Slashdot Mirror
Droning On
MagnetarJones writes "Another washingtonpost.com article reports that Federal regulators have begun considering rules that would allow drones, the pilotless planes being used in the war in Afghanistan, to fly in U.S. airspace. Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems, patrolling the border, searching for fugitives or fighting forest fires..."
Who needs cameras on light posts anyway? They're too easy to avoid.....
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I see these things flying around Indian Springs all the time when I'm driving out the the Test Site, and if they're talking about the Predator model, I really don't see how they would be much use hauling hauling cargo. They're meant to be a fast & light recon plane.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
I remember reading a story about using high altitude aircraft for broadband applications, basically getting most of the benefits of a satelite without a lot of the latency issues.
They could also be used for crowd control, or spying on dissidents, or attacking remote outposts of constitutionalist militias...
Didn't they just recently invent a drone that could serve as President of the United States?
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
1) 42
2) 42
3) 42
4) 42
5) (bonus question) do your own bloody homework
There was just an article about the Predators on CNN the other day. It said half of them either crash or are shot down. And they cost $3 million each.
I say, give me the three million, pretend another one crashed.
except that these things still crash occasionally. No one cares if it lands on a afghani mud hut, but if it hits some power lines and crashes to the ground killing some americans in an city that might just be a problem..
Yeah! This is a great idea! Next they could design A.I. for these babies and they wouldn't need any operators at all! Oh wait, wasn't there a movie about something like this going wrong?
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
I just saw an article about these drones on another site yesterday. What many of the stories forget to
mention is that each drone plane costs more than FOUR MILLION DOLLARS, so they are not the inexpensive
throw-away solution that it appears.
I think it will be many many years before FedEX and other freight haulers seriously consider using
something like an unmanned drone for delivery.
It's much cheaper to hire a pilot and use a plane, or hire a truck, and it will still be much cheaper for a long time to come.
How about tracking your speed and taking pictures of license plates? There goes the remaining points on my drivers license.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles.
Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million a piece, have crashed. About half of the 50 much smaller, $4.5 million Predators have been lost, including some that were shot down, according to the Air Force's own data.
I don't want to send my packages by drone, thanks.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Have you ever met a radical gun 'nut' who said that we all needed the right to have anti-aircraft guns for home defense??
THIS IS WHY.
The following is just a sig. (And truer everyday.)
If you voted for Nader, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!
... won't be the only application; you can bet they'll be patrolling internal areas too.
I don't mean to be a pessimist, but patrolling the border will most likely be one of many surveillance applications. Especially with the growing 'power' (so to speak) of the FBI, NSA, and other government agencies, there is a high likelihood that these will end up being used for domesetic spying too.
Are you a suspected terrorist? I'll bet these will show up shortly.
Supporters, of course, won't point out this application, for one of two reasons. One is that it never occurred to them, so they support it blindly, or they're such ardent supporters that they're ignoring and/or accepting this use.
I have nothing against unmanned aircraft, I think they have many wonderful applications. It's just there are some less-than-desirable applications, which we must all be aware of. They're just like guns - they have good applications (sports) and bad applications (as a lethal weapon); the better applications such as traffic monitoring are great, but it's potential uses as a spying mechanism are somewhat unnerving.
We've just got to be careful how we monitor the use of these. Just my $0.02.
I will now prepare for my first flamebait mod.
And they should equip them with computers, cameras, and lasers. That way, when they see an evildoer (drug dealer, or just a teenager smoking a J, or someone pirating a copy of the latest Britney), they can just zap them.
How about just missiles?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
what !?!the government loves you like its own brother, lil
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
I wonder if drones crash more because the penalty for operator error is not FLAMING DEATH.
Think about it: the ground-based drone operator decides that, due to the staggeringly boring nature of his job, he needs to take a few minutes now and then to smoke a bowl or surf for pr0n.
Real pilots have a lot more invested in the ship's safe return.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
When one goes out of control and crashes into a commercial passenger jet?
The problem with drones is that they don't have a thinking pilot. Where as two pilots will do everything in their power to avoid a midair collision, a drone is not even aware that a collision is imminent in such a situation. Which basically leaves the pilot in the situation of having to "guess" which way the drone will steer next.
Now it is possible that these drones are radio controlled, however, that's even worse, as the terrorist will need do little more than hack the signal and fly the drone into a commercial aircraft, all from the safety of their white van...
Either way, it's a terrible safety threat. To allow unmanned drones to fly in U.S. airspace is bad safety practices at best, and potentially deadly at worst.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
well, consider the factors instead of just numbers. Otherwise you're just comparing apples and oranges based on your own taste buds.
1) Are manned aircrafts being exposed to the same dangers at the same time? (IE- are the unmanned in more hotspots than the manned ones are, thus being exposed to more dangerous and riskier missions?)
2) What's the value of human life + manned plane versus the $4.5M predators?
There's a line, and a point of diminishing returns where either manned or unmanned exceeds the other in financial and logistical values.
.. I see them all the time, especially at night.. up there buzzing about my house. They whisper things to me like "start a fire!" or "torture that field mouse!".. Sometimes they use a secret government mind control spray that smells like burnt toast...
Trolling is a art,
Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems
Yep, there's the problem right there; that clown in the Beemer that just cut me off.
Target lock acquired.... *poof*
Problem solved!
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
You think they're going to use a single vehicle for all purposes?
These guys already make airship based cargo drones:
http://www.ahausa.com/
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million each, have crashed." That's a much as manned aircraft, and I dare say they have a better than 50% survival rate.
Here is another unmanned vehicle that is quite cheap to make
and seems to do the job just as well called the aerosonde.
It is designed for gathering weather data etc. not probably what the military
wants.
Also it flew across the Atlantic.
recent sales of ESTES model rocketry kits have skyrocketed in apparent attempts to make shoulder based rocket lauchers young domestic terrorists (previously known as teenagers) have been trying to shoot down the drones seen flying over american neighborhoods. These drones have been enlisted to keep a watchful eye in "Operation Neighborhood Surveillance" but recently have come under attack as many of americans youth sees the drones as model aircraft targets for saturday afternoon rocketry studies.
Seriously though, do we really need this? I just see these as prime targets for getting your hands on some really great RC plane gear.
Cos not everyone spends $30,000 on a lav seat.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
At long last a brilliant technology has arrived that will enable society to lower the salaries of overpaid pilots worldwide. In as little time as one decade, no more $100k-200k per year hotshot airliner pilots! wh00 h00!!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Is this related at all to the Helios Project? Would this re-zoning have to take place to allow them? As I recall, these were what they were discussing as potential satellite replacements, though I haven't heard anything about them in a long time. They were to be solar powered, and multipurpose, capable of remaining airborne for months at a time and carrying an array of emitters/receivers of various types, at a very low price tag compared to satellites that provide the same service. At the time they were being hailed as the ultimate broadband provider, possibly based on an 802.11 standard of some type.
The leaders of the free world would not do that! ... right?
ipv6 is my vpn
But at least the drones will be armed with missles, as opposed to the helicopters which are just filled with multinational troops armed to the teeth. A few of those missles can sure clear up a traffic jam caused by those the administration have determined to be so obviously guilty that no trial is necessary. So don't even ask about it.
How about replacing drunk, overworked, sleep-deprived pilots?
Actually, I have been thinking this is exactly what we need. Get rid of large airports and airplanes and replace them with small automatically piloted planes (< 5 passengers) flying to/from neighborhood airstrips.
To keep them cheap, you'd probably trade off speed. But even at 250mph, you'd come out way ahead on most trips if you get to use your own custom schedule, direct route and the ability to step directly from your parked car to the plane.
No more being treated like herded cattle. Fewer security worries. Plans change midflight? Punch in a new destination. What if the drones aren't quite as safe as large airliners? Equip them with ejection seats.
