Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Fleet of Sailing Robots Sets Out To Quantify the Oceans (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the eyes-on-the-prize dept.

pacopico writes: A start-up in California called Saildrone has built a fleet of robotic sailboats that are gathering tons of data about the oceans. The saildrones rely on a hard, carbon-fiber sail to catch wind, and solar panels to power all of their electronics and sensors. "Each drone carries at least $100,000 of electronics, batteries, and related gear," reports Businessweek. "Devices near the tip of the sail measure wind speed and direction, sunlight, air temperature and pressure, and humidity. Across the top of the drone's body, other electronics track wave height and period, carbon dioxide levels, and the strength of the Earth's magnetic field. Underwater, sensors monitor currents, dissolved oxygen levels, and water temperature, acidity, and salinity. Sonars and other acoustic instruments try to identify animal life." So far they've been used to find sharks, monitor fisheries, check on climate change and provide weather forecasts. Saildrone just raised $90 million to build a fleet of 1,000 drones, which it thinks will be enough to measure all of the world's oceans.

76 comments

  1. Alternate headline: by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Hundred thousand dollar pieces of equipment are just floating around free!"

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Alternate headline: by flopsquad · · Score: 2

      ^^ First thought. They make them sound like floating treasure chests. At least *try* to play it off in the press brief.

      "Yup $100K: They cost $80K in labor to build, carry $10K in sensors, and deploy with $10K worth of sharks with laserbeams and that audio weapon that makes you shit yourself. Foff, pirates."

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    2. Re:Alternate headline: by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Each drone carries at least $100,000 of electronics...Saildrone just raised $90 million to build a fleet of 1,000 drones"

      So, without the electronics, they can build a sailboat for -$10K! Sell at a loss, and make it up in volume is finally true!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like: "They cost 5k to build, carry 5k worth of sensors, and the CEO and his friends pocket the 90k"

    4. Re:Alternate headline: by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment on board.
      Even if they bought everything retail down at the local shop, that would be simply ridiculous.

      What they mean is 'we did a bit of hardware development, cut ourselves a MASSIVE overheads and development
      markup, then we claim its worth this'

      I can guarantee that any of 1000 small product development locations in China could build them for under $1000
      in electronics. Easily. Without even trying.

      One of the projects I have right here has high resolution GPS and 6dof inertial, high resolution pressure, 100km capable radio,
      32bit micro, batteries to store enough energy for 6 months operation (including the radio), flash storage in the GBytes, solar for recharge,
      waterproof packaging, and the total cost is under $100usd...
      Now, they would need better radio (I would imagine), and a few more sensors.

      But $100k? just simple 'give us money, we are a startup' BS.

    5. Re:Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Each drone carries at least $100,000 of electronics, batteries, and related gear"

      What happens if the value of the gear goes down? Does it have to be loaded with more gear so it reaches the $100,000 point?

      (No really though. Grammar is not something you can mess with. This isn't a game.)

      Captcha: audited

    6. Re: Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is though and you are losing.

    7. Re: Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you are a fucking liar. Link all the parts and where you go them.

    8. Re:Alternate headline: by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      these are researchers, not bankers.

    9. Re:Alternate headline: by willy_me · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More like 5k for each sensor. Check out Sea-Bird - they make the gold standard for many types of oceanographic sensors. They are very expensive and very good.

      With traditional oceanographic measurements, the most expensive part of acquiring data is physically going to the location from where you want to acquire the measurement. The cost of the sensors is nothing in comparison. As a result, you have expensive, high quality sensors being the norm. With these autonomous boats there might be a push to reduce sensor costs because the sensors will make up a greater percentage of the total cost. Time will tell...

    10. Re:Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So $90 million makes 1000 drones?
      $90mil/1000 = $90k each

      They just said each drone is carrying over $100k of electronics. This doesn't account for the carbon fibre sail. or the boat it's self. And this certainly doesn't account for the satellite access or the maintenance of the units. If they're this incompetent with numbers, those boats will never float.

      Further more... 1000 drones is a bit much to cover all the oceans. a few hundred ought to do it i would think.

      -Former communications officer on merchant ships

      I'm calling BS on this report!

    11. Re: Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing I think

    12. Re:Alternate headline: by plopez · · Score: 1

      The parts have to be manufactured somewhere.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    13. Re: Alternate headline: by plopez · · Score: 1

      no

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    14. Re:Alternate headline: by plopez · · Score: 1

      Are you using all the sensors in the list?

