Slashdot Mirror
New Draganflyer Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
John Jorsett writes "I've long lusted for the Draganflyer indoor-outdoor radio-controlled helicopter, but now I've got a new object of desire. Since seeing it flown on The History Channel's 'Tactical to Practical' show last September, I've been waiting for the Draganflyer Predator, modeled on the military aircraft of the same name. Electrically powered, the $750 Draganflyer Predator can be equipped with video cameras and a GPS receiver to carry out radio-controlled or pre-programmed self-guided surveillance missions of up to 20 miles range, the company claims. Time to buy my own UAV and find out what's really going on over there in Area 51."
it'll be interesting to see if the government will impose some restrictions on such device, so that it can't be used for anything threating the homeland.
more importantly, can this Predator still be controlled if someone's using a jammer of some sort?
It would be pretty cool to chase my brother around the house with that three-pronged flying silver ball from phantasm. Someone ought to start making those (without the drill of course). Every kid will want one.
All they're doing there is building spy planes, UFOs and talking to aliens and shit. Boring stuff.
.
On the other hand there's this sunbathing little cutie next door. .
KFG
Heck with area 51. I want to find out what's going on over at the Playboy mansion. :)
But who can get in to Area 51 first? You and your Dragan Flyer Predator or the aliens and their UFOs from Mars?
It's a race to determine the superiority of two teams: Aliens vs. Predator!
True story.
Time to buy my own UAV and find out what's really going on over there in Area 51
Hello John, I was glad to read your Slashdot article. Now, can you hear the knock on your door? Can you see the black vans with the engine running in the street? well, rejoice: you'll get to see a classified site very soon, and even visit it with a couple of muscular new friends, without even having to buy a UAV. I hope you'll enjoy your trip!
Regards,
-- J. Ashcroft (johnny_the_poo@dhs.gov)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
So what is stopping someone from using this like a real predator and strapping something not so nice to it like a small bomb or gun. Since it can fly autonomously it looks like they just made a cheap over the counter missile platform. Just fly around a building transmitting real time images till your target emerges from the building and....boom!
A Remote Threat
This past June, quoting a German intelligence official, the Reuters news agency reported that al Qaeda might be planning to attack passenger aircraft using model airplanes. Some have dismissed this threat as unlikely or fanciful, but other terrorism experts foresee terrorist groups' using remote-control planes, boats, helicopters, and other delivery devices to attack people and sites without sacrificing any of their members.
Is the time ripe for such attacks? With the Western world hardening its defenses after 9-11, terrorists will be looking for creative ways to get past security, says Louis R. Mizell, a private security expert and ex-U.S. intelligence officer.
Mizell, who gathers data on security and terrorist incidents, says precedent for such attacks exists. He has recorded 43 cases involving 14 terrorist groups in which remote-control delivery systems were "either threatened, developed, or actually utilized." Only last year it was reported, for example, that Osama bin Laden considered using remote-control airplanes packed with explosives to kill President George W. Bush and other heads of state at the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy. In 1995, reports indicated that Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese terrorist group that attacked the Tokyo subway with sarin gas, planned to use remote-control helicopters to spray dangerous chemicals from the air. The helicopters crashed during testing. In the 1980s, the Basque separatist group ETA tried to blow up a Spanish patrol ship using a four-foot remote-control boat packed with explosives.
The U.S. military is devoting considerable resources to its own remote-control delivery systems. For example, engineers are working on enhancing pilotless "drones" to make them effective means of attack without putting a flight crew at risk.
Critics have downplayed this threat because of the relatively small payloads that such devices can deliver. But some remote-control devices on the market can hold large amounts of explosives. A Mississippi company called Bergen R/C Helicopters, for example, advertises over the Internet a five-foot-long remote-control helicopter, costing $4,000, that can carry a 20 kg (44 lb) payload for 30 minutes without needing to refuel. Yamaha Motor Co. markets over the Internet a remote-control helicopter with a 20 kg payload as a pilotless crop duster. And, Mizell points out, terrorists could use many vehicles with smaller payloads en masse to create the same effect.
Other experts agree that the threat is legitimate. "Do you want to know if this is a real threat?" asks Gary Richter, a systems analyst at Sandia National Laboratories who evaluates the goals and capabilities of terrorist groups. "The answer is an unequivocal yes."
Robert Blitzer, a former chief of the Domestic Terrorism/Counterterrorism Planning Section in the FBI's National Security Division, said he hadn't personally encountered that threat while with the FBI but conceded that it was viable. "I wouldn't be at all surprised that al Qaeda would have the wherewithal to do something like that," Blitzer says.
"Remote-control vehicles of various sorts do have to be considered," agrees RAND analyst Brian Jenkins, "but they have a limited spectrum in terms of utility." He points out that remote-control bombs "would barely dent a skyscraper" and wouldn't compromise the dome of a nuclear reactor. Jenkins adds that remote-control delivery devices would be unnecessary in situations where terrorists could simply plant a bomb and walk away--in Times Square, for example.
But Mizell sees a much broader scope of potential applications, such as boat attacks on maritime vessels and littoral utilities, as well as plane, helicopter, or car attacks on targeted VIPs' vehicles. "Real-life analogous situations show us what could be done," he says. For example, in 1998, a radio-control model airplane forced the pilot of a DC-9 to change his approach to Dulles International Airport.
source
MoFscker
With all the publicity A51 got, I doubt anything intresting is still there. They probably moved everything to Area 42 or something.
...or outsourced it to India.
Hardware like this is trouble for organizations which want to be private.
How long until we can build a cheap mostly-plastic flier that can fly high enough, yet take good enough pictures, of secret sites?
What's stopping us from finding an open WAP nearby and dropping a cheap WAPWireless Controller bridge? Perhaps with a few more cheap relays if we don't have the range.
Sit down in an internet cafe, bounce your signal through eastern Europe, and get ready to get your own pics of Area 51. Sure, you lose the flyer, but so what?
Perhaps we'll end up living in a transparent society...
If you were to place a windows based OS on it, could you get away with flying it over a classified area? You could always claim there was a programming glitch, and since it was a classified area, you didn't have a phone number to call them, so you decided to just watch the video instead.
I mean, we all know how error prone programs are when they are still in alpha stage anyway, right? It's not like you can be faulted for testing your prototype to find all the bugs in it and having it "accidently" go where it's not supposed to, right?
>:)
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
-- http://www.swcp.com/~hudson/
Have you seen some of the miniature RCs being created by hobbyists?
Henry Pasquet has a 2.6 gram airplane that flies at walking speed. You can see it in the Feb 2004 issue of FlyRC magazine, on page 162.
Soon you won't even need to get high up to do the recon, you'll be able to navigate through buildings and populated areas with machines that are incredibly hard to spot.
Whether that will lead to a crackdown on RC hobbies in the future remains to be seen.
My father got into building and flying RC aircraft - he even became the president of his local RC flying organization. It is a cool hobby to play with - but there's two things you have to expect.
One: You are going to crash and damage your toys. Be prepared for the emotional effects this may have. Having a camera up front is a nice way to tie controls in with movement, certainly nicer than the fly-by-watching indirect controls my dad had to use - but the dynamics of RC scale speed Vs. large scale wind means that you are still going to have to contend with hard landings and rapid unexpected direction changes. Always stay clear of ANY obstacles, never fly around people or property, and come prepared to climb trees to retrieve your toy.
Two: This is NOT a cheap hobby. In terms of time and resources, the $750 is just the tip of the iceburg in terms of the resources you are going to spend to maintain this little aircraft if you plan on flying it regularly. You'll need a little workshop, epoxies and other wear-and-tear repair equipment, scraps of all kinds to repair larger issues, spark plugs, oils and other maintenence tools depending on engine, carrying equipment, etc., etc. You've got to be fairly finantially devoted to keep this hobby up - and I'm not even mentioning the costs of a serious crash.
It is a hobby you can be proud of in your accoplishments - but it's also one you have to take great care with, and be ready for literally crushing emotions when gravity takes its toll.
Ryan Fenton
But that's okay if you can spy on them equally easily. The Orwellian problem arises with asymmetric intelligence (in the "spying" sense) availability like we have now. With confused or stupid computer geeks pushing for privacy, little realising that privacy laws are a shield for the powerful and useless to the weak (since government intelligence agencies are not really bound by them, and you _can't tell_ if someone more powerful than you is watching you, but if you are a weakling being watched while watching, damn sure the powerful dude you are watching can tell and will sue your ass or worse...)
" They probably moved everything to Area 42 or something."
I heard they moved it toAF#$H20x9934SDF..3jk..ata.[NO CARRIER]
"Derp de derp."
"Time to buy my own UAV and find out what's really going on over there in Area 51."
You could get one to the top of Tikaboo Peak and launch it, no problem. They may or may not catch the model, but with the sensors they have all over around the area, they'd definitely catch you, both trudging around on the ground and the radio transmitter you'd be using. The same, though less stringent, warning would go for using one to view any sensitive area. The end result would be going to jail, and could well end up with the goobermint trying to make RC aircraft illegal, or at least heavily licensed, under PATRIOT II. Seriously.
They've already been hard at work trying to outlaw model rockets engines. They're under the impression these can be taken apart and used to make a bomb. Technically, they're correct, but it'd be far easier and cheaper to get shotgun shell reloading material and make it from that. Rocket engine propellant is designed to burn at a certain speed, not as fast as possible, and so makes a lousy explosive. That's not stopping them.
The ATF tried asking model rocket engine manufacturers to supply them with some engines for testing. All refused. So they came up with a court order, forcing one of the manufacturers to supply some engines. They complied.
ATF rented a van and set out to test these engines. They got some rockets, went out to a remote area, and started launching them. Out of the back of the van. Which contained the rest of the engines. The rest of the engines caught fire. The rented van burned to the ground. (Details, and confirmation of same by the owner of the company forced to supply the engines, available from Google Groups usenet archive for newsgroup rec.models.rockets).
They were enjoying their newfound freedom to "protect" at all costs way too much before. Now they're also humiliated, so they're tryng all the harder. If someone were to take some of the widely available still- or movie-camera carrying rockets and launch those from Tikaboo Peak, there's no doubt in my mind "America's 87th Most Popular Hobby" would be grounded without even the comfort of having lost out in a congressional vote.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
"The Orwellian problem arises with asymmetric intelligence" Asymetric intelligence would (is?) certainly a problem, but allowing everyone to spy on everyone is a pyrrhic victory. I don't WANT to know what everyone else is doing. If I want to be seen, I'll alert the media and see if anyone gives a rat's ass what I'm doing. Until then, I don't need the whole world knowing that I'm a guy who reads Danielle Steele novels while suntanning...(or whatever...)
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson