Slashdot Mirror
Fighting Fire From the Sky
exceed writes: "Yahoo! News has an
article on an unmanned robotic airplane that is able to circle around wild fires for up to 24 hours, sending data and images back down to earth via satellite. The Altus II, created by NASA, employs cutting edge technology usually seen in military aircraft, giving fire officials a real-time view of fires that can burn over hundreds of thousands of acres. The plane could map dozens of fires and topographical features in a day, never endangering a pilot."
Give me a low hug, please.
Space.com also has an article here. Similarly a good read for those of you that can't get enough.
.ph0x
---
ps -aux | grep mind
Second post!
That is great. Just as long as the automatic pilot isn't running on M$ Flight Simulator.
42 + 1 = 42
Why not just use an image satellite in the first place? The picture quality is good enough.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
hell, strap a fire extinguisher on there and go nuts!
(ok, so not really, but you get my drift)
Even if they have to "dumb it down" a bit, so that foreign powers can't use it against us, Drone aircraft have a number of applications, public and private.
I'm glad to see this, and I'll welcome more of it.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
What is the obsession with fighting wildfires?
They're usually in the middle of nowhere with few if any homes threatened. They're good for the environment - many plant species have evolved to require fire for germination, for example.
See, for example, this article
Will this render the fire fighting dirtbike obsolete?
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
Make the plane a little bigger, and allow it to drop water on the fire. That might actually be helpful
oh no the aliens are to conduct their sick sexual experiment on me.
A good feature of this plane would be to add water bomber functionality to it. That way it could take IR pictures and dump water on the hottest parts of the fire, and there would be no worry about the pilot getting hurt.
Instead of ending a human to do a human's job and spending tax dollars on legitimate expenses like national defense, law enforcement, and public health, the Federal Government, through NASA, is making more new toys.
This sort of nonsense has got to stop. The government has got to stop funding science and stick to the responsibilities delegated to it by the Constitution.
******
"What makes you think I care about your opinions?"
they say they look at fire, but they look at you!
I am cool with this as long as it rmains in the hands of government agencies, but not if these robitic planes are used for corporate surveillance, investigations of straying spouses, etc. etc.
The more this tech gets into use, and now the unmanned plane is going towards civilian applications, the more we need to irease privacy education in our culture.
Let's discuss these issues now and pass appropriate legislation. I don't want to spend all day craning my head into the sky, or watching corporations engage in surveillance arms races.
Goat sex free since 2001
VA Linux just sank to a new all time low!
(no i'm not talking about selling proprietary code...)
The stocks worth 1.26 YEEAAAAHHH BABY!
Here's another example of how NASA tech coming "down to earth", as well as an earlier article about how NASA was helping fight fires (using satellites)
If God gave us curiosity
"Fight Fire with Arthur!" - The Tick, episode 1 of the live action series
Hmm... Arthur flies too...
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
We need that much technology to fight fires.What will be next, trees with automatic defense systems.(Uses AOL CD's to shield from flames)
There is probably a natural balance with the amount of combustible material in an area and the amount of moisture in that area. Once a thicket gets too dry, it burns for one reason or another. I find it interesting that the more we fight small to medium sized forest fires, the larger and more destructive the eventual large one is. It's all a balance, and we're helping destroy it one squirt of water at a time. The more we fight nature, the harder it fights back.
Cool technology, though.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
The article also mentions "floods, earthquakes and pollution events", pollution would make sense since there would be danger, but the others don't. But of course I'm not sure what the value of taking pictures of "pollution events" is either.
Even more TV documentaries with that guy mentioning the words "inferno" and "battle" and "beast" a hundred of times!
they have had these things for a while now, caught the article on the discovery channel or TLC a year or so ago - bah one or the other, I'll see if I can dig up the orignal article and post a follow up.
we all saw what happened in "AI" (aside from a waste of my $8).
and i heard those things are made from stem cells!
ok, seriously... this is cool, forest fires are scary and really suck when some careless boob flicked his butt out the window or worse.
"only YOU can help stop forest fires, oh, and robots..."
And I also like the idea of NASA producing stuff like this. It gives the agency some visibility, and opens the door for increased funding.
Still, as neat as this is, I would like to see other hardware adapted for firefighting. How about a firefighting cruise missile? Just load it up with fire retardant chemicals and smash it into strategic locations. You'd have no trouble with funding... We Americans LOVE missiles!
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Predator has the same strange looking tail. Anyone know why?
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
assss compress thisss
It has now become a sort of "death spiral".
