Part B | 16
404 Part B Autonomous Ocean Vehicles, Subsystems and Control
connected by many hundreds of kilometers of cable to
the internet [16.63, 64]. While one of the more ambitious cabled observatories efforts is funded in the
United States (Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI)),
a number of countries are developing and operating
cabled observatories [16.65]. It should be noted that
AUVs provide a useful complement to cabled systems,
the former being mobile and capable of deploying instruments to locations of interest, the latter being fixed
in location.
AUV reliability is also an important factor driving
adoption. Most AUV operations today are attended by
a ship, or at least have ships in the vicinity. Should
there be problems, the vehicle can ascend to the surface, where it can be recovered and serviced. A docked
AUV is most likely far from rescue and must carry out
a particularly complex sequence of activities for every
mission. Consequently, operating a docked AUV entails some risk. While one might argue that the risk
associated with docking is a necessary part of the docking development process, the ability of the vehicle to
successfully complete repeated missions without human servicing is demanding. While buoyancy driven
systems are routinely deployed for months at a time,
propeller-driven AUVs are typically deployed on the order of a day. However, the advent of a class of very
long endurance AUVs, operating up to 3 weeks at
a time per deployment [16.26, 66] offers encouragement that AUV reliability can support extended dock
deployments.
A final factor moderating docking adoption stems
from the comparatively high cost of scientifically
equipped AUVs. In effect, there is an opportunity cost
associated with committing an AUV to a docked deployment. The owner of the AUV has the choice of
keeping the AUV close at hand, or deploying a vehicle
at a remote dock at sea. While the sea-deployed system is positioned to respond rapidly to opportunities
in the vicinity of the dock, it is effectively unavailable for operations that are beyond operational range
of the vehicle from the dock. When the AUV must support a variety of scientific goals, this creates an inherent
conflict between users, which is simplest to handle by
keeping the vehicle on shore where it is equally available to all potential users. This calculus breaks down,
however, when the dock location is remote and unique.
For example, science associated with a docked system
in winter in the Arctic Ocean removes the AUV from
ready access, but also places the vehicle in a location
where it is uniquely capable of making observations, as
the Arctic Ocean is all but inaccessible during winter.
It is worth noting that such remote deployments place
a high premium on autonomy, including adaptive capability such as event detection capabilities for triggering
AUV missions.
In summary, while AUV docking has been experimented with since the 1990s, only recently has
the needed combination of supporting infrastructure,
vehicle reliability, and operational need emerged for
docking to transition to an operational capability. In the
science domain, the emergence of cabled and mooringbased observatories provides a framework that can both
support and benefit from docked AUVs. In the commercial domain, the rising interest in inspection, repair,
and maintenance (IRM) capabilities for offshore structures offers an application domain where the problems
associated with infrastructure and the risk-reward calculation are tipping in favor of resident vehicles. The
drivers for adoption of docking capability are growing,
encouraging hope that docking will become an operational capability supporting a more permanent presence
of mobile platforms in the ocean.
References
16.1
D.E.F. Kemp, W. Paul, D. Peters: Mooring developments for autonomous ocean-sampling networks,
IEEE-JOE 26(4), 477–486 (2001)
16.2
R.S. McEwen, B.W. Hobson, L. McBride, J.G. Bellingham: Docking control system for a 54-cm-diameter
(21-in) AUV, IEEE-JOE 33(4), 550–562 (2008)
16.3
National Research Council (US) Committee on
Seafloor Observatories: Illuminating the Hidden
Planet: The Future of Seafloor Observatory Science
(National Academies Press, Washington 2000)
16.4
T.B. Curtin, J.G. Bellingham, J. Catipovic, D. Webb:
Autonomous oceanographic sampling networks,
Oceanography 6(3), 86–94 (1993)
16.5
H. Singh, J.G. Bellingham, F. Hover, S. Lemer,
B.A. Moran, K. von der Heydt, D. Yoerger: Docking
for an autonomous ocean sampling network, IEEEJOE 26(4), 498–514 (2001)
16.6
M.D. Feezor, F.Y. Sorrell, P.R. Blankinship,
J.G. Bellingham: Autonomous underwater vehicle
homing/docking via electromagnetic guidance,
IEEE-JOE 26(4), 515–521 (2001)
16.7
S. Cowen, S. Briest, J. Dombrowski: Underwater
docking of autonomous undersea vehicles using
optical terminal guidance, Proc. IEEE OCEANS‘97,
Vol. 2 (1997) pp. 1143–1147
16.8
R. Stokey, B. Allen, T. Austin, R. Goldsborough,
N. Forrester, M. Purcell, C. von Alt: Enabling technologies for REMUS docking: An integral component
of an autonomous ocean-sampling network, IEEEJOE 26(4), 487–497 (2001)
404 Part B Autonomous Ocean Vehicles, Subsystems and Control
connected by many hundreds of kilometers of cable to
the internet [16.63, 64]. While one of the more ambitious cabled observatories efforts is funded in the
United States (Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI)),
a number of countries are developing and operating
cabled observatories [16.65]. It should be noted that
AUVs provide a useful complement to cabled systems,
the former being mobile and capable of deploying instruments to locations of interest, the latter being fixed
in location.
