New Draganflyer Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 255
John Jorsett writes "I've long lusted for the Draganflyer indoor-outdoor radio-controlled helicopter, but now I've got a new object of desire. Since seeing it flown on The History Channel's 'Tactical to Practical' show last September, I've been waiting for the Draganflyer Predator, modeled on the military aircraft of the same name. Electrically powered, the $750 Draganflyer Predator can be equipped with video cameras and a GPS receiver to carry out radio-controlled or pre-programmed self-guided surveillance missions of up to 20 miles range, the company claims. Time to buy my own UAV and find out what's really going on over there in Area 51."
Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
As if they won't shoot THAT down, too. :)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardware like this is trouble for organizations which want to be private.
How long until we can build a cheap mostly-plastic flier that can fly high enough, yet take good enough pictures, of secret sites?
What's stopping us from finding an open WAP nearby and dropping a cheap WAPWireless Controller bridge? Perhaps with a few more cheap relays if we don't have the range.
Sit down in an internet cafe, bounce your signal through eastern Europe, and get ready to get your own pics of Area 51. Sure, you lose the flyer, but so what?
Perhaps we'll end up living in a transparent society...
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Funny)
Only, instead of big brother being the government, it really WILL be your big brother spying on you. And your sister, your cousin, your neighbor, etc., etc.
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Informative)
Henry Pasquet has a 2.6 gram airplane that flies at walking speed. You can see it in the Feb 2004 issue of FlyRC magazine, on page 162.
Soon you won't even need to get high up to do the recon, you'll be able to navigate through buildings and populated areas with machines that are incredibly hard to spot.
Whether that will lead to a crackdown on RC hobbies in the future remains to be seen.
Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm. (Score:3)
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Funny)
Unless there's wind. Then i'm betting it doesn't fly at all.
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
up til now I'd been trying to think of a way to up the range of the thinkgeek desktop tanks...
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
rj
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a race to determine the superiority of two teams: Aliens vs. Predator!
Re:Hmm. (Score:3)
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
I heard they moved it toAF#$H20x9934SDF..3jk..ata.[NO CARRIER]
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Funny)
N.
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Interesting)
Area 51: Tinfoil Hat Production Facility (Score:2)
-Jem
Big Brother restrictions (Score:5, Interesting)
more importantly, can this Predator still be controlled if someone's using a jammer of some sort?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:2, Funny)
Time to dig out some gyros and rig an backup intertial guidance system...
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:5, Informative)
The two systems are seperate, and the civilian GPS can be (not sure if it's actually been done yet) shut down when the gubbermint feels it necessary. Also they are able to introduce errors in the civilian GPS data stream to knock the precision even further when Uncle Sam feels it prudent. They can also turn it off just in a certain area, for example, the middle east...
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm, how much do you know about GPS?
I don't feel like actually researching the issue to come up with a definitive answer, but I thought it was more a matter of the military adding pseudo-random noise when they want to; their own detectors can remove it, civilian detectors can't.
But I might be wrong :-)
(hmm, they would still be able to add pseudonoise in certain areas, since the satellites cover different areas...)
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:4, Interesting)
The military systems contain an algorithm that lets them generate that sudo-random noise, played against the noise that's transmitted, you get a pretty pristine signal, that's quite accurate.
It's the same idea that AT&T used in WWII to create phonographs that had random noise on them, to scramble commnunications. One player would sync the other player, across the world via radio, and inversion of the signal would yield a voice. It's like a one-time pad for voice communication.
Except in modern times, the idea is a bit better, and they can upload a new psuedo-random code up to the satalites, and install a new one in their receivers. Voila. It's still pseudo-random, so in thoery it could be broken, but it would be quite difficult, and they have the capacity to change it in an instant, so doing so would yield little to no value for the work put into it.
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:5, Informative)
If the US wants to disadvantage other countries in a conflict they don't worry about civilian vs military GPS, they just jam it with aircraft.
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:4, Informative)
As far as precision, any standard handheld today can be accurate to 3m. The weak link in most low-end GPS models is the clock they use, usually a cheap quartz clock.
With WAAS, 1m accuracy is easy. But for 10cm accuracy like you mentioned, 2 antennas aren't going to do it, since they're both unknown points. Using survey grade GPS equipment with a base station over a known geographical point and another roving unit can get you 1 cm accuracy.
