Slashdot Mirror
NASA Building Air Traffic Control System For Drones
An anonymous reader writes: Last week, The Guardian got its hands on documents indicating NASA would be working with Verizon to monitor civilian and commercial drones around the U.S. using phone network towers. Now, NASA has confirmed its plans for a drone traffic control system, saying that it wants to help "define" this new generation of aviation. They are testing ways of communicating with drones in flight, both for providing helpful information to drones and collecting information about them. For example, the ATC system could send real-time weather updates to the drones, and inform them of no-fly zones. It could also monitor a drone's battery life and compare its flight path to surrounding terrain. NASA has gathered over 100 organizations to contribute to this project, and they're looking for more. "One of the biggest challenges to integrating UAS into the national airspace beyond line of sight is developing a system that enables the aircraft to see and be seen by other aircraft." This is where the involvement of Verizon and other telecoms is important. NASA is holding a convention next month to develop the idea further.
Perhaps this system will help with the flying car which are (perpetually) 10 years away.
Iridium, NAV Canada, and other ATC organizations are putting together a global air traffic control system:
http://www.aireon.com/Home
I thought it wasn't for centuries!
God Damn You Q!
These NASA plans are practically useless and far more likely to hinder the industry than do it any good. Every one of these devices will have a GPS receiver on it, and a terrain map is $10 to integrate. NASA doesn't need to unicast this information - that's just a waste of bandwidth. Any hardware that NASA might want to mandate is already going to be too expensive in terms of components and power consumption to do better than a cellular Internet connection (since they're planning to use Verizon towers anyway) which is already commoditized and ridiculously power-optimized. The aerobots can easily do ad-hoc networking to find their neighbors and avoid collisions - an industry working group is going to have way more information about what those requirements are than NASA might. Aerobot operators have tremendous incentives to not lose their craft, and their insurance carriers will double-down on that; the inclusion of a $5 802.11 radio to handle an ipv6 mesh network in the sky isn't going to ruffle anybody's feathers there.
*Maybe* NASA could be given the job of putting up a web service to keep no-fly zones updated. We'd have to trust their ability to maintain that securely.
The bureaucrats' urge to control everything whether it will help or not ought to be recognized as a treatable mental illness.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Is the highly bureaucratic NASA the one we want in charge?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Said no-one ever...
Maybe this help explains why there have been daily stories in all the media about "near collisions" and other total BS to try to convince everybody how dangerous drones are in the hands of anyone but Google/Amazon.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
I only want to help you. Six words that should strike fear in anyone.
adjust altitude....Not THAT way!
You're an arrogant, ignorant shit. The unicast ATC protocols are all eurocontrol contributions (FANS-1A). ATCRBS (classic transponders), ADS-B, navigation beacons and VHF voice are all inherently multicast, and each layer of safety built into the NAS intrinsically uses their multi-cast properties.
Let me give you a hint, UAV operators will have no real liability unless there is robust FAA regulation. Set up a shell corporation, if you kill someone, you lose a cheap toy and a corporate shell. With robust regulation, there will airworthy vehicles instead of these routinely failing pieces of shit that are flying now.
Of course, I fly UAVs for a living and have been a hostile particiapant in the rule making process, so what the fuck do I know.
Installing ...
Thank you for the controlled drones, citizen.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Is it just me, or is NASA really struggling to maintain relevancy? This doesn't seem like the sort of issue NASA should be concerned with.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Why is this NASA, as opposed to, say, THE FAA, and the FCC as well?
This is completely the wrong approach. Allowing the government to take over everything and direct all airborne movement is communist and is simply wrong.
We have the technology now that allows aircraft to see each other in the air, even at great distances and as they travel at great speeds. What we need from the government is the same thing that's in place for cars on the road and ships at sea. We need them to write a small, clear, and easy to follow set of "rules of the road" for aircraft.
If there are accidents, the conclusion of every NTSB investigation can include a penalty phase for the individual(s) responsible for the causal aircraft.
We no longer need air traffic control for aircraft, manned or unmanned. Can you image what would happen if drivers had to call for a clearance from the government before they could back out of their driveways? Or if we had to get a clearance to travel to the next traffic light? Or if the government decided to tell us to turn right when we wanted to go straight and we have no way to appeal? Or if it costs $10,000 or more to get your driver's license? Such an overbearing and draconian level of government control could spark a revolution in a matter of minutes.
Here's a thought. Instead of pissing everybody off and inciting revolution, our government should come to its senses and use logic and reason to provide the people what they need with a minimum of interference. Why is this such a terribly difficult concept for government types to understand?
It's supposed to be a free country. Let go of your control fantasies and let the people be free. Assholes.