AUV reliability is also an important factor driving
adoption. Most AUV operations today are attended by
a ship, or at least have ships in the vicinity. Should
there be problems, the vehicle can ascend to the surface, where it can be recovered and serviced. A docked
AUV is most likely far from rescue and must carry out
a particularly complex sequence of activities for every
mission. Consequently, operating a docked AUV entails some risk. While one might argue that the risk
associated with docking is a necessary part of the docking development process, the ability of the vehicle to
successfully complete repeated missions without human servicing is demanding. While buoyancy driven
systems are routinely deployed for months at a time,
propeller-driven AUVs are typically deployed on the order of a day. However, the advent of a class of very
long endurance AUVs, operating up to 3 weeks at
a time per deployment [16.26, 66] offers encouragement that AUV reliability can support extended dock
deployments.
A final factor moderating docking adoption stems
from the comparatively high cost of scientifically
equipped AUVs. In effect, there is an opportunity cost
associated with committing an AUV to a docked deployment. The owner of the AUV has the choice of
keeping the AUV close at hand, or deploying a vehicle
at a remote dock at sea. While the sea-deployed system is positioned to respond rapidly to opportunities
in the vicinity of the dock, it is effectively unavailable for operations that are beyond operational range
of the vehicle from the dock. When the AUV must support a variety of scientific goals, this creates an inherent
conflict between users, which is simplest to handle by
keeping the vehicle on shore where it is equally available to all potential users. This calculus breaks down,
however, when the dock location is remote and unique.
For example, science associated with a docked system
in winter in the Arctic Ocean removes the AUV from
ready access, but also places the vehicle in a location
where it is uniquely capable of making observations, as
the Arctic Ocean is all but inaccessible during winter.
It is worth noting that such remote deployments place
a high premium on autonomy, including adaptive capability such as event detection capabilities for triggering
AUV missions.
In summary, while AUV docking has been experimented with since the 1990s, only recently has
the needed combination of supporting infrastructure,
vehicle reliability, and operational need emerged for
docking to transition to an operational capability. In the
science domain, the emergence of cabled and mooringbased observatories provides a framework that can both
support and benefit from docked AUVs. In the commercial domain, the rising interest in inspection, repair,
and maintenance (IRM) capabilities for offshore structures offers an application domain where the problems
associated with infrastructure and the risk-reward calculation are tipping in favor of resident vehicles. The
drivers for adoption of docking capability are growing,
encouraging hope that docking will become an operational capability supporting a more permanent presence
of mobile platforms in the ocean.
References
16.1
D.E.F. Kemp, W. Paul, D. Peters: Mooring developments for autonomous ocean-sampling networks,
IEEE-JOE 26(4), 477–486 (2001)
16.2
R.S. McEwen, B.W. Hobson, L. McBride, J.G. Bellingham: Docking control system for a 54-cm-diameter
(21-in) AUV, IEEE-JOE 33(4), 550–562 (2008)
16.3
National Research Council (US) Committee on
Seafloor Observatories: Illuminating the Hidden
Planet: The Future of Seafloor Observatory Science
(National Academies Press, Washington 2000)
16.4
T.B. Curtin, J.G. Bellingham, J. Catipovic, D. Webb:
Autonomous oceanographic sampling networks,
Oceanography 6(3), 86–94 (1993)
16.5
H. Singh, J.G. Bellingham, F. Hover, S. Lemer,
B.A. Moran, K. von der Heydt, D. Yoerger: Docking
for an autonomous ocean sampling network, IEEEJOE 26(4), 498–514 (2001)
16.6
M.D. Feezor, F.Y. Sorrell, P.R. Blankinship,
J.G. Bellingham: Autonomous underwater vehicle
homing/docking via electromagnetic guidance,
IEEE-JOE 26(4), 515–521 (2001)
16.7
S. Cowen, S. Briest, J. Dombrowski: Underwater
docking of autonomous undersea vehicles using
optical terminal guidance, Proc. IEEE OCEANS‘97,
Vol. 2 (1997) pp. 1143–1147
16.8
R. Stokey, B. Allen, T. Austin, R. Goldsborough,
N. Forrester, M. Purcell, C. von Alt: Enabling technologies for REMUS docking: An integral component
of an autonomous ocean-sampling network, IEEEJOE 26(4), 487–497 (2001)