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:3, Informative)
There aren't 2 different systems. The satellites merely transmit 2 signals, one being the encrypted signal civilians can't decode.
They
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:2)
Just try to take it with you when you go overseas and see what happens.
(disclaimer: I don't know the exact nature of this device, so I can't know what it's specific situation is re: USML and other export issues... perhaps this one's already been settled)
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:2)
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:3, Informative)
F-18. The reason is that the government sold it as scrap, but neglected to cut it up first. Some guy bought it for 25 cents a pound, and thinks it can be made flyable for $9 million. The FBI has 'persuaded' him not to sell it to non-Americans, and to keep it in the U.S. And there's still talk in goverment circles about taking it back anyway.
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:3, Informative)
There are.
why can you still relatively easily buy a F-15 on Ebay?
You can't. Perhaps you are referring to the story about the F-18 for sale on ebay. That auction was cancelled before it ended. I don't personally know why, but I imagine one likely reason is ebay not wanting to be on the hook for assisting the sale of full mil-spec hardware which, by government regulations, must be "de-milled" before being sold to the public.
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:2)
I think that the US government should absolutely forbid any American from doing *anything* that could *conceivably* threaten The Homeland!
Re:Big Brother restrictions (Score:2)
Phantasm (Score:5, Funny)
Area 51 (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand there's this sunbathing little cutie next door. .
KFG
Re:Area 51 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Area 51 (Score:2)
Already mentioned (Score:2, Informative)
Area 51? (Score:4, Interesting)
Be fun to try, though.
Oh, yeah, have a realtime video link back to your base - I doubt if you'd get your video camera back. In fact, I doubt you'd really want to ask for it
Re:Area 51? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Area 51? (Score:3, Funny)
Alien tractor beam, of course.
area 51? (Score:5, Funny)
Heck with area 51. I want to find out what's going on over at the Playboy mansion. :)
Area 51 (Score:5, Funny)
Oh please, like they don't already have a backdoor in the thing to watch you.
The closest distance between two points is a tunnel.
- Lyndon Johnson
Odd wishes (Score:5, Funny)
Hello John, I was glad to read your Slashdot article. Now, can you hear the knock on your door? Can you see the black vans with the engine running in the street? well, rejoice: you'll get to see a classified site very soon, and even visit it with a couple of muscular new friends, without even having to buy a UAV. I hope you'll enjoy your trip!
Regards,
-- J. Ashcroft (johnny_the_poo@dhs.gov)
Could be dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:2)
Especially if you can rig the UAV itself to blow up, via short circuit and some other stuff.
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
About 70g (Score:5, Informative)
Now, when you consider the autopilot for the predator only weighs 10g, that 70g shell looks pretty heavy. - The predators battery is probably 70g so you'd probably be hard pushed to balance/make it fly.
Then there's the issue of how to trigger, rather than just deliver the shell. You'd need some sort of trigger.
Now a complete shotgun mechanism would weight a hell of a lot (probably as much as the predator) so you'd need something else - probably 1 of three options:
1) A mechanical pin trigger which is activated by a servo. Drawbacks: can't be fired remotely so very inaccurate.
2) Same as above but the craft flies to a GPS point then dives in to strike the ground (and a firing pin). Drawbacks: Hard to target with GPS and minimal shot-dispersal on the ground.
3) An electronic (Battery and filament) trigger but you still can't target remotely and a shell fired without a (heavy) barrel is very inefective.
All of the above assume that you'd want to be out of radio range (hence retaliation range).
Your best option would just be to fit it with a sharp point and try to hit someone in the head with it (for all the luck you'd have)
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:2)
Price list (Score:3, Funny)
one dart (from friendly neighbourhood games shop): $2.89
10 cc of posison from the south sea cone shell: $399
one incredibly precise radio detonater: $39
forgettting a propellant: priceless
There are some people who would make really crappy assassins. For all the rest of you James Bonds, there's Paypal.
half a kilo (Score:2)
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:5, Funny)
You're right; it's a virtually insurmountable engineering problem. The resources required to overcome it could easily reach into the tens of dollars.
The typical shotgun shell has about 2 ounces of shot in it. A cheap but functional barrel and firing pin could be constructed in well under 8 ounces. The flyer itself could aim. Looks like an autonomous flying shotgun to me.
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:2)
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:3, Interesting)
Quarter-Pounders (Score:2)
Make mine four Quarter-Pounders with Cheese [mcdonalds.com], please
-kgj
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
It would have to be a very lightweight weapon. Perhaps something biological?
This kind of system might also expose a new hole in the defenses we have against terrorist or criminal acts. Imagine trying to defend a building against this. It's small enough to hide and launch from anywhere, has enough range to be launched from outside a ground based barrier, but is launched close enough to a target to reach it (or near enough for a chemical or bio-weapon) before large air defense systems become useful. Would this thing even show up on radar as a threat? It might look a lot like a bird, especially if the radio control signals are just assumed to be part of the ambient radio noise you'd get in a built up area.
Re:Could be dangerous (Score:3, Informative)
...has been available for decades. This is nothing more than a regular R/C control system built into a Predator looking body. R/C planes have had the ability to drop small loads, on command, forever. Little charges, dropshapes, parachute loads...
This is nothing new. Cool looking, but not really new
get your Pentagon budgets ready... (Score:5, Interesting)
A Remote Threat
This past June, quoting a German intelligence official, the Reuters news agency reported that al Qaeda might be planning to attack passenger aircraft using model airplanes. Some have dismissed this threat as unlikely or fanciful, but other terrorism experts foresee terrorist groups' using remote-control planes, boats, helicopters, and other delivery devices to attack people and sites without sacrificing any of their members.
Is the time ripe for such attacks? With the Western world hardening its defenses after 9-11, terrorists will be looking for creative ways to get past security, says Louis R. Mizell, a private security expert and ex-U.S. intelligence officer.
Mizell, who gathers data on security and terrorist incidents, says precedent for such attacks exists. He has recorded 43 cases involving 14 terrorist groups in which remote-control delivery systems were "either threatened, developed, or actually utilized." Only last year it was reported, for example, that Osama bin Laden considered using remote-control airplanes packed with explosives to kill President George W. Bush and other heads of state at the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy. In 1995, reports indicated that Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese terrorist group that attacked the Tokyo subway with sarin gas, planned to use remote-control helicopters to spray dangerous chemicals from the air. The helicopters crashed during testing. In the 1980s, the Basque separatist group ETA tried to blow up a Spanish patrol ship using a four-foot remote-control boat packed with explosives.
The U.S. military is devoting considerable resources to its own remote-control delivery systems. For example, engineers are working on enhancing pilotless "drones" to make them effective means of attack without putting a flight crew at risk.
Critics have downplayed this threat because of the relatively small payloads that such devices can deliver. But some remote-control devices on the market can hold large amounts of explosives. A Mississippi company called Bergen R/C Helicopters, for example, advertises over the Internet a five-foot-long remote-control helicopter, costing $4,000, that can carry a 20 kg (44 lb) payload for 30 minutes without needing to refuel. Yamaha Motor Co. markets over the Internet a remote-control helicopter with a 20 kg payload as a pilotless crop duster. And, Mizell points out, terrorists could use many vehicles with smaller payloads en masse to create the same effect.
Other experts agree that the threat is legitimate. "Do you want to know if this is a real threat?" asks Gary Richter, a systems analyst at Sandia National Laboratories who evaluates the goals and capabilities of terrorist groups. "The answer is an unequivocal yes."
Robert Blitzer, a former chief of the Domestic Terrorism/Counterterrorism Planning Section in the FBI's National Security Division, said he hadn't personally encountered that threat while with the FBI but conceded that it was viable. "I wouldn't be at all surprised that al Qaeda would have the wherewithal to do something like that," Blitzer says.
"Remote-control vehicles of various sorts do have to be considered," agrees RAND analyst Brian Jenkins, "but they have a limited spectrum in terms of utility." He points out that remote-control bombs "would barely dent a skyscraper" and wouldn't compromise the dome of a nuclear reactor. Jenkins adds that remote-control delivery devices would be unnecessary in situations where terrorists could simply plant a bomb and walk away--in Times Square, for example.
But Mizell sees a much broader scope of potential applications, such as boat attacks on maritime vessels and littoral utilities, as well as plane, helicopter, or car attacks on targeted VIPs' vehicles. "Real-life analogous situations show us what could be done," he says. For example, in 1998, a radio-control model airplane forced the pilot of a DC-9 to change his approach to Dulles International Airport.
source [securitymanagement.com]
Re:get your Pentagon budgets ready... (Score:2)
regardless (Score:2)
20lb versus 20kg, I wasn't trying to point out a fud based document, more like making a statement about the current state of affairs concerning ^terror*. Now, just to amuse everyone a bit more, assuming someone used one of these rc's for an aerial dusting, how much damage do you think 1lb of anthrax could do? 30 minutes, scratch that. What about 2 minutes with 1 pound of anthrax, say over a sports event? Irrelevant, it's a toy, and I was pseudo trolling about the (again) the "everything must be al Qaeda" st
Re:regardless (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you could dispense it small enough you would not need the model aircraft. One of the "news" shows after 9/11 they went and got models of the russian disperial devices filled it with a harmless white dust and set it up in the on a fire hydrant(or something like that) on a busy street of NYC. The dust was visible(unlike the real thing) and people just kept walking through
I can hear this now at the hearings afterwards... (Score:3, Funny)
Agent Kurtis: Well, we threw out the idea because the author of the original article did some pretty spotty research. He used the abbreviation for Mississippi instead of Michigan and mixed up 20 pounds for 20 kilograms.
Senator Bob: You see, this is why we need to outlaw all nitpickers that ignore the issue and quibble over small, petty things.
Re:get your Pentagon budgets ready... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have my doubts about this, but even if it did happen, I doubt the model airplane forced anything. I tend to doubt that a DC-9 pilot would even be able to see a normal sized model plane during normal flying. What seems more likely is that he saw a full sized plane way off, and thought it was a model much closer, and then over-reacted (which is probably safer than unde
The boys at langley were on to it in the '80s (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the ploys the tinkerers came up with was
Area 51? That's so 1996. (Score:5, Interesting)
still thriving - Re:Area 51? (Score:2, Informative)
Reason behind PopMech article still valid? (Score:2)
Are there indications that the Air Force has the X-33, or any other supposedly dead NASA projects, on life support?
Also, the Popular Mechanics article makes Area 51 out to be totally dead (7 years ago, at least). I force myself to take this with a grain of salt, since Popular Mechanics wants to sell magazines. All my web searches have tur
Flying over classified areas (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, we all know how error prone programs are when they are still in alpha stage anyway, right? It's not like you can be faulted for testing your prototype to find all the bugs in it and having it "accidently" go where it's not supposed to, right?
>:)
Heh. (Score:5, Funny)
I should step outside before I find my wallet.
Building your own UAV (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Building your own UAV (Score:5, Funny)
At $21,000 - $27,000, it'd better do my laundry, housework, and taxes too.
Re:Building your own UAV (Score:2, Insightful)
The commercial version is an order of magnitude cheaper than the Rotomotion as well, putting it honestly in the toy/hobbyiest catagory.
But as your own post points out there's nothing particularly revolutionary about it. Hobbyists have been building these things for a while. In light wind conditions small blimps are a hoot, can carry a fair amount of gear, and with todays wireless netw
UAV @ Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Score:4, Interesting)
Careful! (Score:2, Funny)
And perhaps fly over... (Score:3, Interesting)
Navigation would be easy. (Score:2)
Need to check with the FAA (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be suprised if someone wearing dark glasses and jack boots showing up ready to give you a rectal exam.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RC Aircraft aren't easy to fly. (Score:5, Insightful)
My father got into building and flying RC aircraft - he even became the president of his local RC flying organization. It is a cool hobby to play with - but there's two things you have to expect.
One: You are going to crash and damage your toys. Be prepared for the emotional effects this may have. Having a camera up front is a nice way to tie controls in with movement, certainly nicer than the fly-by-watching indirect controls my dad had to use - but the dynamics of RC scale speed Vs. large scale wind means that you are still going to have to contend with hard landings and rapid unexpected direction changes. Always stay clear of ANY obstacles, never fly around people or property, and come prepared to climb trees to retrieve your toy.
Two: This is NOT a cheap hobby. In terms of time and resources, the $750 is just the tip of the iceburg in terms of the resources you are going to spend to maintain this little aircraft if you plan on flying it regularly. You'll need a little workshop, epoxies and other wear-and-tear repair equipment, scraps of all kinds to repair larger issues, spark plugs, oils and other maintenence tools depending on engine, carrying equipment, etc., etc. You've got to be fairly finantially devoted to keep this hobby up - and I'm not even mentioning the costs of a serious crash.
It is a hobby you can be proud of in your accoplishments - but it's also one you have to take great care with, and be ready for literally crushing emotions when gravity takes its toll.
Ryan Fenton
Re:RC Aircraft aren't easy to fly. (Score:3, Informative)
I gave up the smelly/expensive RC hobby a while ago though, and the last time I flew a plane it wasn't even real. [realflight.com]
(*ARFs == Almost Ready to Fly kits)
--
Autopilot not cheap (Score:4, Informative)
Why Area 51? (Score:2, Redundant)
nosy neighbor deterrent (Score:2, Funny)
as fun as cruising area 51 might be... (Score:3, Interesting)
You were joking. They don't. (Score:5, Informative)
You could get one to the top of Tikaboo Peak and launch it, no problem. They may or may not catch the model, but with the sensors they have all over around the area, they'd definitely catch you, both trudging around on the ground and the radio transmitter you'd be using. The same, though less stringent, warning would go for using one to view any sensitive area. The end result would be going to jail, and could well end up with the goobermint trying to make RC aircraft illegal, or at least heavily licensed, under PATRIOT II. Seriously.
They've already been hard at work trying to outlaw model rockets engines. They're under the impression these can be taken apart and used to make a bomb. Technically, they're correct, but it'd be far easier and cheaper to get shotgun shell reloading material and make it from that. Rocket engine propellant is designed to burn at a certain speed, not as fast as possible, and so makes a lousy explosive. That's not stopping them.
The ATF tried asking model rocket engine manufacturers to supply them with some engines for testing. All refused. So they came up with a court order, forcing one of the manufacturers to supply some engines. They complied.
ATF rented a van and set out to test these engines. They got some rockets, went out to a remote area, and started launching them. Out of the back of the van. Which contained the rest of the engines. The rest of the engines caught fire. The rented van burned to the ground. (Details, and confirmation of same by the owner of the company forced to supply the engines, available from Google Groups usenet archive for newsgroup rec.models.rockets).
They were enjoying their newfound freedom to "protect" at all costs way too much before. Now they're also humiliated, so they're tryng all the harder. If someone were to take some of the widely available still- or movie-camera carrying rockets and launch those from Tikaboo Peak, there's no doubt in my mind "America's 87th Most Popular Hobby" would be grounded without even the comfort of having lost out in a congressional vote.
Re:You were joking. They don't. (Score:2)
I'm suprised the judge didn't laugh them out of the courtroom & tell them to drive down to the local hobby shop and but the engines themselves. Doesn't part of the the point of showing that consumer-grade off-the-shelf parts can be a threat showing that they can be purchased by anyone
Re:You were joking. They don't. (Score:4, Interesting)
"I'm suprised the judge didn't laugh them out of the courtroom & tell them to drive down to the local hobby shop and but the engines themselves. Doesn't part of the the point of showing that consumer-grade off-the-shelf parts can be a threat showing that they can be purchased by anyone on short notice? It's not like they don't have the budget to buy these things."
They were trying to test high powered engines, greater than G class. Not many places stock those. They *did* try to purchase them at first. The manufacturers turned down the ATF purchase order.
High powered engines require some pretty stringent licensing already, developed by those in the hobby, as well as ATF licensing for low power explosives. You'd think they'd be satisfied. Particularly since the licensing brings in income and gets the users (and potential sources for leaks) registered. Theor going against the nomral grain of goobermint agency actions like that just indicates they're working way outside their already twisted framework of logic, and are simply out to score FUD points. That's become a major federal occupation since 9/11 -- pretending they're doing something to make us feel less afraid and more thankful to them for doing so, no matter whether we want it or not.
Into north korea--airplanes (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to see something really cool, check out AeroSonde [aerosonde.com], an ultra-long-range model airplane.
I have fantasized about loading up a model with flyers and then leafletting north korea or some other freedom-of-information deprived hole.
missle (Score:3, Interesting)
Area 51 !! (Score:3, Funny)
You geek!... who cares about area 51... i want it to have a good look at all the sunbathing chicks in the area...
The Future Wars (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone see war 50 years from now as a sort of Attack of the Clones affair? We'll have fleets of UAVs, the enemy will have them, it'll just be hoardes of them flying into each other and shooting each other down before any make it to tactical targets. War will amount to how much junk you can throw up into the air. Then we'll start using huge EMP weapons or nukes because they're not employed against actual people, so what's the big deal. The beginning of the end, taking the human risk out of war sort of implications...
sev
Re:whoa (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, one might argue that the low price tag on this DIY baby really should make you a bit queasy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)