Robot Warfare Going Open Source 105
destinyland writes "Peter Singer, author of the new book Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, says 'You can build your own version of the Raven drone, which is a widely used military drone, for about $1,000.' Singer argues that 'just like software, warfare is going open source.' He warns that, ultimately, robot warfare may even expand beyond the military using more DIY and off-the-shelf systems. In addition to 43 countries now working on military robots, there are 'non-state actors ranging from Hezbollah to this militia group in Arizona to a bunch of college kids at Swarthmore... One person's hobby — such as the hobbyist who flew a homemade drone from North America to Great Britain — can be another person's terrorist strike option.'"
Asimov (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Non-State Actor? (Score:1)
Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the parliamentary and fully democratic government of Lebanon - chosen freely by the people.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't understand Hindi? Oh, they just pretend not to. Snobs! I know perfectly well that the mother speaks Urdu at home. Feigned non-comprehension of Hindi is pure social posing and low-order chauvinism!
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, someone embed the three laws in the linux kernal.
It's too l
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't want to see DRM in my Kernel!
Sure you can (Score:5, Informative)
You can build your own version of the Raven drone, which is a widely used military drone, for about $1,000.
You mean this? Raven Drone [wikipedia.org]. Umm.. maybe you could build the airframe for under $1000.. or at least something that looks like it. I seriously doubt you could get the radio control equipment, let alone the camera or milspec GPS receivers (which cost $10k each and you have to justify why you want them and promise not to export them).
If the book is as accurate as this interview, I think I'll just read fiction.
Re:Sure you can (Score:5, Interesting)
The submitter assumes that RQ-11B Ravens are simple RC planes. Not quite. They have fully autonomous piloting and navigation features, and include state of the art EQ and IR cameras, and a sophisticated ground system, which includes a CF-19 Toughbook.
I build cameras for RQ-11B Ravens. The L3-Com transmitters and receivers alone cost ~$5k per set (both air and ground Tx and Rx).
And still, assuming you can get those surplus for $5, the custom avionics and firmware in the planes will cost you many k$ in equivalent effort to duplicate.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, so get a phone like the Neo or gPhone - $400, hook up the Servos via USB and a PhidgetController - $200 - and write some custom Python code to make it all hang together. Put it all in a stock Model airplane - $150 -and you have an autonomous model aircraft. Oh - and the phone means you have GPS and GPRS for navigation and control.
Of course, there are many peaceful purposes for such systems, and it certainly won't carry much of a payload if evil is your objective. And to be honest the evil terrorists
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. where are you getting this "stock model airplane" for $150... let alone one that can lift a phone. Put down the crack pipe.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How about here:
http://www.towerhobbies.com/products/hobbico/hcaa23_n.html [towerhobbies.com]
Oh, and I may not make autonomous planes, but I do make autonomous boats, so this is more than talking out my ass; I've actually built this kind of kit.
Its not like you have an ulterior motive in trying to justify the cost the products your company makes huh. At 25K per plane I would like a bit of that action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't know the difference between a $150 toy and a $25k mil-spec surveillance uav, how do you manage to scrape up the braincells long enough to even log into slashdot? Look at the model you linked. Top speed somewhere around a slow jog, runtime of (charitably) 15 minutes, and a payload capacity of around an ounce. There's a world of difference between a boat and an airplane, specifically in that your vehicles only have to be watertight and minimally buoyant. Oh, and then there's that thing about boat
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I know you guys are having fun floppin' it out and having a good ol' measure, but I can see the point that you don't need a whole lot of money to make something that kind of works. I can actually see how for around $1000 it would be possible to build a plane that could be launched and flown manually to around 300m AGL, carry 400g of explosive and another 600g of misc nails and bolts and glide autonomously to 10m above a preprogrammed spot before exploding above a market, for example, or barracks.
It wo
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, a remote-controlled flying bomb ain't even close to a surveillance UAV. I suspect you missed the point by, oh, a LOT. And yes, I already have a plane that can manage a few hundred meters altitude. Rigging it to explode would be trivial.
But for $1000, you can have one hell of a claymore if you give up the Tom Clancy plot. Just have someone carry a briefcase somewhere and leave it.
Re: (Score:2)
Could this mean that Hezbollah is losing the war over souls or are t he drones not infallible enough?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure you can (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The same applies to other missions as well. A lb of explosives in the right (or wrong) place can be worth a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a kilo or 3 of heroin...
Re: (Score:2)
So... $1k worth of parts, $19k markup, and at least $40k effort to create the software.
Yep, that's a $1000 UAV! :P
Re: (Score:2)
How about an Iriduim satelite phone as the communication device? Last time I checked sending data over those is pretty easy.
After all, you're not flying the plane real time. That's all programmed into the pic microcontroller. You're just sending it waypoints.
GPS? Most GPS units send out simple NMEA data that directly interfaces to a computer port. So I take 2 GPS units. Perhaps i
Re: (Score:2)
No one's saying it can't be done. Everyone with a clue says it takes more than $1000.
Hint: it takes more than a few lines of python running on a cellphone to instantiate a Kalman Filter that's been fine-tuned and HITL-tested.
Re:Onward Buddhist Soldier (Score:5, Funny)
Who would buy a 5,000 year calendar if it's only got 3 years left in it? That's such a waste of money. I'll wait and buy the 2012-7138 version.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Raven Drone? Child's Play... (Score:2)
Wake me when I can build a Raven Mech [solaris7.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Simple open source auto pilots are now available, low cost GPS systems are available, RC air components are readily available. The point is that even the simple systems that are currently available wouldn't need much tweaking for use in some sinister way.
No need for mil-spec GPS (Score:2)
If you want just to build an autonomous airplane model, you don't need military-grade GPS.
Civilian GPS receivers have hard limits to avoid being used in DIY missile guidance systems. They refuse to output a reliable answer when simultaneously above a certain altitude AND above a certain speed threshold.
Since you're not going to hit both of these limits with an air plane model, the commercial GPS are going to be enough.
Also I have a couple of friends who had very good success while recording movies from thei
Re: (Score:2)
Singer is referring to our site, DIYDrones.com, where we've open sourced the technology to make a sub-$1,000 UAV. Unfortunately, Singer is totally clueless about technology, so he doesn't know the difference between our relatively modest UAVs and a Raven.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no! (Score:2, Funny)
If somebody makes a killbot without a pre-programmed kill limit then how will we ever defeat them?
Re: (Score:2)
Hold up a second! (Score:1)
Earlier we was all freaked about a guy wanting to make a UAV for pictures and now we need to code the 3 laws in the Linux Kernel?
I just cant keep up with this place, I swear....
Observation UAV. Explosives NZ cruise missile (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
!gonnahappen? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "open source" part is a little silly, but the "anybody can use technology in inovative ways to harm others" part is very reasonable
Seriously. Think about any world leader/other person in the world. If you didn't care about getting caught, don't you think you could engineer something to make them wind up dead?
given the resources available today (especially the internet), it's not that far-fetched
Join the robot revolution! (Score:2, Funny)
As such, robot engineers will rule the world, make robot women to serve us, and put freakin lasers on sharks.
Don't you suddenly want to change career?
No DIY-kit list (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the V-1? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read that book. I think it was even reviewed on Slashdot already.
One thing that's surprised me is that nobody in the Third World has built something like a V-1 "buzz bomb". That's WWII technology, and it was a low-end technology back then, built from sheet metal. Just duplicating the V-1, adding a JATO bottle so you can use a short portable launch ramp, and adding a half-decent autopilot would provide a precision cruise missile capability at a low price. A low-end GPS plus a backup capability to revert to compass and time in case of jamming would work.
Most of them will get through, especially if they each take different routes. The original V-1s flew in a straight line from launch site to target, the launch sites were fixed, and the target was usually London, so shooting them down wasn't hard. It took thousands of anti-aircraft guns, though. Who deploys thousands of anti-aircraft guns any more?
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the later intercepts were done by vectoring fighters into the V-1 flight paths and simply shooting them down like any other plane. And "thousands of anti-aircraft guns" were only used because at that point in time we didn't have ground-to-air missile capabilities. Which we now do.
Re: (Score:2)
Several thousand dollar missile against a flying bomb with a cheap GPS and sheet metal wings? That's not terribly cost effective. Couldn't they just, like, make us go for broke by swarming?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they want a
Re: (Score:2)
That's a Scud. It's forefather was V-2/A-4, not V-1.
Re: (Score:2)
SCUDs are upscaled & reworked V2s, not V1s. The V1 was the 'buzz bomb', using a pulse jet, basically a flying stovepipe. It used regular kerosene and atmospheric oxygen. The V2 was a true rocket design, the first deployed ballistic missile.
I do find it interesting however that the US attacked Iraq the moment it became clear that the aluminum tubes reputedly ordered for use as a gaseous seperator for uranium refining
A: in a field outside of london, rusting. (Score:2)
We have come a long way in the past 60 years, but building rockets is still, well, rocket science. Why bother when you can strap 20 pounds of explosives to a zealous follower and buy em' a bus ticket?
Is NZ the third World? (Score:2)
Does NZ count as the third world?
Bruce Simpson (http://aardvark.co.nz) built a cruise missile half a decade ago and nearly sold it to the yanks
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/missilemanbook.shtml [interestingprojects.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No one builds V-1's because of a few things:
1. It's out of fashion.
2. To build one you need to do some homework on mechanics, aerodynamics and engines.
3. If you know all this, you would probably spend your knowledge on something more useful for society.
4. No wonder that the large part of terrorists come from humanitarian fields. They don't have to consider the "price" of putting all their knowledge on building bombs to kill people.
5. High-tech isn't really the thing terrorists and rogues aim for. In most ca
Re: (Score:2)
Who deploys thousands of anti-aircraft guns any more?
Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they seem of little effect to those palestinian rockets from Gaza, btw.
Besides. Building today a V-1 would surely no stop by copying it. Probably someone would make some efforts to use some modern stuff, new radios, a camera. Anyway, the probability that some smart guy would do it in the middle of the desert is stupidly minimal. Even the palestinian Kasav's (just don't remember the correct name right now) seem to have developed from a "ready" design and suffered too little evolution in time.
It's a
Obvious (Score:1)
Whether or not you believe in this "singularity" stuff, it's obvious that the progress of technology in general constantly makes building improvised weapons like this (and weapons in general) easier. It also makes defending against such threats easier, but it'll always be more expensive to defend than attack (especially if we want to protect things which we currently feel are basic rights like freedom of expression and privacy).
I hope we don't get to the point where random people in NZ [theage.com.au] (link copied from ano [slashdot.org]
NRA - National *Robot* Assiciation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Attention, attention... (Score:2)
Your kilo of Purple Shishkaberry will be making its final approach to your back yard in approximately 3 minutes. Please ensure that no cats, dogs, children or uniformed officials are blocking the runway. Thank you for choosing Aer Lungus, the micro-airline that gets you high by getting your cargo high. Please remember that we offer a volume discount for frequent fliers.
I sure hope (Score:1)
When you think (Score:2)
When you think of the money and time we're pouring into ways to kill folks off, and compare that to what it'd cost to relieve poverty and chaos, it's just tragic.
old news, robocode! (Score:2)
Old news. robocode!
robot.rotate(90);
robot.rotateGun(-45);
robot.fire(3);
robot.doVictoryDance();
Re: (Score:1)
No such thing is happening! (Score:2)
Robot warfare is not going Open Source! If you want to take out somebody remotely, it is sufficient to build a torpedo, a guided missile, or a mine [textrondefense.com].
Anybody remember Bruce Simpson's DIY cruise missile [interestingprojects.com]? Bruce Simpson has shown that you can build all of this using standard components of today.
I hope the government will not severely restrict science in this area as well (just think about what happened to nuclear research). The path to industrial automation and robotics already has enough hurdles (proprietary so
Why build one, when you can crack one? (Score:2)
It will be a great time, when the average 15 year old cracker noob can crack a whole army of bots, and turn them against their master. It's no longer a powerful government against a helpless you. Power becomes equalized. You do not need big money or big industries, to get big power anymore. You only need brains. Lotsa lotsa brains! ^^
And don't think any military leader acts any wiser than those 15 year olds would. ^^
iPhone App (Score:1)
Looks like a great iPhone app...
TAM 5 and 6 (Score:1)
My Plan To Rule The WORLD!!! (Score:2)
Whew, the D.O.D. UAV's are scary. The Taliban are now starting to think they're missing out, so they've started their own Sky Net, yawn. The one enemy that every single human has is, "Chores". Armies would rather kill each other than, take out the Trash, Paint the Fence, or stop watching the game to help out. My solution is to build a machine that will Vacuum, put things back in their place, wash dishes, mop, take out the trash, cook(without burning), and recharge using solar, and wind. After this prod
Re:Robot Wars and the Three Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe people can actually ask these questions with a straight face. It's like we've all forgotten how a military dictatorship works.