      "Each drone carries at least $100,000 of electronics, batteries, and related gear," reports Businessweek. "Devices near the tip of the sail measure wind speed and direction, sunlight, air temperature and pressure, and humidity. Across the top of the drone's body, other electronics track wave height and period, carbon dioxide levels, and the strength of the Earth's magnetic field. Underwater, sensors monitor currents, dissolved oxygen levels, and water temperature, acidity, and salinity. Sonars and other acoustic instruments try to identify animal life."

      Having worked with field sensors and met towers on land they can be pricey.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    15. Re:Alternate headline: by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      I'm extremely interested in a BOM. Or hell, purchasing.

    16. Re:Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. As engineers are notoriously cheap to employ to build these things. Especially in California.

    17. Re:Alternate headline: by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      More like 5k for each sensor. Check out Sea-Bird - they make the gold standard for many types of oceanographic sensors. They are very expensive and very good.

      With traditional oceanographic measurements, the most expensive part of acquiring data is physically going to the location from where you want to acquire the measurement. The cost of the sensors is nothing in comparison. As a result, you have expensive, high quality sensors being the norm. With these autonomous boats there might be a push to reduce sensor costs because the sensors will make up a greater percentage of the total cost. Time will tell...

      So, it would be worthwhile me developing a fleet of pirate robots to plunder that booty.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    18. Re:Alternate headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you too are building a sailing drone capable of taking all of the measurements listed? what is the name of your company?

      Would you like to give a BOM of your project as well as some of the project requirements? because something sounds pretty fishy about having a battery large enough for a 100km radio. I mean if you only broadcast once a day then maybe, but continual transmission is inconceivable for a 100 dollar price point. So you see, there is definitely a devil in the details as anyone can rattle off a BOM and a price point with out any other details to look fancy. Engineering is about trade-offs and cost evaluations, seeing as a good chunk of these drones will be unservicable if a malfunction happens maybe some of the extra costs went into redundant hardware and higher quality manufacturing to ensure a lower chance of loss?

    19. Re:Alternate headline: by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      Somolian pirates now operating captured drones!
      If these things have residual value at all, they will become “salvage”.

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    20. Re:Alternate headline: by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      1 prototype 100k of electronics.
      1000 production units maybe 40k for the same electronics.

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    21. Re:Alternate headline: by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      More like 5k for each sensor. Check out Sea-Bird - they make the gold standard for many types of oceanographic sensors. They are very expensive and very good.

      With traditional oceanographic measurements, the most expensive part of acquiring data is physically going to the location from where you want to acquire the measurement. The cost of the sensors is nothing in comparison. As a result, you have expensive, high quality sensors being the norm. With these autonomous boats there might be a push to reduce sensor costs because the sensors will make up a greater percentage of the total cost. Time will tell...

      So, it would be worthwhile me developing a fleet of pirate robots to plunder that booty.

      I SO want to see that on youtube.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  2. Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the kind of objective, horizon-advancing science that we need, in my mind to see further into some of our most pressing problems on the planet.

    That said - we've got a planet full of folks who will almost undoubtedly dismiss anything that comes out of it, if the answers it finds can in any way be connected ideas that might challenge their fragile ideas of a planet that only serves their interests.

    Any hint that significant extinction events, significant warming, or even just over-fishing are going on will be met with rage from a significant number of major power brokers in this cresting wave of utter madness gripping the politics of our world at the moment.

    Keep going, I say - but keep it to the journals until this generation of stupidity passes, and rational minds hold more sway once this particular mini-dark-age passes.

    1. Re:Really awesome... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You seem convinced of what will come out of this study. What if the results aren't what you expect - are you willing to say "my bad" and leave your current positions?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who iis the "you" that your comment is addressed to and what "positions" is this person holding???

    3. Re:Really awesome... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Why should he when there's no way in hell that you ever would?

    4. Re:Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Before I make one comment plus or minus such a project which I'm very interested in. I want to know one simply thing. Will I get access to the original unadulterated data or this going to be another project where the PTB decide to modify the data and throw the real data out or simply deny me from getting access to it.

      If I can't see the true original data than this project is meaningless to me and to many others.

      Obviously not all deniers but some do question the analysis because they are denied access to the original data for various reasons. And don't even for a second tell me that such a thing hasn't happen because it has and can be proven with a little research which any intelligent individual can do.

      I'm completely open to man made or otherwise climate change because only a truly ignorant person will deny the our planetary weather doesn't change. I continue to question any situation where I can't get the real data unmodified to verify.

      I also point out this wonderful little gem from the IPCC report that many fail to read:

      IPCC Third Assessment Report Chapter 14 Section 14.2.2.2 Last paragraph: “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      I won't be surprise if I get modded down because I dare question anything even though I believe in climate change and I believe in verifying all reports both for and against.

      -GeekPoet

    5. Re: Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just 10 years late: https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/cs/research/ir/robots/beagle-b/

    6. Re:Really awesome... by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Don't project your anti-science onto everyone.

    7. Re:Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what the out come will be which is one of the reasons why I'm curious about the data. only true unaltered data will help support whatever conclusions that are made. It also allows others to verify such conclusions.

      -GeekPoet

    8. Re:Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok I'll bit just for my own humor. Since I want true unmodified data to verify the conclusions whatever they are makes me "Anti-Science"?

      You know nothing about me, my background which includes 30+ years various tech industries is somehow anti-science? Was that your best attempt to shut me down somehow?

      Really?

      -GeekPoet

    9. Re:Really awesome... by plopez · · Score: 2

      The reason we do research, real research not the "I researched on Stacker Flow and copied some code", is that we do not know so we go and look.

      If you you know how long it will take, how much it will cost, and what the results will be it isn't research.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    10. Re:Really awesome... by plopez · · Score: 1

      research does not verify conclusions. If at the end you come to a different conclusion than what you though was going to happen, you win.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    11. Re:Really awesome... by plopez · · Score: 1

      Unless done for a classier or private sector project the researcher must publish it for verification. I've worked with raw voltage readings to check calibration and ensure the gear was working properly.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    12. Re:Really awesome... by plopez · · Score: 1

      hoops respond to the wrong person. Sorry about any confusion.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    13. Re:Really awesome... by plopez · · Score: 1

      Unless done for a classified or private sector project the researcher must publish it for verification. I've worked with raw voltage readings to check calibration and ensure the gear was working properly.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    14. Re:Really awesome... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Ahh... the raw data, virginal and pure as the driven snow. Maybe your time would be better spent understanding why the modifications are made and the techniques used to do the modifications. Very little raw data comes without defects. Calibration issues, measurement bias and for large long term data sets changes in the methods used to collect the data as modern methods improve and other things all affect the quality of the data. These are things the scientists have to take into account when analyzing the data.

      If you're concerned about the raw temperature data it's not that hard to get. You just have to be willing to take the time to seek it out. Here's the page for raw data from Berkeley Earth: Source files

      Regarding your IPCC quote I think maybe long-term means something different to them than it does to you.

    15. Re:Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about this, I let the conclusion speak for itself and regardless of where it takes me. I willing to consider any point of view as long as the data in use hasn't been modified. So either way I win because I'm using real data. I don't want to modify the data so it's meets any conclusion I predetermine.

      When it comes to gathering data in such a manor, you want the conclusion to stand on its own and let anyone duplicate it or find its errors. Modified data will always point in one direction.

      -GeekPoet

    16. Re:Really awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ahh... the raw data, virginal and pure as the driven snow. Maybe your time would be better spent understanding why the modifications are made and the techniques used to do the modifications. Very little raw data comes without defects. "

      if the data isn't coming out correctly then the collection process needs to be improved. You don't just go in and start changing data the way you want. That's like when I'm doing a data migration for hospital patients and the some of the data get's corrupted so instead of getting the correct data, I'll just add a few lines of my own. Your comment makes no logical sense. And if there are scientists doing such things then they need to loose their jobs. My 11 year daughter understands this simple logic concept.

      "Regarding your IPCC quote I think maybe long-term means something different to them than it does to you."

      Really that's all you got? is this like the new definition of what "is" is?

          Long term means over an extended period of time. Obviously the IPCC is unsure of their own conclusions in some cases because they don't have all the data or are simply incapable of getting such data or even having the computer power needed to analyze it.

      Maybe you need to update your education a bit.

      -GeekPoet

    17. Re:Really awesome... by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      No, being the LynnwoodDenier makes you ant-science. Picking and choosing what studies you believe based on your denial of global warming makes you anti-science. Linking to denialist sites already shown to massage the figures and pick and choose what years to use to get the results you want, makes you anti-science.

      If you aren't the LynwoodDenier, then you are right, I don't know anything about your background. So why did you direct your comment to me?

      Things like this show what non science 'thinking' goes through his/your head.

      Most religious people have no problem with science; in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science. For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another, so thus the scientific method would require you acknowledge the possibility for existence of a higher power is equal to the probability there is not a higher power. A real scientist could be a believer (who will claim it on faith, and thus not scientifically provable) or an agnostic; never an atheist.

      If you can't know something it must be 50% true...not something a 'scientific mind' would come up with.

    18. Re:Really awesome... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You don't just go in and start changing data the way you want.

