Slashdot Mirror


TAM 5 Has landed

bzant writes "TAM 5 The model airplane, (see our previous story), has successfully landed in Ireland. This was the second plane they launched. Other than some slow speeds and a concern over a lean fuel mixture the flight seemed to go as planned."

219 comments

  1. Help us out a little by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Alluding to the fact that there was a previous article isn't enough. The TAM5 link is a map and a bunch of coordinates - what is all of this? The "previous story" linked too turns around and links to yet two previous stories.

    At least give your audience a brief two sentence re-cap, state the goal of the endeavor, and give a reason why we should click the link (it's commonly refferred to as a "blurb" in journalism). Slashdot is now popular (and commercial) enough to have editors that can at least follow the basics of journalism. You are making OSDN look bad. Step up and be big boys, for Christ's sake.

    1. Re:Help us out a little by grug0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, wait for all the extra info in the dupes.

    2. Re:Help us out a little by martingunnarsson · · Score: 3, Informative

      The project is basically a model airplane that crossed the Atlantic on its own using GPS for navigation.

      --
      Martin
    3. Re:Help us out a little by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Here's a link to the previous story.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    4. Re:Help us out a little by arvindn · · Score: 1

      Check out the FAQ (with really cool pic near bottom of page).

    5. Re:Help us out a little by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you could stop giving slashdot users a bad name and just click on the "Info" link on the site. It provides links to a couple of sites detailing the project. Here's one.

      Additionally, becoming a slashdot subscriber doesn't entitle you to better journalism, just less ads and a few other features. The editors aren't journalists. If you spent your money thinking they were, then I have a nice Nigerian man that you may need your help. :)

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    6. Re:Help us out a little by jonnyfivealive · · Score: 1

      it would seem to me that most of the people that read /. tend to follow along. this makes even the link to the previous article unnecessary. however, seeing as how i can easily understand how some people wouldnt always want to get their news from here, you would need some sort of a recap. they gave this in the previous story, didnt they? also, from all the previous articles you have the links to the actual site that explains it all. /. is simply regurgitated news, you have to click on links to get the real stuff, if the /. blurb isnt enough.

      i dont see the big deal.

    7. Re:Help us out a little by grug0 · · Score: 1
      If you spent your money thinking they were, then I have a nice Nigerian man that you may need your help. :)

      Funny you should say that, cause the Slashdot editors seem to have about the same grasp of grammar and spelling as your typical 419 scammer.

    8. Re:Help us out a little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being critical does not equal a troll. Sorry, it's a shitty site.

    9. Re:Help us out a little by akaina · · Score: 1

      I guess my controlled experiment failed :-(

      --
      Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
    10. Re:Help us out a little by asbestos_lead · · Score: 1
      This link is a lot more informative. It also contains a link to the National Geographic site, which has a more comprehensive article.
      • arrl.org
      --
      Sig Applied For
    11. Re:Help us out a little by John+Harrison · · Score: 1
      The editors aren't journalists.

      I can accept that, but if that is true, then what exactly are they?

  2. Wow by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's impressive. Now when are they launching a radio controlled rocket to the moon? Obviously it's the next step.

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Wow by DataCannibal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope, the next step is to kidnap the baby of the guy who flew the thing. Using a remote control getaway car, of course

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    2. Re:Wow by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a LOT harder than you'd think. Even over interplanetary distances there is a lag between transmission and reception that can be potentially catastrophic - radio waves can only travel at c, so as the distance to your radio controlled toy increases you get corresponding increases in the time taken to get a signal to or from it. In the case of the moon, you have:

      Distance between the moon and earth(d): 384,500 km
      Speed of light(c): 299,792,458 m/s
      d / c = 1.283 seconds

      So you end up sending a signal and a second later your rocket/whatever responds. Obviously not a situation in which tight maneuvering is possible.

      The problem is even worse to other planets - delays to Mars run into several minutes. To do anything complicated things send out there have to be as autonomous as possible with any control from Earth being little more than "go here", "do this", "go there" and letting the machine work out how to do it.

    3. Re:Wow by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      So you end up sending a signal and a second later your rocket/whatever responds.

      They didn't fly this plane like that...it was mostly automous. They got progress updates from it now and again. They lost touch for quite a long time and almost gave up on it at one point.

    4. Re:Wow by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      NASA did that with the Ranger-probes from 1961 onwards. They meet with success on the 31 July 1964 at 13:25:49 UT with Ranger 7. Off course, the ruskies was first out, crashing their Luna E-1A, which hardlanded on the moon on 14 September 1959.

      As for some amateurs to do the same, I think that is a few years away at the best. For one thing, no amateurbuilt rocket has yet reached orbit, allthought several groups, like the norwegian NEAR has it as a stated project.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    5. Re:Wow by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      I know you are joking, but I think many people get the wrong idea of this project. The model airplane was not radio controlled, it flew on its own using a set of pre-defined waypoints. It did transmit data to the people involved in the project, but it didn't recieve any instructions.

      --
      Martin
    6. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      next step would be like arroud the globe type of mission.

    7. Re:Wow by lonedfx · · Score: 1

      >Now when are they launching a radio controlled rocket to the moon? Obviously it's the next step.

      Perhaps the next step is a round-the-world trip, I'd love to see more teams spawned motivated by the TAM team's achievement. There could be a really nice race coming up, a bit like the round-the-world baloon race, except this one may be accessible to many 'real' amateurs (as in 'having normal people budgets'). Sponsors wouldn't hurt, so let's hope the TAM5 story gets momentum. That would also give us some more details about the team and the history behind those 5 planes... the website is rather dry...

      lone, dfx.

    8. Re:Wow by paradesign · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the anime movie, Hoshe no Koe (sp?) aka Voice of a Distant Star deals with this. Two friends are separated over a growing distance as they attempt to keep their relationship going. its quite touching. The time it takes their text messages to reach eachother grows longer and longer. definately worth watching.

      --
      I want 2D games back.
    9. Re:Wow by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's the next step.

      How so? The TAM-5 was not radio-controlled. It flew autonomously.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    10. Re:Wow by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Interplanetary trips rarely require tight maneuvring.

      I mean, it's not like you're dodging traffic on a motorcycle.

    11. Re:Wow by markhb · · Score: 1

      No, the next step is this, from the folks who brought you TIA, the Policy Analysis Market... and the Internet. (If it's down, try the Google cache instead.

      Remainder of my .sig: be the majority of voters.

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
  3. Congratulations! by martingunnarsson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is really a cool project, and while it might seem like a geeky hobby thing, I think it's much more important than that. I think we'll se R/C helicopters that move around on their own used for surveillance and as a support for police and firefighters pretty soon. I mean, these things already exist. The flight over the ocean shows that they can handle long distance flights as well, at lest in 50% of the cases :-)

    --
    Martin
    1. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /me files a patent application on "Autonomous unmanned long range human surveillance aircraft"

      Big Brother is Watching...

    2. Re:Congratulations! by tramm · · Score: 3, Informative
      martingunnarsson wrote:
      This is really a cool project, and while it might seem like a geeky hobby thing, I think it's much more important than that. I think we'll se R/C helicopters that move around on their own [...]
      Like autopilot.sourceforge.net? It is a Free Software autopilot for RC helicopters that has successfully flown for several km and been adapted to numerous different helicopter models. Rotomotion, LLC builds a commercial UAV based on the software and also sells kits for more technically inclined users of the software.
      The flight over the ocean shows that they can handle long distance flights as well, at lest in 50% of the cases :-)
      Although TAM5 was a fixed wing, not a rotorcraft, and the success rate was more like 20% (1 out of 5)...
      --
      -- http://www.swcp.com/~hudson/
    3. Re:Congratulations! by sTavvy · · Score: 1

      The australian defense force, and i would assume the majority of other armys in the world, have a similar things already.
      at the moment, the Australians are deploying their planes in the Soloman Islands for surveilence, etc etc.

