Unmanned submarine earmarked for Irish Sea freight crossings(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Unmanned submarine earmarked for Irish Sea freight crossings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-58571143
89 comments
What a waste of money. They are only now thinking about the business case after getting the grant. That is the cart pulling the horse.
Sounds interesting but the article doesn't mention how many containers would fit in this sub.
Based on the illustration, easily hundreds.
Based on the model sitting on a wooden table, none.
Based on the model sitting on a wooden table, none.
> A self-driving hydrogen-powered submarine is among the winners in a UK government competition to tackle emissions from shipping.
> But what kind of cargo will the submarine be carrying? "That's what we're going to figure out over the next few months," he told the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme.
> The creators say it will also collect micro-plastic from the water column and feed the data to researchers.
I think it's an interesting concept but selling it as a fix for emissions for shipping seems like greenwashing to me.
> But what kind of cargo will the submarine be carrying? "That's what we're going to figure out over the next few months," he told the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme.
> The creators say it will also collect micro-plastic from the water column and feed the data to researchers.
I think it's an interesting concept but selling it as a fix for emissions for shipping seems like greenwashing to me.
Additionally, unless I'm missing something, we don't actually have the economics at scale to produce "green hydrogen" right now - it's definitely cleaner than oil, but it's still rather environmentally expensive to produce.
At the moment most hydrogen is produced by reforming natural gas. So in some ways it's less "green" than just burning the natural gas.
It's a complicated area but the key difference is to only use it for things that can't be otherwise electrified, which are mostly chemical input tasks, but cargo shipping on (or under) water is probably one of the sensible uses.
Here's an article with a handy chart:
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/liebreich-oil...
Here's an article with a handy chart:
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/liebreich-oil...
Unless the sub has a snorkel to the surface or some ability to extract dissolved O2 from seawater, the sub will also need an onboard supply of O2.. presumably compressed O2.. or they use hydrogen peroxide like in torpedoes?
Yes fuel cell powered submarines always carry an onboard oxygen supply, either compressed gas or liquid. It's not practical to extract that much dissolved O2 from seawater.
It's not evironmentally expensive, but it is currently money expensive due to a combination of implicit subsidies of the fossil fuel industry and small scale of production.
It not that crazy concept for an actually functional drone delivery system. Ocean based wind farms that generate green hydrogen has been suggested as a possible future method to solve the grid stability issue in a future without fossil fuels (especially in the camp that would rather use fossil fuels than nuclear). If you are already producing the hydrogen in the ocean, having a delivery system of drones that operate on hydrogen and can travel independently to those wind farms to refuel seems like a good match.
This assuming that the cost of building the green hydrogen producing wind farm near the ports, the cost of the drones, the control systems and loading/offloading can be competitive to simply using very large ships that burn cheap fossil fuel.
This assuming that the cost of building the green hydrogen producing wind farm near the ports, the cost of the drones, the control systems and loading/offloading can be competitive to simply using very large ships that burn cheap fossil fuel.
> But what kind of cargo will the submarine be carrying? "That's what we're going to figure out over the next few months," he told the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme.
Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
This submarine was designed to transport green energy grant money straight to designers wallet.
AIUI, GPS doesnt penetrate very far below the ocean surface. It would be interesting to know what alternatives they are planning for navigation.
Some auv’s have a (retractable) tether to a surface GPS. I’m not sure about this one though.
Simple: put the receiver on the tractor kite. I mean, what self-respecting future green sea transport solution wouldn't have a huge tractor kite?
And what would be more impressive than a huge tractor kite? A huge tractor kite on a tether that dives 50m beneath the surface.
And what would be more impressive than a huge tractor kite? A huge tractor kite on a tether that dives 50m beneath the surface.
Having something extending above the surface would help with visibility for small ships as well - cargo vessels will track this automatically and most modestly sized sailboats do either have a built in unit for tracking nearby ships or folks just use their smartphones - but for really small water craft (like rowboats/dingies and personal sail-craft (sunfishes)) I'm concerned that collisions would be extremely easy.
