Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Drone's Sensors Battle California Wildfires

Posted by samzenpus on from the not-just-blowing-smoke dept.

An anonymous reader writes "California is burning, but according to this article advanced sensors on NASA's Ikhana unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) can detect exact temperatures (within half a degree) through the smoke, enabling the drone to spot for the firefighters battling the more than 300 wildfires. NASA's Ikhana is the same aircraft as the Predator, except it's being used here to save lives."

58 comments

  1. oldnews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Wikipedia

    This aircraft was used extensively to survey the Southern California wildfires in 2007. The data was used to deploy firefighters to areas of the highest need.

    1. Re:oldnews? by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      Even though it's old news, it's still a little bit interesting. The news is, I guess, that the UAV is being used again, this year.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    2. Re:oldnews? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      And it was on /. then too.

  2. Same as Predator by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NASA's Ikhana is the same aircraft as the Predator, except it's being used here to save lives."

    The Predator's primary function is to save lives.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    1. Re:Same as Predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you! I was thinking the same thing!

    2. Re:Same as Predator by pease1 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      And another thank you!

    3. Re:Same as Predator by Trogre · · Score: 3, Funny

      I actually sat looking at your post for a full minute before I realised you weren't talking about the particular kind of Predator whose primary purpose is to hunt aliens and humans for sport. I was trying to figure out how that could be construed as saving lives.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:Same as Predator by Kamokazi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And another thank you. It drives me nuts when people use anything as an opportunity to bash anything related to the military.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    5. Re:Same as Predator by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought its primary function was to gather intelligence, which hopefully has the effect of saving American, allied, and non-combatant's lives. But it does that by letting us kill enemy combatants better, which seems different on its face from what this article talks about.

      -Peter

    6. Re:Same as Predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Primary Function: Armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance and target acquisition
              - http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122

      So the air force disagrees with you...

      Sure there's the benefit of not having a pilot in the danger zone, but that's secondary. The primary function isn't to save lives, it's to do the three things above.

    7. Re:Same as Predator by Mononoke · · Score: 1

      "Primary Function: Armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance and target acquisition."

      Sure there's the benefit of not having a pilot in the danger zone, but that's secondary. The primary function isn't to save lives, it's to do the three things above.

      All of which save lives.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    8. Re:Same as Predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capital "P". That means "P"roper noun. :-)

    9. Re:Same as Predator by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Predator's primary function is to save lives.

      That may be the end result in both cases, but the primary function of Predator is intelligence gathering, and it can lob missiles too.

      And let's not kid ourselves. I think it was Norman Shwartzkopf that said the purpose of the military is to break things and kill people. Even if that is breaking things that would be used against others, and killing those that intend to do harm, it is still breaking & killing, and in the process, there is usually some "collateral damage" to those that had nothing to do with the conflict except to be on the receiving end of shrapnel.

    10. Re:Same as Predator by danlor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All the things above are in preparation for killing people. Nothing our military does saves lives. That would be oxymoronic.

      This new duty on the other hand DOES SAVE LIVES.

    11. Re:Same as Predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Predator's primary function is to save lives.

      And "Peace is Our Profession."

    12. Re:Same as Predator by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Any military has subcomponents which save the lives of the military personnel themselves. Further, while it hasn't happened recently, once in a while there's on occasion for a defensive war, in which case the military is charged with saving the lives of members of the civilian populace it protects (or allies of the same).

      To be sure, these goals (of saving lives... that one cares about) are addressed by destroying other lives... but even so, it most certainly can be fairly stated that military apparatus can be used for saving lives.

    13. Re:Same as Predator by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      NASA's Ikhana is the same aircraft as the Predator, except it's being used here to save lives."

      The Predator's primary function is to save lives.

      ...the lives of people who are themselves killing others. So really, the Predator's primary function is to rebalance the distribution of loss of life in favour of more enemy deaths and fewer allied deaths, not to "save lives".