      Which is why I said:

      Maybe your time would be better spent understanding why the modifications are made and the techniques used to do the modifications.

      Because scientists don't just adjust the data for arbitrary reasons. When adjustments are made they have to be defended before other scientists who will quickly call out any unjustified changes. If you think otherwise it's up to you to show in a scientific manner why the changes are unjustified. Just believing they are doesn't make it so.

      When talking about long term obviously the further you go out into the future the less sure you are about what will happen. It's unknown what future CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions will be. It's unknown what the sun will do. It's unknown what major volcanic eruptions will happen. Yet, if you look at the 30 year time frame of the classical climatological period as defined by the WMO the big climate models do a pretty good job. If you start talking about 100 years from now there is far more uncertainty.

      Climate model projections compared to observations

  3. the next news will be by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of sail drones mysteriously go missing.

    1. Re: the next news will be by TristanHunt9676 · · Score: 1

      I doubt that. It's highly unlikely that they will be níggered. It's well-known that níggers don't like going in the water. These sailboats should be pretty safe.

      What about all the modern day pirates?

    2. Re: the next news will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they go near Somalia.

    3. Re: the next news will be by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Pirates are found in waters all around the world.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    4. Re: the next news will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yaaargh!
      The crew must have a captain that knows the waters... aye..

      The ship must have a captain. ...
      The ship must have a captain. ...
      The ship...

    5. Re: the next news will be by codesmith.ca · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of blather and wild-ass-guessing in this forum today, I see. First of all, there is piracy in a fair number of spots in the world, but if you stay above 40 N and below 40 S, you aren't going to see any pirates. As well the UN suggests to sail at least 50 nautical miles off shore to prevent contact with maritime piracy. There are a few spots where that is not applicable, but they are in a minority: Offshore of Somalia, Malacca Straits, pretty well anywhere near Indonesia. Beyond 50 NM, there is really only commercial shipping and fishing.

      As for finding and stealing the sailboats, they are only 23' in length, and the sail looks to be about 12' in height. There is no legal requirement for an AIS transmitter. From a (large) surface vessel, you'd need to be within 15 nautical miles to see it, or less for radar. It's not going to be cost effective to stop and try and wrangle one onboard, not to mention the potential legal issues if the shipping company find out. No commercial master or officer will risk a career over one of these.

      I do think that this and the Argo float program could be ground breaking for our understanding of the sea. My only concern is figuring out how a startup will profit off of this without holding all of the data and selling it to the highest bidder. It might be cheaper for the NOAA to just buy him out and start using the boats.

  4. Just more pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the global toxic waste dump that is our ocean.

  5. Smugling opportinities? by misnohmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Catch a drone, load it up with contraband, release it, catch it at the destination, retrieve your stuff.

    Or, just build ones that look just like them - coastguard will likely ignore them (no humans on board to even as to stop and board).

  6. which it thinks will be enough to measure by dogo365 · · Score: 1

    Good technology for the environment

    --
    dogo365 dia chi: Ha Noi - Viet Nam So dien thoai: +841298470968
  7. Funny... by scdeimos · · Score: 2
    From TFA:

    "What's the definition of a sailor?" he [Richard Jenkins] asks while launching one of the drones off the Alameda dock. "A primitive organism for turning beer into urine."

  8. helena seferin santos chupa cachorro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you really should put an eye on fabio del castel from dataweb, he is probably linked with equador government using spyware from that asshole cracker

  9. While you are out there... by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pick up all the plastic trash....

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  10. show the BOM by johnjones · · Score: 1

    you claim

    "One of the projects I have right here has high resolution GPS and 6dof inertial, high resolution pressure, 100km capable radio,
    32bit micro, batteries to store enough energy for 6 months operation (including the radio), flash storage in the GBytes, solar for recharge,
    waterproof packaging, and the total cost is under $100usd..."

    I'm all ears show me where I can purchase or at least a Bill Of Materials / Parts

    interested

  11. So it's ok now to dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... your electronics waste into the oceans as long as it is labelled "scientific". Nice one.

    1. Re: So it's ok now to dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a stupid comment. The trash humans generate and get dumped into the ocean, the cruise ship waste, the oil spills, increased temperatures, all have a much bigger impact than these drones. I suppose the drones will be collected at some point, not just scuttled. Should we have also not left footprints on the moon too?

  12. Check for climate change???? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

    So far they've been used to [...] check on climate change

    How exactly can *ANYONE* search for climate change? By definition this is a long-term process (as opposed to weather).