This is an intriguing concept, but given that the submarine is small and suitable for mostly high-value cargo (whisky is the example cargo given in the article) I'm not sure how it'll offer significant advantages over other forms of transportation in practice.
Although submarines are more effective navigating through storms, one could simply wait for the storm to pass when shipping non-time-sensitive cargo, then use a regular surface cargo ship (which could be automated if desired just like the submarine). Surface ships also have the advantage of compatibility with our already-established shipbuilding and maintenance infrastructure, while a submarine would require the proliferation of new skills and tools to support it.
For time-critical cargo (where one can't wait for a hypothetical storm to pass), it's likely aircraft would be a better option for most shipments - certainly in severe storms aircraft can't operate either, but in that case the very act of loading and unloading the submarine would be hazardous as well.
Although submarines are more effective navigating through storms, one could simply wait for the storm to pass when shipping non-time-sensitive cargo, then use a regular surface cargo ship (which could be automated if desired just like the submarine). Surface ships also have the advantage of compatibility with our already-established shipbuilding and maintenance infrastructure, while a submarine would require the proliferation of new skills and tools to support it.
For time-critical cargo (where one can't wait for a hypothetical storm to pass), it's likely aircraft would be a better option for most shipments - certainly in severe storms aircraft can't operate either, but in that case the very act of loading and unloading the submarine would be hazardous as well.
That's neat imagine a heist to catch one underwater with a net
_Modern cargo submarines: Born out of, and into, criminality._
I agree and would love to see some capers like that. Even if tongue in cheek, like an Ocean's 12-style billionaire who lives in a customized one because they suffer from severe OCD and introversion or something. Everybody on the squad rolls their eyes and the audience rolls the eyes right along with them, because nope, we're not sensitive billionaire techie weirdos here! Just good ol' fashioned types.
(Meanwhile, Wolfram is probably literally trying out one for off-site workplace-hacking IRL, or something stranger than fiction...)
I agree and would love to see some capers like that. Even if tongue in cheek, like an Ocean's 12-style billionaire who lives in a customized one because they suffer from severe OCD and introversion or something. Everybody on the squad rolls their eyes and the audience rolls the eyes right along with them, because nope, we're not sensitive billionaire techie weirdos here! Just good ol' fashioned types.
(Meanwhile, Wolfram is probably literally trying out one for off-site workplace-hacking IRL, or something stranger than fiction...)
A clandestine means of transporting cargo without relying on humans who can steal or be traced back to the owner. I wonder if they'll accept cryptocurrency.
I love the concept of submarine cargo ships but there are three main issues that make them less appealing than ships.
Subs require significantly more thrust per cubic metre of cargo.
Communication and navigation are more difficult because GPS and satellite comms don't work underwater.
Loading and unloading in comparable times to a standard container vessel.
Subs require significantly more thrust per cubic metre of cargo.
Communication and navigation are more difficult because GPS and satellite comms don't work underwater.
Loading and unloading in comparable times to a standard container vessel.
Less turbulence to move the cargo, which could lead to less breakage.
If subs are designed for cargo then unload/loading operations can be optimized.
If subs are designed for cargo then unload/loading operations can be optimized.
Deep water subs require serious fixed reinforcement (like gigantic periodic rings) to prevent being crushed at low depths that would stop you from easily exposing the interior for unloading - but given that they're only going 50m deep I'm sure you could have some mechanism to pop the sub in half and get all the access you need. I feel like turbulence is sort of a solved problem by way of pallet packing - but that actually raises a larger concern of mine - the sub they display is pretty tube-shaped which means it's either not going to use pre-packed pallets (definitely the case if the image shown is to scale) or it's not going to use pre-packed pallets efficiently. Habours leverage pallets to minimize the manual labour needed for loading/unloading so while the ship might open like a sardine can it's not going to see a lot of use if someone needs to lift boxes out of it one at a time.
I am not sure how thick the reinforcement actually need to be in order to comfortable cover the minimum 6 atmospheres of pressure at 50m. My intuition with diving gear tells me its should not be that bad, but I don't know how much things scale with volume.
