Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Laser Powers Lockheed Martin's Stalker Drone For 48 Hours

Posted by samzenpus on from the power-up dept.

garymortimer writes "Lockheed Martin (LMT) and LaserMotive, Inc., recently demonstrated the capabilities of an innovative laser power system to extend the Stalker Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) flight time to more than 48 hours. This increase in flight duration represents an improvement of 2,400 percent. Stalker is a small, silent UAS used by Special Operations Forces since 2006 to perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions."

25 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. It was a test indoors, so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article, "At the conclusion of the flight test, held in a wind tunnel,"

    So they've pointed a laser at a photocell indoors, this is so far from doing it over hostile territory as to be laughable.

    1. Re:It was a test indoors, so what? by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the article, "At the conclusion of the flight test, held in a wind tunnel,"

      So they've pointed a laser at a photocell indoors, this is so far from doing it over hostile territory as to be laughable.

      This is what research looks like. You don't start out testing a ready-to-deploy espionage platform. You take an idea, enhance it a bit, test it to see if your change works, enhance it more, see if your changes improved it, etc. Nobody's laughing at this stage, but I bet they were cheering.

      Leaking the test results is also what 'marketing to investors' looks like. "Hey, Vulture Capitalists Inc., we've got a shiny laser powered spy drone for you to invest in, and we have proof of some ongoing tests ... the military is interested ... you'll get rich ... give us $20 million ... please?"

      --
      John
    2. Re:It was a test indoors, so what? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorta, but aren't they called senators?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:It was a test indoors, so what? by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      Fully agreed, but let's not forget who makes up the bottom tier of the investor pool. That would be us.

      On a side note, if I had mod points right now, I'd be torn between modding your post insightful or funny. Unfortunately, there's no "sad but true" option. Maybe there should be.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    4. Re:It was a test indoors, so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but Lasermotive might be. if the project is a bust, lasermotive takes the hit and shields lockheed from the fallout. if it works, LM acquires lasermotive and everyone wins.

    5. Re:It was a test indoors, so what? by necro81 · · Score: 2

      This is what research looks like. You don't start out testing a ready-to-deploy espionage platform. You take an idea, enhance it a bit, test it to see if your change works, enhance it more, see if your changes improved it, etc. Nobody's laughing at this stage, but I bet they were cheering

      Nuh-uh! I've seen James Bond. I'm sure Q will walk in any moment now with a perfect, bug-free device that will provide the perfect plot element at just the right time.

    6. Re:It was a test indoors, so what? by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Sorta, but aren't they called senators?

      No. Venture capitalists spend their own money. Senators spend yours.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. Nice by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure that any airborne attackers will greatly appreciate this opportunity to locate the ground station.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Nice by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2

      Ground station? Who cares, you're really pointing a bright (at some wavelength) laser beam at the aircraft. Pointing out where it is. I'm guessing this will only be used intermittently to charge batteries.

      The ground station will probably be well protected, the US tends to operate with air superiority these days.

  3. relative terms by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

    <LMT> "Stalker is a small... it's only half the size of a predator drone!"
    <guy> "Oh?... How large is a predator drone?"
    <LMT> "The size of a bus."

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Better hope the laser is infra-red by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Otherwise it'll be pretty obvious (in any atmospheric conditions where there are particles or aerosols) as to just where the drone (and base!) is.

    Of course with a pair of night vision goggles the same might be true of an infra-red laser. How about x-ray? ;)

  5. Power it from above by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can power them from satellites rather than ground based - you'll escape all the dust and much of the atmospheric crap, and your power will be free from the sun. Park a satellite over the Middle East and you have LOS everywhere.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Power it from above by bitingduck · · Score: 2

      But think of the amount of popcorn they could produce in remote locations...

    2. Re:Power it from above by aaronb1138 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I tried to design a system like that once, but during the development I had a dream where I was dressed in a Sun God robe surrounded by naked women chanting and throwing pickles at me. That brought and end to it all.

    3. Re:Power it from above by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can power them from satellites rather than ground based - you'll escape all the dust and much of the atmospheric crap, and your power will be free from the sun.

      Satellite power isn't free... In fact it's EXTREMELY expensive. Satellite EoL is most commonly when solar panels have deteriorated enough that they can't provide the trickle of power most sats need.

      Yes, you escape dust problems, but then you pick up the problem of hugely-increased distances from laser to drone.

      And the biggest problem is targeting... Drones are small, subject to atmosphere turbulence and ground control, both of which can cause sudden location changes, and the satellite is going to need to handle this, in real-time, or else a massive laser beam suddenly shines down at the feet of the people who aren't supposed to know they're being spied on.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Power it from above by David+Gould · · Score: 2

      Good to know I'm not the only one who has that dream.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    5. Re:Power it from above by Kugala · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thankfully this is a problem solved by MORE POWER. The most revered of all engineering solutions.

    6. Re:Power it from above by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2


      Satellite power isn't free... In fact it's EXTREMELY expensive. Satellite EoL is most commonly when solar panels have deteriorated enough that they can't provide the trickle of power most sats need.

      Incorrect. EoL is when they are out of fuel for position control.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  6. Re:so you can get a line of sight? by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    earth is curved, lasers are straight, how many seconds can you actually do this in the field before you loose the tiny target ... not counting in wind, drift, clouds, rain, or some dipshit playing with his watch?

    Stabilized aiming platforms better not be a challenge for the military. Hell, there are kids making segway-clones and auto-aim-paintgun-bots out of web cams, Arduinos, and old inkjet printer stepper motors. You think a funded organization with a military product can't simply place an order with www.mobileweaponsplatforms-R-us.com and have one delivered tomorrow?

    --
    John
  7. Re:so you can get a line of sight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was so hoping for that link to be real.

  8. Re:so you can get a line of sight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm no pro (though I've been shooting a long time), and I can reliably put 25 x .22lr rounds on a quarter at 100 yards, prone, sling (no rest), using only the aperture sights on my anschutz. With a .308, good glass, a couple sighting rounds and good conditions, a pro could almost certainly land a good percentage of rounds fired on a dime. I wouldn't bet what I have in my wallet that I could do it, though.

    But I think the original point was, with a computer controlling a recoilless device that isn't affected by crosswind like a bullet... I'm sure you could easily keep a laser on a car-sized target at a mile if you needed to. We've achieved far more complicated feats than that.

  9. Re:No Explanation by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've played enough SimCity 2000 to know that this is a terrible idea.

  10. Money grabbing pitch. by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    Here are some issues that are greatly simplified by testing indoors in a wind tunnel;
    1. Tracking; The aircraft does not move therefore tracking is trivial.
    2. Range; Sure it may work at a few feet but does it work at a few kilometers?
    3. Atmospheric conditions; Atmospheric conditions can be completely controlled indoors. Does it work in heat haze, rain, snow, dust, etc. at range?

    At least do a test that remotely approximates a real world situation. Everyone knows that power can be transmitted by laser which is all that this test proves .. again. It still has not overcome the many known issues with using lasers to transmit power to aircraft. I effect it proves what has already been proven many times ind is not an advance at all.

    1. Re:Money grabbing pitch. by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Did you RTFA? It said nothing about the test conditions inside the wind tunnel, only that “This test is one of the final steps...The next step in proving the reality of this technology is to demonstrate it outdoors in an extended flight of the Stalker.”

      They could have used a low powered laser to simulate range. They could have introduced dust, smoke and fog into the tunnel to simulate weather. And they don't need to prove the tracking platform works if they already have a tracking platform that works, and such tracking platforms were demonstrated last year on test aircraft at distances of 20km or more. And none of that info made the blurb, which as I said looked designed to stimulate investment.

      --
      John
  11. Re:so you can get a line of sight? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    It does not matter how stable the aiming platform is it it can not track the target that is unstable as it reacts to winds. The other issue is that lasers are dispersed by airborne particles (dust), rain, head haze, range, etc. Will enough energy be transmitted over kilometers to keep the UAV in the air? What about trees, buildings and hills? Will they obstruct the beam. How heavy is the sending laser? The Stalker is designed to be deployable by a single Special Forced soldier. Can one deploy the laser recharger too?