    --
    Catalin Braescu
    Ofaly.com
  13. So the business plan for this startup is: by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

    1. Raise VC money, build and test drones.
    2. Gather data about the oceans
    3. ???????
    4. Profit

    BTW, this isn't satire. From TFA:

    Saildrone's investors say they're taking a longer view, and that a global database of the oceans will benefit the company's future more than chasing whatever business it can book today. "The most important asset is the data, and getting data that no one else can accumulate," says Chamath Palihapitiya, founder of investor Social Capital. Palihapitiya, like several of Saildrone's other big backers, tends to support companies with social and environmental bents, and to allow for a bit more time to work out a business.

    Yeah, so we'll work out the business model later.

    1. Re:So the business plan for this startup is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, so we'll work out the business model later."

      so like most Internet start-ups today!

    2. Re:So the business plan for this startup is: by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      If they gather enough data, and that data can predict long term trends, then you could do anything from playing the commodities market to real estate speculation. But the short term profit would be to the company founders not the investors. Or they get established as an occasional presence and then when enough mundane encounters have happened they flip the smuggling bit in the software ... lol either way, profit

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    3. Re:So the business plan for this startup is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really expensive to send ships and their crew out to sea so there's naturally a large push to automate the sampling. Liquid Robotics has been successful with their WaveGlider, a wave powered drone platform. I don't see why this wouldn't also work.

  14. Wrong tool for the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their 'survey' is missing most of the ocean.
    It's below the surface where an autonomous glider would be perfect.

    Instead, they make both a tempting target and a nav hazard.
    Hope the world survives all the do-gooders.

  15. Doing the same as Argo, then by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

    For the last 18 years, the Argo oceanic system has been collecting huge amounts of data. I can't see what this project adds to that body of knowledge.

    1. Re:Doing the same as Argo, then by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      Argo floats spend the vast majority of their time far under the surface of the ocean. They also passively float with the currents. The Saildrones monitor surface conditions of both the ocean and the atmosphere as well as use sonar to possibly monitor wildlife. The drones can be directed to sail to and monitor anywhere that is deep enough for them to not run aground.

    2. Re:Doing the same as Argo, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anywhere on the surface, which misses most of the ocean

    3. Re:Doing the same as Argo, then by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Be that as it may, it is still a huge amount of information that isn't currently being gathered. As the fine article also points out that is information that relates directly to weather. Having more information and of higher quality than is currently available would make for much better weather predicting capabilities. Better weather predictive abilities can translate directly into better and more timely responses to things like hurricanes.

      Saying that Saildrone isn't worth pursuing is like saying that you shouldn't be concerned with testing that potential melanoma growth because your endoscopy came back clean.

    4. Re:Doing the same as Argo, then by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you could mount a wire-walking CTD on one of these, it wouldn't be the full data set from an Argo, but still very useful.

      --
      horror vacui
  16. Cue pirate memes... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    So why on earth would a company send that much value into the wild, undefended? Locating them would be trivial. Harvesting them for anything of value would be equally trivial. So again, why? Did the VCs backing this even pause for a moment to consider the possibility they were being farmed?

    1. Re:Cue pirate memes... by citylivin · · Score: 2

      " Locating them would be trivial. Harvesting them for anything of value would be equally trivial."

      I am wondering how you are going to find a single 2 meter craft in the entire ocean. Trivially?

      So say you do end up locating one, you then spend hundreds if not thousands on boat gas to get to it, then you have to disable it without triggering its possible security (that say sends a picture of the intruder right back to hq on the sat link).

      Then you have the probe onboard your vessel. You have 80k worth of oceanographic sensors, a few solar panels and a pretty worthless carbon fibre drone body. To whom do you then sell these specialized ocean monitoring sensors to? craigslist? ebay?

      no fucking part of that exercise could be described as trivial dude! use your head. they aren't filled with gold or other things that can be easily melted down. When you are paying 5k for a sensor, it for sure has a globally unique ID that can be traced back to the owner, trivially.

      its like saying well i can just go to the airport and steal a plane, they are worth millions! Yeah, you can, and then what.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  17. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how you locate these rafts? I have a large boat, they must be using ais so I imagine they are pretty easy to find. With no humans on board what is to stop me from "investigating" this craft anytime I want to board it? And more so what is to stop anyone from taking it apart and selling the pieces?

  18. Nothing compared to the Narco Sailing Drones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California is way behind with technology.

  19. perfect purpose by fred133 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They have sonar? Set them loose to find MH370.....

  20. Argo - Why Bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last time they did something like this, they didn't like the results and tossed all the data in favor of un-calibrated, ship's engine water inlet temperatures.