Laser Imaging Drone To Hunt Out Unexploded Bombs In War-Torn Nations 31
An anonymous reader writes Aerial imaging firm Arch Aerial has discussed its hopes to deploy drones to map out mine fields and locations littered with unexploded bombs from historical warfare. CEO Ryan Baker suggested that his company wants to start the program in Laos, the world's most heavily bombed country. The 'octocopter' technology will work using a remote laser imaging platform called LIDAR to analyze fields and identify sites where UXO is likely to be uncovered. The sensor technology LIDAR is a crucial system in the design as it can easily see through vegetation and creates detailed maps of the terrain. Surveyors will be then be able to use the maps to look for topographical signs which suggest past bombing activity.
Well and good... but mines (Score:2)
Finding the new bombs, etc. is well and good - and needed! But, there are still LOTS of issues with old mine fields still...
Might it be better to work on some (slightly) ground penetrating radar of some sort that can search for impact craters as well as large hunks of metal a few inches under ground? Solve a few issues at once that way....
Re: Well and good... but mines (Score:4, Informative)
The US dropped 2,500,000 tons of bombs on Laos during Vietnam to try to deal with the NVA infiltration and supply of VC via Laos. They're searching for both mines and unexploded bombs.
Re: (Score:3)
They already have their low-tech ways.
A friend of mine said that in Afghanistan after the war with Russia, when they bought a new piece of land they would just let their sheep and goats graze all over it unattended for a few days. If one of them found a mine, they were dinner.
LiDAR solves for vegetation (Score:5, Interesting)
Which class of laser are they using which can penetrate the canopy of a jungle? There are many sensors more appropriate for the searching: Ground penetrating radar. Multispectral or hyperspectral camera sensors to check the leaf patterns for varied chemicals. Also for the larger areas covered it seems like a fixed wing design might be more appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can't speak to jungles, but in local wooded areas in the US there are enough holes in the canopy to get some lidar data through the foliage. One certainly gets more with leaf off, but leaf on isn't a complete deal breaker.
CHEMTRIALS! (Score:3)
simply spray herbicide from jets to defoliate the forest then the drones' LIDAR can easily find the military ordinance.
What year is this?!
Re: LiDAR solves for vegetation (Score:4, Informative)
Normal LIDAR has the ability to filter for 'first return' or 'last return' ehich will use the portion of reflected signal arriving a bit later. This removes reflections from above ground, leaving the model cleaner. However this assumes some gaps in the multi layers of vegetation. Open wooded areas lend themselves better to this then tropical jungle with its 3 or more layers of vegetation. This has been an issue with LIDAR from early days (at least as early as 2003).
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak to jungles, but in local wooded areas in the US there are enough holes in the canopy to get some lidar data through the foliage. One certainly gets more with leaf off, but leaf on isn't a complete deal breaker.
Yes, but little wholes in the canopy are hardly enough to map the area and most likely not anywhere near enough to find more than a couple mines in areas that probably have at least hundreds of mines.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, this seems a bit weird. They are claiming the benefit of LiDAR is that it can penetrate vegetation, yet I can't really see how that works. The issue with high frequency EM is that it is easily absorbed/reflected by pretty much anything. I would have thought since they are just doing terrain mapping (as far as I can tell from the very vague article) that something like mm wave radar would be a better choice.
It reminds me of the 'sting' operation a newspaper did on the occupy protesters, where they clai
Re: (Score:2)
The LiDAR I use for Drones and Construction/BIM are not capable of penetrating a canopy. Small holes in the canopy also are not enough. you need a fairly accurate measurement across the whole ground to find trenches and other ground anomalies.
Re:LiDAR solves for vegetation (Score:5, Informative)
Which class of laser are they using which can penetrate the canopy of a jungle?
The standard is 1064 nm infrared and 532 nm green (actually 1064nm doubled).
The IR is absorbed by water, hence the inclusion of a 532nm wavelength laser.
With a high enough pulse rate, you can penetrate multiple layers of canopy and get excellent resolution.
Also for the larger areas covered it seems like a fixed wing design might be more appropriate.
Fixed wing solutions are neither better nor worse than any other solution.
Planes need a plane, an airfield, a mechanic, fuel, a pilot, and an operator for the LIDAR system.
The benefit of using an octo-copter is that all you need is electricity to charge it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tell me UXO search was done by air... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I still wouldn't go anywhere near that ground. Too many pink mist incidents in places that have been subject to GROUND searches.
I read a really good article on this ages ago that went into some of the challenges. The military is very efficient at clearing minefields for military use. The thing is, that just means clearing a narrow path of the really nasty stuff so that things like armored vehicles can drive through with an acceptable level of losses (by combat standards). If going via an unmined route will cause you 10k casualties, but clearing an alternate route through a minefield will only get 100 soldiers killed, then the minefield is preferable. The troops would be travelling defined routes, would probably have some level of protection (even on foot), and are just going to be there for a short time. Getting 95% of the mines near the path might be a completely acceptable level of success.
Civilian demining is an entirely different ballpark. It isn't acceptable that only 100 kids die playing in a field, you can't just put up a sign that says "stay on this well-marked path" and ignore kids who deviate to go play in the grass, and people want to go back to normal life. 95% is no longer good enough.
In order to be effective at all mines cannot be trivially avoidable, which means they're generally not reliably detectable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tell me UXO search was done by air... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I still wouldn't go anywhere near that ground. Too many pink mist incidents in places that have been subject to GROUND searches.
It sounds like the target market is places where the problem is along the lines of "Hey, impoverished local government, you have a zillion acres of variously vegetated former combat zone and no idea where to even start sending in the deminers. Would you prefer to guess blindly or have a (relatively) cheap map with 'probably some bombing over here' marked where applicable?"
Given how much of the world's UXO and especially ill-documented mines fall in places that are poor, somewhat weakly governed, and not necessarily equipped with even decent topographical maps for their entire area, there is probably a lot of room for solutions that can beat 'peasants finding them one limb at a time' as long as they don't cost too much.
It's like healthcare: Sure, "Go to a first world teaching hospital with a superb reputation" isn't a bad idea; but for the almost-everyone who would find that advice irrelevant, there's a lot to be said for trying to take on the low hanging fruit, given that the alternative is basically nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
...and I still wouldn't go anywhere near that ground. Too many pink mist incidents in places that have been subject to GROUND searches.
It sounds like the target market is places where the problem is along the lines of "Hey, impoverished local government, you have a zillion acres of variously vegetated former combat zone and no idea where to even start sending in the deminers. Would you prefer to guess blindly or have a (relatively) cheap map with 'probably some bombing over here' marked where applicable?"
Good point. In some of these countries a solution that cuts death rates from hundreds per year to dozens per year shouldn't be overlooked simply because it isn't the complete solution.
Given how much of the world's UXO and especially ill-documented mines fall in places that are poor, somewhat weakly governed, and not necessarily equipped with even decent topographical maps for their entire area, there is probably a lot of room for solutions that can beat 'peasants finding them one limb at a time' as long as they don't cost too much.
It's like healthcare: Sure, "Go to a first world teaching hospital with a superb reputation" isn't a bad idea; but for the almost-everyone who would find that advice irrelevant, there's a lot to be said for trying to take on the low hanging fruit, given that the alternative is basically nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, butchered the quoting. My reply was:
Good point. In some of these countries a solution that cuts death rates from hundreds per year to dozens per year shouldn't be overlooked simply because it isn't the complete solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Samzenpusally misleading title and summary. (Score:3)
Particularly the summary.
The shitty summary:
Surveyors will be then be able to use the maps to look for topographical signs which suggest past bombing activity.
The misleading article:
Surveyors will be able to use the maps to look for topographical signs which suggest past bombing activity, surrounding trenches and bunkers for example.
Not even close to "map out mine fields".
More like "map out wide geographical area for possible military installations long reclaimed by jungle."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, here in Bosnia, we just wait for floods and then shoot the ones that float. From a boat. Safety first and all...
LiDAR does not penetrate foliage. (Score:3)
A LiDAR sensor returns the data from any solid object it hits. This will not work, especially in dense jungle areas like LAOS. Is this just bad information (using something other than LiDAR) or just a stupid idea?
Re:LiDAR does not penetrate foliage. (Score:5, Informative)
Is this just bad information (using something other than LiDAR) or just a stupid idea?
It's a fund raising pitch from a guy who sells aerial photography drones. He doesn't seem to have any relevant engineering training.