Slashdot Mirror
DIY Ordnance Disposal With An RC Truck
kpw10 writes "My company, Tackle Design, put together a do it yourself ordnance disposal robot for use by one of the partners in our company, currently serving in Iraq. It is a very simple solution costing only about $1,000, but it performs the same functions as the super-expensive robots issued by the military. We looking to see if we can get more of these devices over there - particularly as the treat of IEDs seems to be on the rise. We're also looking into including more advanced cameras and other types of sensors including explosives detectors (MEMS and SAW based) as well as RF detectors."
RC Car + Wireless Camera?
Whats the groundbreaking part of this? That they shipped it to Iraq!?
Yes. Yes it is.
vampirical
However, it would take a lot of $1000 robots getting blown up before you could justify one of the higher-priced ones...presumably they get humans out of the area first? (Of course, in situations that that wouldn't be possible, you would still require the one with the highest probability of success, but for your average poking at garbage piles to see if they blow up this seems to make sense.)
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I really enjoyed reading this advertisement.
Does anyone else find it depressing that US services personnel seem to be increasingly buying their own equipment?
I had already heard stories of soldiers' families investing in flak-jackets/body armour to give them additional protection, and i believe i recall even from Gulf War I that soldiers were bringing their own GPS kit.
Now they're putting together their own, affordable, bomb-disposal robots. I admire the initiative, but deplore the circumstances that make it necessary. Especially since the fact that a soldier/marine and his/her family can invest in the equipment means it is relatively inexpensive. If many soldiers buy it, it's *probably* useful too. So how come the government doesn't provide it?
Putting on a cynicism hat, i wonder if it is because they'd rather spend high-margin-megabucks on a few robots from InsertHugeSupplierHere, than divert a fraction of that to buy larger volume cheaper alternatives.
What happens when the bad guys read slashdot and decide to make a jammer for the little remote controlled toy? Loose lips sink ships.
No reason to apologize for wanting proper language.
Or one loaded with C4 driven into a insurgent stronghold, then detonated.
Someone hates these cans.
Saying they do the same thing is like saying a red wagon does the same thing as a Challenger MkII tank.
Essentially all these drones are designed to do is part the detonator from the payload of the device (or die in the attempt). The payload usually being several pounds of rusty 'shipyard confetti'. If the detonator is still servicable (i.e. it wasn't built by a complete monkey and has managed to survive the elements until something came along to set it off), then this usually results in our brave bomb disposal robot going to silicon heaven in a loud bang and a hail of rusty nuts and bolts. Not bad for a 1000 bucks a pop or whatever. As long as it can stand up to the elements and being bashed about. As was mentioned previously though I don't really see the American government going for it....not without 2 years of pointless testing and backhanders.....errr corporate donations. However, I do see private contractors buying them for their own use. Some of the big commercial hauliers have a greater range of equiptment and (disposable income) than any government army out there. Good luck with it dude.
First off, a suitable size mesh around the motor may cut inteference - depends on the frequency emitted.
Secondly, it has been noted above that these sort of things are exceedingly dangerous around DYI bombs such as might be found in Iraq. But that is the point of having a drone. Clear the area and send it in. The problem is scatter and proximity. The R/C controllers are transmitters (not receiver's as on the drone) and with cross-talk/miss-aiming could trigger a detonation.
Surely there is a cheap line-of-sight (eg I/R) solution for this?
My point is still the same on that.
If you were to try to *destroy* an IED with an explosive device, you'd probably just cause sympathetic detonation due to the volatility of the substances (This isn't refined plastic explosives).
Also, attempting to seperate detonator and charge would be likely impossible with what is essentially a crued toy car.
So you'd probably still be better off firing a rifle at it.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Bush is talking about?
The next step will be to stop paying the volunteers in the armed forces altogether. I mean guys, stop being greedy, you have the privelege of risking your lives to bring democracy and Halliburton cafeterias to the huddled masses, what more do you want?
'ask not what the New American Century can do for you, ask what you can do for the NAC!.
The only reason I can fathom Bush starting another war is due to national security based in intelligence gathering.
Sorry am I to have to remind everyone but the reasons given for the "imminent threat" of this war were matters of national security based on (faulty) intelligence gathering. Call me a cynic, but if another war is wanted from the White house; I'm sure another intelligence mistake will be made and an excuse - like nation building, or toppling an unsympathetic dictator - will be proffered afterwards.
I'm not quite so humble.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
One senior military analyst, whose job was precisely to find out why equipment did not perform as expected, described it to me as major's logic and sergeant's logic. The Major says, we do it by the book. The patrol goes out and the sergeant says, we'll do it this way, lads, because the official way doesn't fucking work. Then he reports back to the major that the mission was accomplished and everything went by the book. And the major, if he wants to be a colonel, doesn't ask stupid questions. The hard bit is to get through the official chain of command wall to find out what really happens on the ground, investigate the good bits, and turn them into an official solution.
Faced with a choice between certainly getting killed and trying something that might save you, armed forces everywhere become inventive. People bleating on about "No RF near potential booby traps" miss the point. The people on the ground are likely to have a pretty good idea of enemy capability. They might be wrong, occasionally, but that is better than having being dead most of the time. War is not a computer game, and it is not played according to neat rules by any of the sides involved. The hard bit is to strike the right balance between discipline and flexibility, and this must change from conflict to conflict.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
An umbilical could also be used to winch the unit back out of trouble.
Another shortcoming from the protoype show in the article is that it rides high and is SOL if it rolls over. Probably better to design the vehicle so that it works with either side up.
It's one thing to laugh at the price of the competitors, but it's a good idea to find out what that price does and doesn't cover.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Alternatively, I see something suspicious, stop the Humvee at a safe distance, deploy the R/C toy, and *then* its transmitter sets the thing off before my $1,000 robot gets close. Again, I don't see the problem.
The only scenario where I see a problem is if someone is standing next to the IED while the robot is poking around. Somehow, that doesn't seem very likely.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
The case proposed here of a UXO disposal robot is rather different, it is something that may breakdown but if it is cheap enough to throw away when a bomb goes off and a soldier's life is saved, then wtf, go for it.
I'm an electrical engineer serving in Baghdad w/ US forces. I've seen firsthand the detonator circuits they use for these IED's. I can tell you that I have seen MANY R/C toy systems being used as the detonator for remotely-detonated IED's.
So why aren't you transmitting all possible R/C codes and frequencies throughout the area on a regular basis, to trigger the IEDs before you enter an area, or before the bad guys have a chance to put them in place? What is the problem if an R/C truck with a camera on it trundles up to a possible bomb while you're behind a building 150 yards away, and it "accidently" blows up the IED? You were going to blow it up anyway, so if anything you just lost a $1,000 R/C truck. If these things are remotely triggerable, why aren't you remotely triggering them with a $50 R/C transmitter instead of sending in a robot that costs a quarter of a million dollars? I'm not really seeing the problem with the R/C vehicle. I don't think I'm alone. Make it more clear for us. Is it like police forensics where you want to be able to check out the device in detail before you kill it?
Watch your step. It's dangerous over there.
To expand on #2:
Does it work when it's -23 degrees F and the snow is a foot deep?
Does it work when crawling around sand dunes at 110 degrees F with the sun adding additional solar load?
Can it handle the salt spray that it will be exposed to while working a beach?
Can you store it for 8 years in a depot, ship it half way around the world, turn it on and have it operate properly in any of the above environments?
MIL-SPEC equipment has stringent environmental design and testing considerations (with supportin documentation) for a reason. Specifically not all combat operations take place under ideal environmental conditions with support technicians standing by to take your calls.
There's one potential problem:
:)
The attacker takes control of your RC truck, and drives it over to the bomb disposal squad's area and dets the C4 charge.
Bwahahaha..
Not likely of course, but it's always something to consider. If they ever figure out the frequencies you are using they could just blow it up ASAP, which makes it deadlier.
Workaround is to have a mechanism to prevent detonation for at least 1 minute after the unit is deployed, or requiring the unit to be immobile for 1 minute, before the detonation can be triggered (then at least you have 1 minute to destroy/disarm the bot before the attacker detonates it).
I find the following on topic
Captain: What happen?
Operator: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You!!
Cats: How are you gentlemen!!
Cats: All your base are belong to us.
Cats: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say!!
Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cats: Ha Ha Ha Ha ….
Captain: Take off every "zig."
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move "zig".
Captain: For great justice.