TTHOUGHT LEADERSHIP: COATINGS & CORROSION CONTROLing. Because hull grooming only lightly to get to where it is required? Control: Can we meaningfully communicate our completely for any of these consider-brushes the ship hull and does not re- Can the robot accurately maneuver and commands to the robot and interpret the ations prevents an optimal robotic solu-move coating, containment is not neces- operate for the task? Communication: status of the robot? Failure to provide tion. This, we feel, is why a hull groom-sary and the life of the original coating is extended, lengthening the period be-tween costly dry docking. Additionally, hull grooming is done with light-weight SAFER, SMARTER, GREENERbrushes making very gentle contact on the ship hull. This permits hand-held brushes that can easily be operated by divers or even brush tools that can be operated by small hull-crawling robots. CONGRATULATIONS!The lack of need for heavy equipment to launch and recover a cleaning tool, fur-US FLAG FLEET RECENT ADDITIONS ther adds to the cost-bene? t.To be effective though, hull-grooming must be done as regularly as once a week or more and must be thorough, leaving DNV GL is a proud partner supporting US Shipyards & Owners no voids or omissions. (Continuing with the previous analogy of teeth brushing, imagine brushing all but a few teeth - a Matson|Philly dentist visit is still in your future.) The Kaimana Hilaregularity and thoroughness require-ments for hull grooming present chal-lenges to viability. For instance, a DDG-51 class ship comprises approximately 22% of the US Navy ? eet by number and approximately 22% by wetted hull area. Grooming the total wetted area of this portion of the US Navy ? eet once a week is logistically and ? nancially prohibitive without a robotic means of doing so. Even with a robotic solution, the groom-ing time could be more than 15 hours per ship if using a single small robot and en-Crowley|VT Haltersuring 50% overlap of grooming paths.TaínoSeveral efforts over the last decade have contributed towards advancing a robotic grooming capability. These efforts have produced proven tooling, grooming methods, robotic platforms, quality assurance processes, and non-magnetic attachment methods to allow robots to crawl along a ship hull. Why then, after almost a decade of research and no fewer than 15 commercially available “hull cleaning robots”, do we still not have a solution that is really Fisherman’s Finest|Dakota Creekready for adoption by the ship husband-America’s Finestry community? The reason is as old as robotics. Until the robot can do the job as expected with minimal operator input and until the human-robot relationship is optimal, a robot is not applicable for the job.A robot being able to do a task relies on three primary considerations: naviga-tion, control, and communication. Navi-gation: Can the robot accurately know where it is in the environment and how Learn more at www.dnvgl.uswww.marinelink.com 21MR #3 (18-25).indd 21 3/7/2019 4:50:00 PM