Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Droning On 422

Posted by michael from the drone-drone-drone-your-boat-gently-out-to-sea dept.
MagnetarJones writes "Another washingtonpost.com article reports that Federal regulators have begun considering rules that would allow drones, the pilotless planes being used in the war in Afghanistan, to fly in U.S. airspace. Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems, patrolling the border, searching for fugitives or fighting forest fires..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Droning On More

Droning On

Comments Filter:

  • Great... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:42PM (#5008990) Homepage Journal
    Who needs cameras on light posts anyway? They're too easy to avoid.....
    • But at least the drones will be armed with missles, as opposed to the helicopters which are just filled with multinational troops armed to the teeth. A few of those missles can sure clear up a traffic jam caused by those the administration have determined to be so obviously guilty that no trial is necessary. So don't even ask about it.

  • Cargo? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by unicron ( 20286 )
    I see these things flying around Indian Springs all the time when I'm driving out the the Test Site, and if they're talking about the Predator model, I really don't see how they would be much use hauling hauling cargo. They're meant to be a fast & light recon plane.

    • Re:Cargo? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:49PM (#5009080) Homepage Journal
      I see these things flying around Indian Springs all the time when I'm driving out the the Test Site, and if they're talking about the Predator model, I really don't see how they would be much use hauling hauling cargo. They're meant to be a fast & light recon plane.

      Ah, yes. I have seen these as well going back years. In fact, drones have been used by the military since the '50's I think, for target testing by converting old fighters (F-4's currently) to remote control. (I also seem to remember my grandfather telling me about a B-17 that was converted to remote control for the testing of some of the first air to air missiles. Additionally, NASA has also outfitted larger planes including a 707 for crash testing. There is nothing that limits the size of a drone and they do not have to be necessarily fast and light to be a recon plane. Look up the Global Hawk and Darkstar to see what I mean.

      • Re:Cargo? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by gdave44 ( 634700 )
        I worked on the F-4 target project some years back and the F-4 is probably the worst plane to make into a drone. Does make an easy target though. But most modern planes are fly-by-wire and would simply need transponders and a computer to remotely control. A system could easily be fitted into any commercial jetliner to be a backup if something happened to the pilot. Pilots control these types of projects though, so they'll never really take their place.
        • I worked on the F-4 target project some years back and the F-4 is probably the worst plane to make into a drone.

          It wouldnt be because the F-4 is 1) a big assed plane 2) would require serious servos to run the *heavy* hydraulics 3) tough to fly at lower speeds without your butt in the seat would it?

    • Re:Cargo? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by u-235-sentinel ( 594077 )
      I'm pretty sure they are talking about the technology that allows the Predator to fly around without a crew/pilot. Simply take what they have and put it into a C-130 or some other plane and there you go.

      Heck, they were talking about this stuff after 9/11/2001. Using this technology so a ground pilot can fly a plane that has been comprimised. Quite an interesting idea.
    • You think they're going to use a single vehicle for all purposes?

      These guys already make airship based cargo drones:
      http://www.ahausa.com/

    • Yes... Cargo. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:24PM (#5009428)
      By "Cargo" they mean "Tear Gas" and/or "Hellfire Missles". Better not protest anything in public.

  • Not to mention (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Aggrazel ( 13616 ) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:43PM (#5009005) Journal
    I remember reading a story about using high altitude aircraft for broadband applications, basically getting most of the benefits of a satelite without a lot of the latency issues.

    • pilotless (Score:2, Interesting)

      by daoine_sidhe ( 619572 )
      Is this related at all to the Helios Project? Would this re-zoning have to take place to allow them? As I recall, these were what they were discussing as potential satellite replacements, though I haven't heard anything about them in a long time. They were to be solar powered, and multipurpose, capable of remaining airborne for months at a time and carrying an array of emitters/receivers of various types, at a very low price tag compared to satellites that provide the same service. At the time they were being hailed as the ultimate broadband provider, possibly based on an 802.11 standard of some type.

  • requisite paranoid response (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kin_korn_karn ( 466864 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:43PM (#5009011) Homepage
    They could also be used for crowd control, or spying on dissidents, or attacking remote outposts of constitutionalist militias...

    • Re:requisite paranoid response (Score:5, Insightful)

      by buswolley ( 591500 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:49PM (#5009071) Journal
      or hacked into and then crashed into buildings in NY

  • What's the big deal? (Score:3, Funny)

    by release7 ( 545012 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:44PM (#5009024) Homepage Journal
    Didn't they just recently invent a drone that could serve as President of the United States?

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cyclone66 ( 217347 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:46PM (#5009046) Homepage Journal
    except that these things still crash occasionally. No one cares if it lands on a afghani mud hut, but if it hits some power lines and crashes to the ground killing some americans in an city that might just be a problem..
  • Yeah! This is a great idea! Next they could design A.I. for these babies and they wouldn't need any operators at all! Oh wait, wasn't there a movie about something like this going wrong?

  • These drones are way too expensive (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zrodney ( 253699 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:47PM (#5009051)
    I just saw an article about these drones on another site yesterday. What many of the stories forget to
    mention is that each drone plane costs more than FOUR MILLION DOLLARS, so they are not the inexpensive
    throw-away solution that it appears.

    I think it will be many many years before FedEX and other freight haulers seriously consider using
    something like an unmanned drone for delivery.

    It's much cheaper to hire a pilot and use a plane, or hire a truck, and it will still be much cheaper for a long time to come.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • yeah but.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by _avs_007 ( 459738 )
        What's the cargo capacity on one of those drones? I don't think FedEx will replace its 747 with those anytime soon. Its like saying look, this miata is bunches cheaper then that cargo-bus... Lets get Greyhound to swap out their fleets of busses with these self-driving miatas :)
        • The cargo capacity is low because that's not what the military needs in a drone.

          The military needs high loiter time, low signature, and small to medium payload (in equipment terms, not in cargo scales).

          The same electronics for the autoflight brains and command/control systems will be applicable for big honking cargo planes and for svelte military drones, though.

        • Re:yeah but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MyHair ( 589485 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:24PM (#5010532) Journal
          What's the cargo capacity on one of those drones? I don't think FedEx will replace its 747 with those anytime soon.

          There's nothing particularly special about a small drone versus a large drone. The big planes already have autopilot for mostly straight flight and automated landing systems. Many newer large aircraft can land themselves in zero-visibility weather at properly equiped airports.

          The issues I see are safety concerns and public outcry. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue; I intuitively feel that it's better to have a human at the controls, but most aviation accidents are human errors. The control systems are redundant, and almost always it's two or three human mistakes together that cause a crash. (Some of these mistakes are maintenance mistakes, though, and the drone mechanics will presumably still be human.)

          And the cargo companies will probably be the first to fly drones. People are nervous about what they fly on, but cargo doesn't complain or care. And jet pilots are expensive and spoiled and bratty and demanding, generally speaking. The only roadblocks for cargo companies will be the public complaining they don't want a 200,000 lb plane falling out of the sky onto their houses.

      • Typical cargo planes costs dozens to hundreds of millions. Passenger planes are approaching $1B for new models.

        Passenger planes cost $1 billion? Are you high? Try $50 million for an Airbus A320.

      • Re:These drones are way too expensive (Score:5, Informative)

        by canadian_right ( 410687 ) <alexander.russell@telus.net> on Friday January 03, 2003 @08:26PM (#5011055) Homepage
        747 prices range from 70 to 250 million (frieght only versions seems to be less).
        The a380 airbus lists for around 230 million (most people think this price is subsidised by gov in Europe)
        A brand new Peterbilt tractor is about $90,000 (much less than $500,000!!), and a trailer is only $30,000.

        So... $35 million isn't a bad price for a large jet, but it maybe a bit high for a small one.

        All you people who modded this price list up, should have a look at Google first.

    • Wow. Ever take a look at the US budget? It's in the TRILLIONS. $4 Million is nothing. Compare that to "real" planes, and the cost of life when one crashes. $4M is chump change, relatively speaking.
    • Expensive yes, but the lawsuits that happen when people die in crashes are even more expensive. Statistics may say its safer than cars, but stats also say that in 1000 flights, you're gonna have a problem, and 1000 flights in a month is gonna be even more dangerous. Having drones handle high-turnaround flights like dumping water on forest/scrub fires in california seems like a good idea to me...Drones don't get tired of lots of little short-hop flights which can mentally fatigue humans to the point of potential carelessness.
    • Cos not everyone spends $30,000 on a lav seat.

    • Do you have any idea how much planes cost? Just having a LeerJet on a ready-to-fly lease (not ownership) costs about $1 million a year. A Boeing 737 costs about $50 million (list price). At $4 million, these are a comperably cheap solution.

    • Re:These drones are way too expensive (Score:4, Funny)

      by evocate ( 209951 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:10PM (#5010406)
      $4M is the price for spy drones. The freight route from Memphis to Denver has fewer hostile SAM sites to avoid. And the folks in St. Louis are less likely to execute a downed Fedex pilot. The drone makers might lower the price to accomodate the softer market in the less complex and less risky freight hauling market.

      --
      sed 's/terror/commun/g' mccarthy > bush
  • How about tracking your speed and taking pictures of license plates? There goes the remaining points on my drivers license.

  • Great, except the crash rate is high... (Score:3, Informative)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:48PM (#5009063) Homepage
    This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles.

    Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million a piece, have crashed. About half of the 50 much smaller, $4.5 million Predators have been lost, including some that were shot down, according to the Air Force's own data.

    I don't want to send my packages by drone, thanks.

    • Lies, damn lies, and statistics. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      well, consider the factors instead of just numbers. Otherwise you're just comparing apples and oranges based on your own taste buds.

      1) Are manned aircrafts being exposed to the same dangers at the same time? (IE- are the unmanned in more hotspots than the manned ones are, thus being exposed to more dangerous and riskier missions?)

      2) What's the value of human life + manned plane versus the $4.5M predators?

      There's a line, and a point of diminishing returns where either manned or unmanned exceeds the other in financial and logistical values.
    • I normally don't point this out, but most of the text from this person's post was taken directly from the Washington Post article text. The only original statement was the last sentence -- hardly what I would call "informative".
    • Nobody is going to be shooting at the drones with your packages. That contributes significantly to the survival rate :)
    • "I don't want to send my packages by drone, thanks."

      If my package is lost, I'd rather it be because someone has DIED.
    • You don't send in a human to a high threat environment when you can send a drone, ergo drones get lost more.
    • This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles.
      Isn't that the point. We use them for things that are either risky, or make demands (like many hours on station) that we wouldn't attemp with a crew on board.

      Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million a piece, have crashed.
      In the same amount of time as those Global Hawks you are talking about, the Air Force had a number of fighter aircraft go down during training missions. Those aircraft cost more than the Global Hawks do, cost way more to run, and involved the loss of some pilots. Aircraft are not risk free, gravity always wins, and sometimes not very nicely.

      About half of the 50 much smaller, $4.5 million Predators have been lost, including some that were shot down, according to the Air Force's own data.
      We send up drones in conditions that we wouldn't send normal aircraft and pilots. The Predators have a limited flying altitude, limited flying speed, limited visibility for the remote pilot, and can't fly above some kinds of weather, which resulted in some of them coming down the hard way. If you need information, you don't want to risk a pilot, or you need on station capabilities that manned aircraft can't give you (like shifts of controllers), you send in a drone. Naturally more of them are lost than piloted aircraft. That's one of the reasons we use them. Remember, in a war situation, someone has to fly in with a helecopter to rescue the downed pilots, risking another multi-million dollar aircraft, and many more soldiers. The drone can be abandoned, people can't be.
    • "This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles."

      What does this have to do with civillian flights? How many UPS planes fly into combat zones regularly?

  • 1) light fire. 2) open gas can... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Moray_Reef ( 75398 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:48PM (#5009067) Homepage
    Have you ever met a radical gun 'nut' who said that we all needed the right to have anti-aircraft guns for home defense??

    THIS IS WHY.

    The following is just a sig. (And truer everyday.)
    • "The following is just a sig. (And truer everyday.)[note: that was not part of the sig -ajs]

      If you voted for Nader, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!      "

      I could not agree more! These damn Nader supporters should have voted libertarian like all of the right-thinking people did. Dolts!

      We really need a 10-party system, I agree, but first I want my favorite candidate voted into office. Why aren't more people like you, so that they could see this?!

      [note: the preceding is just sarcasm, and not my sig -ajs]

  • Patrolling the Border (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PM4RK5 ( 265536 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:49PM (#5009083)
    ... won't be the only application; you can bet they'll be patrolling internal areas too.

    I don't mean to be a pessimist, but patrolling the border will most likely be one of many surveillance applications. Especially with the growing 'power' (so to speak) of the FBI, NSA, and other government agencies, there is a high likelihood that these will end up being used for domesetic spying too.

    Are you a suspected terrorist? I'll bet these will show up shortly.

    Supporters, of course, won't point out this application, for one of two reasons. One is that it never occurred to them, so they support it blindly, or they're such ardent supporters that they're ignoring and/or accepting this use.

    I have nothing against unmanned aircraft, I think they have many wonderful applications. It's just there are some less-than-desirable applications, which we must all be aware of. They're just like guns - they have good applications (sports) and bad applications (as a lethal weapon); the better applications such as traffic monitoring are great, but it's potential uses as a spying mechanism are somewhat unnerving.

    We've just got to be careful how we monitor the use of these. Just my $0.02.

    I will now prepare for my first flamebait mod.
    • I suggest you start doing research, and get involved so when these do get put into use,we will have the same consititutional protect against there use that we do with a wire tap.
      If your not a US citizen, do the equivalant in your country.
    • What's to stop the government from using spy satilites, or conventional aircraft from doing the same thing?

      The attitude of slashdot about this article confuses me. This drones are low level (heck even the afgans can shoot them down) so if they were using it to spy on you, you would probably know about it. Contrast that to a satilite or one of those command radar planes (AWAKS?), you'll never know its there. It makes sense that if the governent is going to do any spying on the public it would be by a means the public wouldn't know about.

  • Don't we already have enough ways ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slagdogg ( 549983 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:50PM (#5009088)
    ... of giving people traffic tickets? This is scary stuff, I can only imagine what kind of technology will be loaded up on these drones, just waiting for legislation to unlock.
    • Why? it's cheaper and easier just to put cameras everywhere.

    • This is scary stuff, I can only imagine what kind of technology will be loaded up on these drones, just waiting for legislation to unlock.

      Well put. One of the things that spooks me the most about the war on terror is that the government is using this as a way of creating a surveillance architecture to keep tabs on what goes on in the US. Once the architecture is in place, it will be easy to modify it to serve any number of purposes. A UAV that is collecting imagery for traffic control might "accidently" also collect data on a "person of interest" which could be me or you.

      I admit there is lots of potential to UAVs but we need to start looking at all these new information gathering technologies with a more critical eye. It seems these days that anyone can stamp "applications to homeland security" on their technology proposal and be assured of getting it approved.

      GMD

    • This is scary stuff, I can only imagine what kind of technology will be loaded up on these drones, just waiting for legislation to unlock.

      I know. I agree with what you said in last week's meeting - they should just stick with the black helicopters.
  • Sounds like something right out of a Bruce Sterling novel -- I'm all for it. ^_^

    This could reduce the cost of freight, increase safety in wilderness areas (I'm a backpacker and I think that's a good thing), reduce costs of border patrol, especially coastal areas. Etc.

    Sure there's potential for abuse but there's far more potential for abuse with our current military and police, and so far we can control those just fine (unless you live in LA, of course).

  • Predator on the highways... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:50PM (#5009095) Homepage Journal
    They would be excellent at monitoring traffic flow, providing updates and alternate routes for drivers.

    Even better, the three cars driving door-to-door at 45 on a major interstate?

    predatormissle*WHOOOMP*
    *following motorists cheer wildly and drive through the cloud of wreckage*

  • So will they blame terrorists... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:53PM (#5009125) Homepage Journal

    When one goes out of control and crashes into a commercial passenger jet?

    The problem with drones is that they don't have a thinking pilot. Where as two pilots will do everything in their power to avoid a midair collision, a drone is not even aware that a collision is imminent in such a situation. Which basically leaves the pilot in the situation of having to "guess" which way the drone will steer next.

    Now it is possible that these drones are radio controlled, however, that's even worse, as the terrorist will need do little more than hack the signal and fly the drone into a commercial aircraft, all from the safety of their white van...

    Either way, it's a terrible safety threat. To allow unmanned drones to fly in U.S. airspace is bad safety practices at best, and potentially deadly at worst.

    • Re:So will they blame terrorists... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:03PM (#5009227)
      "Thinking" pilots are the cause of most accidents. In the event of a controller fuckup (ie: near collision), the systems on commercial jets tell the pilots what to do. They even talk between themselves (ie: you go up, we'll go down). That's much safer than a pilot taking a 50/50 shot. Hell, read about 3 Mile Island. It happened because of human intervention. If the system was left to it's own accord, nothing bad would've happened at all. What about hijackings? You can't exactly hold a knife to a computer's throat, and no matter how many drunk/unruly passengers you have on a plane, they're not gonna hure the computer.

      In the history of major accidents, human intervention is usually the *cause* of most disasters. I, for one, would feel safer in or under a pilotless plane.
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        "Thinking" pilots are the cause of most accidents. In the event of a controller fuckup (ie: near collision), the systems on commercial jets tell the pilots what to do.

        Indeed, in that awful crash over (IIRC) Sweden last summer, it turned out that the pilot of one plane chose to listen to the human traffic controller (who did not have the right information) and to ignore the onboard system (which was giving the right instructions)...

        But why stop there? The cause of almost all vehicular accidents on the highways is human error. In a century of automobile engineering, the only system that has failed to become safer is the driver. I think, seriously, that we should be working hard on removing humans from that loop.


  • .. I see them all the time, especially at night.. up there buzzing about my house. They whisper things to me like "start a fire!" or "torture that field mouse!".. Sometimes they use a secret government mind control spray that smells like burnt toast...

  • I'm all for it (Score:4, Funny)

    by jmb-d ( 322230 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:56PM (#5009151) Homepage Journal
    Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems

    Yep, there's the problem right there; that clown in the Beemer that just cut me off.

    Target lock acquired.... *poof*

    Problem solved!
  • "Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million each, have crashed." That's a much as manned aircraft, and I dare say they have a better than 50% survival rate.
    • But two thing will occur:
      1) They will get better at navigation.
      2)they will get cheaper.

      Think of it as an early adoptor technology.

  • Here is another unmanned vehicle that is quite cheap to make
    and seems to do the job just as well called the aerosonde [aerosonde.com].
    It is designed for gathering weather data etc. not probably what the military
    wants.

    Also it flew across the Atlantic.

  • In other news.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:59PM (#5009185)
    recent sales of ESTES model rocketry kits have skyrocketed in apparent attempts to make shoulder based rocket lauchers young domestic terrorists (previously known as teenagers) have been trying to shoot down the drones seen flying over american neighborhoods. These drones have been enlisted to keep a watchful eye in "Operation Neighborhood Surveillance" but recently have come under attack as many of americans youth sees the drones as model aircraft targets for saturday afternoon rocketry studies.

    Seriously though, do we really need this? I just see these as prime targets for getting your hands on some really great RC plane gear.
    • A little Off-Topic, but here goes.

      When I grew up, I was an avid Model Rocket builder...but given that, and an online copy of a specific 'cookbook,' I was able to take the area that generally required a parachute or other landing device, and fill it with home-made napalm in a plastic bag. An amazing fireball if you sit there and watch it blow up...so I decided to fire it at the back garage, not really thinking anything of it. In about 45 minutes, I found out the real reason why you shouldn't play with fire.

  • Finally (Score:3, Funny)

    by NDPTAL85 ( 260093 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:59PM (#5009191)
    At long last a brilliant technology has arrived that will enable society to lower the salaries of overpaid pilots worldwide. In as little time as one decade, no more $100k-200k per year hotshot airliner pilots! wh00 h00!!

  • Sober drones? (Score:4, Funny)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:01PM (#5009209)
    How about replacing drunk, overworked, sleep-deprived pilots?
  • What about flying our own 'drones' - RC helis and planes over things like area 51, the White House, the "Torture Camp" in Guantamo Bay and other 'sensitive' areas? With newer cameras and excellent RC tech, I see this being a good way to literally keep an eye on our 'we've got nothing to hide' government. Of course, if someone followed Poindexter around, that would be enough for me...

    Drones seem like a good way to make 'problems' go away, say if someone questions King Bush, or Queen Cheney. Fly a bomb to the disident's door. "Oops! Sorry 'bout that!"

    At least someone could make a hobby of dogfighting the drones...or load up a B-52 model with explosives and be a RC terrorist, like in that movie with Clint Eastwood.

    I hear buzzing overhead, gotta go!

    • Re:Shoe on other Foot? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dougmc ( 70836 )
      RC helis and planes over things like area 51, the White House...
      I suspect that the MIBs would get you *in seconds* if you flew a R/C plane anywhere near these places.

      It's possible to fly a R/C plane using only the view from the camera (and not being able to see the plane) but it's certainly not easy. People have made autopilots for R/C planes (and even tried to fly them across the Atlantic [nationalgeographic.com]) but there's still many hurdles to overcome.

      At least someone could make a hobby of dogfighting the drones...
      You're probably already aware of this, but others may not be ...

      People do that now with R/C planes. Either they shoot beams of light at the other plane [rcmodels.com] or they try to cut a ribbon trailing from the other plane, or they'll even deliberately ram your plane and try to make it crash [fatlion.com].

      I haven't tried it myself (I usually just fly around and poke holes in the sky) but hope to someday. Need to make a nice slope soaring combat wing and try the `full contact' style at the local slope ...

  • Need better air traffic computers first! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:04PM (#5009246) Homepage
    Before adding to the air traffic control load, it might be a good idea to wait until the FAA has worked the bugs out of their controversial new STARS [philly.com] gear. Critics say it doesn't work and is being rushed into operation...
  • --old joke mode on--

    Now that we've reached cruising altitude, we again welcome to the first fully automated Transatlantic flight on Fantastic Future Airlines.

    Our systems have been fully tested and developed to insure you the smoothest, safest flight you will ever experience. Sit back, enjoy the flight with our assurances that nothing will go wrong... go wrong...go wrong... go wrong....

    --old joke mode off--

  • or! (Score:2)

    by Valar ( 167606 )
    shooting hellfire missiles at your house! oops.
  • ... before we can begin using flying ISPs [slashdot.org] to supply high-bandwidth data streams to remote locales.

    And I doubt that we would be using drones for cargo planes -- just modifications to existing autopilot programming that would permit pilotless 747s with optional remote access from a ground based pilot.

    Hopefully, they won't be using unencrypted telnet, or we'll have a whole new set of air piracy problems.
  • "Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems, patrolling the border, searching for fugitives or fighting forest fires..."

    Moving cargo? unlikely. You'll put the cargo where, exactly? Use a truck, train, or other land-based vehicle. If not, use a helicopter.
    pinpointing traffic problems? Use a helicopter and overpass-mounted cameras instead.
    searching for fugitives? Eh... it helps to know where to search. An unlikely application.
    Fighting forest fires. Oh brother. I suppose this is a "do it for the children / spotted owls / cute trees" reason.

    In short, too expensive, too unmaneuverable, too risky. We'll ignore all the creepy paranoid Skynet implications.

    Where's my millimeter-wave radar? :-)

  • Begun... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    this drone war has.

    -Yoda
  • Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems, patrolling the border, searching for fugitives or fighting forest fires...

    Boooring! Let's bomb someone!
  • And lets not forget the once or twice they allow the obsolete, almost-damaged-beyond replair units get shot down so they can find out where the enemy is hiding the missle launcher.

    Or as in the case of "traffic control" ... where those of us with pellet guns live !-)

    On the other hand, just like weather balloons in the 50's and 60's, I wonder how many drones will mistaken for aliens from another planet.

  • Already happened... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:23PM (#5009426)
    Federal regulators have begun considering rules that would allow drones, the pilotless planes being used in the war in Afghanistan, to fly in U.S. airspace.

    This is already happening [fas.org]. At least I presume the Global Hawk flew through U.S. airspace to get from Edwards to Alaska. ;-)

    Actually, Global Hawk flights over the continental US are now routine as I understand it. And these are not small drones, witness:

    Global Hawk:
    Wing span: 116 ft
    Length: 44 ft
    Height: 15 ft
    Performance Goals
    Range: 12,500 nmi
    Approx. Endurance: 35 hrs
    Endurance @1200nm: 24 hrs
    Altitude: 65,000 ft
    True Airspeed: 335 kts
    Gross T/O wt: 26,750 lbs
    Payload wt: 2,000 lbs
    Payloads: EO/IR and SAR

    I have no problem with this personally, but I can see how some might get a little nervous. ;-)

  • Initially, use them as cargo carriers in Alaska and northern canada. Have them fly in a certain airspace, perhaps 40K-45K. let this happen for 5-10 years. Then, move them over more populated areas after a successful probabtion period. Or give them a longer probabtion period as overseas cargo carriers.
    Once, you remove the need for pilots and crew, these aircrafts are much easier to build and cheap to fly.
    BTW, it will not be the politicians that will fight this but ALPA and other pilot unions.
  • I'd think that secure communications would be A #1 priority with these things. You know the /. crowd is gonna spend hours upon hours trying to break the communications (what cooler way to get a girl than pick her up in your very own aircraft??). If you all are working on breaking communication for control purposes, you better bet your left nut others will be doing the same, and with far more advanced tools and bigger budgets that you all have. You'd almost have to go to a rotating frequency ala IFF systems to minimize the risk of hostile takeover. With a drone, you no longer have to screen for utility knives or blockade air cabin doors to keep terrorists out - but you do need to be wary the guy with communications equipment and an electrical engineering degree who may be interested in flying one into downtown Chicago...

  • Civil Liberties? (Score:4, Informative)

    by CormacJ ( 64984 ) <cormac.mcgaughey@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:47PM (#5009627) Homepage Journal
    Quite often things like this are proposed that are spun in the media as being harmless but are then quietly abused to benefit various TLA's.

    For example the PATRIOT act, had supporters that said "The legislation's supporters say it will help federal law enforcement agents prevent future terrorist attacks, rather than simply respond with prosecutions after the fact." (Source CNN) [cnn.com].

    Quietly inserted in the act were provisions that had no relation to terrorism, but enhanced computer fraud laws, and also making it very easy to spy on US citizens (Source EFF) [eff.org]

    Usually theres a hidden reason that supporters don't want people to know about, so they boost the positive aspects and all the great and wonderful uses it will have. They don't want you to know about all the negative and hidden uses it will have. When they get put into use, and when people find out thats it's being abused, it's usually too late to stop it.

    All I'm saying is be careful, and take it with a very big pinch of salt.

  • I think it's wonderful and could be cost effective (Score:3, Funny)

    by mtec ( 572168 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:16PM (#5009939)
    Drones in the air will mean less people at risk, safer borders, and a safer country. And hey! Let's cut the cost a bit by having them pull advertising banners!

    A - S A F E R - A M E R I C A - - - B R O U G H T - T O - Y O U - B Y - P I Z Z A - H U T

    pulled by a 3.7 million dollar plane ... I can see it now.

    Or better yet, they'll do surveillance and transmit broadband signals!

    This is America, don't dare us - we'll call you on it.

  • This has been happening for quite a while now (Score:3, Informative)

    by endikos ( 195750 ) <bill@endikos.com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:00PM (#5010331)
    There's actually quite a bit of work being done to try and enable UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to fly in the National Airsapce System without danger to other aircraft and the ground. Very cool systems are being developed to integrate them into normal airspace traffic; systems which allow them to communicate with air traffic control, "see" other aircraft and respond to them (SAA or see and avoid systems), contingency equipment for communications failures etc. It's really some fascinating stuff. I work along side one of the groups comissioned by NASA to develop a "cradle to grave" roadmap which outlines the steps that would be necessary to certify UAVs, individually and as classes of aircraft, from inception to the junkyard. One of the reports that goes with that roadmap is the concept of operations [nmsu.edu]. For more information, you may want to check out AUVSI [auvsi.org] or google for "Unmanned Systems".

  • Something to control them (Score:5, Funny)

    by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @08:55PM (#5011240) Homepage Journal
    You know, the government needs to have some computer system to control all these flying drones. That way it'll be totally automated. They could call it, oh I don't know... SkyNet. Put some artifical intelligence in it and it'd be great system. Although I bet it wouldn't be until 2029 when a system like this really gets going.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close