Yeah, some of 'em inevitably "see the sights" till it makes 'em go blind and they have to be carried back to the ship......but, hey! that's off topic!:-)
[Retired Navy with 20 years as a Data Systems Tech.] That line in the article about the captain having "control" of the ship from anywhere was poorly written and reflected the writer's imagination, not the Navy's intent for this kind of technology.
To begin with, the captain ALREADY has "contol" of his ship wherever he is, even while in the shower. At the same time, the captain of a ship NEVER has "control" of his ship even when on the bridge. The point is what you mean by control. The ship is always under the captain's command, but he does not execute those commands himself. The captain never takes the helm, takes over damage control efforts, or actually uses any weapons systems himself. He gives the commands to see that those things are done, and is responsible for the training and performance of the people who do it. The article makes an unnecesary jump from wireless networked remote mechanical sensors and controls, to operational command and control.
As an example, the article mentions tying in the Integrated Condition Assessment System (ICAS), which is a system I know something about. This system is used to track the material condition and readiness of the ship, and to track damage control and engineering plant information. Wireless remote sensors might be a big improvement to that system, but is not going to result in steering the ship from Damage Control Central or the Chief Engineer's stateroom.
A good point is made about automation being a required step towards smaller crews on Navy ships, but that is not the only requirement by far. For example, a ship has a certain number of exposed square feet of steel and aluminum that require a certain number of man-hours per month to maintain. Sticking with damage control items - every water tight door, emergency light, and fire extinguisher/hose/nozzle on the ship gets weekly inspections and monthly maintenance. Automated "rust sensors" won't change those efforts a bit.
When a ship is in port overseas, usualy one third of the crew is "on duty" at time. The other two thirds can go ashore and see the sights. That leaves only 30 out of 90 onboard to man a dozen or so Quarterdeck and security watches through six four-hour watch periods. When half of a crew of 350 is on Christmas leave, you can still get enough people together to bring onboard the truck loads of milk, bread, printer paper, and spare parts that just arrived on the pier.
The scary thing in this is the possibility that the Navy will reduce the crew size without finding ways to reduce or outsource all these low-tech mundane tasks too. But I have reason to believe they are considering this issue, so I think the most likely change would be a reduction from 350 to 250, with high-tech wiz-bang stuff providing half the reduction, and marine contracting of some low-tech paint roller action providing the rest.
Now you're giving me ideas... this may not be original, but how about plumbing the water cooling to one of those oriental looking waterfall sculptures on top of the desk? The only thing you hear is the trickle of the water, which is a selling point for these things anyway.
If M$ wants to sponsor/., a site that points out their weaknesses without pity, and calls them on stupid moves like the supposed Mac-to-PC switcher, let them!
(Brought to you by the campaign to elect Tim "the Tool Man" Taylor as System Engineer of the Millenium.)
Climate modeling SOFTWARE AND ASSUMPTIONS to date have been a pathetic group of politicaly driven desired-result-generators intended to support the latest alarmist's demand for control. When the known parameters of prior years is input to these programs they do not come even close to "predicting" recent climatic history. So why do people still think a HARDWARE upgrade is going to make these bad assumptions and fudge-factors work out correctly for 10, 100, or a thousand years into the future?! A cheap computer can repeat your questionable algorithm and self serving assumptions a million times a second. A rediculously expensive computer can repeat the same ten-trillion times a second....so?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, some of 'em inevitably "see the sights" till it makes 'em go blind and they have to be carried back to the ship... ...but, hey! that's off topic! :-)
[Retired Navy with 20 years as a Data Systems Tech.] That line in the article about the captain having "control" of the ship from anywhere was poorly written and reflected the writer's imagination, not the Navy's intent for this kind of technology.
To begin with, the captain ALREADY has "contol" of his ship wherever he is, even while in the shower. At the same time, the captain of a ship NEVER has "control" of his ship even when on the bridge. The point is what you mean by control. The ship is always under the captain's command, but he does not execute those commands himself. The captain never takes the helm, takes over damage control efforts, or actually uses any weapons systems himself. He gives the commands to see that those things are done, and is responsible for the training and performance of the people who do it. The article makes an unnecesary jump from wireless networked remote mechanical sensors and controls, to operational command and control.
As an example, the article mentions tying in the Integrated Condition Assessment System (ICAS), which is a system I know something about. This system is used to track the material condition and readiness of the ship, and to track damage control and engineering plant information. Wireless remote sensors might be a big improvement to that system, but is not going to result in steering the ship from Damage Control Central or the Chief Engineer's stateroom.
A good point is made about automation being a required step towards smaller crews on Navy ships, but that is not the only requirement by far. For example, a ship has a certain number of exposed square feet of steel and aluminum that require a certain number of man-hours per month to maintain. Sticking with damage control items - every water tight door, emergency light, and fire extinguisher/hose/nozzle on the ship gets weekly inspections and monthly maintenance. Automated "rust sensors" won't change those efforts a bit.
When a ship is in port overseas, usualy one third of the crew is "on duty" at time. The other two thirds can go ashore and see the sights. That leaves only 30 out of 90 onboard to man a dozen or so Quarterdeck and security watches through six four-hour watch periods. When half of a crew of 350 is on Christmas leave, you can still get enough people together to bring onboard the truck loads of milk, bread, printer paper, and spare parts that just arrived on the pier.
The scary thing in this is the possibility that the Navy will reduce the crew size without finding ways to reduce or outsource all these low-tech mundane tasks too. But I have reason to believe they are considering this issue, so I think the most likely change would be a reduction from 350 to 250, with high-tech wiz-bang stuff providing half the reduction, and marine contracting of some low-tech paint roller action providing the rest.
Now you're giving me ideas... this may not be original, but how about plumbing the water cooling to one of those oriental looking waterfall sculptures on top of the desk? The only thing you hear is the trickle of the water, which is a selling point for these things anyway.
You mean SETI@Home has been distributing recordings of interstellar noise over a P2P network? I'll bet RIAA has something to do with their demise!!!
"...I would while away the hours, talk'n to the flowers, if I only had a brain..."
If M$ wants to sponsor /., a site that points out their weaknesses without pity, and calls them on stupid moves like the supposed Mac-to-PC switcher, let them!
(Brought to you by the campaign to elect Tim "the Tool Man" Taylor as System Engineer of the Millenium.)
Climate modeling SOFTWARE AND ASSUMPTIONS to date have been a pathetic group of politicaly driven desired-result-generators intended to support the latest alarmist's demand for control. When the known parameters of prior years is input to these programs they do not come even close to "predicting" recent climatic history. So why do people still think a HARDWARE upgrade is going to make these bad assumptions and fudge-factors work out correctly for 10, 100, or a thousand years into the future?! A cheap computer can repeat your questionable algorithm and self serving assumptions a million times a second. A rediculously expensive computer can repeat the same ten-trillion times a second....so?