      Also IIRC the Predator has been used extensively for direct strikes against human targets in Afhanistan.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    14. Re:Same as Predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good intelligence means killing fewer people, both friendly and innocent. Bad intelligence means you lob bombs all over the place and hope they land in the right spot.

      Human nature being what it is, you're probably going to expend the munitions either way. Good intelligence will always save lives over bad.

    15. Re:Same as Predator by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Predator's primary function is to save lives.

      They should upgrade the thing to carry more weapons, so that it can save even more lives.

      (War logic is always twisted)

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    16. Re:Same as Predator by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      I thought its primary function was to gather intelligence, which hopefully has the effect of saving American, allied, and non-combatant's lives. But it does that by letting us kill enemy combatants better, which seems different on its face from what this article talks about.

      -Peter

      There's a misconception here. the simple existence of the predator drone has the effect of denying the enemy or potential enemy freedom of movement, irrespective of the ability/willingness to harm.

      In this particular sense, it forces the conflict down to platoon level , because it is nearly impossible for the opfor to concentrate force effectively; I expect that nothing would suit the allied forces in Afghanistan better than a replay of the Tet offensive, with all the problems of supply and concentration of force that this would entail for the al qaida/ insurgent force.

      For all practical purposes, the predator drone has the same function that tactical nuclear weapons had for NATO in the cold war: their function was simply to force the enemy to keep its forces widely spread to minimise the probability of sustaining defeating losses in one go, therefore the vast superiority in numbers of the soviet bloc could not turn into a vast superiority at the front line, unless some careless politician had subscribed to a "no first use" policy. I can tell you that living in Europe in the Carter years, for a guy like me rather knowledgeable in military things, was "interesting".

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    17. Re:Same as Predator by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the simple existence of the predator drone has the effect of denying the enemy or potential enemy freedom of movement, irrespective of the ability/willingness to harm. [. . .] unless some careless politician had subscribed to a "no first use" policy.

      You just made the same mistake as the careless politician. There must be at least a perceived ability/willingness to do harm. And let's face it, you give the other guy the idea that you're willing to harm him by harming his buddies first.

      -Peter

    18. Re:Same as Predator by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      the simple existence of the predator drone has the effect of denying the enemy or potential enemy freedom of movement, irrespective of the ability/willingness to harm. [. . .] unless some careless politician had subscribed to a "no first use" policy.

      You just made the same mistake as the careless politician. There must be at least a perceived ability/willingness to do harm. And let's face it, you give the other guy the idea that you're willing to harm him by harming his buddies first.

      -Peter

      actually, no. the point about the predator is that it denies the free use of space and time, and tactical and strategic surprise. in a asymmetrical conflict in which the good guys have the regular army plus political institutions, THOSE are the ONLY weapons that the terrorists have. try imagining the Viet Nam war with predators roaming in the air equipped with that thermal camera. Have you read the book " we were soldiers then and young?" try seeing the situation with a predator add on. it would be the Marianas turkey shoot all over again.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    19. Re:Same as Predator by Suicide+Drink · · Score: 1

      Well... It's a tool like any other tool. A shovel could be used to plant a tree, or it could be used to bash someone's face in.

    20. Re:Same as Predator by waldo2020 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      tell it to the allied Canadian soldiers that keep getting bombed by yanks - friendly fire indeed!

    21. Re:Same as Predator by waldo2020 · · Score: 0, Troll

      get used to it. the job of the military is to kill, period.

    22. Re:Same as Predator by Nutria · · Score: 1

      the job of the military is to kill, period.

      Without getting yourself and your years of training killed, and your $15M airplane shot out from under you.

      "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    23. Re:Same as Predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saving lives is still simply not the primary function. The primary function is reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition - that may save lives but even in cases where it doesn't it is still the primary function.

      Sure part of the military's role, in general, is saving lives. But it is not the primary function.