You see, long ago (actually, not that long ago), before forest fire fighting was a "big" issue, forest fires occurred in their natural cycles, some big, some small - but most not radically devestating.
As people moved into the forested areas, along with a lot of hype by who knows who (someone with an axe to grind), people bagan to see these natural fires as "bad" - and something should be done (for the children!!!) - so, the fires got fought, and...
and...
The cycle was destroyed, leading the the forests gathering more "underbrush", that should have burned off long ago, but now continues to grow, where once it was just low stuff close to the ground...
When it does catch and burn, these huge conflagerations are "contained" (heh, there's a word - most of the time they burn themselves out after a lot of work has been done to get ahead, risk lives, cool them down with water, etc) - allowing the underbrush to continue to collect, until the next big fire.
I suppose they could just allow them to burn, but the problem is that they would burn the whole forest, and not just the undergrowth, which would be a bad thing.
What the USFS does today is controlled burns (which I would imaging sometimes get out of hand, and hence become forest fires - not sure how often, though) to kill off this underbrush, but really this isn't enough, because the areas covered by forest are HUGE, and they can't do controlled burns on all of it...
There really aren't any good answers to any of this, not without letting nature take its course, and risking an anhilation of an entire forested region (which may be what it takes - who knows?)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
belongs to trolls yeah!
...when I read the title was "oh, another 'Armageddon-Deep-Impact-could-really-happen' story". I thought it was [fighting (fire from the sky)] instead of [(finghting fire) from the sky].
If we hook up these guys with the guys from boeing (here)[slashdot.org] we could fight fires at supersonic speed! I might patent this before Bill Gates does.
Get about 10 of them flying 24 hours a day, guided by sattelite and we would need a lot less fire fighters.
Hey you could even have a robotic refueling plane and the fire fighting drones would never have to land.
Form Error!
This form has been used already 3 minutes ago. You can not use a form and hit the back button to use it again.
If you this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to Source Forge:
Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
This sounds like a larger version of the aerial robots developed for Georgia Tech's International Aerial Robotics Competition. Although the amateur designed robots don't have the range of the NASA version, the winning designs can perform all of the tasks that the expensive counterpart can. And I'm sure for a fraction of the price.
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
Sounds like a great way to bust those pot smokers. Gotta keep up the war on potheads. Er, drugs.
...there'd be two fewer methamphetamine manufacturers suffering needlessly in jail right now.
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
The Altus II was not developed by NASA, but by the ASI division of my employer, General Atomics. NASA's role was providing criteria to modify the existing Altus I.
Here is a link to the GA/ASI site.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
What about NASA being able to incorporate space technology like flame/heat retardant shields for veihcles that are in closer contact with fires. Quite possibly NASA could even build a robotic fire fighting device that could enter the fire with out endangering it's inhabitants. I think NASA could do a little PR work here in this area and this would help build a little respect and admiration for the organisation that is so looked down upon by the general public as being a waste of tax payer money. (These negative opinions are, however, not my own. I have a high level of respect for NASA.)
a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
Your comment has too few words per line (currently 5.75).
Love,
~\/~
Penis_Goat_Guy
a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
if they ever got in trouble for performing 'test flights' over nude beaches?
Next time we need to chase a white Ford Bronco, I'll bet this is the thing used by all the news stations...
Make a vehicle for spying on Americans and pass it off as a fire fighting device... how clever
~ now you know
True, Handonbuttocks.
Your pal,
CM
eat shit and die you fuckers.
BTW, why do we put out natural fires, we are only interfering with nature. If a fire is started from lightning, let it burn and take its course. And don't give me shit about 'it might burn peoples houses', i don't give a shit, that's their problem. Anyways, fuck off, go to hell and get raped by the devil please.
They've just reinvented the DC1 and a trained pilot... The DoA has been orbiting planes around wildfires for about 30 years and having the pilot report back to NIFC via radio. A billion dollars to replace a skilled pilot and plane: just when you thought that the U$ couldn't do anything more stupid...
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Why don't they invent instead an anti-fire napalm type bomb!? A bomb that is surrounded with some uninflammable substance like foam with some explosives inside, the explosion would consume the surrounding oxygen in the area and the foam would be instantaniously spread across a large area also, it will be perfect for high intensity fires since it could be dropped from an helicopter or airplane.
Why? why doesn't it exist yet?!
Things like this make me realize that periodically our massive defense budget does yield something good, the the internet... cool robotic planes...
Kinda like an upside down version of the V-tail on an old Beechcraft Bonanza.... accomplishes the needed horizontal and vertical control vectors that an aircraft empenage must do.... but with less drag than a 3 piece conventional tail. Only problem is that it requires more pilot skill than a conventional tail, hence the V-tail Bonanzas getting nicknamed the "forked-tail doctor-killer" or being called "lawn darts" due to how many incompetant pilots killed themselves in them.
BFD.
I live in Utah in a place were we're basically in a basin surrounded by mountains. We have fires all summer every year. Sometimes, if they're big enough they fill the whole valley up with smoke. It's pretty hard on the lungs. Some more fire control around here would be good. Our firefighters are burned out. But having some controlled burns would be good as well. That takes man power. On the flipside, in winter, all the exhaust from the cars fill up the place.
I think the "cutting edge technology" would have to include the ability to put-out the fire to protect the lives of firefighters.....
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
This company wants to convert A-10s into fire bombers. Makes sense to me since they have a large payload capacity, excellent low level maneuverability and can fly at relatively slow speeds.
One of my collage professors is currently working on a project named WITAS, an autonomous flying vehicle.
They're currently focusing on traffic supervision (The thing can search the roads for a specific car and follow it around and some other cool stuff) but supposedly theyr're also looking into other applications (such as fire monitoring and some other things)
Apparently, from what I understood from his lectures and from talking to him, they've been talking to, among other cities, Los Angeles, about using the helicopter for monitoring traffic gridlocks and things like that.
The human operator is able to communicate with the helicopter by talking to it, and the helicopter replies! It's really neat, check out the webpage for more info. They still have about 3-4 years to go on the project.
...the same type of drone that was shot down over Iraq (last week)? Don't know if it's the same size, but it certainly has the same form. So when the article says it has "cutting edge technology usually seen in military aircraft" wouldn't that be because it's essentially the same plane (sans whatever super-duper top-secret military stuff the mfg. wasn't allowed to include)?
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Unaware of it's flight path, and future generations will eliminate pilots altogether.
Hmm, someone here said there is development in control systems allowing tracking of individual vehicles travelling the highways?
Yet nother crippling bombshell hit th beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of ll servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpnBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBS are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BS is dying
"The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line September 4th. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."
Here on the U.S. East Coast we're hearing about coast guard helicopters (the big ones) hovering over the beaches watching for sharks. (In response to a cluster of shark attacks) Now, call me crazy, but that's an awful lot of fuel to use just sitting there. Why not use these planes to monitor that too? Shouldn't be much difference, just a live camera feed to a ground station. An unmanned fleet of these would use a heck of a lot less fuel and manpower than hovering those huge helicopters.
I can think of a million other uses for something cool like that: monitoring heavy traffic, flying inside storms, aircraft radar testing (like testing for wind shearing).
Anyone know how big it is, what it takes to fly it, or what else they plan on using it for besides natural disaster surveillance?
This story was seen on the national news LAST WEEK. But seeing how people on here rarely leave their computer screens I should have seen it coming.
However, someone else suggested dropping a "water bomb" on the fires. Does anyone remember the movie "Outbreak" (or a made-for-tv-equivilent)? I'm not sure if its the right movie, but to stop the spread of the virus the military was going to drop a bomb that would suck out/remove the oxygen from the air. Would that extinguish the fires? Is the technology availible? Or am I just a retard?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
#geekizoid
Are you experienced?
The plane is a variant of the Predator unmanned surveillance aircraft manufactured by General Atomics and used by the U.S. Air Force.
The Predator is unpiloted. Completely, I believe. It flies, lands, and takes off all by itself. I believe it's similar to the Global Hawk, a surveillance plane that can fly an entire recon mission just from one person making two mouse clicks.
But they also say:
Wegener said the Altus II, which is controlled by pilots on the ground, still needed to clear a few hurdles
My own emphasis. Can anyone clarify this? They are calling it a robot plane (which to me suggests an unpiloted plane), but then they say it's remotely piloted (a rather different thing, I thought). My guess as to what it means is that either: a) they're going to make it unpiloted, but haven't yet, or b) It's 'sort of' piloted - it doesn't fly the whole mission by itself, but you have someone giving a good general idea of what to do most of the time.
Either way, a valuable project. It's through stuff like this that Artificial Intelligence, one of the most hyped up fields of research that ever existed, can have useful, visible products.
-- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
It would seem to me that this is a perfect opportunity for Ice Ray technology... how far has it come? Why isnt it being used on this device, and why cant we have it installed on our satellites so we never have fires again? You can burn stuff with a laser from space... why cant you freeze stuff?
"Smokey, this isn't Nam, there are rules." -Walter
Could this technology be mounted on dirigibles?
Would they be better for the task?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu