Slashdot Mirror

How does $2k USD strike you?

http://www.jetcatusa.com/rc-tu...

example in use:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

my post isn't really a new or novel idea:
http://www.interestingprojects...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It occurred to me that you could adapt the airframe and application from cruise missile (the blog post), to ultra-low cost, man-deployable SAM.

A 350mph SAM isn't going to go very high, or chase down aircraft that have flown past. It won't work like a big expensive fixed SAM installation.

The current US application of airpower is flying low, slow, over and over, in repeatable patterns, because total air superiority is assumed.

And so if you watch US airpower fly over your burnt-out city, and then you see them turning to make another pass, you pull out your low-buck SAM, get it fired up, and, when the aircraft has heading back towards you, you fire at it, head on, from a field or building rooftop or whatever.

A 350mph object coming straight at an aircraft that is used to assuming air space dominance, and which is giving off no radar emissions, is going to catch at least a few super-power aircraft off guard and take them down.

This only needs to succeed once or twice. That will cause a significant change in the use of theater air-power..

Dear Slashdot: Give us a goddamned edit button, I beg you: http://www.interestingprojects...

It's pretty easily possible for an amateur to put together their own cruise missile

http://www.interestingprojects...
http://www.rense.com/general38...

$5K cruise missile: http://www.interestingprojects...

You can find Ragnar Benson's formula for homemade C4 if you look around too. TNT isn't that difficult to make either.

... and the easiest way for your government to comply with the treaty article about non-government entities is to simply to put in place a law disallowing it. Without a powerful lobby there will be no incentive for your government to set up the regulatory apparatus for legally enabling such activity. Any such regulation is likely to be tailored to the needs of the members of such a lobby, not to a small organization like yours. And if you are thinking of jurisdiction shopping (i.e. finding some government more friendly to such activities) remember that your government may decide that you are under their jurisdiction by being a citizen, regardless of where in the world you happen to be. Also, other countries (most notably the US) are likely to decide that if you are building anything with a range capable of reaching their territory in ballistic flight that makes it their business, too. They will find many creative ways to put pressure on other governments to stop you (see this for example).

Good luck.

You also don't publicize your drone in press conferences and written up in detail for advancement of your educational status.

The best way to stay off the radar (figuratively) is to keep quiet about it.
To keep off the radar (literally), stay out of controlled airspace.

I could (in theory) build a really kick ass drone. Trans-sonic jet powered, enough fuel to fly over 1,000 miles, HD cameras in every direction, and whatever else I wanted to put on board. If it didn't fly in controlled airspace, avoided metropolitan areas, and you didn't do anything dumb like arming it up with missiles and guns, no one would know or care about it.

Oh, and making it a pulsejet, and publicizing it online as a DIY cruise missile is a very very bad idea.

Who said they had to be long range? And who said I have to carry them? WW2-era cruise missiles could be built from scratch in any garage and there's a few countries within range of the US that I might want disposed of. At $5k/missile that means I need a budget of only $50m to have Mexico wiped off the face of the earth?

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

"proliferation of cruise missiles to anyone who will pay for them" these things can be made in back of the garage as this guy tried to prove http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/diary.shtml I think rogue states/ terrorists could do the same, given they have funding ect.

Our (NZ) Mad Scientists are quite Busy in rather fascinating ways thanks.

Which in no way contradicts your experience based statement, which I interpret as: "you really do need lots of advanced hi-tech to build an accurate, advanced, effective killing machine"

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

This is years old and I have no idea how his story ended.
Last I read, the New Zealand version of the IRS had dropped on his head like a ton of bricks...
But since he's updated his site this year, I guess he's 'back'.

Robot warfare is not going Open Source! If you want to take out somebody remotely, it is sufficient to build a torpedo, a guided missile, or a mine.
Anybody remember Bruce Simpson's DIY cruise missile? Bruce Simpson has shown that you can build all of this using standard components of today.

I hope the government will not severely restrict science in this area as well (just think about what happened to nuclear research). The path to industrial automation and robotics already has enough hurdles (proprietary software, patented standards and machines, vendor lock-in, lack of integration, weak theoretical foundation, ...).

Does NZ count as the third world?

Bruce Simpson (http://aardvark.co.nz) built a cruise missile half a decade ago and nearly sold it to the yanks

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/missilemanbook.shtml

Someone has already tried a DIY payload carrying cruise missle powered by pulsejets and GPS + RC components, to try and prove exactly that point.