Ya don't invade your neighboring country to kill everyone (ok, maybe you do if you're in Africa).. you invade your neighboring country to dominate them, remove their ability to fight back, then take control of their government and their media and rule them. That's why, in this day and age, the first thing to go in a war would be access to the Internet. If you can control everything a dominated people see and hear then you can easily convince them that they are better off following you than fighting you. When dissenting opinions are quashed the masses quickly fall into line.
So what are wars about? They're about stopping an invader from controlling the information. Even in our highly digital world you still need to have physical dominance over a country to maintain that kind of control. If people can freely travel across borders then they can bring with them information which you can't control. So you build a wall.. and put guards on it to shoot anyone who tries to cross without your permission. You build an air force and shoot down any planes that try to come into your airspace. Same for a navy and the coastline.
Wars are not "competitions". You don't send your most strapping men to kill their most strapping men, in the snappiest uniforms you can design, and then do a body count to determine the winner. You win by controlling the terms that everyone uses to refer to what happened. The war isn't over when everyone stops fighting. If you are seen as a "liberator" who is now fighting "insurgents" then the war is over.. you won.
War is ugly. It's the ugliest thing there is. Cause it's not about killing them.. it's about forcing your point of view down their throat.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're talking about Cyber Warfare, which I agree is a great way to end a war.
However the article here is about Robot Warfare, mostly unmanned machines engaging in battles.
My question is still the same -- If we want safety of the Three Laws, how do we, in your word, dominate the enemy with these robots?
You can have Ravens flying overhead all day, but if it's not going to destroy lives, it can hardly achieve anything, it can't even destroy buildings with lives in them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I ignored your 3 laws question.. sorry. I thought it was too silly to warrant a response. Obviously no-one who makes armed robots for warfare is going to make them 3 laws safe (quite apart from the fact that it was a literary device, sheesh).
It's simple, as robot technology matures, armed robots will appear on the battlefield.. they will be programmed to determine friend from foe and carry out specific missions. Maybe it will indeed be like playing a game of C&C.. but that's irrelevant.. you ask
Re: (Score:2)
Read again. He's not talking about electronic warfare. He's talking about good old-fashioned crushing military dictatorship.
Re: (Score:1)
Conquering gods their titles take from foes they captive make.
-White Goddess
Re: (Score:2)
So how come the West lost in Iraq?
Re: (Score:1)
Because very few genuinely believed we were "liberating" them. And those who did still complain about the time it's taken, the costs, the death...
We "Won" in that we achieved what the politicians and string-pullers set out to do. We "Lost" because it cost too much over too long, in both material assets and human lives.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Winning" and "losing" are pretty ill-defined and subjective terms.
We "won" in the sense that we kicked out the old regime and replaced it with one of our choice. We "lost" in that there was a large insurgency and civil war which essentially ended up settling itself, determining the state of the country going forward. We also "won" in that we now have strategic influence over an important Middle Eastern state, and also "lost" in that it was at a rather horrific civilian death toll and level of collateral da
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Nazis invaded their neighbors to reform the greater Germany. The ideology was simply that all these neighboring countries are full of Germans who are suffering under the tyranny of non-German governments. If you'd studied history at all you'd know that. If the people inside these countries had thought of the Nazis the same way the allies did, the war would have been over pretty quickly (btw, it wasn't). "The resistance" wasn't a lot of people.. it wasn't the majority.. it was a small bunch of rebels
Re: (Score:2)
The Nazis weren't terrorists, they were an elected government with a regular uniformed army. The Germans lost the war and we still don't refer to them as terrorists. You're arguing against yourself, and losing.
And lets not forget (Score:4, Informative)
Lets not forget the other common reason to go to war:
- Being faced with internal dissent and a real possibility of loosing power, portray another nation (or even a minority within your own nation) as "the Enemy" and go to war against them, thus distracting the masses from your own faults as leader, rallying them against somebody else and having a convenient excuse to take on "state of emergency"-like powers which then can be use against your personal internal enemies.
This technique is as widely used in tin-pot-dictatorships as in "democracies" *cough* war on terror *cough*
Re: (Score:2)
umm.. I believe I said exactly that. And went on to say how terrible war is. Check your reading comprehension, it's down.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of fighting wars with robots if they are to follow the three laws?
I wish like hell people would actually read his books before they quote them. If you had actually read his books you wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. The entire point of his books are how flawed and ambiguous those three laws are. In short, anyone intending to create robots which are governed by Asimov's three laws of robots are either stupid - or well - stupid.
Re: (Score:1)