AHuxley]

So don't fix it, use contractors who bring their own security. No changes to the ship.
Pirates try to enter from the side, they are stopped, ship keeps its speed up.
No need to wait around for some navy. Use the private sector and the cargo is safe.

Re: Pirates

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Hydrogen cyanide gas injectors in the ventilation, AC going up to ~120 degrees Celsius....options abound.

Re:Pirates

[Zemran]

I think no crew or local controls. The pirates can get on board but not take control of the ship. It continues to the nearest naval ship and stops.

Re: Pirates

[Zemran]

That would be amusing for all naval ships globally when they enter port. In the real world, you can enter port, declare your arms and if you wish to dock the customs will either take control or lock your weapons. Most ships now have arms lockers for this purpose which customs can lock and you can leave from a different port where their customs can unlock your arms. If you do not have an arms locker or if it is not good enough to satisfy customs that it is secure they are likely to take your arms into their story until your leave. Fixed cannons can be a problem but this is not a new problem and one which ports all over the globe have had to deal with for hundreds of years. It is also unlikely to that this ship would actually dock in any other country. It would deliver its cargo and leave. If your ship is armed you can still enter port, not the country, refuel etc. and leave without being considered to have entered the country. I agree that this varies from country to country depending on public relations but it is normal as long as you do not try and refuel in Iran with a US flag or in the UK with a Russian flag etc.. I watch many warships enter foreign countries and it is not a problem. Many civilian ships are armed due to piracy which is not a new phenomenon. The problems with arming your ship have far more to do with buying the weapons and leaving your country than arriving in another country who will already have procedures to deal with that. When you leave your home country they will have export rules and will not like being told that you are not exporting as you are going to return. That is the problem. Many people chose to buy their weapons in a country like Iran for these reasons especially if you come from a non US country. Do not try to import Iranian weapons into your home country. It is better to just throw them in the sea when you sell your boat.

Re:Pirates

[Zemran]

I agree. When navy respond to a pirate attack the crew go to the safe room but as soon as the pirates breach the safe room the navy stops as to board the ship will result in death to hostages. If there are no crew the navy have no reason not to board and just shoot anyone on board or even do so from a distance. I would also think halon systems would be a great idea. Pirates board the ship, ship detects an emergency and activates the halon system. Unfortunately all lives lost.

Re:Pirates

[drinkypoo]

Pirates usually have shitty boats, because if they get their hands on a nice boat then it's cost-effective to wake up some military assets and go blow it up. They don't really have the equipment to steal a bunch of fuel. Having stolen a lot of anything, you become a low-moving, cargo-hauling target. This is why they focus on ransoms. They only have to nab a few people, which are relatively compact and lightweight compared to shipping containers or thousands of gallons of bunker fuel, which is worth approximately fuck-all per gallon. It's not like you can burn it in your pickup truck, unless your pickup truck came from Russia in the fifties or something.

Re: Pirates

[drinkypoo]

Will there even be anything to break into?

Yes, there will definitely still be rooms on the ship full of valuable equipment. The computers have to hang out somewhere. Although really, the bigger changes have to happen at the mechanical level. Navigation of cargo ship fleets is already centrally managed, and the ships already spend all their time moving between waypoints on autopilot. But they also regularly need maintenance while underway, and that's what's going to have to change for cargo ships to go autonomous. The ships are already managed by tugs while in ports, so they don't have anything complicated to do anyway when it comes to navigating.

Re: Pirates

[nasch]

True there will be rooms. So what will the pirates do? Usually they take hostages. That won't work. They could maybe stop the ship but then what? These ships might be almost invulnerable to unsophisticated pirates. And maybe very vulnerable to pirates who could reroute the ship.

Re: Pirates

[drinkypoo]

Basically the only thing left will be to hold the ship hostage. Threaten to sink it. But they also have to have a way to do that, and it's non-trivial. Still, where there's a will...

Re: Pirates

[nasch]

Yeah but as mentioned with no hostages it's easier for authorities to deal with the situation. My guess is the pirates will stick to the manned ships where their tactics still work.

Re: Pirates

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Who needs to break into the ship? Break into the cargo containers and steal the cargo.

Re:Pirates

[blindseer]

thousands of gallons of bunker fuel, which is worth approximately fuck-all per gallon

I see your point but I'm not convinced it's valid. Not many ships use bunker fuel any more out of concerns of safety (it can be a fire hazard since it's so thick and sticky), emissions (it contains a lot of sulfur), and economy (marine diesel is often not much more in cost but more energy dense by volume and weight). Bunker fuel is still valuable as heating and cooking fuel, or perhaps if sold as a high grade crude oil. Marine diesel can in fact be used in a pickup truck since it's not much different than "summer" diesel at a filling station, and it's also valuable as cooking and heating fuel.

Whatever you are hauling does not have to be heavy to be valuable. Sure a wad of copper wires stripped from the ship might be "heavy" in that it weighs a couple hundred pounds but it's worth a lot of money on the scrap metal market. It might not grab as high of a value as ransoming the crew but it's also much less risk since it's not likely to get Navy SEALs to shoot you in the head over it.

I'm not a thief or law enforcement so I'll admit I may in fact know nothing about piracy.

The real question

[king neckbeard]

Does it turn into a giant mecha in case of kaiju?

Re:The real question

[blindseer]

Does it turn into a giant mecha in case of kaiju?

Yes. Of course.

Things go wrong..

[toonces33]

Mechanical parts fail for one reason or another. You need engineering staff who can go in and fix things while the ship is underway. And you need crew on board to recheck the lines to make sure the loads and hatch covers remain properly secured while the ship is underway. There is a lot more to it than picking a course and steering.

Re:Things go wrong..

[blindseer]

I agree but it seems so many people fail to understand this. I've heard about passenger aircraft without crews for a long time. I know this won't happen. One reason is that as annoying as it might look to people that fly regularly those safety briefings at the beginning of the flight is important. Even if you don't care if your passengers are comfortable, or even if they survive, a 25 kg child getting tossed about in the cabin during turbulence can damage the plane. Having someone on the plane to check for seat belts and whatever is cheap insurance.

In the case of moving cargo the legal liabilities may be much lower but the cargo still has value. Letting a passenger die can get someone in prison while losing a billion dollar airplane or ship likely will not. This still has a cost to the people that own and operate this vehicles. At that price level having a trained crew of four is nothing. Put the people on an overlapping shifts of 8 or 12 hours and you can have one guy or two look out for icebergs or whatever while the other cooks the food, washes dishes, and changes light bulbs.

I've talked to people that sailed the open ocean and it can be days of boredom punctuated by seconds of excitement. Those seconds are important as those can mean loss of the ship if no one is there to do something about it. They can put in redundant systems and what not to reduce the need for crew but I find it difficult to think that we'll ever do away with the crew entirely.

Re:Things go wrong..

[R3d M3rcury]

I know this won't happen. One reason is that as annoying as it might look to people that fly regularly those safety briefings at the beginning of the flight is important. Even if you don't care if your passengers are comfortable, or even if they survive, a 25 kg child getting tossed about in the cabin during turbulence can damage the plane. Having someone on the plane to check for seat belts and whatever is cheap insurance.

I disagree.

First, you get rid of the pilots. You don't get rid of the Flight Attendants. They're the ones who check these things anyway.

Second, suppose they get rid of the pilot and cut 30% off the ticket price. They will have no problem getting people in that airplane. Airline passengers care about price and that's it. You go to cheapotickets and you sort by price. You might make some adjustments based on the time you want to depart. But if you saw American was 30% cheaper than Delta and they left at around the same time? You'd hop on American. You'd bitch and moan about the service, but you'd get on the damn airplane.

Re:Things go wrong..

[AHuxley]

That would be fixed in the design part. If a navy or shipping company has a crew to fix things along the way, a ship will be built to that standard.
Tell the designers they have to ensure port only service and they will build the new ship to a better standard.
A bit like some parts of a nuclear submarine. They last for a while without needing to be serviced by the crew.
In port contractors do all the needed repairs.

Re: Things go wrong..

[nasch]

Well these companies that do ocean shipping as their business seem to disagree with you. It seems unlikely they haven't thought of the issues you mention.

Re:Things go wrong..

[toonces33]

Redundancy has a cost as well, and time and again we have seen instances where companies want to cut back on redundancy to save money. Or you might have a situation where as designed there is sufficient redundancy, but wear and corrosion over the years weakens things to the point where the redundancy is gradually lost. I wouldn't say that the crew sits around doing nothing much of the time. There are various maintenance tasks (repairing a spare pump or some such) that engineering can take care of. And time spent in port is time spent not making money - typically they want to load/unload as fast as possible to get underway on the next voyage, and that's why they typically try and perform as much maintenance as they can while they are underway.

Re:Things go wrong..

[toonces33]

Your 30% figure is purely speculative, and the real cost difference is probably far less than this. The major costs for airlines is typically fuel, but they also have to pay for the aircraft lease and all of the ground crew that might load/unload an aircraft. These days many of the pilots aren't the highly paid union jobs that were common years ago. These days you get young people who work long hours and don't get paid all that much. Before you can get rid of pilots, you need to have automation handle all of the edge cases. Various mechanical failures for one thing, also unusual weather conditions, geese being ingested in to the engine, etc.

Mother

[dmaul99]

Great, call the AI "Mother", give the ship a skeleton crew, and hope it doesn't invoke special order 937

http://alienanthology.wikia.co...

Re:Mother

[azrael29a]

Yeah, we've seen such AI-controlled ships... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Mother

[srstites]

The AI is actually named HAL.

Re:About time the Japanese starting innovating

[Deadstick]

Last time they started innovating, we got the Zero fighter and the Long Lance torpedo.

Important question:

[Gravis Zero]

How do they plan to compete with intercontinental railroad? Do you really think Elon is making those boring machines for commuter traffic?

Re:Important question:

[radarskiy]

Don't worry, Elon will also make tunnels for the ships.

It won’t.

[Picodon]

It won’t need to. After all, what are the pirates going to do, once they are on the deck of an automated ship? Start yelling at the main computer angry threats of rebooting it unless it changes course?

Re:It won’t.

[AHuxley]

Use sound and water as no crew to worry about? The problem is if its hacked and shut down at sea or systems get activated in port.
Automated pirate removal systems would need to be very safe to shut down. Too safe and the pirates can shut the systems down too.

Also, autopilots

[Solandri]

You can already get an autopilot for your boat for just a few thousand dollars. So there's really nearly zero efficiency gain from using an AI to "plot the safest, shortest, most efficient route." You don't need an AI aboard the ship to do that. A supercomputer back at HQ with instant access to the most recent weather reports can do that, then relay the route to the ship via satellite.

The only cost savings for what they're trying to do is eliminating the wages and supplies for the crew. Which as you point out involves the trade-off of nobody being aboard to fix stuff if it breaks en route.

Re:Also, autopilots

[religionofpeas]

Port-to-port self navigating ships is a bit more involved than running a simple autopilot.

Re:About time the Japanese starting innovating

[drinkypoo]

Last time they started innovating, we got the Zero fighter

Built by Mitsubishi out of American aluminum, yes. Now we buy their cars. It's all fucking theater.

Re:About time the Japanese starting innovating

[Deadstick]

fucking theater

I went to one of those once, in Hamburg.