Drones seem like a good way to make 'problems' go away, say if someone questions King Bush, or Queen Cheney. Fly a bomb to the disident's door. "Oops! Sorry 'bout that!"
At least someone could make a hobby of dogfighting the drones...or load up a B-52 model with explosives and be a RC terrorist, like in that movie with Clint Eastwood.
I hear buzzing overhead, gotta go!
Before adding to the air traffic control load, it might be a good idea to wait until the FAA has worked the bugs out of their controversial new STARS gear. Critics say it doesn't work and is being rushed into operation...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Now that we've reached cruising altitude, we again welcome to the first fully automated Transatlantic flight on Fantastic Future Airlines.
Our systems have been fully tested and developed to insure you the smoothest, safest flight you will ever experience. Sit back, enjoy the flight with our assurances that nothing will go wrong... go wrong...go wrong... go wrong....
--old joke mode off--
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
shooting hellfire missiles at your house! oops.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
... before we can begin using flying ISPs to supply high-bandwidth data streams to remote locales.
And I doubt that we would be using drones for cargo planes -- just modifications to existing autopilot programming that would permit pilotless 747s with optional remote access from a ground based pilot.
Hopefully, they won't be using unencrypted telnet, or we'll have a whole new set of air piracy problems.
What's the cargo capacity on one of those drones? I don't think FedEx will replace its 747 with those anytime soon. Its like saying look, this miata is bunches cheaper then that cargo-bus... Lets get Greyhound to swap out their fleets of busses with these self-driving miatas :)
"Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems, patrolling the border, searching for fugitives or fighting forest fires..."
:-)
Moving cargo? unlikely. You'll put the cargo where, exactly? Use a truck, train, or other land-based vehicle. If not, use a helicopter.
pinpointing traffic problems? Use a helicopter and overpass-mounted cameras instead.
searching for fugitives? Eh... it helps to know where to search. An unlikely application.
Fighting forest fires. Oh brother. I suppose this is a "do it for the children / spotted owls / cute trees" reason.
In short, too expensive, too unmaneuverable, too risky. We'll ignore all the creepy paranoid Skynet implications.
Where's my millimeter-wave radar?
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
"I don't want to send my packages by drone, thanks."
If my package is lost, I'd rather it be because someone has DIED.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
this drone war has.
-Yoda
Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems, patrolling the border, searching for fugitives or fighting forest fires...
Boooring! Let's bomb someone!
And lets not forget the once or twice they allow the obsolete, almost-damaged-beyond replair units get shot down so they can find out where the enemy is hiding the missle launcher.
... where those of us with pellet guns live !-)
Or as in the case of "traffic control"
On the other hand, just like weather balloons in the 50's and 60's, I wonder how many drones will mistaken for aliens from another planet.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
This is already happening. At least I presume the Global Hawk flew through U.S. airspace to get from Edwards to Alaska. ;-)
Actually, Global Hawk flights over the continental US are now routine as I understand it. And these are not small drones, witness:
Global Hawk:
Wing span: 116 ft
Length: 44 ft
Height: 15 ft
Performance Goals
Range: 12,500 nmi
Approx. Endurance: 35 hrs
Endurance @1200nm: 24 hrs
Altitude: 65,000 ft
True Airspeed: 335 kts
Gross T/O wt: 26,750 lbs
Payload wt: 2,000 lbs
Payloads: EO/IR and SAR
I have no problem with this personally, but I can see how some might get a little nervous. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Who doesn't deserve a trial ? You ? Who are we at war with ? I don't seem to recall congress declaring war, so the BEST we could have is a police action against an indeterminate group without a nationality. Don't get me wrong, we should be fighting terrorism but this "war" is a very poor attempt to cover up a grab for oil. If we were REALLY interested in weapons of mass destruction we'd be paying MUCH CLOSER attention to the former Soviet Union's arms and where they are going, not to mention Pakistan and India. This will be referred to as the Oil War in the future I bet, and I really doubt GWB will be remembered fondly in the years to come by anyone not a member of the Oil Cartel. The rest of us will recall him as the President who sold the US to the corp's for a bag of magic seeds. Speaking as someone who is disgusted with the Feds reversal of nearly every environmental edict on the books, the US is marching backwards in lock step stupidty.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Initially, use them as cargo carriers in Alaska and northern canada. Have them fly in a certain airspace, perhaps 40K-45K. let this happen for 5-10 years. Then, move them over more populated areas after a successful probabtion period. Or give them a longer probabtion period as overseas cargo carriers.