      If America was invaded by some country with the intention of installing a state in which no one would be killed, but everyone would be working the mines. There are two simple options (and a whole lot of other less simple ones...):

      1. Surrender, no one dies, everyone lives in slavery forever more.

      2. Fight, some people die, very good chance America wins and life goes on for those left.

      The military lets us choose 2, the option which clearly doesn't save lives.

      Some things are more important than life...

    24. Re:Same as Predator by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      try imagining the Viet Nam war with predators roaming in the air equipped with that thermal camera.

      I'm pretty sure that the tri-layer canopy would have absorbed human body heat.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    25. Re:Same as Predator by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      No. Their capability to kill is what allows them to get their real jobs done. Unless it's an assassination, their objective is not to kill. It is to eliminate targets/threats, which unfortunately requires killing in many cases. If they could, they would disarm and capture everyone, but that's not doable in many circumstances.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  3. Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps these NASA drones are the ones starting the fires? Is it a coincidence that once this technology arrived that the number of forest fires skyrocketed? In a couple of weeks NASA will roll out a better technology and the rate of forest fire creation will plummet. NASA will be hailed as a hero and they will get the budget increases they always wanted--to build their doomsday machines!

    1. Re:Coincidence? by pease1 · · Score: 1

      Lightening storm, silly. Not unless it caused the dry lightening storm about a month ago that sparked most of the fires.

    2. Re:Coincidence? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow a +5 funny to you. But in all seriousness, why would NASA want to start fires to put out in the first place? NASA's public opinion isn't that low for most of US citizens, now if Bush was out there with matches and a fire extinguisher we might all understand....

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lightening storm, silly.

      Lightning storm, silly. With an "e" it is a storm that makes things brighter.

    4. Re:Coincidence? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      The funny (sad/scary) thing is that the same sort of logic is used seriously in other places:

      -- The USA flew planes into the World Trade Center to start a war (as if a reason was necessary)

      -- Atmospheric scientists are faking the climate change data to get more funding for atmospheric sciences

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  4. NASA, NASA, NASA by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me, or has there been a lot of NASA related news lately?

    Mars Lander's Robot Arm Shuts Down To Save Itself
    Phoenix Mars Lander To Begin Rasping Ice Shavings
    NASA Contractor Needs Urine
    NASA Drone's Sensors Battle California Wildfires

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:NASA, NASA, NASA by GradiusCVK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot... News for nerds, stuff that matters.
      I'd say that news about almost anything NASA does fits the bill pretty nicely. Better than slashvertisements and the other junk that occasionally pops up on here, at least.

    2. Re:NASA, NASA, NASA by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Better than slashvertisements and the other junk that occasionally pops up on here, at least.

      Don't get me wrong. I wasn't complaining. It was more of a stunned appreciation.

      Mind you, in my mind I was saying NASA, NASA, NASA the way that Jan Brady would say "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!").

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. not to be hatin but... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be better to just install those auto-sprinklers and alarms in every forest instead of just an aircraft that can say "Yep, it's on fire." I mean yeah it's nice to know where the fire is and where it's gonna spread and stuff but putting it out would be a little better. Yeah I was kidding about putting corporate building sprinklers on the tree trunks but if someone were to invent an automatic fire supression system for forests, that would make every other method pointless and completely solve the problem.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:not to be hatin but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hear the chinese can control the weather, but of course they can see things noone else can see, do things noone else can do.

    2. Re:not to be hatin but... by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 5, Informative

      the problem is forests are supposed to burn down from time to time.

      50 years of 'only you can prevent forest fires', strict anti-fire laws, and fast acting fire departments have caused forest debris to build up, resulting in these super infernos.

      more frequent fires = less dangerous fires, more nutrients in the soil, young trees releasing more oxygen into the air, etc.

      an automatic system would seem to work for a little while, but it would only delay the problem. eventually an ueber-inferno will come through and the system will be useless.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    3. Re:not to be hatin but... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Putting out forest fires has proven to be yet another form of short term thinking that gets us into a lot more trouble in the long term. Sometimes you really do have to destroy a forest in order to save it.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    4. Re:not to be hatin but... by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Putting out forest fires has proven to be yet another form of short term thinking that gets us into a lot more trouble in the long term. Sometimes you really do have to destroy a forest in order to save it."

      That's a bit simplistic, the idea is to burn the undergrowth not destroy the forrest.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:not to be hatin but... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Eh, it was mostly just a rhetorical flourish. To many people a healthy burn looks like total destruction, and I've always appreciated the resonance of the "destroy the village in order to save it" phrase from the Vietnam war.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    6. Re:not to be hatin but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That may have been true in the past, but this has been understood for some time now, and modern fire management has been applied in recent years to let more acreage burn, even setting frequent intentional fires to try and implement controlled burns (though sometimes this can go horribly wrong, as in the Los Alamos conflagration a few years back).

      The real problem is that you have people planting houses in the middle of these areas, and there's a mission to save human life that you can't just write off. In some cases, you have to let structures be destroyed, because it's just too dangerous, but when practical the government would be negligent to not try and save what they can.

    7. Re:not to be hatin but... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Pull a number from somewhere for how much you think it would cost to cover a square mile with your 'solution'. Now multiply it by thousands and thousands of square miles.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:not to be hatin but... by necro81 · · Score: 1

      National Geographic Magazine has an article touching on this very subject in their current issue. Full text is available online.

    9. Re:not to be hatin but... by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Actually, some trees cannot reproduce without a forest fire scorching them. Can't quite remember the species though

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    10. Re:not to be hatin but... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yep, there are lots of them here in Australia. Mainly Eucalypts, Acacias and Banksias.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  6. Already been done by kermit1221 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ya, they did this last year when Southern California was on fire. All the pretty pictures of the San Bernardino mountains (next to my house) were from a NASA UAV. It was picking out the hotspots for the planes and choppers flying out of the Hot Shots place at San Bernardino Int'l Airport down the street.

  7. AUAV next step by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now we just need a swarm of automatic choppers which can then be directed by a point and click interface at command and control.

    "Suppress "this" area."

    or an emergency button for crews on the ground:

    "drop water on me."

    It would be like the roomba of California.

  8. If you're gonna be semantic pedants, do it right. by xalorous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Purpose is a goal, aim, intention.

    Function is hat something does or is used for.

    So, the purpose is to carry out the function without risking human lives, on the ground or in the air.

    So the original statement is wrong too. It doesn't save lives so much as it allows recon, surveillance and targetting without risking lives.

    Therefore, the Predator is a weapon system which provides, at a relatively low cost, "Armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance and target acquisition" with great reduction in risk to friendly soldiers and intelligence assets.

    Bottom line, the damn thing saves U.S. soldiers from bleeding. Sheesh.

    --
    TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
  9. This issue with California is by Choozy · · Score: 1

    They now have a significant population of gum trees. I've always liked them but they are what is considered a dirty tree. You have to do controlled burns of the surrounding scrub every couple years to ensure when a major fire does break out, you can control it.

  10. Ikhana by purpleque · · Score: 1

    Ikhana has a cheezaburger?

  11. Forest Service has been doing this for years by RNLockwood · · Score: 2, Informative

    The USDA Forest Service Research Station in California has been doing this for a few years now posting rectified images on their website for fire suppression and anyone else to view. Images are rectified and draped over maps showing temperatures in false color and can be seen with Google Earth and with Zoomify, a Flash applet. The images are converted to shape files for Forest Service use, too.

    The aircraft, a Piper Navajo light twin engine aircraft, is unfortunately out of service for engine replacement.

    --
    Nate
  12. That's good by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Funny

    That half a degree accuracy really helps when you're trying to decide whether it's a conflagration or just a fire.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.