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

It was remarkable not only that it was exceedingly cool, and perhaps the ultimate DIY hack ever, but that it flew right in a legal sh1tstorm before it even took off. This, in a country (NZ) with relatively deregulated airspace.

The result is the government really did not like this, and moved to stop him actually testing this, including some pretty underhand ways of shutting him down (threatening to call in all his Tax debt all at once). As a result he got some very high profile prime time publicity in this country at least. Basically his point was, anyone could do this, and he set out to prove just that. Rather successfully. But this fellow is not exactly your average terrorist but a rather a patent-holding backyard engineer. I still don't think even highly resourced terrorists would go down this route, so perhaps he wasn't right after all, and was just asking for trouble.

Sorry dude, but you're wrong. Driving a wheeled vehicle on the ground with irregular obstacles is a LOT harder than flying a traditional UAV by autopilot. When you're flying, you can avoid any obstacle with "go a bit higher" and your path planning simplifies down to "stay straight and level, and fly towards the next waypoint".

These guys flew an autonomous UAV across the Atlantic back in '98. It's even been done by a bunch of dedicated amateurs. And then there's the guy in New Zealand who's built his own cruise missile.

-fractoid (anon to preserve moderations

Hell, UAV? How about building a cruise missile in your garage. Take pictures while barrel rolling under a bus, orrrr, take pictures while breaking the sound barrier. Check it out: http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/missilemanbook.shtml

Bruce Simpson with his home-made cruise missile? Looks like a contribution to me and judging from the fuss it caused http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3302763.stm http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201 http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/09/205252 http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/29/1857212

You're right. Now that you can build a cruise missile for 5 grand I'd be more worried about that than some Astronaut Farmer making an ICBM.

You misunderstood. If this can be done for as little as a couple of thousand dollars as proposed then a large number of these things could be launched. And you would not have to go orbital just ballistic. Launch enough rocks and the result at the far end would be dramatic.

It is a cost issue. That is all.

Now this guy in New Zealand had a DIY cruise missile that he was making. http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/diary.shtml Everything he posted appeared to be feasible. I have not kept track of this in a long while as it appeared that he had been shutdown. If I remember this one his costs were a few thousand dollars. More than what was proposed in the article being discussed. And the range on this cruise missile was very limited. Something that could possible achieve orbit or near orbital trajectory would have a much longer range if not unlimited range for all intents and purposes.

Personally I don't think anyone can achieve the goals set in this prize. The cost factor alone will prevent that.

I am speaking as an engineer and Englishman here:

The recent failed bomb attempts in London apparently had some engineers on the design team. People with a PhD in engineering as it happens.

The fact that they failed to make a bunch of petrol and compressed propane cylinders explode, or even catch fire, is frankly quite pathetic. I think any self respecting engineer souldn't fail that badly (though I'm very glad they did fail). This certainly raises questions about the quality of the engineering department from which they got their PhDs. I have trouble believing that such incompetent engineers could really have performed any worthwhile, independent research.

If the recruits only come from third rate institutions who don't have the candidates or the ability to churn out even half-way decent engineers, then we're no worse off having engineer-terrorists than normal terrorists.

If you want an idea how bad if life would be if terrorists could get good engineers, then consider what would happen if this guy was recruited to the other side. Fortunatley the best engineers out there are far more interested in engineering stuff than they are in people. Since terrorism is about people, this does not incline them towards terrorism.

The PS3 part is a red herring; sure you could use one but a general purpose PC is a better fit for your missile builder on a budget.

A few years ago, a New Zealander set out to prove that DIY cruise missile is doable with off-the-shelf parts. When his work started to prove embarrassing, the NZ govt used some foul means to shut him down. A cruise missile is little more than a self-piloted aircraft packed full of explosive. Granted, they get sophisticated in a hurry once you build small efficient special-purpose devices. Still, you could make a cruise missile out of most any common PC, some servos, some sensors, and a small aircraft, and a whole lotta fertilizer. An old Piper Cub would work just fine. For that matter, you could just turn the old Cub into a remote control aircraft and use it to attack any target of your choice within 10 miles of the take-off strip.