Once, you remove the need for pilots and crew, these aircrafts are much easier to build and cheap to fly.
BTW, it will not be the politicians that will fight this but ALPA and other pilot unions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd think that secure communications would be A #1 priority with these things. You know the /. crowd is gonna spend hours upon hours trying to break the communications (what cooler way to get a girl than pick her up in your very own aircraft??). If you all are working on breaking communication for control purposes, you better bet your left nut others will be doing the same, and with far more advanced tools and bigger budgets that you all have. You'd almost have to go to a rotating frequency ala IFF systems to minimize the risk of hostile takeover. With a drone, you no longer have to screen for utility knives or blockade air cabin doors to keep terrorists out - but you do need to be wary the guy with communications equipment and an electrical engineering degree who may be interested in flying one into downtown Chicago...
Actually, you're not far off...
My brother is an intel officer in the USAF, and he told me about how all the pilots are b*tchin about how they are going to be reduced to remote-controlled airplane pilots just like their 8-year-old son. There's an on-going investigation into some pilots who may have purposefully crashed their drones to "demonstrate" how bad they are and how we still need planes...
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Now here's where technology struggles...
How do the planes communicate? Wirelessly? Well then, we now have a wireless interface that could be "hijacked" so to speak, and thus putting control of the plane in someone else's hands. This seems to me to be a more complete and non-sacrificial type of hijacking. You'll have 13-year-old kids "having some fun" and cracking into the system that controls these planes. That's where I think we'll have a problem. I'm sure this will be introduced as a way to stop hijacking (since, as you noted, there's no pilot to threaten) but it will only encourage the non-crazy types to find a technological alternative.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because only a pilot can respond to situations the autopilot has not been programmed for.
paintball
Drones in the air will mean less people at risk, safer borders, and a safer country. And hey! Let's cut the cost a bit by having them pull advertising banners!
... I can see it now.
A - S A F E R - A M E R I C A - - - B R O U G H T - T O - Y O U - B Y - P I Z Z A - H U T
pulled by a 3.7 million dollar plane
Or better yet, they'll do surveillance and transmit broadband signals!
This is America, don't dare us - we'll call you on it.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Hun!
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
"These drones it just might eliminate those damn drunk pilots, just put a breathalyzer on the joystick of who gets to control it, if you're drunk....it won't let you fly it."
i dunno about you, but i would think anyone who claimed to put their mouth to a joystick for a "breathalyzer test" is drunk to begin with.
I'm kind of curious as to how these are remotely controlled. I'm wondering if a constant connection has to be maintained with these things, and what happens if that connection is broken. Seems it would possible to jam the signal, leaving these drons to make decisions on their own. What would they do, fly in circles till they run out of gas and crash? Or worse yet, fly in a straight line and crash into a structure, or cross into foreign airspace!
Reminds me of when a remote control car would go outside of my range, and would just keep on going in a straight line. I would end up chasing after the damn thing trying to get it to stop from hitting a wall/curb.
Drone craft ought to cut shipping costs and times.
Eventually they would reduce the cost (and risk) of human flight.
For extra safety, provide human monitoring of take-off and landing. Not remote control - just the ability to tell a drone that it is doing something stupid and needs to take evasive action, abort a landing, etc.
Full remote control should be rare - e.g give the drone a one-use key that a ground controller has to request from a high security facility in order to take control.
