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."
I didn't know that IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) were a treat. How did they taste?
StrayByte.Net
RC Car + Wireless Camera?
Whats the groundbreaking part of this? That they shipped it to Iraq!?
Well?
Anyone else had to immediately think of that truck in Knight Rider (I think it was called Goliath) when he read the headline? :-)
The first glaring problem with this is the use of a radio controled device in close proximity to ordinance. One of the first things they tell you, and continue to repeatedly tell you, about situations with IED's and UXO's (Unexploded Ordinance) is NOT to use any radios or electrical devices for an area around them. Presumably these "overly expensive" robots used by the experts are not just expensive for kicks, but, among other things, have sheilding and control systems to counter this danger.
A do it yourself aproach is admirable in a lot of situations, however, when dealing with military and terrorist style explosives, It seems doubtful that's the time to employ the pioneering spirit. The EOD guys are there for a reason, and this is one case where patience is a virtue.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
and $1 million in bribes to the department of defence to get them to actually buy the things.
I think they mean ordnance, not ordinance. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine, along with affect/effect, its/it's, etc.
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
uh - no, that's Rice-a-Roni isn't it?
I forgot rice doesn't explode. Sorry.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
It needs to be milspec in order for the military to use it, especially in a combat situation. It will take you a long long time to get this device approved and assigned a milspec number. I mean, like, years. I really hope the war is over before then. But it looks like Bush will just start up another war, so you may be in luck.
Also, the military generally only does business with military contractors. This is starting to change, at least in principal. There has been a recent push for COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) purchases, to save money, but there is still a huge amount of paperwork and bureaucracy to deal with. They are going to have to take your robot and freeze it, bake it, irradiate it, EMP it, and maybe even shoot at it. All at great taxpayer expense.
I salute you and your idea, but you should be forewarned about the effort involved. Also, my experience with this is limited. My close friend designed a rebreather that was almost assigned a milspec number by the US Navy. After several years and millions of dollars in testing and a final report approving the rebreather, the navy decided to stick with it's current model. I suspect this had something to do with internal politics that I should not even speculate on. Basically, my friend had put two years of his life into this, had a better machine which outperformed and way underpriced the competition, was one signature away from a milspec number assignment, and suddenly he got the silent treatment.
So, basically, I'm saying Be prepared for a lot of red tape. Oh, and you may need to be ISO 9001 certified. Which is basically another form of red tape.
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.
High technology counts for about zero in a guerilla war. But to the extent that fiddling with the next gadget takse your mind off the main goal, viz, making yourself liked by the locals, then leaving, it is counterproductive.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
err.....sorry ;)
Hi, i'm joe i work in a garage, you know like The Woz, i make internet things that pretty l33t. We'll anyway nerdo, i was thinking one night on the internet and seeing all this news and stuff about iraq and i figured it would be keeno to help our soilders out with a bomb sniffer.
... i mean save, save our billies from retarded terrorists who use bomb.
Yeh so me and a buddy figured we could make million* cough*a modest profit selling these things to help the boys. You know cause the current ones me make now are really expensive, errr, i mean these guys can't buy enough of them maybe the governments not giving them enough money or something to buy them from halib...err... halifornia. You know home of all us geeks and techno companies.
So yeh we would really like you to save us a billion in research... *cough i mean
So if you could just send your ideas too.
Two Guy Garage Defense Company
5 Houston Center
1401 McKinney, Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77010
USA
Two Guy Garage Defense Co. is trademarked by our sponsors.
If you can't fix it ask the 3 year old down the street.
Seing as most IED designs rely on readily available and somewhat volatile substances, surely it would be cheaper and quicker to retire to a safe distance and pummel the IED with a rifle?
I'd expect the energy of a rifle-round hitting a volatile IED would be sufficient to trigger it, if not, tracer could be tried for flame ignition.
Of course, line-of-sight wouldn't always be available and that is where you could use one of these radio control cars for sympathetic detonation.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
While this device will work in a lot of situations, there are actually some damn good reasons that the military pays a lot of money for the EOD systems they buy.
Example one: Intrinsic safety. This is something that's used a lot in fuel and chemical industries. The basic idea is to design the system so that no component that is exposed to the outside world can cause a spark. This is not as straightforward as you might think. And it's definitely a feature I'd want implemented for a robot that's going to be crawling around IEDs.
Example two: Verification. This new system is a great thing-- don't get me wrong-- but it's essentially just a hack. Typical procurement for something like this is going to include a whole series of tests under a LOT of different conditions. This new thing-- well, I'm sure it works just fine in the garage.
Example three: Landline control. One of the key rules when dealing with UXOs (UneXploded Ordnance) is that you never use a radio within a certain distance of the UXO. Hand radios must be at least 25 feet away, car-mounted radios must be at least 100 feet away. This is done because there is a chance that the trigger for a given ordnance might be radio-based. A lot of robots come with landline controls for just that reason. Makes me a little anxious about seeing a radio-controlled truck as the base for an EOD system.
There are other issues, too. Image quality, level of control over the motors, you name it. There's a lot more to ordnance disposal than simply getting a camera up close to the damn thing and sending back a picture.
That said, a system like this probably WILL work in the majority of cases, especially in Iraq. I just don't think it'll ever be adopted by the military, despite its obvious usefulness.
This is one of the reasons that there is so much milspec testing (and hence the $500 hammers). I mentioned in another post that my friend had developed a rebreather for military use (http://www.steammachines.com/aa1-Testing.asp). One of the primary uses of a military rebreather is to defuse underwater mines. Originally we sent in SCUBA divers to defuse mines. Then the soviets started adding audio sensors to listen for bubbles. After a few SEALs got blown up the navy added more requirements to the mission gear, and more testing, and we started sending in rebreathers, which are silent. Then the soviets added metal detectors to their mines and more SEALs got all blowed up. So we started using non-ferrous metals like brass and inconnel and more testing and more specs. Then the soviets added sensors for electromagnetic fields, and when the rebreathers O2 injecttion solonoid fires, youe guessed it, more SEALs got blowed up. So, now we need low wattage solonoids and shielded electronics, and more tests and specs... I may be mistaken about what order the SEALs got blown up in, or whether they were EODs guys instead, but you get the idea.
So that is an instance where the military testing really means something. There are a million ways that something can go wrong, and combat is a special situation with it's own set of rules. On top of that the military is so concerned with it's soldiers getting blown up, at least by their own gear, that they go way overboard with the safeguards sometimes.
For those of you who don't know, it should be "ordnance" rather than "ordinance".
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: ordinance
Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s, 'or-d&n-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging, from Medieval Latin ordinantia, from Latin ordinant-, ordinans, present participle of ordinare to put in order -- more at ORDAIN
1 a : an authoritative decree or direction : ORDER b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation
2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity
3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony synonym see LAW
Main Entry: ordnance
Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ordinaunce, from Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging
1 a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment b : a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
2 : CANNON, ARTILLERY
We now return to our regularly scheduled flamewars.
"Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
Yes, we need that. Our municipalities have far too many ordinances.
Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
This will get somebody killed. Let EOD do the job correctly
Saying they do the same thing is like saying a red wagon does the same thing as a Challenger MkII tank.
kibishii-na.
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.
I made myself a commitment to build every do-it-yourself item project on slashdot, I've just started on this one. People keep asking me what it's for, I tell them, now they are starting to look at me kinda funny
A number of the posters here have referred to the long design, test and deployment cycle in the military, and in very many cases, their comments are accurate. But, there is a history of wartime hacks thought up by soldiers or people who knew soldiers. A good example from the WWI was the trench periscope. During WWII, Sgt. Curtis Culin welded pieces of steel cannibalized from German beach defenses to make the "Rhino", a tank capable of cutting through the high bushy walls that lined the roads in Normandy. Today, US Reservists and National Guardsmen are figuring out ways of mounting steel plates as armor on their HUMMVs. That soldiers and marines are coming up with field expedient devices external to the Department of Defense R&D system is nothing new. Some of the hacks get incorporated into actual milspec equipment; some doesn't. The DoD has whole organizations dedicated to cataloging and studying these things as "lessons-learned". It will be interesting to see if this idea gets picked up and widely applied in Iraq.
Bureaucracy loves company.
could have been to use a better radio control platform like a Taymia (cheap) kit with a real 4 channel control unit or higher. This would have given them a better platform with repairable parts and far greater scope of control.
I know the guys aren't trying to make a speed-demon or such but the kit cars do make a much easier platform from which to modify things.
Otherwise, it's a good idea.
Paul.
They're having a severe problem with new home owner's associations creating ridiculous ordinances, and this robot is designed to edit the bylaws in such a way as to totally obliterate those ordinances!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
What, no big Type-R stickers?
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.
20 years ago, true, but I was a Combat Engineer in the Marine Corps.
In a perfect world, you call up the Engineers, and they handle it. In peacetime you may even be able to call up the EOD guys to handle it. In war, they're never around when you want them. But we usually are.
True, as pointed out, you don't want a lot of stray RF around, esp. since these IEDs are mostly controlled by your car alarm system key fob. However, if your frequencies are not in that range, it won't set it off.
If it does set it off? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! That's what we do! We are not some movie or TV show hero who defuses the bomb! Most of the time we prefer to set it off in place to eliminate the threat.
If these little robots can lug a block of C4 up to the IED, and either get away before the C4 is set off, (prefered) or sacrifice itself and get rid of it, good job! I've almost pissed my pants doing the same thing, hoping that the device wouldn't go off when I touched it.
To sum up: in war, it's not about defusing, it's about detonating (safely) so the mission can continue!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
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.
Many IEDs in Iraq are manufactured out of old artillery shells (the country is awash in them). They're readily available, have fusing apparatus already attached, and have a frangible metal shell that produces plenty of shrapnel. As a bonus, They're relatively safe to handle, and even rookie terrorists can drop one next to a roadway and run.
.50 caliber Barrett rifles . An incendiary .50 caliber round will make short work of many IEDs and other ordnance.
Why bother with something volatile or percussion sensitive? Nitro? Picrates? You'd kill more of your buddies handling that stuff than you would kill intended targets.
Plastic explosive is also used, but you typically can't set that off just by shooting it. Most plastic explosives are fairly insensitive to percussion, and require some sort of chaining, or booster explosive to set them off (like a blasting cap attached to some detonation cord, for instance).
Burning is an idea, since most plastic explosives will burn... but you could do that by simply soaking it in diesel fuel and lighting it up (old dynamite is sometimes disposed of in this way)... you might not even need tracers.
Conceptually, though, I like the way you think... far better to sit back at a safe distance and light it up with a rifle. The EOD guys do something similar to this with the
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Most "repurposible" radio receivers use one or more local oscillators in their circuits to "down convert" the RF signal into a range more easily demodulated. This involves locally generating a RF signal of a certain frequency and mixing it in with the incoming signal in a non-linear device.
/. article.
These local oscillator signals "leak out" of the reciever and can be detected remotely. The existence of these leaks is why radio recievers are not allowed on airplanes and are a way in which unlicensed television sets are detected in countries which require them to be licensed.
I presume this process is what is being eluded to by the reference to RF detectors at the end of the
I am surprised that RF detection methods are not in service already (if they would work). Perhaps Iraq is a very RF noisy place and RF analysis is only as useful as metal detection - there would be so many false alarms from cell phones, TV sets, sparking power line insulators, etc., that it really would not help.