Missile subs have large vertical tubes that can quickly be unloaded and loaded with a crane. If a sub can have big missiles you can pack it with pallets of bottles
If there are no people on board, couldn't the air pressure be boosted to match the external water pressure?
If the pressure is balanced, removing the need for a pressure hull, the sub could have a more rectangular cross section, allowing it to be packed full of regular shipping containers.
If the pressure is balanced, removing the need for a pressure hull, the sub could have a more rectangular cross section, allowing it to be packed full of regular shipping containers.
Surely a GPS mast shouldn't be a problem? And an IMU may be more expensive than a GPS receiver, but compared to the cost of the whole vessel, it's probably negligible.
Yeah a mast or tethered transmitter probably they way to go, but now you have the problem of operating both a submarine and a pseudo surface vessel.
Nothing insurmountable, but it's not as simple as running under everyone which is what the article implied (to me atleast).
Nothing insurmountable, but it's not as simple as running under everyone which is what the article implied (to me atleast).
[deleted]
Doppler velocity log is likely what they'd want.
>Communication and navigation are more difficult because GPS and satellite comms don't work underwater.
That's a really good point, how do you get a signal to a submerged unmanned submarine under all that conductive saltwater? Military submarines use VLF radio waves that can penetrate saltwater fairly deep, but those long wavelengths require enormous aerials and powerful transmitters that are one thing if you're the navy of a nuclear power, quite another if you're a shipping line looking to make a profit.
That's a really good point, how do you get a signal to a submerged unmanned submarine under all that conductive saltwater? Military submarines use VLF radio waves that can penetrate saltwater fairly deep, but those long wavelengths require enormous aerials and powerful transmitters that are one thing if you're the navy of a nuclear power, quite another if you're a shipping line looking to make a profit.
Submarines can't transmit on VLF bands. They can only receive from land based transmitters.
One of the reasons to use quantum gyroscopes is that will be accurate to within 1m or so after a day long underwater traverse of 1000 km or more. Communication while fully under still sucks though.
Powerful lasers, as used by laser depth sounders, will penetrate water to an 80m depth [1]. Might be possible to do a laser link directly to an overhead UAV or satellite? If they are following regular shipping lanes, it might be possible to have communication buoys (or nodes on the seafloor connected by fibre/cable) at regular intervals along the route, with laser or sonar communications to passing submarines. It would be a bit like "sections" of track in railways, with vehicles checking in as they enter/leave each section.
[1] https://www.navy.gov.au/ran-aviation-history/laser-airborne-...
[1] https://www.navy.gov.au/ran-aviation-history/laser-airborne-...
I like the idea, but as a mariner who has ran into mysterious things in the sea i'm more ambiguous.
one of the major advantages of (most) ocean-going vessels, aside from usually having a crew aboard to negotiate with over VHF as to who goes where when trying to navigate around them , is that the above-water visibility aids in navigation and avoidance.
a future where trade channels are filled with AI-driven low-depth submarines that have no real crew aboard to communicate with sort of worries me, but all I can do is hope that the people who put them together and control them get it right -- otherwise it could turn a lot of trips dangerous.
for those that are in the business : is there an established method by which these unmanned ships that I keep reading about deal with VHF traffic of those around them? Perhaps the ship is receiving and sending back to some proxy site somewhere for a crew to communicate to nearby ships offsite?
one of the major advantages of (most) ocean-going vessels, aside from usually having a crew aboard to negotiate with over VHF as to who goes where when trying to navigate around them , is that the above-water visibility aids in navigation and avoidance.
a future where trade channels are filled with AI-driven low-depth submarines that have no real crew aboard to communicate with sort of worries me, but all I can do is hope that the people who put them together and control them get it right -- otherwise it could turn a lot of trips dangerous.
for those that are in the business : is there an established method by which these unmanned ships that I keep reading about deal with VHF traffic of those around them? Perhaps the ship is receiving and sending back to some proxy site somewhere for a crew to communicate to nearby ships offsite?
I think they'd need some serious lane marking around wherever they're going to come to surface (unless they somehow intend for these to surface vertically within a reception depot). I can imagine how "fun" it'd be to be in a teensy sailboat (like a sunfish) and have this thing surface under you - possibly chucking you into the sub's engine when you're thrown from the boat.
I have been on a small sailboat and had a submarine surface nearby. Good times!
Wow, do you think they knew you were there? Must have been a shock!
Probably not, considering even advanced nuclear subs just pop up without checking if there is a 200' ship above them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville...
They knew, it was a joke. It was a military research institute in a Chinese lake at 2000m altitude in the Himalayas. The lake is very deep so useful for submarine testing.
Seems to open up a new variation on "boat hitting whale" accidents only a lot more damaging to the boat. It's already bad for the whale.
The article is not clearly written, but they say these things:
1. it will run at 50m depth in trade routes
2. it can work in shallow waters where container ship can not
So I think the idea is that it does not need deep-water port infrastructure, but will get deep and out of the way when it's out of port. So a big ship would never see it.
And it can potentially go under the polar ice.
1. it will run at 50m depth in trade routes
2. it can work in shallow waters where container ship can not
So I think the idea is that it does not need deep-water port infrastructure, but will get deep and out of the way when it's out of port. So a big ship would never see it.
And it can potentially go under the polar ice.
It will run at 50m depth until something breaks and it loses depth keeping control with no one on board to effect repairs.
Does that make it any different from the millions of pieces of flotsam/jetsam all over the ocean?
So what? It's unmanned. Worst case it sinks and the shipment is lost. By default it surfaces and waits for someone to come fix it.
Worst case it surfaces without power and another vessel runs into it. Hitting a lost shipping container is bad enough. Hitting a submarine is likely to be worse since they're structurally much stronger.
Getting a tow line onto that thing is going to be hazardous in any kind of rough weather. As often happens in the Irish Sea.
Getting a tow line onto that thing is going to be hazardous in any kind of rough weather. As often happens in the Irish Sea.
Inflating a bright-colored radio-reflecting balloon and triggering a radio beacon is really easy.
They'll be out of the way of surface ships.
But how will they be out of the way of each other?
Solvable problem, but not without some complexity.
But how will they be out of the way of each other?
Solvable problem, but not without some complexity.
I'm curious. What sort of mysterious things have you run into? Narco stuff? Military? Little Green Men?
I suspect the GP used 'run into' in the literal sense i.e. hiring submerged objects. There's a surprising amount of crap floating around out there from small logs right up to lost shipping containers. If you sail enough then it's an occupational hazard (and an extremely dangerous one if you're in a smaller boat).
> lost shipping containers
Reminds me of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Is_Lost
Reminds me of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Is_Lost
I've not heard of that film before, but as a sailor the plot reads like my worst nightmares.
> is that the above-water visibility aids in navigation and avoidance
You realize that submarines can travel at different depths depending on the direction (bearing), just like planes do?
When you move in 3 dimension it's very easy to avoid collisions.
You realize that submarines can travel at different depths depending on the direction (bearing), just like planes do?
When you move in 3 dimension it's very easy to avoid collisions.
UK sponsored, in the Irish sea? Is the UK smuggling stuff over to northern Ireland to circumstance the EU Brexit treaty?
It's a comedy act by Bojo the clown (Boris Johnson) and co...
To distract the public from the various shitshows currently going on with absolutely daft crap, like this and the "return of imperial measurements"..
To distract the public from the various shitshows currently going on with absolutely daft crap, like this and the "return of imperial measurements"..
There is a whole industry ready to throw money at a vehicle which does not need humans to operate, can evade detection, can be cheap enough to be discarded after transporting a highly valuable cargo.
This industry is already employing subs albeit with people aboard [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine?wprov=sfla1
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine?wprov=sfla1
I have to say, I'm amused by the strength of the pearl-clutching impulse illustrated by the wikipedia intro:
> Some express concerns such vessels could potentially be used for purposes other than smuggling.
I guess "but what if it facilitates the drug trade?" just wasn't available as an objection here.