These things have enormous potential, but one crash in real world use could set back their adoption by 20 years. Remember Three Mile Island; no matter how safe nuclear power becomes, as it has in Europe, Americans will fear it until the oil and coal run out.
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you misunderstood me. They didn't crash it the way they wanted to. Failure to test a hypothesis correctly is the only kind of failure you can have in science. I don't suggest they should have manned it with suicide pilots, of course. My intention is to illustrate that it's hard to fly a large plane like a 707 by remote control based on a video feed from the cockpit and instruments. I also wanted to humorously illustrate that the history of remote-controlled flight isn't an illustrious one. I apologise for failing (I'm new and haven't gotten a good feel for /. humor yet - kinda like having the second episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation be a "funny" one, despite the fact that the characters weren't well developed yet.) :)
"...there is a great surplus of unemployed ATP pilots right now."
Which explains why the ones who ARE flying work the same kind of nutty hours the hospital ER employees do.
"...there exists vastly more people who win the lotto jackpots than there are drunk pilots."
It only takes one drunk pilot to crash a plane. Good luck getting a drone drunk.
between a war, and a War. Having spent several years in law enforcement, at the street level, I can honestly say the war on drugs is one of the more ignorant things this country has attempted, right up there with prohibition. If we legalized the drugs, regulated the growers, the so-called war on drugs would end next week, with the foriegn suppliers going broke, the US government generating huge funds, the prison population which is nearly 1/3 people involved in stupid possesion crimes, would return to a manageable level. The only real show stopper I can see is an on the spot test for drivers, similar to the DUI field sobriety tests, because NO ONE should operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs. The whole concept of the government trying to legislate morality is hypocritical in the extreme. Oh well that's my so-called .02, Happy New Year all and TGIF :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
There's actually quite a bit of work being done to try and enable UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to fly in the National Airsapce System without danger to other aircraft and the ground. Very cool systems are being developed to integrate them into normal airspace traffic; systems which allow them to communicate with air traffic control, "see" other aircraft and respond to them (SAA or see and avoid systems), contingency equipment for communications failures etc. It's really some fascinating stuff. I work along side one of the groups comissioned by NASA to develop a "cradle to grave" roadmap which outlines the steps that would be necessary to certify UAVs, individually and as classes of aircraft, from inception to the junkyard. One of the reports that goes with that roadmap is the concept of operations. For more information, you may want to check out AUVSI or google for "Unmanned Systems".
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
Taking supplies to remote parts of Alaska, for instance. People won't have to risk their lives driving trucking convoys over frozen lakes.
Remote delivery in Alaska is largely done by small planes. These planes land on flat spaces in the bush (bush means Alaskan 'outback', 'wilderness', etc.), not airports. I believe drones could do well taking off and landing at airports but I seriously doubt they could handle short field landing on grass, snow, ice and water in places with no special equipment or even electricity. Snow landings require several touch-and-go passes with the skis to pack down the snow well enough to make a good landing/turnaround/takeoff surface. I think a drone plane would need a maintained and equipped takeoff and landing field. Even a drone helicopter could hardly be trusted due to the close proximity to tree branches at many landing sites.
There are no truck convoys over frozen lakes because there are no roads in the remote areas.
Drones to the 'larger' sites like Point Barrow might be feasible, though. Point Barrow has a lot of supply and person traffic due to the oil business and I believe has a small airport.
You know, the government needs to have some computer system to control all these flying drones. That way it'll be totally automated. They could call it, oh I don't know... SkyNet. Put some artifical intelligence in it and it'd be great system. Although I bet it wouldn't be until 2029 when a system like this really gets going.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No wait: The FreeMasons. No, ugh, the Knights Templar. Communists? Tri-Lateral Commission? Perhaps ...Satan?!?
..when the vast majority of military aircraft are drones. It won't happen in my lifetime, but it's inevitable. There are some things like G forces that you just can't adapt humans to. And the plus of not having a pilot in danger will seal the deal too.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel