Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Hacking Toys

Autonomous Model Glider Flies from 60,000 Feet 170

Posted by michael from the buzz-bomb dept.
saccade writes "A couple years ago we read about a telemetry laden balloon launched to 80,000 feet single-handedly built by a laid-off engineer. Here's an even more elaborate one built at around the same time: A balloon launched model glider taken to about 60,000 feet that autonomously finds its way home. It had an auto-pilot and elaborate mission control system. Also impressive is the extensive testing done before launch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Autonomous Model Glider Flies from 60,000 Feet More

Autonomous Model Glider Flies from 60,000 Feet

Comments Filter:

  • Dangerous? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16, 2005 @12:35AM (#11377344)
    I guess I'm just glad that when it "finds its way home" it doesn't define "home" as "the White House Lawn" - and that the laid-off engineer who built it isn't angry with the world.
    • Not so long ago there were a few stories here about a guy doing a home built Cruise Missile. Perhaps that guy and this guy should get together.

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

      by ThisNukes4u ( 752508 ) <tcoppi AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday January 16, 2005 @12:52AM (#11377400) Homepage
      Parent was modded up funny, but this raises a serious question: what is stopping somebody with bomb-making skills from flying a plane like this loaded with explosives to a high-profile target such as the White House or other government buildings?

      • Re:Dangerous? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jericho4.0 ( 565125 )
        Nothing at all, which is why missile defence against 'rouge nations' is a farce.

        I can't find the link, but /. posted a story last year about an autonoumous flight across the Atlantic in a small robitic vehicle using GPS costing under $10,000.

      • Re:Dangerous? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Saeger ( 456549 )
        what is stopping somebody with bomb-making skills...

        Probability is.

        There's only about 0.0001% of the population that's angry, desperate & psychopathic enough to consider acts of terruh, times about 0.001% smart enough to plan an overly-complex scheme, times 0.1% motivated enough to follow through, times 50% odds of success. (So, worry about dying in a traffic accident instead.)

        Numbers out of my ass, but that's a basic "Drakes Equation" for ya.

        • Re:Dangerous? (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          .0001% * .001% * .1% / 2 = .000000005% 6billion people * .000000005%= 30 smart terrorists. seems low.
        • That probability is inc reased when you factor in fanaticism and general funnding that can suply training to get the job done.

          Of course the probability of success decreases when you factor in radar, and other listening devices differeing governments use to police the airwaves and the ability to switch the gps satalites signal off (actually scramble or jame them) at a moments notice.

          There is probably already some contingency plan already in place in case somethign like this becomes a reality. I know they a

        • Odds... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by narl ( 802378 )
          There's only about 0.0001% of the population that's angry, desperate & psychopathic enough to consider acts of terruh, times about 0.001% smart enough to plan an overly-complex scheme, times 0.1% motivated enough to follow through, times 50% odds of success. (So, worry about dying in a traffic accident instead.)

          Uh, I don't know if you meant this to be intentional, but taking your "Drake's equation" and the last number I remember hearing for the US population:

          (0.0001*0.001*0.1*0.5) * (population of U

        • Re:Dangerous? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 )
          But all it takes is one.

      • Re:Dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @01:14AM (#11377466) Homepage Journal
        what is stopping? nothing really.
        what's stopping them from gassing some public place? nothing really.
        what is stopping a not-fit-for-driving driver from driving into a crowd by accident ? nothing really.

        what COULD stop an intelligent man from turning the hell loose if he was determined, except maybe luck? personally i'm surprised how the big nations leaders can stay alive so well(proves that the world isn't as dark as you might think at first, there isn't a whole lot of people who are determined in breaking shit up like that, or that typical terrorists are narrow minded or uneducated.. which pretty much could be true, if you weren't narrow minded you'd find something more enjoyable to do).

        just get over it.

        • Re:Dangerous? (Score:3, Informative)

          by putaro ( 235078 )
          what's stopping them from gassing some public place? nothing really.

          You are so right. It's been done: http://edition.cnn.com/resources/video.almanac/199 5/index2.html/ [cnn.com]
          • well.. i was quite close to putting sarin and how damn easy it is to make(and how damn deadly it is) into my comment but decided to skip it in the end..

            (that tokyo subway attack was done with sarin - and it's doable from two very available chemicals just by mixing them.. scary stuff, i suppose)
      • Guess what. People with hostile intentions will always be hostile.

        Why would you worry about this scenario? How would your life be different if it were somehow impossible to fly bomb-laden gliders?
      • "what is stopping somebody with bomb-making skills from flying a plane like this loaded with explosives to a high-profile target such as the White House or other government buildings?"

        Weight?
        • Okay, how about using one of those long distance water balloon launchers? One could fairly easily pack a bunch of nasty stuff together with an impact-tripped igniter and send stuff over a couple of blocks to the target. Or, if that's not good, an amateur rocket with no ejection charge, instead letting it drop and impact on the target, or a large ballista or trebuchet or something...

          Basically if someone wants to do something nasty they will. This used to be the playground of smart but angsty kids, who

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

        by Catbeller ( 118204 )
        "what is stopping somebody with bomb-making skills from flying a plane like this loaded with explosives to a high-profile target such as the White House or other government buildings?"

        Ans: Don't fuck up other people's countries. Seriously. Blow up a few thousand people and then karma is a bitch.

        Despite all the well-fanned paranoia incubated in this country, we really haven't been attacked much. I've a feeling that will change soon. Of course, the attack will recursively be used as justification for attack

      • Re:Dangerous? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by phliar ( 87116 )
        what is stopping somebody ... from flying a plane like this loaded with explosives to a high-profile target such as the White House...?

        Nothing.

        We need to realise that we cannot have perfect security from our neighbours. Love they neighbour, so that your neighbour loves you. That's the cost of being social animals, and of living in society.

        Sure, there will still be crazy people, nothing we can do about that.

      • Re:Dangerous? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by serutan ( 259622 )
        You can never eliminate the risk of terrorism. All you can do is minimize it. Some believe in locking down everything and everybody and trusting a few people with the keys. Others believe a truly free society produces fewer people inclined to cause trouble. The philosophy Americans live under depends pretty much on who raises the most campaign money.

    • Re:Dangerous? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mudcathi ( 584851 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @02:31AM (#11377642) Journal
      No, the laid off engineer who was angry at the world and had a latent interest in aerospace technology, now lives in various caves along the Afgani and Pakistani borders.

      (and too bad that he still lives, sez i)

    • Re:Dangerous? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "I guess I'm just glad that when it "finds its way home" it doesn't define "home" as "the White House Lawn" - and that the laid-off engineer who built it isn't angry with the world."

      Maybe I'm being incredibly naieve here, but wouldn't the payload for something like this have to be really really small? If true, what could he possibly do that is a larger threat than something less sensitive could be?
      • True, you are limited to only a few pounds of payload in a craft this size. It could easily be scaled up, however. Furthermore, you only need a few pounds of powdered plutonium or other highly toxic material to contaminate hundreds of acres of farmland. You could also spread smallpox, or many other hazardous things this way.
    • "I guess I'm just glad that when it "finds its way home" it doesn't define "home" as "the White House Lawn" - and that the laid-off engineer who built it isn't angry with the world."

      Only the brain-dead would mod this "Troll"

    • Re:Dangerous? (Score:2, Funny)

      by XB-70 ( 812342 )
      The flight started in Canada and ended in the U.S.
      They had a heck of a time getting into the States, but the best line is about coming back:
      "The border crossing back into Canada consisted of a big red sign at the end of a deserted marina slip, with a 1-800 number. We called the number from a cell and they "let us back in" over the phone. Oh, Canada."

  • It does something (Score:3, Funny)

    by odioalsoco ( 815514 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @12:37AM (#11377355)
    Well, it is nice to see that people actually employs some time doing pretty impressive things. Not like the guy sitting in a chair hanging at 10000 feet using balloons. ;)

  • On the off chance it's slashdotted: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Saint Aardvark ( 159009 ) * on Sunday January 16, 2005 @12:37AM (#11377356) Homepage Journal
    http://www.saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/mirror/son de [saintaardv...rpeted.com]

    All I have to say is "WOW". And well done.

  • Pretty rudimentary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Sunday January 16, 2005 @12:47AM (#11377384) Journal
    It can correct its flightpath, but it can't react to obstacles. A cliff would kill it, as would a tree.

    What would happen if we dropped something intrinsically warm like a slab of uranium on Titan
    • A bit unfortunately, read flight five, unmentioned in the slashdot summary:

      As the site is some 50nm north of Chilliwack, 4 hours drive from the nearest paved road, we elected to fly over it the next weekend in a small C172 to try and pick up an exact "ELT" fix. But no signal was received. The electronics and telemetry software have proven to be extremely reliable, so the lack of signal can only be taken as evidence that the glider flew into the top of the mountain below at cruise speed:

      Oops.

  • Amateur guidance system? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Sunday January 16, 2005 @12:56AM (#11377410) Homepage
    Quick! Somebody call the Dept of "HomeSec" on this evildoer, before he makes his "homing glider" plans available to terrerhists like that DIY cruise missile [theregister.co.uk] guy tried to. And if they find any Estes model rocket engines in his home (while he's away, of course), I they throw the book at him!

    • Re:Amateur guidance system? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, I think we should package this "homing glider" with an "Al Qaeda approved!" sticker on it and sell it to the terrorists ourselves.

      "Ha ha! With our "homing glider" bomb we will destroy the whitehouse! Look at it go!"

      "Hey, uhh... it's deployed... and the plane's heading back this way. What kind of glider did you say this was again?"
    • What would be the point? The technology to do this is already available all over the world; heck, most of it is actually manufactured elsewhere.

      Sigh.

      SB

      • What would be the point? The technology to do this is already available all over the world; heck, most of it is actually manufactured elsewhere.

        irony Audio pronunciation of "irony" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
        n. pl. ironies

        1.
        1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
        2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
    • This is insightful? Funny, maybe, in a sad way.

      Calling in Homeland Security would be a nightmare. We've had enough problems with the invasion of Iraq; it's just a little, tiny, country. Can you imagine how bad the invasion of Canada would be? Even if we only invaded Vancouver to get this guy, I'm sure we'd have to deal with the rest of the country.

      Does Homeland Security have troops, or would they have to subcontract to the DoD? OTOH, maybe this would be the perfect time to expand outsourcing to China

  • 1 kg "Payload" - but still very scary (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, "only" about two pounds of payload - imagine what a couple of pounds of sentex would do to the surrounding 'landing area' A smart stealth bomb ??? Homeland screwity need to know about this !

  • For once I read the FA (Score:4, Informative)

    by toby ( 759 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @01:11AM (#11377458) Homepage Journal
    And noted that the glider was eventually lost in inaccessible terrain, due to drift after launch and various other problems...
    Sept 6, 2003: Glider Lost, 50nm north of the nearest paved road
    Back to the drawing board...

  • That is really hard... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Slashamatic ( 553801 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @01:28AM (#11377503)
    Planes fly rather differently at altitude. I'm impressed that he has been able to do anything up there where other craft start having to use elaborate control systems because of the thin air.

    OTOH, he seems to have had some problems with navigation and obstacles (i.e., the mountain in the way), but I can't see how he can deal with that without using something like EGPWS. Standard GPWS (ground proximity warning systems) use radar and the power needs would be far to high. EGPWS extends this with a digital ground model and a GPS. He has the GPS, but whether he could make and store an model with terrain elevation would be an interesting question.

    • I'm surprised that he managed to do this at all with just one gyro sensing roll rate. For small angles, the aircraft's roll and pitch axes are uncoupled (linear approximation), so I wonder how he sensed the aircraft's pitch angle.

      Actually, now that I think about it, I doubt he did. Free-flight gliders that are well-trimmed will just glide around without a problem. Ultimately, we just want the plane to turn, and there are rudder-only radio-controlled aircraft out there (for example). Well-done, I say.

  • Last Launch - Sept 6 2003 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16, 2005 @01:28AM (#11377505)
    /.'s a little slow getting the headlines these days?
  • I think I can see my house...

  • Send it to Mars! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FuturePastNow ( 836765 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @01:37AM (#11377524)
    Research like this bodes well for future exploration of other planets. A glider, or better yet a powered aircraft, can cover more ground in an hour than Spirit and Opportunity have in a year. With the communications delay, it would have to be autonomous.

    Landing to conduct experiments would be a one-time deal (unless it can take off again), but such a vehicle could do great recon for future rovers or human explorers, in addition to all sorts of atmospheric experiments.
    • The rovers are slow because they are doing near archeological level of meticulous detail. Scrape here, measure this, run a spectrometer on that, take pictures and move to the next rock. Solar power doesn't afford a lot of power either.

      With an airplane, you need to have good landing and takeoff areas, I'd hate to see the plane stuck with some unexpected obstacle. Taking off and landing every so often, with heavy equipment in thin martian air doesn't sound like a recipe for success. Just staying in the a

      • Re:Send it to Mars! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GooberToo ( 74388 )
        But such a plane, on mars, would have a completely different mission. Rather, it's mission would be to take atmospheric measurements. Which, I might add, neither a satellite nor a rover can do well.

        I should also add that NASA already has a glider designed to be sent to Mars. Its design includes a really cool folding system, which allows it to be stowed for the long travel. Once there, it would be dropped from very high up, unfolding as it falls. Once there is enough atmosphere, it would begin gliding.

  • Big deal (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16, 2005 @01:43AM (#11377537)

    I built a glider that can find its way home from 60,000 feet in the air too. The only limitation is that "home" has to be directly below it. Apart from that, my glider, which I have named "SpaceBrick One", has a 100% success rate.

  • I thought that last line said "extensive testing done before Lunch"

  • Wow (Score:1, Redundant)

    by cuban321 ( 644777 )
    How long until 747's can autoland in an emergency? This is pretty awesome stuff.

    • Re:Wow (Score:2, Interesting)

      by roseblood ( 631824 )
      Uhm...
      http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/FC S -700_Pri ntFriendly.html

      I'd say the answer is as soon as a 747 with a FCS-700A and a pilot that feels the need to use auto-landing durring an emergency all come together in the same part of the sky.

      Here's the dope on the FCS-700A

      Long version: http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/FCS-700A.ht ml?smenu=105

      Short Version:
      The FCS-700A is a fully digital, fail operational autopilot flight director system. The system, part of the Boeing 747-400 flight control

    • Re:Wow (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      747's (and most other triple autopilot aircraft) have been able to autoland for 30 years. Yes, I've done it. The autoland system has to be exercised every 35 days so 100's of autolands occur daily.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

      by chinakow ( 83588 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @02:13AM (#11377615)

      they already do, I saw a video where the pilots said the autoland is great in fog, zero visibility but the plane fined the runway, the real problem is taxing to the gate when you can't see out the window.

      Anyway, it took me a while to find someone talking specificly about a 747 but here is a linkhttp://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_a viation/read.main/1882971/ [airliners.net]

      Forget emergencies, try routine basis to keep certified, if you travel a lot, you probably have already been on an aircraft that has done an autolanding.

  • This is the second or third thread in as many days which are really just pointing to something which was on "hack a day" earlier.

  • This is seriously serious stuff (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is the kind of garage engineering that starts legends !

    Given the site dates back to 2003, it would be really interesting to see what he is/has done recently.

    The points on software engineering are also interesting - enough that I'm going to pass this one around the guys at work.

  • Coralized version... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    USE IT

    A couple years ago [slashdot.org] we read about a telemetry laden balloon launched to 80,000 feet single-handedly built by a laid-off engineer. Here's an even more elaborate one [nyud.net] built at around the same time: A balloon launched model glider taken to about 60,000 feet [nyud.net] that autonomously finds its way home. It had an auto-pilot and elaborate mission control system [nyud.net]. Also impressive is the extensive testing [nyud.net] done before launch.
  • It can be so hard to get slashdotters to congratulate and honor people/entities/organizations who are doing neat things. For an amateur effort this is very impressive. You guys outdid yourselves. It shows how advanced we are when autonomous gliders are being created in backyards. Way to go!
  • Really, this is innovative, interesting and this guy deserves all sorts of success. Having spent the last year and a half learning to fly real gliders at my local club [glidingauckland.co.nz] I can tell you that flying a glider is not entirely trivial. He's even programmed a landing circuit in for estimating wind strength (not always accurate, as glider pilots will tell you).

    Very impressive.

  • How about a solar-painted blimp with some batteries in the gondola, and a big target for the glider's recharge plug? Add some WiFi, send up a flock to make a mesh, and the Internet "cloud" need never go down.
  • yeah I have whacky ideas from time to time.

    This one involves using baloons carrying something like a stinger missile for use against strategic bombers. It would have a very small radar crossection and just drift until it sensed a bomber and then strike it from above and behind.

    Sort of like mining the jetstreams.

    Its about time strategic bombers had a decent (and comparatively cheap) countermeasure. (Personally I can't think of a more despicable means of waging war... except flying airliners into buildings
    • Yes it is Whacky.

      "This one involves using balloons carrying something like a stinger missile for use against strategic bombers. It would have a very small radar crossection and just drift until it sensed a bomber and then strike it from above and behind."

      Okay how do you keep the missile working while it is floating? Batteries are heavy and so would the solar cells to charge them.
      You really do not want to take a missile shot from behind. Old IR guided missiles like like the early sidewinders and redeyes ha
  • I was fascinated by this site when I first found it a few years ago. Unfortunately I failed to bookmark it at the time, and several attempt via Google failed. Thanks for digging it up for me!
  • Why do I even read /. anymore? I get half the stories several days earlier from Hack a Day.
    • I noticed a complaint about this yesterday so was quite
      surprised to see this story posted here today.. again by
      Michael. Guess hes the only 'life' at /. this weekend.

      I guess its somewhat difficult to place total blame if the
      original submitter saw it on hack a day but never included
      a link. Then again, Mchael has a tremendous record of
      editorializing submissions so it would not be a surprise
      if that link had been removed for "brevity".

  • bonsai (Score:4, Interesting)

    by macpeep ( 36699 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @05:23AM (#11378034)
    The two stories mentioned in the article were the source for inspiration for me that caused me to start building a wheeled robot that I had been thinking about for a long time. I read the baloon story on Slashdot and then searched for more similar stuff online and I found the glider article. That was about a year ago - maybe a year and a half.

    Today, the robot (which I call Bonsai) is ready. The goal for it was to be able to do a couple of fairly basic things that would allow it to be a platform for later ideas that could be built on the base work. The things it had to do were:

    It had to be able to know where it was in the world, how it was oriented and moving in the world, and to be able to use that information to figure out how to drive to get from point A to point B (possibly through a complex path).

    It had to be able to be manually controlled in addition to the automatic control.

    It had to have a good remote control software complete with moving map, full telemetry of all functions on the robot, and the ability to command every function of the robot remotely.

    It had to have a camera, and the remote control software had to be able to see the image from that camera real-time (or as close to real-time as possible).

    It had to have a wireless communications link.

    It would have to be able to operate at least 60 minutes.

    It had to have a solid vehicle base that had to be able to operate for at least 60 minutes and be able to operate precisely and reliably.

    The vehicle base would have to be able to carry the load of the computer, batteries, as well as a sizeble amount of additional electronics and equipment in the future.

    The whole thing would have to look decent.

    It took about a year to design and build, but it was very fun and in the end, it turned out to be fairly easy and nowhere near as expensive as I imagined it would be. Projects like that are a great way to learn new stuff about electronics and I highly recommend it to anyone who has been thinking about something like this. In the end, all the goals of the project were met, and I now have a really fun toy! :)

    The URL below is a picture of the robot in its final form:
    http://www.saunalahti.fi/macpeep/bonsai/bon sai1.jp g
    • Your robot looks really cool! I used to play with that kind of stuff, although mine wasn't nearly as sophisticated. I used a Lego Mindstorms kit to build a four-wheeled robot that could navigate independently. It used dead-reckoning to get around its world, and worked pretty well. In the end, the Mindstorms platform was just a little too limiting. With only 32k for code and data, basic navigation and communications with the controller was already beginning to fill things.

      I'd love to get back into it, and I
      • Thanks :) I used an Advantech PC-104 with a 1GHz C1 processor, 256MB of RAM. It was really high powered for my purposes, but I wanted it to be that way so I could throw in more stuff in the future and have the platform be ready for it. The interface to motors and sensors is a mix of USB and plain old serial interfaces (RS232). I found a nice small board that words through an RS232 cable that lets you control up to 8 standard RC-car/plane servos. To that, I hooked up the steering and an electronic stepless s
        • Thanks for the reply, you've given me a lot to think about. It sounds like you actually made something close to what lives in my head. It's nice to know I'm not completely off the deep end with what I want to do.

  • AMA Rules on UAVs (Score:3, Informative)

    by flyingV ( 72384 ) on Sunday January 16, 2005 @05:25AM (#11378039)
    Note that the Academy of Model Aeronautics [modelaircraft.org] has rules in its current code [warning: PDF] [modelaircraft.org] that severely restrict the use of UAVs (if you plan to be covered by AMA insurance). The clause is as follows:

    9. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot.
  • From the article

    We lost a few minutes of telemetry when the windows printer driver crashed, taking down the ground software. Note that the ground-commanded photo excursion to the north and northwest occurred after the glider had arrived overhead, and was at all times above 30,000 feet.

    Perhaps the ground software should be rewritten to work under a different operating system. While this was a relatively safe failure, would you want windows to be controlling any real time system when a printer driver c

  • If you wish to see the videos on this website, you will need ATI's VCR2 codec, which you can download from the ATI website:

    http://www.ati.com/support/drivers/misc/ATIVCRX.ht ml [ati.com]

    Note the weird installer. It gave me the creeps but it worked.

  • QOTD from this Story (Score:3, Funny)

    by thelizman ( 304517 ) <hammerattackNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday January 16, 2005 @11:49AM (#11379055) Homepage
    On their first flight, their craft landed about six km inside US territory, which mean they had to deal with US Customs. Being Canadian, and therefore unaccustomed to homeland security paranoia, they were honest with the border guards, which resulted in an extensive questioning and search before being allowed into the US. They found their ship, and headed back, at which point they had to deal with draconian entrance procedure at the Canadian Border:

    "
    The border crossing back into Canada consisted of a big red sign at the end of a deserted marina slip, with a 1-800 number. We called the number from a cell and they "let us back in" over the phone. Oh, Canada."
    • What homeland security paranoia? That first flight happened before 9/11/2001 & therefore before (most) of our heightened paranoia. What they encountered was on the then-normal paranoia at the "longest undefended international border in the world."
  • Art is a pretty amazingly nerdy guy. That site is about the impressive but ill-fated "Mark I" glider.

    In the time since the site was put together he's built a remotely-piloted submarine and has been working on Mark II, which will probably feature a much better camera system, a modular "mission bay" and most importantly considering the way Mark I left this world, some awareness of the height of the terrain in the flight area.

    Most likely he'll manually enter landmarks like the mountain that likely put paid

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close