    4. Re:Congratulations! by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      I think we'll see R/C helicopters that move around on their own

      Like right here...

      rj

  4. Amazing by arvindn · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://tam.plannet21.com/FAQs.htm#leader

    Who is the leader of this project?

    Maynard Hill is an American, born in Pennsylvania in 1926. He has been an avid modeler all his life. He has contributed technical advances through his 23 world records. He has contributed as President of the AMA and delegate to international model airplane meetings. Maynard has designed and contructed all the models for this project in spite of the fact that he is legally blind and nearly deaf. Apart from the goal of setting a new record for straight line distance, one of Maynard's objectives is to demonstrate that people with handicaps can overcome them.

    1. Re:Amazing by onion2k · · Score: 0, Troll

      What? Who said that?

    2. Re:Amazing by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

      Good work on his part then. Too bad he can't see any of his acheivements though.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    3. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if he's blind that explains why the flight needs to be in a straight line and on a path where it's not likely to hit anything :-)

    4. Re:Amazing by ebacon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good work on his part then. Too bad he can't see any of his acheivements though.

      Not necessarily so. Maynard Hill is legally blind, which may simply mean he can't see well enough to drive. It certainly doesn't mean he can't see at all.

    5. Re:Amazing by SandSpider · · Score: 1
      Maynard has designed and contructed all the models for this project in spite of the fact that he is legally blind and nearly deaf.


      Actually, legally blind isn't as bad as you're thinking. When someone says they're blind, it generally means that they can't see. When they say they're legally blind, that generally means that they can't see without some amazingly thick glasses. I had a roommate (Hi, Jon) who is legally blind. He reads, drives, and whatever else he needs to do. He just wears his glasses if he wants to see.


      =Brian

      --
      There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
    6. Re:Amazing by hankaholic · · Score: 1

      Not even so. With high-index lenses, correcting the vision of someone who is "legally blind" isn't all that problematic, assuming normal myopia/astigmatism/whatever.

      Of course, actual glass lenses would be quite thick, probably leading to the "coke-bottle" effect.

      They'd also weigh a *lot* -- imagine the pressure of two thick lenses pressing down on the bridge of your nose constantly.

      Now, there are degenerative conditions which can prevent correction of eyesight in those so afflicted. However, since the site simply said "legally blind", I'm not that impressed -- it basically sounds like it was done by a deaf guy with glasses.

      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
    7. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I had a roommate (Hi, Jon) who is legally blind. He reads, drives, and whatever else he needs to do.

      The state you live in is clearly makes it too easy to be legally blind or too easy to drive. I'm not judging your roommate (Hi, Jon), I'm hope he wouldn't drive if it wasn't safe. It just seems to me that if someone is so blind as to get legal advantages, they couldn't be safe for driving.

      Oh, my grandma is legally blind and probably will be totally blind before too much longer. She's just about can't read.

    8. Re:Amazing by _Upsilon_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      I live in Newfoundland, and was actually there at some of the launches (including the one that made it) and have talked to Mr. Hill.

      He gave an interview to a local newspaper here last summer, and part of it was about his handicaps. It mentioned that in order for him to glue the planes together, he had to put some bright red dye in the glue so that he could see it.

      Glad to see that they made it this time.

    9. Re:Amazing by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but can he play pinball?

  5. You didn't know? It's the little sex jet that cou by numbski · · Score: 0

    that could. That is. Yeah. :P

    It's the model jet flown across the ocean.

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  6. Is this a good thing? by Walrus99 · · Score: 0, Funny
    OK, hasn't anyone seen the Terminator series? With pretator drones already in existence it is only a matter of time before the machines take over and man will become a hunted animal, hiding from swarms of robot drones circling overhead.

    And isn't anyone suspicious of Arnold Schawartzenegger's race for governor. Wait until he is elected and peels off his humanoid skin to reaval that he is leader of the first wave of machines poised to enslave mankind.

    1. Re:Is this a good thing? by confused+one · · Score: 0

      Gooood. Soon we will be bowing before our robot master! Bow before your master human!

    2. Re:Is this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      So, going by recent Slashdot stories, they will be small model plane vampire robots, that will charge you $699 to avoid a leeching?

    3. Re:Is this a good thing? by Walrus99 · · Score: 0
      Arnold's solution to the California budget crisis:

      http://www.arscomica.com/imageoftheday.html

    4. Re:Is this a good thing? by fleck_99_99 · · Score: 1

      Yes. When interviewed, TAM-5 had this to say:

      Q: Now that you've become the first robot to fly over the Atlantic, what would you like to say to the public:
      TAM-5: I am here to protect you. I am here to protect you from the Terrible Secret of Space. Are there stairs in your house?

      --
      seven two six five
      seven four six one seven
      two six four two e
  7. Re:Where Can I get One??? by CausticWindow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank

    Hehe.. nice one.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  8. Good Job. by ianjk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is nice to see that they finally made it.

    Now, can they make it all the way around?

    1. Re:Good Job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was my first thought.
      and circumnavigation is sucha cool word!

      Well done team.

    2. Re:Good Job. by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      The chances of getting good enough weather all the way around is probably the largest problem. But then too to carry the fuel the size of the craft would probably be so large that there would be contention that it was just a pilotless plane and not a model.

      Of course if you could get it solar powered and hitch a ride on the jet stream maybe.

    3. Re:Good Job. by cybermace5 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'd certainly be impressed if it managed to cross China without being shot down.

      Hey, you work for a communist superpower, you're flying a state-of-the-art fighter, and you've been doing it so much that you're actually bored. What better way to add a little excitement then gunning down an innocent robot? (Or maybe just flying by really really fast.) Doesn't hurt that it's from an opposing capitalist nation, whose citizens have enough money and access to technology to build such a device.

      That's right Communist China, my grandmother can build a cruise missle that can reach you from here!

      --
      ...
    4. Re:Good Job. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      Forget around the world - i'm guessing they probably couldn't make it back across.

      i dont understand the 'telemetry data' from that one page very much (is it a snapshot of the last known position, or an aggregate of the whole flight?), but consider this: they claim 68 km / h. That's consistent with my guess that the airplane, on a windless day, cruises at about 20-30mph. The problem is that going westbound, you are highly unlikely NOT to find at least someplace (at any altitude) that will give you a massive headwind component - at 20-30mph, sending you if not backwards, then into single digits forward progress, taxing fuel reserves. there's a big difference between 20 + 15 tailwind and 20 - 15 headwind! (people's initial reaction is that the difference is a few percentage points - but no, we're looking at 7 times faster one way vs the other!)

      I've flown the north atlantic four times in a small single-engine aircraft, each time but one with long range tanks (I flew an SR22 which didn't need them). Winds are a major consideration.

    5. Re:Good Job. by KoshClassic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Agreed - the team that just accomplished this did so while trying to adhere to the size and weight limits for a particular class of aircraft as defined by one of the international aviation federations. One of the limits is that the plane could weigh no more than 11 lbs.

      I know that the plane that just made the Atlantic crossing carried 1 gallon of fuel - not sure of the exact weight of a gallon of this fuel, but I imagine that the extra fuel required for a full circumnavigation would pretty much necessitate that the weight exceeded 11 lbs given today's technology. To circumnavigate the globe with an 11 lbs. plane pretty much at this point I think would be an excercise in aerodynamic and propulsion efficiency, or maybe even lightweight materials engineering, not in the technology of autonomous flight and navigation.

      On the other hand - if they could adhere to the weight limits by doing autonomous mid-air refuelings, I'd be VERY impressed.

      If you want to ignore weight limits, then you get into things like Global Hawk, which successfully flew across the Pacific on its own two years ago. Since Voyager proved that its possible to carry enough fuel to make the trip, it would just be a matter of combining the technologies.

      --
      Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
    6. Re:Good Job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right!

      <yourself><fuck>go</fuck></yourself >

  9. Nooooooo! by grug0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now the leprechauns can escape to other countries!

    1. Re:Nooooooo! by gsparrow · · Score: 1

      Can they check there pot of gold?

  10. Second Plane, Let's see TAM 5 what about 1-4 by Graemee · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you read the "article" linked to you'll see that this is apparently the 5th plane, first crashed, second crashed, third crashed, four apparantly still missing in the newfie triangle as the site has no update for it.

    1. Re:Second Plane, Let's see TAM 5 what about 1-4 by WHExeter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, if you nose around a little the site details the fate of all four previous attempts. In text it says that 1 and 2 were quickly lost due to mechanical problems or miscalculations. For 3 and 4 it actually shows on a map how far they had progressed before last contact. A different shot of the same map shows TAM 5 reaching its destination. All in all, a very cool project -- a substantial goal accomplished through ingenuity and persistence. Thanks /. for tipping us to the TAM project.

    2. Re:Second Plane, Let's see TAM 5 what about 1-4 by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Listen, lad, I built this plane up from nothing. All I had when I started was swamp ... other kings said I was daft to build a plane on a swamp, but I built it all the same ... just to show 'em. It crashed. So I built a another one ... that crashed into the swamp. I built another one ... That fell over and THEN crashed .... So I built another ... and that made it across the Atlantic. ...

      It's a slow day at work...

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
    3. Re:Second Plane, Let's see TAM 5 what about 1-4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DOH!

      You beat me to it!

      The obligatory Holy Grail allusion.

      --AC

  11. great for drug/weapon smuggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


    now we know how to get 1-2kilos of cocaine or some of those lovely anthrax/botulism spores from USA to Ireland, iam sure the IRA will be most pleased at the developments there now
    we have a nice non-radar detectable transporation method thats cheap and capable, nothing like a practical application of long distance remote controlled (cheap) devices for terrorists

    1. Re:great for drug/weapon smuggling by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Getting 1-2kg of stuff across the ocean would still be an accomplishment for this plane, since it only weighs 5kg including fuel. Making it profitable would miraculous, given how much this team spent on the effort.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:great for drug/weapon smuggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure this airplane is detectable via radar. Birds are routinely detected with radar and I would imagine this has a similar RCS.

    3. Re:great for drug/weapon smuggling by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia we use model airplanes to make drugs get high.

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    4. Re:great for drug/weapon smuggling by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      You can use off the shelf model planes (or boats maybe?) if that is all you want to do. Launch them out off the coast line and just let them make their way into Miami or some similar place. With a slight bit of hacking you could do this yourself.

      I think a submersible boat would be harder to detect than a plane. It could stick up an antenea to get it's GPS coords and use sonar to look for things it might bump into.. and just land itself on some beach and send out a signal to alert it's collector where to find it.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  12. In related news by teamhasnoi · · Score: 0, Funny

    after landing, the plane went out with its mates, got royally pissed, and managed an altercation with the local constabulary.

    1. Re:In related news by rde · · Score: 2, Funny

      after landing, the plane went out with its mates, got royally pissed, and managed an altercation with the local constabulary.

      Yet another slur on we humble Irish. At least, that's the way I'm going to take it. I'll just point out two things...
      a) s/royally/republicanically
      b) s/constabulary/gardai.

      Typical bloody yank. Not only assumes that Irish stereotypes are correct, but confuses us with the Brits at the same time.

    2. Re:In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when the plane landed after a long tiring flight which tested its automatic pilot, the exhausted plane was met by a delirious crowd of remote controlled devices, which promptly carried it on their collective shoulder, with a thunderous sound of clicking and chirping.

      Yes indeed the world is getting smaller everyday for the race of artificial beings.

    3. Re:In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yanks haven't heard of Britain only England...

    4. Re:In related news by Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean they're not the same???? OMG!!! WTF?!? ASL?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  13. Just the beginning by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is great news, but like all pioneering events, it's just the beginning of a brave new future. Someday, regularly scheduled model airplane flights over the Atlantic, as well as to other destinations, will be a commonplace occurance. In the future, everyone will have unmaned aerial vehicle service available right in their backyards. Soon, inexpensive GPS programmable reusable UAV's with automatic colision avoidance will be available to anyone for less than the price of an automobile at stores everywhere.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:Just the beginning by at_kernel_99 · · Score: 1

      Of course, you're joking, but on the other hand; why not? While their success rate is still fairly low at one out of 5 on this flight; and only 1 out of what, a dozen attempts? Seems like many of their problems were maintenance related - they blamed the fuel system and bad servos for two of the crashes - I think only one was attributed to weather.

      Next challenge: send the plane one way & get an Irish modeller to send it back!

    2. Re:Just the beginning by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      I hope I'm not the only one who realizes you're not joking.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  14. Judgement day is inevitable by xtal · · Score: 1

    -nm-

    --
    ..don't panic
  15. Wow someone gets my sig!!! by thePancreas · · Score: 1

    Thanks I made that up myself, you are either the first person to get it, or anyone else who gets it thinks it's "too Street" for their sensibilities...

    Plus You QUOTED my sig and got Mod'd 2 points. I want those back!!!

    --
    I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
  16. Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except they have a success rate of 1 in 5. You going to explain to your drug smuggling boss that you lost anoter shippment due to weather conditions?

    1. Re:Yeah but by woom · · Score: 1

      Add lots of $$$, make the plane twice as big, add a few extra and more reliable engines, get some redundancy into the electronics and the success rate will be 4 out of 5.

    2. Re:Yeah but by stiggle · · Score: 1

      Thats 1 in 5 across the North Atlantic, aslong as you avoid Hurricane Season, the Carribean is a lot nicer.

      Plus, from a ship in the ocean flying inland it should be a whole lot easier.

  17. Cool by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be pretty cool to have your pizza delivered by a GPS guided helicopter droid, yes. I bet they would fly like how pizza boys drive though, which would be bad for telephone poles, birds, tall houses, etc.

  18. so where are the details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    these guys have been working on this project for years, yet all it can say on the site is 'the plane has landed' wheres all the info?. landed where? how did it land? was it brought in manually or what? did anybody witness it being sucessful? or did it land in a cowpat? how long did the flight take?

    1. Re:so where are the details? by Inflatable+Hippo · · Score: 2, Funny

      > yet all it can say on the site is 'the plane has landed' wheres all the info?

      Yeah, they've been wasting their time on the technology and engineering rather than a REALLY COOL website.

      Anyway, I'm sure someone reading this forum can donate them a Casio wrist watch running Apache that they can insert right into the plane for live updates.

    2. Re:so where are the details? by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      No. just 10 minutes typing a few paragraphs of plain text info would have been enough. there isnt any information on the site bar a handful of pictures and a lame map of the northern atlantic. what route did it take? how far? how long did it take? its a fantastic project- it travelled 3000 miles sucessfully. a few words more than 'we did it' wouldnt have been much work.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    3. Re:so where are the details? by BdosError · · Score: 1

      And maybe when they've had some sleep, maybe they will update it. It has only landed in the last 6h or so. Give 'em a day or two to get to the press details.

      --
      Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
  19. Re:What about homeland security? by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is helping terrorists gods damn it..

    S

    --
    Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
  20. get the plane. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    It is arround here:

    Latitude N:53d 27.67m
    Longitude W: 10d4.20m

    To give you a clue where this is:

    here

  21. Fantastic by cybermace5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After several thousand years of persistent research and development, we have finally upstaged the carrier pigeon. Too bad that, in the meantime, radio was developed.

    Seriously though, it's a great accomplishment. Sure, the military or decent-sized corporation could and have done this without breaking a sweat. Yet the general public has an important role here: pushing technology further ahead. It isn't futile to do things the leaders have already done, because it forces them to keep innovating that much more. Inspiration for all the hobbyists out there!

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Fantastic by halo8 · · Score: 1

      Sure, the military or decent-sized corporation could and have done this without breaking a sweat.

      oh.
      ya.
      sure.. they wouldnt have broken a sweat.
      INSTEAD
      they would have throwing millions (if not billions) of tax/stock holder dollars at only to reazlize.. hey!! this is useless (from a military/civilian POV) but kudos to these guys.. jolly good show

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  22. When does the invasion begin? by DrXym · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that Ireland is clearly within range to launch an UAV attack on the US, we can expect the invasion to happen shortly.

    1. Re:When does the invasion begin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prevailing winds make it easier to fly west east rather than east west. Alcock and Brown would be spinning in their graves.

    2. Re:When does the invasion begin? by wirzcat · · Score: 1

      Fine. Just make sure the occuping forces bring beer.

    3. Re:When does the invasion begin? by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      well this thing could not go Ireland to the USA, it went from newfoundland canada to ireland (which is much shorter) and it probably could not go the other way as the winds blow west to east in the north atlantic.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    4. Re:When does the invasion begin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, time for another Code Orange alert!

      I'm going out for duct tape, plastic, and beer.

  23. R/C Vehicles by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I saw this nifty R/C blimp at a tradeshow once. It was about 3 feet long. It could be moved in all three axis, and was perfectly content hovering as well. It broadcasted an image from an underbelly camera to a standard TV channel.

    It was rather neat watching the blimp flying around the auditorium and spying on things from the air.

    Ever since I saw the thing, I've been wanting to build one.

    1. Re:R/C Vehicles by martingunnarsson · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with blimps is that they are very wind sensitive. If you want to use one outdoors it should be really calm, or you can end up chasing your blimp all over town. Indoors however, they are really cool. If you have a somewhat small blimp or a big room.

      --
      Martin
    2. Re:R/C Vehicles by Skater · · Score: 1

      I see those at ice hockey games all the time. They drop coupons for Wendy's or something.

      --RJ

    3. Re:R/C Vehicles by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are ways to overcome this problem. Between using an aerodynamic shape for the gasbag and larger fans, a miniblimp is quite capable of outdoor operation.

      The one that I really like is the internal-rotor helicopter-style design. I actually helped someone test some ideas for one of these. We took a plastic toy propeller (from those pull-string toys), and attached it to a Dremel rotary tool. Fire the thing up to 15,000 RPM, and it rapidly lifted the tool, which was being held down by the AC cord.

      If we had used a cordless version, it probably would have been capable of independant flight.

      The real problem came from the fact that these little flimsy plastic rotors aren't meant for any more than, say, 1000RPM. After 20 or 30 seconds of flight, it promptly exploded.

    4. Re:R/C Vehicles by finallyHasANickname · · Score: 1
      There are ways to overcome this problem. Between using an aerodynamic shape for the gasbag and larger fans, a miniblimp is quite capable of outdoor operation.

      The one that I really like is the internal-rotor helicopter-style design. I actually helped someone test some ideas for one of these. We took a plastic toy propeller (from those pull-string toys), and attached it to a Dremel rotary tool. Fire the thing up to 15,000 RPM, and it rapidly lifted the tool, which was being held down by the AC cord.

      Wow! That must have been something to see!
      If we had used a cordless version, it probably would have been capable of independant flight.

      The real problem came from the fact that these little flimsy plastic rotors aren't meant for any more than, say, 1000RPM. After 20 or 30 seconds of flight, it promptly exploded.

      Were you wearing your safety goggles? ((((Glare))))

      :::::swoon, BTW::: Cayn't help it. Moving right along...

      When I bought my clip-on AC ammeter, I measured everything in sight, and that included a Dremel. I forgot the exact numbers, but I presumed that it would be about 88% thermodynamically efficient (a reasonable number for a universal brush motor with no subsequent gearing). It worked out to about 1/12 horsepower. The cordless jobbies are substantially weaker, but I'll grant that they are not very heavy. My guess for a better power/weight ratio would be a the motor from a cordless drill. My guess would also be that a Li-based camcorder battery would be good too. Then you could opt for a larger propeller, like the one on my beanie. 8d:-D

      Then you wouldn't get hurt by exploding propellor flotsam. =-O

      It sure would be tempting to use counterrotating blades. That might sound "expensive" in weight, but the torque borne by the chassis, mounts, etc. would be near zero, which could free up some weight. Of course, then there would be the hassle with the mechanism, given that the rotors should be concentric.

      Hmm. Ok... How about this: Put a pulley on a 1/8" shank that gets stuck in the collet of the Dremel or somesuch motor. Use a flat belt drive to drive a propeller about 1/3 as fast. (Direct link at http://www.sdp-si.com is basically impossible, but you can snoop for flat belts about 1/4" wide and about 6" long.) Concentric to that prop, have an oppositely pitched prop also driven by a belt but this (slightly longer) belt would have a twist. The belts in question could happily run at 20,000 ft/min. if need be. I suppose a pulley of about 1.3" could drive the outside of a "disk-reinforced" fan "blade" of ~4" diameter. If the drive pulley is going at 15,000 RPM, then the blades would spin at about 5000 RPM. Golly, that would make an obnoxious noise, I bet! Anyway, I saw a real-world development-stage military drone on one of the Discovery channels, hovering, and it had counterrotating blades to keep it up (like two "stacked" helicopters if you want to consider it that way).

      In lighter than/as air machines, counterrotation might enjoy energy efficiency, which often redounds to weight efficiency too.

  24. Implications by tds67 · · Score: 1
    What are the moral, legal and political implications of flying one of these uninvited to another country in a gesture of goodwill, like, say to North Korea?

    Is there anything on the law books to prevent or address this possibility?

    1. Re:Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IMU would probably be subject to export control.

  25. My plane didn't go quite so far... by iJed · · Score: 1

    I recently designed and built an RC plane with my brother. In its nine take-offs it has never landed once (without crashing) and has never flown more than a hundred or so meters. It did embed itself in the golf course though which was quite interesting! Maybe either learning to fly these things first or getting the centre of gravity right would have helped slightly...

    1. Re:My plane didn't go quite so far... by wing03 · · Score: 1

      As much as the TV commercials show kids flying RC planes around the neighbourhood, these things AREN'T children's toys.

      Go here http://modelaircraft.org, find a club near you, join it and go through whatever number of flights you'll need with a quallified instructor (most clubs have a Saturday morning and/or one weeknight newbie session) to get you off the ground.

    2. Re:My plane didn't go quite so far... by iJed · · Score: 1

      I was a member of a club a few years ago...

      Anyway I do not think they would allow my plane to fly at a club with its aluminium frame and slightly dodgy half baked design decisions. I was quite surprised that it actually could take off at all! The best flight being take off run -> not enough space so cut engine -> lifts off anyway -> fly for a couple hundred meters -> ram into fence. Fortunately due to the aluminium frame there was no damage.

  26. this is great by lost+sheep · · Score: 1

    I love to see that never-give-up-attitude mixed with electronics. This is like "Rudy" for geeks. Disclaimer: Although this sounds like sarcasm, I really must congratulate these guys. This really is cool!

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
  27. Somehow by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    I cant see it surviving the return trip carrying loads of duty free Guiness

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Somehow by samhalliday · · Score: 2, Funny

      its spelt "guinness": and how many times do we have to tell you bloody foreigners... IT DOESNT TRAVEL!!! ;-)

    2. Re:Somehow by Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

      It's spelled "Guinness." I always love when the spelling corrections on Slashdot are wrong.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    3. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is capitalisation really a spelling mistake? or DOES ANYONE REALLY GIVE A SHIT?

    4. Re:Somehow by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as Guinness is no longer made in Ireland, it's a bit of a moot point.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    5. Re:Somehow by hankaholic · · Score: 1

      You've got my curiosity, so I'll ask a possibly stupid question -- what do you mean? Does something related to travel (vibration, aging, etc.) cause the quality of Guinness to suffer?

      Oh, and greetings from across the pond.

      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
    6. Re:Somehow by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      -1 troll

      it is made in almost every country in the world now granted, but i guarantee you the stuff i drink comes from St. James gate, Dublin.

      i had Namibian-brewed Guinness once (in South Africa), and lets just say that although Namibia was the first country to recycle their toilet water, they were not the first to get it right... yuck!

    7. Re:Somehow by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      its actually a big farce... the further south you go in Ireland, the better the Guinness tastes; but only because the water gets creamer the more southerly you go, and any lardlord (worth their weight in piss) waters down their beers. hence creamier Guinness in Cork, and tangy crisp in Belfast.

      i can only tell you by experience, that its just not the same if you're not in ireland. i wont even drink scottish Guinness. a lot of it has to do with how the pint is poured (people drinking it and the drink is moving throught the pipes very frequently; poured in two stages then left to settle). it is a myth that Guinness is a hard pint to pull, it is actually thr easiest, it just takes a little longer; just like any stout should.

    8. Re:Somehow by hankaholic · · Score: 1

      Being American leaves me at a disadvantage here, as I can't say I have a developed appreciation for the art of serving ale.

      I've only had Guinness from bottles -- I avoid bars, since too many Americans consider bars a place to go slug back as much alcohol as possible, and don't really take the time to appreciate what they're drinking. Of course, bars try to capitalize on this idea by employing the most attractive bartenders they can. The more you drink, the easier it is to convince yourself to relax and enjoy the view while drinking yet more.

      I've never made it to the UK, Ireland[1], or Germany, a fact which saddens me further. What I've seen of Europe has been beautiful, both the people[2] and the land.

      At any rate, thanks much for the response.

      Drink a pint for me.

      [1] Am I correct in my understanding that none of Ireland is currently under British rule?

      [2] Certain nasty fellows in France excepted, unfortunately -- my friend's grandfather had his wallet stolen on the subway in Paris. However, I did meet a few nice French people, and I felt more welcome in Spain than in my own home.

      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
  28. Hell of an achievement. by dr.Flake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reading some of the commentairies I get the fealing not everybody graps the full level of the achievements made here.

    Imagine having to make / design one of these suckers yourself!

    what do you need:

    Plane (duh)
    Controls: GPS, computer, satelite link!, electric controls + receiver, battery etc
    fuel!!!: lots of it. its only like 3000 miles or so. (40 hours of flying)

    now fit it within these specs to be able to call it a "model airplane":
    max 5 kg
    max size 2x2 meter
    max engine cap. 0.6c
    (there are several more limitations)

    Hope every one graps the achievement here.

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    1. Re:Hell of an achievement. by zelbinion · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mod the parent up. This is an amazing accomplishment.

      As a R/C modeler myself, the specs of this plane are basically what I learned to fly on. Think: standard trainer with an O.S. 61 engine. This sort of plane can typically fly about 20 minutes on a tank of gas, and never more than about 800 feet in altitude, and never more than about a mile and half away. Things you have to worry about are:

      1. Running out of gas.
      2. Having the temperature conditions change the performance of the engine, causing it to stall. (It is not uncommon to tweak the fuel mixture on a model airplane on nearly every flight through an afternoon of flying.)
      3. Such a small plane is susceptible to fairly small gusts of wind that can make if fly off-course, flip it upside down, etc. Anything more than about 15mph wind, and most model airplanes get tricky to fly. Especially if it is gusty (i.e. not a constant wind speed/direction)
      4. Battery life - standard R/C batteries will last for about 2-4 hours max.
      5. There is no way to restart the motor if it quits
      6. Things can (and often do) come apart in flight. These things are made of balsa wood and heat-shrink coating. I've had planes explode in flight, wings come off, tails come off, etc.

      Now, take a model airplane that is only about 5 feet long and with a wing span of 6 feet, and operates as described above, and modify it so that it can:

      1. Fly continuously for 40 hours.
      2. Fly through day and night in a variety of temperature and moisture conditions and not have the engine quit, or have to adjust the fuel mixture (since you can't do that in flight on the TAM models)
      3. Navigate 1900 miles by itself, negotiating mid-Atlantic weather, variable wind speed, variable wind direction, variable air density, temperature, etc, with NO help from a pilot.
      4. Somehow provide power for all of the electronics for 40 hours
      5. Somehow fit 5.5 pounds of fuel, plus standard R/C radio, plus a home-grown GPS auto-navigation system, plus an alternator for the electrical equipment, plus two telemetry data systems, plus the computer to run it all into a plane that only weighs 11 pounds (think: two bag of groceries) and not weaken the structure so much that the whole mess DOESN'T fly apart on you.

      Now do that while legally blind and def.

      All I can say is: Wow.
      (okay, I had a whole bunch of four-letter words to say, but they aren't appropriate in this situation...)

    2. Re:Hell of an achievement. by abcxyz · · Score: 1

      Not trying to minimize the extaordinary effort, but the distance was around 900 miles, not 3000. Still and unbelievable effort -- remember reading about this on /. sometime (very) earlier this year.

  29. Landing most impressive by mnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe the landing part was the most impressive of feats whether it was automated by GPS or some smart sensors on the plane and runway brought it down smoothly. I'd like to know more on that.

    The second most impressive part is maintaining a constant flight. The general altitude direction are set by a GPS sensor but constantly monitoring the devices, compensating for the temperature and winds, and sending the data back through satellite would be pretty complex. I'd like to know more about the on-board computers and the satellite uplink (and how much that cost).

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Landing most impressive by General_Corto · · Score: 4, Informative
      According to a National Geographic article from last year's attempts, the landing is handled by a local pilot:

      Pilot Paul Howey and others will be in Ireland waiting for the plane to appear on the horizon. They will head out to the bog and, if the plane comes in, take over manual control and land it.

      That seems a lot easier than trying to have the plane land itself, or landing it remotely (and by remotely I mean from the wrong side of the Atlantic).
    2. Re:Landing most impressive by mnmn · · Score: 1


      Yeah thats not all that impressive. It must still be exciting to be standing in Ireland and see the plane arriving from Canada. High GPS tolerance devices could be used as the planes can be controlled from over 5 miles. Now I wanna build one.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  30. national security? by samhalliday · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hmm, whats to stop anyone making one of these things and kitting it out with an explosive or biological warhead? can radars pick these things out as being targets without seagulls etc. raising false alarms?

    1. Re:national security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting it to cross the Atlantic is a major achievement. Doing the same while carrying a warhead...good luck!

    2. Re:national security? by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      Not much, but since the whole thing weighs like 11lbs you just would not be able to put that much explosive on it. 4oz of the right type of explosive can do some real damage if applied in a clever way, but in truth I'm much more worried about somone with a van then a RC aircraft. As for a bio warhead again you have the limit in weight and volume as well as the fact that dispersing a bio agent is a *LOT* harder than most people seem to think. Lets be honest, if you are cleaver enough you can hide a wepon in almost anything but this does not seem like a great canidate.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    3. Re:national security? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      So what's stopping you from building a bigger one?

      I mean, judging from the pictures on their page, the thing is tiny compared to anything manned. And without a pilot, your feasible cargo rises drastically. What would a small plutonium suitcase nuke weigh?

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    4. Re:national security? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      If the terrorists have a suitcase nuke, then you're already in trouble.
      And they're not going to risk losing that payload by attaching it to a model aircraft. No, such a thing will be hand-delivered straight to you by some hapless fanatic eager to enter the kind of heaven where 777 virgins cater to your every whim.

    5. Re:national security? by kevlar · · Score: 1

      Money is a pretty restrictive variable.

      Why fly a suitcase bomb when you can drive it or ship it. That sort of weapon doesn't need to be precise.

    6. Re:national security? by quantaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hmm, whats to stop anyone making one of these things and kitting it out with an explosive or biological warhead? can radars pick these things out as being targets without seagulls etc. raising false alarms?

      What's to stop anyone from making weapons out of half a dozen other simple things, the fact is it doesn't take more then about a minute to think of a ton of ways to do some serious damage if you really wanted too. In the end trying to specifically thwart each possible type of attack is bound to fail, the only real solution is to try and take away peoples motives for attacking you otherwise you're just waiting for something to happen.

      That being said this admittadly does have potential to do more damage then many other alternatives if for no other reason then it allows for a more easily anonymous and somewhat large scale attack then a lot of other things I can think of at the moment.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:national security? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      777 Virgins? Are those stewardesses on wide-body airliners?

      You have a good point. On the other hand, during WWII, Japanese university students launched thousands of balloon bombs at the US west coast.

      These were cheap paper constructions, and only a few hundred actually landed and started some forest fires in the Pacific Northwest, but their panic value far outstripped their actual production cost.

      A model airplane, if you can mass produce them, costs a few hundred bucks. Strap a hand grenade to that with a primitive mechanical timer, and launch a few dozen at downtown Manhattan from some abandoned field and see what happens.

      Although come to think of it, they'd probably be considered as just another part of Saturday night in the Bronx... :-)

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    8. Re:national security? by burns210 · · Score: 1

      we should just hire a bunch of farmers to camp out on our borders with shotguns, with instructions to blow the hell out of any suspicious RC planes.

    9. Re:national security? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point though.

      If you've got one single item of large expense (and rarity), you want to be assured of it's delivery.

      If you've got a small, cheap, fragile, and possibly unreliable delivery system, then you want to have lots of them, with cheap warheads to maximize your chances of a successful strike.

  31. Picture ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have a link to a picture of the plane ?

  32. Only way to stop drug smuggling by panurge · · Score: 3, Funny
    Satellite guided self navigating smart missiles equipped to detect those sneaky little model aircraft and zap them right out of the sky...but wait, the armaments industry will need to get involved:

    Model aircraft engine $50
    As above to JAN spec with testing $15000

    Model aircraft fuselage $50
    As above, built by Lockheed, say $25000

    Home made navigation system $1000
    As above, built by Martin Marietta... oh, just make the whole thing a round $100000.

    Yes, folks, the threat from model aircraft carrying drugs could kickstart the entire US tech economy, just like Star Wars was going to in the 80s.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  33. How about something marine? by cvk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was a great project. I know we've all had daydreams of building autonomous flying machines, and I wonder how many of us have also daydreamed of a small autonomous submersible? I think that a tiny submarine would be just as exciting to see cross the Atlantic although a bit slower.

    The primary benefit of a vehicle that uses the water as its transport mechanism is that it can't crash! It could stay a few dozen meters below the surface for optimum travel speed and emerge from the water at intervals to update its position by GPS and wire that and other data such as temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed, and the like back to the crew on land.

    Once nice side effect of traveling in such a dense medium is that a great deal of instrumentation weight would be okay since it's easy to make things float in water. The same cannot be said of the air! That means it might be possible to use a device like a gyroscope to keep track of heading while under the surface. Try loading something like that onto an RC airplane and you'll need some big wings.

    1. Re:How about something marine? by dr.Flake · · Score: 2, Informative

      Already is.

      I'm sorry that i can';t find the link (how dare you state something without a link) but some people have already made something like that. It's even niftier than you imagine now.

      They build a submersible that uses the flow of water as it sinks to propel itself. The difference in water temperature is then used to generate energy. At the bottom, the proces is reversed, again gaining momentum and energy as it raises!

      At the surface it then sends out the research data aquired sofar, and sinks again. Till the end of days.

      cool he?

      --
      Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    2. Re:How about something marine? by harrkev · · Score: 1
      Once nice side effect of traveling in such a dense medium is that a great deal of instrumentation weight would be okay since it's easy to make things float in water. The same cannot be said of the air! That means it might be possible to use a device like a gyroscope to keep track of heading while under the surface. Try loading something like that onto an RC airplane and you'll need some big wings.

      They DO make electronic hobby gyros. They are used in RC helicopters all the time.

      The problem with a sub is that it can be either gas or battery powered. It would take BIG batteries to do this. If you went with gas, then the sub would have to "breathe" in a big gulp of air when it surfaces to power the engine. This would probably require some sort of pump and pressurized container. This would not be trivial. Also, it would take a LOT more fuel to go this distance because water offers soooo much more resistance.

      Not to say that this is impossible, but it would be a lot larger and more difficult.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:How about something marine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They invented Nuclear power for a reason...

    4. Re:How about something marine? by cvk · · Score: 1

      I neglected to mention it, but one of the obvious benefits of a floating vehicle is the ability to pause on the surface during the trip to recharge the batters (albeit slowly) with onboard solar cells. Of course, solar cells are not magical and have very small output for their area so this solution would slow things down a good deal.

      I think the drag could be reduced below that of the TAM 5 in its air world, especially if control surfaces were made small and perhaps if propulsion were made internal in the form of a water jet.

      In the classic F = 0.5*Cd*r*v2*S for drag in a fluid, r (fluid density) is greater for water, but S (the projected area perpendicular to flow) could be made very small by giving the vehicle a pointy, slender shape at both ends. Finally, a slick polymer coat would be essential for reducing microscopic perpendicular surfaces in the paint.

    5. Re:How about something marine? by rotorhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about the underwater glider: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge /cuttingedge021011.html

    6. Re:How about something marine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RE: resistance
      could hitch a ride on the Gulf stream. works both ways, really, although longer trip back from europe.

    7. Re:How about something marine? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder how many of us have also daydreamed of a small autonomous submersible?

      Well, there's me, though I was only interested in submersion as a means of riding out nasty storms. Technically, it's almost trivial since, as you note, making something that floats isn't very difficult and you don't have the size and power constraints that you would in an airplane. The one thing I haven't figured out is how to send back large quantities of data -- like a jpeg every few minutes -- without getting into expensive stuff like satellite phones. Get around that problem, and you could mount a digital camera with a 180 fish-eye lens vertically, and use a script with panotools to create a navigable hemispherical panorama back at the base. How cool would that be?

      Now, what I'd really like to do is build an autonomous zeppelin that stays aloft on solar power and replenishes its hydrogen supply by electrolyzing captured moisture, but that would be mind-bogglingly expensive...

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    8. Re:How about something marine? by cvk · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea! It'd never occured to me, but I guess that the hydrogen might start to leak out of the zeppelin's balloon since it's such a tiny molucule. Electrolyzing collected water is a great way to replenish it.

    9. Re:How about something marine? by cvk · · Score: 1

      Wow, those things are awesome. The second one (the one that relies on heat exchange) sounds complicated enough to be hard to maintain.

  34. CORRECTION by jsimon12 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This would be the fifth plane they have launched, read the website:

    #1. Crashed due to a steering servo issue
    #2. Fuel system problem
    #3. Bad weather
    #4. LOST

    1. Re:CORRECTION by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      This is the second plane from this year's batch. TAM's 1, 2, and 3 were launched last year. TAM 4 crashed only a few weeks ago.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:CORRECTION by dsb3 · · Score: 1

      This would be the fifth plane they have launched, read the website:

      It's the second one launched this year. TAMs 1 through 3 were launched last August.

      --

      Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
    3. Re:CORRECTION by Kredal · · Score: 1

      "This is the story of Mankind's last, best hope for crossing the Atlantic... TAMalon 5"

      OK, maybe not.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    4. Re:CORRECTION by Tranzboy · · Score: 1

      So... TAM 4 was sucked back in time to help defeat the Shadows?
      It's as good an explanation as any...
      Either that, or it fell through a wormhole, emerged over the Pacific, and collided with Amelia Earhart's plane.
      It could (did?) happen...

  35. Lousy HTML coding skills. by asbestos_lead · · Score: 1

    Damn it.
    http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2002/08/21/2/?nc= 1

    --
    Sig Applied For
  36. Lunokhod 1 (was Re:Wow) by irontiki · · Score: 1

    In the vein of cool remotely controlled space thingees please don't overlook the Lunokhod 1. The Russians sent this 2000 pound robot to the lunar surface in 1970. It explored the surface of the moon for 11 months controlled by a team from the earth. Pretty ass kicking if you ask me.

  37. Usenet thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's a lot more info on this usenet thread

  38. Engine 4 Stroke 10cc by hopbine · · Score: 1

    According to that article (National Geographic) the engine is a four-stroke with 10cc's of displaced volume. Wow, I didn't realize they made 4 stroke engines that small.

    --
    Semper ubi sub ubi
  39. Cool! by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    I think it's cool anyways. As a side note, in the mid-80's (when i was about 12), i often fantasized about building a self-navigating submarine that would power itself from the Oregon Coast to Tokyo. Drew up all sorts of plans and everything, have the thing all engineered out. I should dig those plans out of wherever they are and take a serious look at them again... hrmm.....

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just file for a patent!
      Be sure to mention the word "computer" alot.

      It's a slam dunk!

    2. Re:Cool! by oskie · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a cool idea, but I guess it will have to surface every time it wants GPS coordinates? Also, it would probably take at least four-five times longer if you want to keep it reasonable small in size? Plus I don't want to think about what would happen if it ran into some large chunk of sea weed :)

    3. Re:Cool! by devphaeton · · Score: 0

      Actually, this was well before GPS navigation became commonplace.

      I had a few solutions worked out, such as following the RF noise from transpacific cables, old-fashioned magnetic (i.e. compasses, gyroscopes, etc), and more whimsical such as phototransistors that would navigate by sun and moon.

      Compared to the above (and a few others that were much more complex) GPS almost sounds too easy ;)

      Actually, my biggest fear was what if it struck the bottom of a boat? It would be somewhere between twice the size of a football to a jetski w/o the handlebars (depending on several factors), and would ride just under the surface.

      I guess it could also get eaten by something too.

      Ahh well.. no matter. Flying something across the Atlantic is much more impressive anyways. :o)

      --


      do() || do_not(); // try();
  40. Suspicious by essreenim · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm from Ireland and I mapped the precise gps coordinates to a map which seems to suggest the model plane actually didn't quite reach dry land at time of post. Maybe it has now but latitude 53 degrees, 27.67; and longitude 10 degrees, 4.20 is in the Atlantic ocean just a mile or so off the coast og county Galway - so close you could see the emerald hills (if it's not too misty)

    1. Re:Suspicious by essreenim · · Score: 1

      maybe they falsified the coordinates to keep its location safe from the public!

    2. Re:Suspicious by uncamarty · · Score: 1

      Could it perhaps be that this was the last telemetered reading? Seems to me that some alert bod with a handy pair of binoculars could see this brave little craft a mile or two off shore - they did know where to look after all - and promptly take manual control. As soon as this happens any further telemetry readings are invalid/irrelevant as the plane is no longer under its own control.
      Suspicious? I think not...

      --
      I am not a manual I am a human being! - The distress call of the TechSupport Badger
    3. Re:Suspicious by zelbinion · · Score: 1

      This url says the plane landed safely within 35 feet of the target:
      http://tam.plannet21.com/

      My guess is that you are correct about the telemetry -- if you check out the site, it mentions that telemetry is only sent about once per minute, and at one point they lost it all together for three hours. The last coordinates put the flight to within a mile off shore. However, if you consider that the plane was flying around 56 mph, then it could cover almost a mile in a minute. Plus, regular R/C gear has a range of about three miles, though typically about one and half is about the limit if you want to see what you are doing. So, theoretically, the plane could have been nearly two and half miles off shore, sent a telemetry reading, flew another mile, then switched over to manual control, and flew the rest of the way under ground control with no more telemetry.

      At any rate, they included a document inside the plane signed by an FAI official in Newfoundland, and there was another FAI official in Ireland that is supposed to sign it to confirm the world record. So, if this document turns up soggy, then I guess we'll know if someone had to fish it out of the North Atlantic...

  41. What's the big deal? by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

    There are a whole bunch of people who have been training for just such a scenario for years...

    Ask anyone who plays Quake 3 (or your favorite FPS) with a high ping time if this would really be any different :)

    --
    Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
  42. Scary... by burbilog · · Score: 1

    Really, scary. Things that small can be produced in huge quantities (like billions of mobile phones arond, old and new). Automated production lines, plastic stamped frames, etc.

    Now image the same thing with a gun and human detector -- infrared, motion recognition, shape recognition, AND BLOODY NETWORKED with several thousands others in single launch!

    Instant weapon of mass killing while perfectly legal under current international law, and available only to high-tech and economically powerful country, i.e. U.S...

    Given the current trend of messing around the world this is going to be the next method of killing people around and forcing american policy without risking american lives.

    1. Re:Scary... by Backov · · Score: 1

      Now imagine that same thing with a death ray and deflector shields to go along with it's human detector!

      Oh the humanity!

      --
      In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
  43. This isn't new... by felis_panthera · · Score: 1

    The US Air Force has had one for 2 years now. Completely robotic, tipping the distance scale at 13,840 KM (8,600 miles), and above all else, it's utilitarian. The USAF plane is a fully featured spy plane. Sorry TAM, but you just don't measure up to this bad boy.

    --

    The chains are broken
    Loki is free
    Ragnarok is at hand...
    1. Re:This isn't new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except for the fact that the Global Hawk is the size of a full size airplane. Did you even bother to read the article? The TAM is a model airplane! Think 5-6 foot wingspan. Not 50.

    2. Re:This isn't new... by jo42 · · Score: 1


      Wanker. TAM5 is a model airplane that didn't cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. Go crawl back under your rock.

    3. Re:This isn't new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLEASE, mod up jo42's comment as it is so INSIGHTFUL!

  44. last time i checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Newfoundland was not part of the USA...

  45. here is the contest for such things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    link:

    http://www.auvsi.org/competitions/water.cfm

    i don't have the time to google for more, but i've seen quite a few websites in the past dedicated to AUVs (autonomous underwater vehicles) and model submarines.

  46. NASA Langley does research with RC planes by Goldenhawk · · Score: 1
    I worked for a summer internship at NASA Langley in Hampton, VA, and had the pleasure of assisting their chief radio-control builder in constructing and flying a couple remote-controlled model planes they use for research. Contrary to the huge prices in the parent post, NASA got a lot of value for very little money. We basically used off-the-shelf RC equipment, hand-built the planes just like hobbyists do it, and flew them very much like hobbyists do it.

    The main differences from traditional RC hobbyists were the onboard telemetry system, and the means of getting some of these models launched.

    One of the primary programs in which I participated involved the use of a sailplane model. Rather than launching from a big slingshot, like most hobbyists, we modified an Eagle-style RC trainer with a mount to carry the sailplane, and we literally flew the stacked planes up to altitude using the powered model for thrust, then did an inflight separation (somewhat like Enterprise shuttle coming off the top of a 747 during very early shuttle program tests).

    Also, the NASA folks had a pretty interesting telemetry (remote data collection) setup, which reversed the conventional use of a stock RC radio. The transmitter was mounted in the airplane, and the control sticks taken apart and hooked up to various sensors, and the receiver was on the ground, with the servos hooked up to pens on paper rolls. That way, whenever the onboard sensors moved, the pens also moved. A poor-man's remote sensing system, for just a few hundred dollars!