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

on the subject.. remember Bruce Simpson and his DIY cruise missile that various governments stamped on?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3302763.stm

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

He's talented and not afraid of controversy and his part in the infamous "jet carts" episode from Scrapheap Challenge is excellent. I always thought he had a point about this one.

btw. I always though IE D from the article was a very misleading term - many of these devices are NOT improvised the insurgents pack them out on a factory line and some of them are relatively advanced in the design and detonation system - as far as I can tell from the news reports.

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/ You can build a cruise missile in your garage ok, it is just the Governments get nasty with OTHER things to make your life difficult such as your money.

Post some new news!

Model helicopters and model thermal soarers both have used this technology for the past 20 years. In the case of thermal soarers, which may launch at over 1k ft, an Out-of Sight (OOS) control system is essential.

What about that Canadian floating gliders to the edge of space on balloons and then having them find their way back home? http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/

What about that New Zealander making a home built cruise missile? http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

When I want to read history, I'll go to a history of technology board!

The [A.T.F.] is also concerned that large rockets could be used as weapons. But weapons experts say it is doubtful that the rockets could be significant threats because they do not have guidance systems, which are prohibited by federal law.

"Designing a rocket to go straight up and down is hugely different than making it controllable to hit any kind of a target," said John Hansman, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

• Build a Cyclotron Now!
• Build a Nuclear Reactor Now!
• Build a Cruise Missile Now!

See the pattern? Get something not trivial, package it as a you-can-do-it-also-without-formal-training and live happily without fear of consequences. Ignorance is bliss! Yipee!

Plenty of people do stupid shit in their garden sheds, thats what they are there for!
I have read about a kid building a reactor from smoke detectors, and the NZ guy who built his own cruise missile.

I sense a business opportunity for lead lined garden housing :)

Also, didn't Young Einstein manage to split the beer atom in his? (and with a hammer and chisel if I remember rightly)

like this one? The public channels are off to a certain degree so they wouldn't be able to accurately target what they want to hit. But I imagine if the payload is large enough, the "splash damage" could wreak some havoc

No not at the moment but you might try asking this guy.

Take a minute to peruse this (just one example):

DIY Cruise Missile

aerial robot == cruise missile . Same concept. GPS positioning, flies to it's target. Payload is arbitrary. http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
as previously discussed on /. Only difference is this guy has jet power, and he didn't join a club/school first. ...

This will probably kill my server (perhaps someone can throw it on bit-torrent or mirror it) but there's a video clip on my website from a news and current affairs program here in New Zealand that documented my case.

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/t vdoco.shtml

Maybe the DIY Cruise Missle project from New Zealand had something to do this this. It was covered on /.
here and here

Uhh, the methanol itself wont compress as a liquid, but who cares? Throw some gas in there, compress it, and turn the can upside down to spray it in.

Not quite as simple as it might seem...

Firstly, given that fuel cells are *extremely* sensitive to impurities you have to make sure that the gas you're using won't actually disolve in methanol (as CO2 does in water for instance) and that, should some gas actually enter the cell, it won't cause any harm.

Since most inert gases (argon, zenon, neon, etc) only liquefy at extremely high pressures and/or low temperatures, you're going to either need a larger gas reservoir with which to pressurise the fuel capsule or rely on significantly higher pressures -- which then pose regulation and safety issues.

I take it you dont do any of even the simplest problemsolving/engineering

No, of course not. You can see that by visiting my websites at:

aardvark.co.nz/pjet

and
interestingprojects.com

(BFG)

You can keep your hat, I'm going to stealth out my DIY cruise missile...

On second thought, I'm going to need a hat too.

Bruce Simpson

Given the author was bankrupted for being unable to correctly add up and file taxreturns for 8 years, it may pay to take his numbers with a pinch of salt, too

Are you sure that was really the reason he was bankrupted? It would appear, at least from the comments of one former US Defense Department official (as made on this TV documentary), there may have been a *lot* more to it than that.

Just a side note, the New Zealand government recently shot down bruce's $5,000 cruise missle project. read about it here.

Very sad, i was looking forward to its completion.

Home made missiles may not be as expensive...

... the guy building a cruise missle in his garage for under $5k. He actually says he'll make all the plans and specs available for the missle except the guidance control software because he deemed that too sensitive.

No, this is just the answer to that guy in New Zealand with the DIY cruise missle! Hey, you wouldn't be that guys neighbor, would you? I'm beginning to understand now...

All I know is that if I were a kid in his neighborhood, I wouldn't be walking on his grass...

If you want some more info, go to: http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/p rocurement.shtml.

This DIY cruise missle would be a better example to scare people with than the V2.

hmm, not sure how to put this any other way than "check your facts".. you'd be suprised how much firepower the nerds have ;).

But a high speed missile with a large warhead can be made more cheaply. This could serve as a basis, but scale it up and substitute either a ton of hobbyist rocket engines or create your own solid-fueled rocket engine, and you've got something more effective and cheaper (I'd think).

Well those familiar with my plight and that of my low-cost cruise missile project will be very much aware that the NZ government is more than happy to rape its citizens and break its own laws in order to curry favor with the US government.

See this page for details:

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

No, I was not making it easy(er) for terrorists to build a cruise missile. In fact people should read the project's FAQ for more information on why this project was started.

For those who haven't read it, the original article I wrote which produced a number of "put your money where your mouth is" responses can be found here

As for the suggestion that I'm just a scummy tax-dodger, the links to the relevant editions of my daily internet column will help put that matter into perspective. Suffice to say that I have repaid the tax I owed and have been left with a "penalty" bill that I have continued to repay (having paid another $20K towards this just weeks before the government made its move).

Perhaps the most dissapointing aspect from my own personal perspective is that I went out of my way to:

• Decline a grant of $36K in taxpayer's money that was offered to assist with my jet-engine development work -- I figured that those waiting for medical treatment or expecting a decent education could use the money more than me.
• Notify the Secret Service that I'd been contacted by an Iranian Aerospace/Missile company seeking to gain access to my jet engine designs in return for an "investment" (the figure quoted was US$100K).
• Query the advice I was given by the export-licensing part of the NZ government which told me that if I wanted to export my technology to Iran there would be no problem and there was no restriction on such sales -- even though the technology had clear military applications.

No, I did not export anything to Iran and I never had any intention of doing so -- despite the governments insistance that it would be all right.

Once I became aware that the government were very serious about shutting this project down, I made sure that the missile was removed from my possession and is now elsewhere. I can also say in total honesty that I do not know where it is.

My tongue may be firmly in my cheek when I say this but -- would you turn over a missile to a government that endorses the export of military technology to Iran? If they were going to sell it in an attempt to service my tax penalties I shudder to think who they might flog it to :-)

Quite honestly, I suspect that the government thought I would not be able to build this missile and that when I made an official application to the Defense department for some space in which to perform the tests -- they suddenly realized that the whole situation could get even more embarrassing if it were proven that the damned thing worked.

Since they had openly admitted through the media that what I was doing was not illegal, their options for shutting the project down were very limited. I suspect they were all overjoyed when they found that I had not yet fully repaid my tax-penalties (although I was still regularly sending off cheques to service the debt). This, combined with the taxman's own agenda, gave them the perfect mechanism for solving what was rapidly becoming an embarrassing situation.

As you'll see in my daily column, the tax departments actions are clearly a breach of the tax laws which require the department to recover the maximum amount of any debt owed.

By bankrupting me they effectively chose to forego their right to collect the outstanding penalties and, since I had already sold most of my realizable assets (house, hobby-items, many tools, etc) to ensure my tax-repayments were kept up to date, there was no way they'd get a single penny from that bankruptcy action.

What's even worse is that in July I went to the USA and signed a heads-of-agreement with a US company who were going to commence manufacture of my X-Jet engine for use in UAVs and RPVs. This deal alone was worth a huge amount of money to the NZ taxman and wo

How could one stop research in so important area of science called rocket engines?

How a government could to that?

There seems to be some kind of plot in it
(from Bruce Simpson's page):

The strange thing is that just a matter of months ago, they told me I could export the very same technology to Iran -- despite the fact that it is widely considered to be a terrorist sponsor and similar exports are prohibited in the USA.

And then the government decided shut it down.

Note also that israeli x prize team recruits serious brainpower.

If things are not about money (or sex) then politics must be involved.

I hope that such a genius person as Bruce will either join Xprize or find another way to continue his very important for science work on rocket engines.

...are on his forums.

He has some ideas for civilian uses of the technology, i.e., "the use of small squadrons of UAVs to assist off-shore search and rescue operations."