Slashdot Mirror
Amateur Drone Lands On British Air Carrier, Wired Reviews Anti-Drone Technology (bbc.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader mi quotes the BBC:
The Ministry of Defence is reviewing security after a tiny drone landed on the deck of Britain's biggest warship. The Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier was docked at Invergordon in the Highlands when an amateur photographer flew the drone close to the giant ship. When the aircraft sensed a high wind risk, it landed itself on the £3bn warship. The pilot told BBC Scotland: "I could have carried two kilos of Semtex and left it on the deck... I would say my mistake should open their eyes to a glaring gap in security."
Meanwhile, tastic007 shares Wired's footage of anti-drone products being tested (like net guns, air-to-air combat counter-drones, and drone net shotgun shells) -- part of the research presented at this year's DEFCON.
Meanwhile, tastic007 shares Wired's footage of anti-drone products being tested (like net guns, air-to-air combat counter-drones, and drone net shotgun shells) -- part of the research presented at this year's DEFCON.
a tiny drone (Phantom class) that can lift 2 kilos and fly an usable distance, and I'll buy it just to figure out what kind of new motor and battery tech they are using. Flying and landing where you shouldn't is bad I get it, but don't use obvious hyperbole to make it worse then it really is.
Damage to the carrier is the least of my worries. If an explosive device ever went off on a British carrier, I'd be far more worried about the political response and what that would mean for freedom. The towers coming down didn't end the world but it sure changed the way the US views things like flying.
The myth is that NASA spent millions developing the pens. Not true. They were developed privately, and NASA replaced mechanical pencils costing $130 each with pens costing <$3 each.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
This topic of drones and their use for violent eds and how it's changing things just came up in a recent episode of Sam Harri's waking up podcast where he interviewed Gavin De Becker a security expert who runs a company specializing in personal protection. The main point of the interview was not drones but violence overall, however De Becker starts discussing drones towards the end of the podcast after the 2 hour 10 minute mark
His main point is this: when it comes to inflicting tissue damage, the most significant advancements in the history of weaponry have been those that have increased the distance between the attacker and the target. Such advancements reduce the risk to the assailant, thus increasing the amount of individuals willing to use these technologies to commit violence. This is why accelerated metal projectiles were such an effective discovery, and after those prior to drones the technology that's had the most impact has been remote detonated bombs, because they increase the distance between the target and the assailant even more. Drones go even further than this because they're essentially smart/guided bomb platforms or biological agent delivery systems (airborne pathogens dispersed over crowds etc)
Becker states that in his opinion commercial drones are the most significant advancement in tissue damage technology in a thousand years (ie. since bullets) because they're very cheap, very easy to use, and very hard to defend against. And the maneuverability is extremely high: drones with collective pitch can do stuff like this and it doesn't take that long for an individual to learn to pilot them.. When you add to that the fact that swarm technology already exists allowing a single operator to control up to 50 small drones that will avoid crashing into each other but can be guided to hit a single target, and that in the future the drones may well be entirely autonomous and not require even a signal to the controller, I find it hard to disagree with De Becker's estimation that this will be much, much more relevant advancement in weapon technology than people currently think.
As he points out, 'every weapon that has ever been developed has been used", we know that commercial drones are used as improvised weapons already, but this is in the very early stages. It's only a matter of time before some prominent politician/celebrity/business leader somewhere is assassinated by a drone or some terror group successfully carries out an attack in the west, and once the meme is out there, they're going to start ramping up. Compare to the use of vehicles as tools of terror; the technology itself has existed for over a century, but now that the weaponizing of personal vehicles has become a trend it's begun to spread and has started to be used even by groups pother than islamic terrorists, but a vehicle attack is very limited in scope and accuracy and can only be used to deliver random damage.
Drones are far more precise, and, when used correctly, far more deadly while at the same time being massively cheaper than vehicles. The fact that you can currently fly a drone in most western cities without much care of being caught even if you fly it in a no-fly area is a problem.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
You're an idiot.
a) First both NASA and Russia originally used pencils. Pencils leave a lot of electrically conductive dust when you write which you don't want on a space ship in microgravity.
b) The Fisher company spent $1 million developing their zero gravity pen on their own. They had nothing to do with NASA, public money was not spent on the development. They created a pen that could write upside down, under water, in extreme hot or cold. And it was created to sell to the public at a profit.
Starting in 1968 both NASA and the Russian space agency started buying them for $2.39 (retail price was $3.98).
https://www.scientificamerican...
Actually the drone can be very useful - The RPG is only going to get anything on the flight deck. And when at port, the flight deck is gong to be very clean. The real target is the guts of the ship.
The drone can be flown inside the repair/rearm/refuel portions of the interior of the ship. Your entry point is the elevators are to move aircraft. It is a big hole on the side of the ship. The intent is to fly a drone through that hole and blow up the first target of opportunity (aircraft, fuel truck, arming truck, weapons stores, personnel, anything flammable). If you do badly, you only destroy one aircraft and the fire suppression system stops the fire there. If you hit the jack pot you blow up something important: air craft elevator, fuel stores, weapon stores, partially dismantled flammable equipment. Trained Personnel and possibly limit the capability or temporarily disable the air craft carrier.
For the cost of $1,000 (drone, flight goggles, weapons, control mods and crash/deadman switch) you have diabled a 3 billion dollar aircraft carrier and caused millions of dollars of damage. From a cost/benefit ratio that is a success. If it fails the attacker is out $1,000 and can walk away without a problem. If the attacker succeeds, the attacker is still out $1,000, but the other side out millions of dollars.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
2 lbs of explosive would do nothing to a flight deck. A drone dropping a grenade onto a playground while kids are playing is a far more likely outcome. ISS is already doing that in Iraq and Syria. As they were being defeated in Mosul they sent drones into cleared areas and dropped grenades or mortar bombs onto the civilians. It seems someone always finds a way to use every technological advance to harm someone else.