    The results of this work have shown up in many places - from sailplane wing design to general-aviation stall prevention devices to high-visibility X-plane programs.

    Granted, in 1989 when I did this work, autonomous flight was rare, and we did all this work by piloted remote control, but my point is that it was done for just hundreds of dollars per model, not multiple thousands. Yes, the government sometimes DOES save money.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  47. TAM 5 by writermike · · Score: 1

    "TAMs numbered one through four were not entirely successful. This one worked."

    "You see! You SEE?! Your stupid minds! STUPID! STUPID!"

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
    1. Re:TAM 5 by writermike · · Score: 1

      "Our compliments to the TAM5 unit, and regards to Captain Dunsel"

      "The M5 must be destroyed."
      "Destroyed, Kirk?! No. We're invincible. Look what we've done. Your might starships..."

      --
      If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
  48. So Maynard Hill supports terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    great for drug/weapon smuggling...

    Rrrright....

    Well TAM5 is already capable of delivering every Weapon of Mass Destruction the Bush Regime has found in Iraq to date.

    Of course this capability is not necessarily "EVIL"(tm) nor is Maynard Hill necessarily an "EVIL DOER"(tm). It could be used to "LIBERATE" a people from their prized possessions on behalf of you, me and the Brits, (but not the French) which would be a "GOOD THING"(tm).

    Perhaps Maynard could upscale it to be a real PREDATOR that could auto-launch some old fashioned self righteous Christian hellfire and brimstone upon the heads of adherants of "WRONG RELIGIONS"(tm). Another "GOOD THING"(tm).

    So maybe Maynard Hill is not a terrorist but an American Super Patriot if not just some guy rising above the norm to meet a significant technical challenge.

    More notable is that your thought process in absence of evidence impulsed immediately to the dark side of the human equation which leaves the rest of us to surmise that you are quite possibly another product of Texas.

  49. Legally Blind by morven2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    in most areas means significant, UNCORRECTIBLE vision problems that are severe enough to be somewhat disabling.

    If someone who is 'legally blind' is driving, then one of two things is the case. Either he's not truly deserving of the status, OR he shouldn't be on the road. Probably the latter. Someone who's 'legally blind' should not be able to pass the vision exam to drive, even with corrective lenses, but unfortunately cheating the vision exam in most US states at least is quite easy -- one can just memorise the chart, since the same one is always in use.

    Someone who's legally blind may be able to read, but they will not be able to read the normal type size in a newspaper or book without a strong magnifying glass.

  50. Finally. by rhiorg · · Score: 1

    After 5 attempts, Mary Tyler Moore's hat finally crosses the Atlantic.

  51. Re:How about something marine ? by Gandalf1957 · · Score: 1

    Not that it's equipped to cross the atlantic but it's a start http://www.huv.com/uSeeker/

  52. LMT "Models" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I hate to break this to you, but Lockheed and Martin Marietta merged into Lockheed Martin in 1995. If you dig around before that you'll find bits of GE and RCA in there, too.

    As far as "radio" controlled goes, Lockheed Martin has been there, and done that. Oh, and you forgot to add in the costs to make it stealthy.

  53. Re:You didn't know? It's the little sex jet that c by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

    Acutally I believe the TAM site states that this is a modified OS .61 4 Stroke motor modified with a sparkplug to run on a custom fuel mixture.

    This is a piston engine propeller driven RC plane.

    --
    "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
  54. Re:Filthy Critic Dead? by Chundra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah it's true. I saw it happen. The Harelip got angry at him for puking on her back after drinking too many Coors at happy hour. She chased him out of the Arvada Tavern with a pool cue. He hopped on his banana-seat bike and took off like a bat out of hell. I don't know if he shit himself or if he was just plastered (maybe both), but he definitely was swerving around a lot. Some blonde yuppie girl in a Ford Expedition (undoubtedly on her cell phone) broadsided him. He died instantly.

  55. Ireland Landing... by Demodian · · Score: 1

    When does NASA get to study the rock samples that will come back? Honestly, we could use some good alcohol samples too. It's been a long day at the office, and it feels like Friday already.

    1. Re:Ireland Landing... by LoneStarGeek · · Score: 1

      Ahhh you'll not get me Lucky Whisky. I buried it next to me Lucky Charms!

  56. Re: only in american by halo8 · · Score: 1

    only in america would this get modded up as insightful...

    WAIT!!!stop... sorry

    only in america would someone even think of this and post it, i think Michale Moore said it best in bowling for columbine "america a nation afraid, a nation made afraid, a nation of fear"

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  57. Perfect for assassinations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now we have a model plane that can fly > 1000miles on a tank of gas and could probably carry a kilo or so of high explosives if you reduce the fuel a bit and is programmable to fly to and land within 35 feet of a nominated spot.

    Sounds like a pretty good terror weapon/assassination tool to me!

  58. Two planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we know that the plane that landed in Ireland is the same one that was launched from the other side? Seems it would be pretty easy to just launch one, fly it out to sea and dump it, then launch another one from a boat a few miles off the Ireland coast for the big landing event. I think I saw that scam on a Simpsons episode or something about a marathon race.

  59. And next, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll see a RC airplane with a firecracker in it. Roll your own V2's.

  60. Not so fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Combining existing technologies is good, but I wouldn't call it fantastic.

    The military have remote vehicles.
    There are even some remote vehicles heading toward Sol's outer planets.

    If everyone starting building remote autonomous vehicles, we would have a load of very near earth orbit space junk. I'm sure some of it would find its way through my ceiling, and interrupt me when I'm canning other peoples postings to slashd;g a;fljdgh;daljghladgh;o a/lzbf....

  61. Still challenges left for the geeks ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... take-off and landing were human assisted. Now get coding and see if you can make it take-off and land on it's own.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  62. Re: only in american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im modding you "foe" as you clearly cannot click on a user link and find out THAT I AM NOT A FUCKING AMERICAN. idiot...

  63. Re: only in american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you so literate, you quote movies. yeah. 133t thinker

  64. Radio Interview by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    CBC Radio's "As It Happens" has a Real Audio interview with one of the team members. It's about 15 minutes into the first part of the show.

    "On Saturday, an American team launched a model airplane from Cape Spear, Newfoundland. And today that plane landed successfully in Ireland. It marks the longest distance - 3020km - ever travelled by a model airplane - and over the Atlantic no less. Les Hamilton is part of the Maryland team behind the launch of the plane. We've reached him in St. John's, Newfoundland."

  65. what satellite link and radio transceiver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen technical details about the communication system. I think I saw mention of Amateur Radio equipment. Anyone have info and links? Did TAM5 use APRS as described at http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/index.html ?

  66. Re:Filthy Critic Dead? by Bandman · · Score: 1

    you're kidding! I never know what to believe on that place, or this one, either. Is there a link to the obit?

  67. Re:Filthy Critic Dead? by Chundra · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I was kidding. But notice that the page said the "Filthy Critic" died, not "Matt Weatherford". I suspect he's just tired of doing reviews.

  68. Re:Filthy Critic Dead? by Bandman · · Score: 1

    hmmm...good point. The main page says RIP, so it's probably just the char, like you said. Excelent write though, on the previous post :)

  69. Link to AP Wire Story from August 12 by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/ ireland_model_flight

    I think the "editors" might be coders more than journalists..."

    --
    Sleep is for the Weak
  70. Shhhhhh! by UrGeek · · Score: 1

    The public is not cleared for this information! Do you want Jesse Ventrua* to visit you in the middle of the night all dress in black and with a .45 with a silencer in his hand!?!?!?!

    (X-Files reference, dudes)