> Some express concerns such vessels could potentially be used for purposes other than smuggling.
I guess "but what if it facilitates the drug trade?" just wasn't available as an objection here.
Which is "Cited" by an article that says nothing of the sort.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/fe...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/fe...
> Some express concerns such vessels could potentially be used for purposes other than smuggling.
Wouldn't it be awful if someone used a narco sub for recreational boating without crossing any national borders? Or what if they used one to transport goods or people across borders and stopped at customs/immigration as required?
That would be concerning indeed!
Wouldn't it be awful if someone used a narco sub for recreational boating without crossing any national borders? Or what if they used one to transport goods or people across borders and stopped at customs/immigration as required?
That would be concerning indeed!
£380,000 seems like... a drop in the ocean for a project like that. Surely they will need multiple millions just to have a chance at commercial success.
In general that isn't much in submarine business... Even used reasonably sized tourist submarines cost more. And those have very limited dive times ranges.
There are "underwater gliders" that propel themselves by ascending/descending via changing their buoyancy and using fins to direct this forwards. They have low speed but are much more efficient than most subs. Would be interesting to see such a glider take on freight, though it would probably need thrusters for navigation in harbor.
> though it would probably need thrusters for navigation in harbor.
Perhaps the harbor can have small tugboats that simply hook the freighters and push it into the harbor
Perhaps the harbor can have small tugboats that simply hook the freighters and push it into the harbor
Some current gliders already have a propulsion system for fine adjustments that is also used for manouvering in port. I believe they would be too slow for any practical use in the merchant navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider
As I recall from my class work in a hydrospace vehicles course I took decades ago, submarines have the interesting property of being more efficient that surface vehicle because they leave no wake. A wake is a set of propagating waves that require energy to generate and this, naturally, is felt as drag by conventional ships.
The question of course arises, why aren’t submarines used for shipping? We were taught that the problem was buoyancy control. The weight of a ship carrying freight can vary greatly on a round trip.
The question of course arises, why aren’t submarines used for shipping? We were taught that the problem was buoyancy control. The weight of a ship carrying freight can vary greatly on a round trip.
I wonder if there is some scaling factor here. That is in certain range submarines are more efficient. But then if you get big enough normal cargo ships do better. I would think that surface area plays big part, with big ships only certain area is under water, for submarines it's the whole thing. And for cargo ships it start to be big.
> submarines have the interesting property of being more efficient that surface vehicle because they leave no wake. A wake is a set of propagating waves that require energy to generate and this, naturally, is felt as drag by conventional ships.
This sounds off. Conventional ships experience drag when they try to go forward and there's a bunch of water in the way. When they shove that water out of the way, it has to go somewhere else, and meanwhile some other water has to flow into the space where the ship used to be. That motion of the water generates the wake.
But all of that applies just as well to submarines moving below the surface of the sea, or cars driving around within the atmosphere. If a car passes by you, you'll feel wind blowing after it. That is the car's wake. And when a submarine tries to move underwater, it runs into exactly the same problem as the surface ship -- there's a bunch of water in the way. How can it possibly move without generating a wake?
This sounds off. Conventional ships experience drag when they try to go forward and there's a bunch of water in the way. When they shove that water out of the way, it has to go somewhere else, and meanwhile some other water has to flow into the space where the ship used to be. That motion of the water generates the wake.
But all of that applies just as well to submarines moving below the surface of the sea, or cars driving around within the atmosphere. If a car passes by you, you'll feel wind blowing after it. That is the car's wake. And when a submarine tries to move underwater, it runs into exactly the same problem as the surface ship -- there's a bunch of water in the way. How can it possibly move without generating a wake?
It sounds off, but is true, but at least partially because the hull of modern submarines is optimized for submerged use.
That’s why the bow of modern submarines looks more like the nosecone of a rocket than like the bow of a surface vessel.
See https://navalpost.com/submarine-cavitation-drag-underwater-s...)
That’s why the bow of modern submarines looks more like the nosecone of a rocket than like the bow of a surface vessel.
See https://navalpost.com/submarine-cavitation-drag-underwater-s...)
Sorry, it's true that a passing submarine does not disturb the water it passes through?
I'm not challenging the idea that a submarine might require less energy to move one knot than a surface ship does. I'm challenging the idea that a submarine leaves no wake.
In the photo heading the article you link, a wake is visible behind the submarine.
I'm not challenging the idea that a submarine might require less energy to move one knot than a surface ship does. I'm challenging the idea that a submarine leaves no wake.
In the photo heading the article you link, a wake is visible behind the submarine.
Wake can mean two things. I think you're confusing disturbance of the water that it passed through with travelling waves that appear as ripples on the water surface in the case of boats. Submarines don't generate the latter type of wake. Of course they do consume some energy. They're not perpetual motion machines. That some energy goes into the former type of wake.
The surface of the water allows a unique mode of energy transfer (surface waves) which doesn't exist without a surface. Underwater, energy can still be transmitted by sound, but that's not the same mechanism as surface waves.
I'm skeptical that picture is a photo since it doesn't have blueing and darkening with distance. Maybe it's been doctored or is a small scale or something unnatural.
The surface of the water allows a unique mode of energy transfer (surface waves) which doesn't exist without a surface. Underwater, energy can still be transmitted by sound, but that's not the same mechanism as surface waves.
I'm skeptical that picture is a photo since it doesn't have blueing and darkening with distance. Maybe it's been doctored or is a small scale or something unnatural.
> Wake can mean two things. I think you're confusing disturbance of the water that it passed through with travelling waves that appear as ripples on the water surface in the case of boats.
In what sense are these different things? How could you have one without the other?
In what sense are these different things? How could you have one without the other?
They're distinctly different physical phenomena. Surface waves are like spring-mass systems where gravity acts as the spring (hence they're also called gravity waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave). They can't exist in a homogenous medium, like underwater approximately is. Since they're travelling waves, they carry energy when they travel away from the boat, so it's a source of energy loss.
> Submarines don't generate the latter type of wake
They do, and it's detectable through the bioluminescence it generates
They do, and it's detectable through the bioluminescence it generates
That's the former type. Maybe my sentence was too messy to clearly distinguish them. Ships generate a V-shaped surface wave and (deep enough) submarines don't.
I can imagine loading and unloading a sub full of containers to be more difficult than an open-top cargo ship
That's surprising to me... is it because handling the variance in buoyancy would require massive ballast tanks? I was thinking the primary blocker would be the sheer complexity and cost of the technology required to go under the water rather than on it for a long period of time.
The future of shipping will be autonomous. It will end the horrible labor abuses, and quite possibly halt piracy. However it would require trust. An autonomous ship could just has easily be a Trojan horse!
I doubt the most abusive shippers will switch to autonomous shipping anytime soon. Rather, reductions in labor will attract the more responsible, better paying shippers that some global communities (e.g. in the Philippines) heavily rely upon for income. Because being responsible is expensive; automation replaces employees, not slaves.
> quite possibly halt piracy
?!? Anything you could do to keep an unmanned ship from being robbed, you could do to a manned ship too.
> autonomous ship could just has easily be a Trojan horse!
?!? A manned ship could be a Trojan Horse too, in much the same way that the actual horse in the legend was.
?!? Anything you could do to keep an unmanned ship from being robbed, you could do to a manned ship too.
> autonomous ship could just has easily be a Trojan horse!
?!? A manned ship could be a Trojan Horse too, in much the same way that the actual horse in the legend was.
Pirates use human crew as hostages. Without hostages, the other country's military could just shoot them.
Correct, and the submarine could even include explosives designed to destroy the cargo and puncture the hull if it was opened without authorisation or lost GPS and radio signal for longer than a pre-determined length of time.
I'm just amused that the first thing they can think of is whisky...
This would be the most hi tech rum-runner (er whisky?) ever...
This would be the most hi tech rum-runner (er whisky?) ever...
Think sausages or Percy Pigs [1] would be more likely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pig
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pig
There’s a market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine