
Rolls-Royce Drone Ships Challenge $375B Freight Industry - r0h1n
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-25/rolls-royce-drone-ships-challenge-375-billion-industry-freight.html
======
shubb
This is what an undisrupted industry sounds like. You hear it from train
driver unions, banks, and doctors.

There is merit in what they say about safety, but they see it not as a set of
problems that might be overcome, but as a way of shutting down the
conversation. They don't want to think about how easily a significant part of
what they do could be automated or eliminated.

The heuristic is not that they object, it is that they don't want to discuss,
even as speculation.

It's interesting that one place these objections haven't come up is air
travel. Because if you think about it, air travel should be a place we fear to
automated, but we already did it. Autopilot sort of sneaked in before people
realized what automation was, and pilots are comfortable that they still have
a place alongside the machines, so they are happy to talk, and explain as
slowly as necessary that automated landing might be a good idea one day, but
automating a crash landing wouldn't work out well.

The way this usually seems to work out is, everyone says it's impossible,
until someone does it, and eats the other players alive. The most interesting
thing here is that the insurers are the barrier. When drone designs are up and
running, there will be a niche for an insurer that will take the risk, and in
these days of crowd funding, you wouldn't need to be an entrenched player to
take it.

~~~
Houshalter
It's not just the insurers but regulations. Although I wonder how much they
can skirt around that, for example hiring a bunch of low wage unskilled
workers to just sit on the ship doing nothing so it counts as "manned".
Perhaps you could have the ship be remote controlled rather than completely
autonomous. When something unexpected happened, a person takes over remotely,
but otherwise it acts like autopilot.

Perhaps the boats could transfer cargo to and from manned boats in
international waters to get around local regulations, or even just bring
people on board the ship.

~~~
PeterisP
If they get a single insurer and a single tiny maritime nation onboard, then
they can do everything easily. "Flags of convenience" work just fine for
circumventing inconveniences.

------
tenpoundhammer
It’s easy to miss the bigger picture here. With a fully automated unmanned
ship you could explore business models that you otherwise would never
consider.

For instance, With no humans aboard you could have a ship that is super slow
and super energy efficient, it could cast itself out into currents, use a
variety of novel locomotive methods in a significantly longer but cheaper
journey. With no people aboard to pay, feed, etc, it wouldn’t matter how long
it took.

While this is one novel scenario, which probably wouldn’t work for a million
reasons, there are probably a hundred more ideas that would work for a
automated ship that are currently unfeasible.

~~~
nitrogen
How would the ship defend itself against pirates?

~~~
jgh
How would pirates gain control of this ship? Edit: Just read the comment
below.. I see that they are taking cargo and not the ship.

~~~
rolleiflex
When you can legally consider anything moving on board to be a target, the
stigma of unmanned drones mostly disappear. You can use a bunch of heavily
armed drones circling around a ship on the high seas.

~~~
anigbrowl
To do what? International doesn't sanction killing people in defense of
property; deadly attacks on pirates are only permisible in the name of self-
defense. See [http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-
law/](http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/) especially
section III.a.

Besides the ethics of whether to treat pirates as criminals or not, you can't
automatically assume anyone moving on board is a pirate; they could also be in
need of rescue. Ships are supposed to render aid to distressed travelers on
the high seas, AFAIK.

------
matznerd
-I liked this quote: "“If everybody in the industry would say, ‘Yes, this is the way to go,’ then we are too late.”

-I think it's possible. It might also be viable to have a mix of a few manned ships (cargo or otherwise) leading a group of drone ships.

-We, as humans, need to get used to the fact that machines are going to become better (not to mention cheaper) than us at almost every task we now classify as human only.

-And this makes me envision a time in the future where Somali pirates use computers instead of guns to take over ships.

~~~
njharman
> Somali pirates use computers instead of guns to take over ships

My first thought, although probably not actual Somali's.

~~~
matznerd
It's possible that they will be vulnerable remotely, but there is also the
possibility to create interference or jam the signal with proximity to the
ship. Maybe they will work in tandem with an online team...

I imagine the ships going through dangerous territory would probably have some
sort of defense, if not munitions, then sound, laser, or other type. It's also
not crazy to imagine that the ships would have flying drones on them for
reconnaissance and other uses.

~~~
Shivetya
I am quite sure the options the military is exploring and now using to keep
that from happening to their drones would be applied here.

Ships could be instructed to accept orders under very strict rules, perhaps
even ignoring orders while operating in certain regions. Given full ability to
understand their surroundings they could avoid collisions with anything that
would seriously damage their hulls and ignore most smaller vessels that are
acting in obvious means to try an intercept them. Plus with no crew on board
you do not need to provide easy access to anything, just seal it.

I am more interested in driver less big rigs and trains. I figure that planes
and ships are more heavily protected by union organizations.

~~~
chaosphere2112
> I am more interested in driver less big rigs and trains. I figure that
> planes and ships are more heavily protected by union organizations.

Well, there's always the teamsters[1] to consider.

[1]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brotherhood_of_Te...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brotherhood_of_Teamsters)

------
lutusp
This idea fails a basic reality check -- piracy. During my around-the-world
solo sail ([http://arachnoid.com/sailbook](http://arachnoid.com/sailbook)) I
heard any number of accounts of cargo vessels being boarded by pirates late at
night, to steal cargo and slip away undetected by the skeleton crew that
shipping operators prefer. The idea of a robot vessel would only make this
problem worse.

The article says, "Unmanned ships would also reduce risks such as piracy,
since there would be no hostages to capture ..."

But much piracy, for example in the eastern Indian Ocean, is after cargo, not
hostages. Pirates could disable the propulsion system of, then loot, a robot
cargo ship in the far reaches of the Indian Ocean where governmental controls
are much weaker than elsewhere.

~~~
eurleif
If there's no crew, why can't you just fill the entire thing with poison gas?

~~~
dethstar
Some people believe lives are not just something you could take, you know,
even if it's not people from the crew.

~~~
eurleif
So you write "ENTIRE SHIP FILLED WITH POISON GAS. IF YOU BREAK IN, YOU WILL
DIE." in multiple languages in a place where no one could miss it. It's about
the deterrent factor more than anything else.

~~~
lutusp
If this was a feasible idea, they would have done it already, to discourage
piracy of manned ships -- just have the cargo areas sealed up and filled with
poison gas. But it's not feasible for multiple reasons:

* A modern cargo ship isn't a rigid, airtight vessel, it's somewhat flexible and certainly not airtight above the waterline.

* Also, the cargo on a modern cargo ship isn't inside the ship as in the old "On the Waterfront" days when unskilled laborers loaded and unloaded ships, it's all out on the deck in the form of cargo containers:

[http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-
live/photos/0...](http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-
live/photos/000/544/overrides/rio-20-un-climate-conference-shipping-container-
homes-ship_54414_600x450.jpg)

------
dkoch
I don't know anything about shipping, but I wonder how much of the crews' time
is spent in maintenance and repairs. Are they trained to fix common issues?
What happens when the robot boats break down?

Or are they just there to fill minimum crew size regulations and babysit ships
that mostly drive themselves anyways?

~~~
gk1
Speaking as a former ship engineer (and designer), the engineering crew is
mostly there to operate and monitor the plant. This is done from a computer.
Almost everything in a modern engine space is automated or can be operated
remotely from the engineering control station (the aforementioned computer).
That includes opening and closing valves, starting up and shutting down
systems, troubleshooting, and so on.

Unfortunately some times the sensors or actuators break, so an engineer will
have to do some manual work. I suspect older engineers are more likely to do
this, because they still think their own intuition is better than some
algorithm (case in point: see quote in article from the union representative).

As for maintenance, it gets done in port. There are times, however, when
things break horribly, and the engineers have to fix it themselves while at
sea or find a work-around. With a drone fleet, one way to deal with this may
be to have engineering teams on stand-by, ready to helo to a broken drone ship
and do repairs.

~~~
alexhawdon
> one way to deal with this may be to have engineering teams on stand-by,
> ready to helo to a broken drone ship and do repairs.

If the ships travelled in groups of 3+ then in the event of a failure the
other two ships could tow the failed ship? Is this feasible? I honestly have
no idea.

~~~
gk1
Not with current ship designs. It takes an enormous amount of power to tow a
loaded cargo ship. They're built with some power redundancy, but not enough
extra to tow another loaded ship.

------
vrikis
I too see this happening, and am always surprised these companies aren't
pushing faster for this... I also think of delivery vans and lorries around
the city - whenever I walk to work I see about a dozen delivery vans and
lorries, all just driving back-and-forth to deliver bread to shops, etc. and I
always think that one day, we'll totally automate all this...

~~~
fr0sty
> we'll totally automate all this

How? A driver-less truck pulls up to the front of a corner store. Then what?
Someone still has to take the (correct) product from the truck, load it on a
hand cart, take it into each shop and put it on the shelves. Normally this is
the driver of the truck, but if you automate him away then every shop-keep
need a guy hanging around to unload the auto-delivery trucks all day or take
time away from serving customers to do it themselves.

That is not a clear net win to me. It is a physical manifestation of automated
phone support. Cheaper to implement by the company but more time consuming and
less useful for the users and less efficient overall...

~~~
icebraining
I've never seen a truck driver restock a shelve; what kind of shops are you
thinking of? Unloading the delivery of boxes should possible to automate using
a robot like those from Kiva Systems, even if harder due to less standard
conditions.

~~~
jmccree
It's pretty common for food and drink products. I believe Coke and Pepsi are
(in)famous for doing this. They basically rent the shelf space in grocery
stores and then maintain the stocking of it so they fully control the
presentation.

~~~
danmatan
I see this as an ongoing model/strategy for grocery stores and other
retailers: Taking the Amazon approach where they're just distributors, and you
pay for the shelf space, and a fee per transaction.

The manufacturer/distributor sets the price and the grocer could care less
whether any sells at all, as long as they find a way to keep getting foot
traffic.

------
dzhiurgis
> Cameras and sensors can already detect obstacles in the water better than
> the human eye.

I wish that was available on consumer sailing boats. There are lots of hazards
for small vessels out there. And to be honest, lately big ships are one of
them. No crew is actually watching anything other, but the radar & AIS, hence
small boats can be destroyed and never found again.

As per piloting - the first crude autopilots were made in 1970s...

------
matznerd
Also forgot to mention, this autonomous drone just finished sailing from
California to Hawaii ->
[http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/02/saildrone/](http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/02/saildrone/)

------
gk1
I see this as a reality. The majority of ships' machinery is already automated
and/or controlled remotely, so it's not a huge leap to leave the operator(s)
shoreside.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Do you think the reliability is up to it? I'm thinking of in relation to an
airliner that was inspected just before a flight that will be at most 12 hours
long.

OTOH, compare that to Oakland to Osaka (to pull two cities out of the air) and
a trip taking around two weeks. What level of reliability do you need to have
to ensure that nothing important breaks? Does this impose an additional cost
that's less than the savings of having no crew.

It's an interesting idea that I'm sure will eventually happen but I'm
wondering if it's really ready for prime time.

~~~
gk1
There are enough mechanical parts in a plant that at least one will break
during a two-week voyage. However, reliability is already something that's
being improved year-after-year, along with added fail-safe systems, so I don't
suspect it'll be a great barrier.

~~~
im3w1l
A ship is sinking

with humans: we must rescue them whatever it takes!

without humans: oh well, cost of doing business.

Drones have an acceptable failure rate.

------
notahacker
I suspect the bigger problem is that ultra reliable ships with state-of-the
art communications and robotics will seldom be cheaper than a creaky old tub
manned by Filipino sailors, especially Filipino sailors willing to accept non-
unionized wages.

~~~
jevinskie
I thought so as well but the article stated that 44% of costs go towards the
crew and their supplies.

------
lifeisstillgood
I think the major problem is that piracy has always, till now, had someone to
"repel boarders".

Now it is a matter of climbing on board and breaking the locks. (And no I
don't think automated guns will be an acceptable solution. I can't see the NY
port Authotirty being happy about armed computers sliding into view.

(Why am I thinking of the Matrix cartoon / prequels now?)

~~~
drpgq
If there's no steering wheel, what do the pirates do?

~~~
matznerd
Tow the ship, assuming they had powerful enough boats...

~~~
baddox
I highly doubt they have boats anywhere near that powerful.

------
wil421
What happens when Pirates bored an unmanned ship?

Negativity aside, this looks like the future I hope that consumer grade
cars/transportation will eventually have this. I can imagine a highway of the
future with a lane for autonomous vehicles instead of truck drivers.

Heck most airplanes fly themselves.

~~~
PeterisP
What happens when armed pirates board a manned ship? The crew is unarmed and
is supposed to lock themselves in a secure room, which is exactly the same as
a computer would do.

The unmanned option is better in case of piracy, since due to lack of hostages
there is less pressure for ransom and it's safer to re-capture the ship before
it can be delivered to a pirate friendly port.

The real vulnerability of unmanned ship is against small-scale theft (a rubber
dinghy boarding, opening a container and stealing a few TVs), but for large
cargo ships thieves can do the same without the crew noticing; so it can be
covered by insurance probably.

~~~
wil421
Right, but I was thinking about the damage they could do or what happens if
they shut the engines off. Who will come and get the ship and how long will
that take. Help could be days away how much could be stolen in that time.

I believe the pirates are in it for the insurance money for the hostages
anyway I doubt they want to fence any actual goods.

------
Zigurd
I'm surprised at all the "piracy" objections.

With no human operable "helm" there is no way to divert the ship, short of
posessing an engine more powerful than the ship's engine, and no crew to hold
hostage. Potentially some containers could be opened and looted, but the
practical amount of looting is a fraction of one container.

The real objections should be about failure modes of ships and what a crew can
to to mitigate them. But even this angle is susceptible to the possibility
that the safest crew and ship is an un-crewed ship. If you are not on the
ship, you can't cause an accident, and you won't die in an accident.

~~~
jjoonathan
> With no human operable "helm" there is no way to divert the ship, short of
> posessing an engine more powerful than the ship's engine

Because engines are impossible to disable, GPS is impossible to spoof, and
control systems are impossible to hack even with unlimited physical access.

> no crew to hold hostage

There's a fancy robotic ship and a bunch of cargo to hold hostage.

> the practical amount of looting is a fraction of one container

How do you reckon? I suppose if the value-density of the cargo were low enough
then nobody would have incentive to steal it, so they would have to threaten
to destroy it instead.

> The real objections should be about failure modes of ships and what a crew
> can to to mitigate them.

You're absolutely right. But piracy _is_ one of those failure modes.

~~~
Zigurd
There are low hundreds of attempts and a few dozen successful ship hijackings
per year. It is, overall, a very small part of freight theft, the vast
majority of which happens on land. This should be obvious: on land, you don't
need a boat big enough to float a container to steal a container. You just
need a access to a semi-tractor and maybe a trailer.

If you make the technical demands on a successful hijacking higher, I expect
these numbers to fall.

I also expect self-driving trucks to sharply cut theft, rather than enable it.

~~~
PeterisP
Can you elaborate why you believe self-driving trucks would reduce theft?

They feel like the easiest thing to rob on any low-traffic road - you need two
people in masks, one walks in the middle of the road in front of the truck so
it stops in order to avoid "traffic accident", the second one takes whatever
he wants from the back, and both leave through a side path too narrow for the
truck to follow. Even if you get a cop car there within 10 minutes, all you've
got is a video without faces.

~~~
vidarh
Consider that a self-driving truck would spend less time parked.

What proportion of loss do you think comes from robberies as opposed to theft
when the barrier is reduced to finding an unguarded stationary vehicle? My
guess is that robberies makes up a tiny proportion, and that they'd continue
to be rare because of the perceived barrier of having to stop the vehicle.

~~~
eurleif
Presumably all you have to do to make a self-driving truck stop is stand in
front of it. There should be zero risk of it running you over.

------
LeChuck
I would like to see some redundancy in navigational equipment before this
becomes a reality. Currently ships only have traditional navigation methods to
fall back on if satellite navigation fails. While there are some projects
underway to find a seamless replacement for GNSS [1], none are quite there
yet.

[1] [http://www.e-navigation.net/index.php?page=resilient-pnt-
fro...](http://www.e-navigation.net/index.php?page=resilient-pnt-from-pnt-
unit-concept-to-first-realization)

------
robomartin
12 to 15 percent more efficient because you eliminate people? And where is the
part where a miricle occurs and the laws of physics are modified?

The efficiency and pollution problem with cargo ships can't be fixed with more
crgo ships. That's just insane. Build a dedicated high-speed nuclear, wind and
solar powered high speed cargo train connecting the US coasts and the gulf.
This alone would eliminate some ten thousand cargo ships per year making the
trek through the Panama Canal. During this trek they burn over a million
dollars of bunker fuel, the nastiest most polluting fuel you can burn.

Methinks this is just one of those "let's burn government money 'cause they
don't know any better" scams. Not the first time.

~~~
matteotom
Did you even read the article?

"By replacing the bridge -- along with the other systems that support the
crew, such as electricity, air conditioning, water and sewage..."

It's not just eliminating people. It's eliminating the whole bridge, and
adding more cargo. And the 12 to 15 percent number might be a "fuel per unit
of cargo" number, not necessarily "total fuel per boat".

"Build a dedicated high-speed nuclear, wind and solar powered high speed cargo
train connecting the US coasts and the gulf" Who do you propose pays for this,
the government which "don't now any better"? Private companies? If this was
actually cheaper than burning a million dollars of fuel, they would have done
it already. And I doubt trains could carry nearly as much cargo as a large
cargo ship.

~~~
robomartin
> Did you even read the article?

Of course I did. And I am disputing these numbers.

The Maersk triple e class cargo ships can carry 18,000 containers. There is no
way removing crew quarters will make room for another 1,800. For one thing,
even an autonomous ship must have the ability to be crewed from onboard due to
safety/emergency considerations. It's a pipe dream, a stunt, just like Amazon
delivering packages in a busy city using drones.

The hydrodynamic drag of these ships by far overwhelms the cost equation. The
only way you are going to save 10% is by slowing down. And you can do that
just fine with a crew. In fact, this is precisely what they do to control
costs. I did extensive research on this topic about three years ago. If I
remember correctly, the trip from Shaghai to Europe through the Suez canal
takes approximately 32 days. When fuel costs spiked cargo ships slowed down to
make the same trip in sixty days in order to control costs.

I could be wrong, of course. Based on what i know I just don't see how
automation could make such an impact. The 800 pound gorilla isn't the crew
quarters, it's physics.

~~~
matteotom
Also, slowing down with a crew means continuing to pay them for the extra
days. Slowing down w/out one should not incur significant extra costs, making
it worthwhile to do so.

~~~
robomartin
You are trying to support a position that is simply not supportable. The cost
of the crew is a mere rounding error when you consider fuel, insurance and
other costs. I don't have the time to dig up my research from several years
ago for all the details. As an example, I remember that crossing the Panama
Canal costs several hundred thousand dollars for a PANAMAX class ship.

This whole idea of slowing down the ships doesn't work because there's an
asymptotic function attached to that idea. You can't wait half a year for
20,000 containers to get from China to Europe or the US. Business can't be
conducted effectively when delivery times start getting ridiculous. Sixty days
from China to Europe was horribly painful and it hurt business and economies
in multiple ways.

Again, I could be wrong. I'd like to read more. From my current vantage point
this is as viable an idea as delivering books in Manhattan using drones.

~~~
dalke
Wanted to research some numbers to back up your statements.

[http://www.hsh-
nordbank.com/media/en/pdf/kundenbereiche/schi...](http://www.hsh-
nordbank.com/media/en/pdf/kundenbereiche/schifffahrt/research/betriebskosten_studie09/Kurzfassung_Betriebskostenstudie2009.pdf)
says that crew costs for a Post-Panamax I are US$3,712/day. Total operational
costs are US$8,754/day . This excludes fuel.

Slow-steaming for the same vessel is about 60 tons per day.
[http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_co...](http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html)

[http://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/](http://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/) lists
prices of around US$600/ton => $36,000 of fuel per day.

Assuming the New Panamax toll is similar to the 2011 toll of $72/TEU listed at
[https://www.pancanal.com/eng/op/tolls.html](https://www.pancanal.com/eng/op/tolls.html)
gives about $400,000 for a crossing. This corresponds to 10 days of sailing.
Note that there's another day for transit.

To double check, the Panama Canal saves about 13,000 km of travel. Slow
steaming is about 35 km/hour, or about 15 days of sailing. Thus, for the cost
of 11 days of sailing one can save 14 days, making the Panama Canal fee
entirely reasonable.

------
yread
It would be cool technology and cut emissions (12 to 15% is not bad at all)
but I don't want to be on a dismasted yacht doing ocean crossing in the middle
of a storm with all the nearest vessels computer-controlled, without life-
support systems, unable to help me

~~~
maxerickson
Adventure yachtists are a small enough group maybe we can just not worry about
them having to give up their dangerous activity.

The activity is also esoteric enough that it would not be ridiculous to demand
that the participants pay for their own safety net.

~~~
dalke
Yachts aren't the only ships on the oceans which might need rescue. Consider a
similar scenario with a fishing trawler stranded at sea instead of a yacht.

It's possible to do a cost-benefit analysis, but it's not meaningful if it
only takes into account adventure yachtists.

What about fishing boats which have been hit by freighters (as in
[http://gcaptain.com/dutch-freighter-sinks-french-
trawler/](http://gcaptain.com/dutch-freighter-sinks-french-trawler/) )? Do the
owners of uncrewed freighters have no culpability or responsibility in helping
contribute towards a safety net even though the freighter might be the cause
of a problem?

Freighters themselves also have problems at sea. Eg,
[http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/68327/vietnamese-
freig...](http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/68327/vietnamese-freighter-
sinks-due-to-stormy-weather/) concerns a freighter where 18 of the crew were
rescued by another freighter, the Pacific Skipper.

Here's a case where a cargo ship hit a ferry -
[http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/philippines-
shi...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/philippines-ships-
collision/) . The crew of the cargo ship, plus the navy, Coast Guard and other
commercial vessels, worked to rescue some of the passengers. If commercial
vessels were uncrewed then that's fewer ships that could have helped.

~~~
vidarh
> If commercial vessels were uncrewed then that's fewer ships that could have
> helped.

It's also vastly fewer ships that could end up in trouble with crews that will
need to be rescued.

~~~
dalke
First, that's a conjecture. It assumes that uncrewed ships will be safer. (Eg,
it may end up colliding into other ships more often.)

Second, you don't know what you are talking about, because there's no way to
get "vastly fewer ships".

There are some four million fishing vessels, of which 1.3 million are decked
and about 40,000 of them are longer than 24 meters (over 100 tons). These are
not going to be uncrewed because we haven't automated fishing.

According to the CIA factbook at
[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/rankorder/2108rank.html) there are 16,406 vessels in the world's
merchant marine. Of those, over 1,722 (I stopped counting at Norway) are
passenger or passenger/cargo ships which cannot be uncrewed.

Removing the crew from the 14,000 remaining ships is not going to "vastly"
reduce the number of ships with crews that will need to be rescued. It will,
on the other hand vastly reduce the number of ships with the capacity to help
in an offshore rescue. (A commercial troll vessel with a crew of 4 doesn't
have the extra safety equipment that a, say, Handymax bulk carrier carries,
and can't handle the same weather conditions.)

------
bbosh
When each shipment nets maybe $30,000,000 for the shipping company and you pay
about £20,000 for the crew during that time, you'd need to save a lot of money
elsewhere to make this worthwhile.

~~~
Groxx
I'm not sure that's accurate. The article mentions this:

> _Crew costs of $3,299 a day account for about 44 percent of total operating
> expenses for a large container ship, according to Moore Stephens LLP, an
> industry accountant and consultant._

That would be what, 10 days at sea? Are they really that fast? Even if so,
where does 44% come from?

~~~
dalke
Here's the chart you probably want:

[http://www.hsh-
nordbank.com/media/en/pdf/kundenbereiche/schi...](http://www.hsh-
nordbank.com/media/en/pdf/kundenbereiche/schifffahrt/research/betriebskosten_studie09/Kurzfassung_Betriebskostenstudie2009.pdf)

It lists a median cost of US$3,712/day for manning costs, with a total
operating cost of $8,138/day => 45.6% .

------
cratermoon
How would they be necessarily faster and less polluting?

Sure, waste from crew activities is part of the output, but most of it could
be recycled or composted. The big source of pollution is the diesel engines,
and those wouldn't change much.

And faster? Whatever weight savings came from removing crew accommodations
would just be used to fit more TEUs for the trip.

~~~
winslow
I had the same question. I suppose they might be referring to newer technology
to limit emissions and maybe bio-diesel? Other than that I don't see why
removing the crew would be less polluting.

Edit: According to the quote [1], it seems like the engines wouldn't
necessarily be more efficient but rather more cargo per ship increasing the
shipment to fuel ratio. Somewhat similar to CSX's fuel saving slogan "Trains
can move a ton of freight nearly 450 miles on a single gallon of fuel." [2].

[1] - "By replacing the bridge -- along with the other systems that support
the crew, such as electricity, air conditioning, water and sewage -- with more
cargo, ships can cut costs and boost revenue, Levander said. The ships would
be 5 percent lighter before loading cargo and would burn 12 percent to 15
percent less fuel, he said."

[2] - [http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-
partners...](http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-
partnerships/fuel-efficiency/)

~~~
cratermoon
> The ships would be 5 percent lighter before loading cargo and would burn 12
> percent to 15 percent less fuel, he said.

And what's to say the amount of cargo carried wouldn't simply be increased by
5 percent or so, offsetting any gains?

~~~
winslow
They aren't necessarily worried about the cargo simply offsetting the weight.
It's the fact that the space previously used for the bridge and human living
area is used for cargo instead. Ultimately this would increase the shipment to
fuel ratio per cargo ship.

------
washedup
My biggest question is how they plan on securing these ships. Pirates would
likely see this as a huge opportunity.

~~~
scotch_drinker
Piracy is often profitable because of ransoms paid for crew as far as I know.
The article seems to directly address this. With no crew on board, how would
the pirates stop the ship from just continuing on to port with them on it? I
suppose they could threaten to destroy the ship or something on the ship but
that's no different than the situation now.

~~~
adventured
One of the few, and more unusual captures in which that wasn't the case:

"Pirates captured a Saudi-owned supertanker loaded with more than $100 million
worth of crude oil off the coast of Kenya, seizing the largest ship ever
hijacked"

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/world/africa/18pirates.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/world/africa/18pirates.html)

~~~
scotch_drinker
It was still released after an estimated $3 million ransom. If it had no crew,
how would they have been able to achieve this ransom?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Sirius_Star](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Sirius_Star)

~~~
dragonwriter
The $3 million ransom was a small price for a ship and cargo worth, together,
a quarter billion dollars. Even for an unmanned ship, the owner has plenty of
reason to to pay ransoms that are a literally pennies on the dollar compared
to losing the ship completely.

------
pinaceae
i love how everyone here latches onto bad pirates boarding a drone.

why would a drone ship have any human navigable rigging? drones do not have
cockpits, life support systems, etc. a drone ship would have cargo containers
all around, no bridge, no control room, etc.

how do you board something that has no surface meant for humans?

~~~
dalke
Those containers were attached to the deck or other containers, and inspected.
That requires humans to have access to the containers to lash them down, at
least for those which reach above the deck. This requires a surface meant for
humans.

------
drawkbox
This could also provide more information about the oceans being totally
automated. They would need to map the ocean (and problems) more closely to
navigate.

I just hope they can still find and pickup Tom Hanks and Wilson.

------
gfodor
If only Rolls Royce had posted this idea to Hacker News first, they could have
abandoned it after reading all the insightful comments about piracy.

