Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Building Air Traffic Control System For Drones

Posted by Soulskill on from the call-it-something-catchy-like-skynet dept.

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.

25 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Flying Cars by galgon · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this system will help with the flying car which are (perpetually) 10 years away.

    1. Re:Flying Cars by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you drive? If so do, you want the idiots you see everyday on the road flying over you?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:Flying Cars by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Flying cars have been around for decades. Hover-cars... not so much.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Flying Cars by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      An autonomous flying car might be pretty safe. I'll wait for Google to run a couple million flight miles of tests before deciding on that, though.

  2. Alternately, there is ADS-B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Iridium, NAV Canada, and other ATC organizations are putting together a global air traffic control system:
    http://www.aireon.com/Home

    1. Re:Alternately, there is ADS-B by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Well something "lower" frequency would also require a corresponding larger antenna... Admittedly ADS-B suffers from collisions as it's purely a one-way transmission not unlike APRS.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
  3. Control Looking for a Problem by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)
    1. Re:Control Looking for a Problem by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      This is seriously just a proof of concept/training exercise so that NASA can get experience managing the terraforming bots on Mars in the future. Operation "Starling" is what the FOIA requests would turn up. True Story.

    2. Re:Control Looking for a Problem by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I don't recall managing a restaurant being part of the constitutional requirements for the office of president.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Control Looking for a Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They said N.A.S.A. I think they meant N.S.A.

    4. Re:Control Looking for a Problem by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You can't even get American's to admit that hiring a man who never so much as managed a McDonalds to run the country was a bad idea.

      I'm no fan of the current president - I think he's got some very mixed up priorities and comes to the job having led far too insular a life. But unlike you, I'll bet he never the less knows how to use an apostrophe. There, I finally said something nice about him. Mostly, I'd prefer that people who point out his unsuitability for the job sound, themselves, a little more put together.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Control Looking for a Problem by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The implication is that the founding fathers expected the electorate to make sound choices, and not to limit the office to an elite segment of the population

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Control Looking for a Problem by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is the presidency, and no amount of managing teenage burger-flippers is going to prepare a person for the kinds of decisions a president has to make: Commander in Chief of the largest military force on the planet, dealing with ambassadors, reviewing bills that affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, making decisions that affect the entire planet. It's not the kind of job for which there is any training available.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  4. I don't know by koan · · Score: 1

    Is the highly bureaucratic NASA the one we want in charge?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:I don't know by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Wrong question. The better question is why do we need any government agency "in charge" of this?

    2. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We want the FAA in charge because they give a shit about safety, whereas the corporations really don't give a shit about anything except profit. Even the Libertarian utopians acknowledge that the FAA is an organization worth paying for. It's only the naïve (and funded) UAV fanboys who think that regulation is bad.

  5. Bad drones! Bad!!! by rot26 · · Score: 1

    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
  6. I'm from the government by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I only want to help you. Six words that should strike fear in anyone.

  7. Stingray to Drone...Stingray to Drone by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    adjust altitude....Not THAT way!

  8. Skynet is now 0.50 pct complete by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Installing ...

    Thank you for the controlled drones, citizen.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  9. The struggle by kuzb · · Score: 1

    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.
  10. NASA? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Why is this NASA, as opposed to, say, THE FAA, and the FCC as well?

    1. Re:NASA? by Sevalecan · · Score: 2

      While I agree with another comment that I think this is more likely to hinder the industry, there is a simple answer to your question.

      The FAA and FCC are regulatory groups. They're just bureaucracies that pretend to know enough about a subject to set sensible rules for it (and often I question whether that is actually true).

      NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They've always been involved in actually researching new aerospace related technologies, that's what they're supposed to do. The FAA and FCC are not research/design organizations.

    2. Re:NASA? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They've always been involved in actually researching new aerospace related technologies,

      Air Traffic Control is a regulatory function, not research and development. NASA is not the regulatory agency for airspace. We don't need two. If it is to be done, the FAA should be doing this.

  11. Re:Ignorant shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Counterpoint; without the FAA, we had the completely predicted Hindenberg disaster. I'm not a huge fan of the FAA; they're actively hostile to private aviation. However, on the UAV scene, they're being deliberate and trying to transfer the lessons learned to the UAV world, which is a whole lot better than accepting the mishap rate from the 20s and 30s. However, the UAV enthusiasts are so hostile to anything that could interfere with their toys that the public desperately needs them to be regulated.

    While modern avionics software design requirements are challenging to work with (particularly for weak programmers), they've been demonstrated to work remarkably well. I truly think that any UAV that weighs more than 5 lbs should be required to have dual string flight control systems and software written to DO-178C. Yes, that will drive up the costs significantly, but we've learned that the hard way. We've also learned the hard way that single-link C2 to the aircraft is not a good idea.

    Think about a 5lb battery/motor combination departing controlled flight and dropping on your kid from 500'. It's at the same level of danger as throwing rocks off a bridge or balcony.