A Drone Helicopter That Can Land On a Moving Truck 60
garymortimer writes with a story (the accompanying video is worth watching) of an unmanned helicopter than can automatically land on a moving surface. Though it's shown landing on a bed of a moving truck, the real purpose is for sea-based use: "This automatic system for take-off, landing and deck-landing of UAVs is the fruit of the joint expertise of Thales and DCNS. Thales is responsible for the positioning system and its interface with the UAV system, the supply of a UAV demonstrator system and slaving of the flight path along a trajectory. DCNS is responsible for predicting the vessel motions, the harpoon system as well as the interface and integration with the vessel."
I for one... (Score:1, Funny)
welcome our new Drone overlords!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
http://xkcd.com/652/
"We live in a world where there are actual fleets of robot assassins patrolling the skies. At some point there, we left the present and entered the future."
Re: (Score:2)
Been done already [imdb.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...At some point there, we left the present and entered the future."
"The future is already here -- it's just not evenly distributed."
Re: (Score:1)
"The future is already here -- it's just not evenly distributed."
And never will be as long as the Leninists and the Libertarians are in charge.
More war (Score:4, Insightful)
So I watched that video [youtube.com], what can I say, I liked that trailer.
This video explains about the robot helicopter [youtube.com] and what it's really for in the first 22 seconds.
At 1:20 they explain that this helicopter started as a commercial aircraft, but later was adopted for 'special operations'.
As I said, it's a war based economy/ [slashdot.org]
This is again, Boeing. Biggest bombs [slashdot.org] and robot killer helicopters.
Great economy you are having there. Glad to see you care about your environment and air and all that 'welfare'. Too bad the outcome of all this wonderful 'care' is a war economy. But ask yourselves this: once they have enough robots to kill people all around the world, why do they need you at all? You don't produce anything else and all the weapons they need they will have automated. I guess your purpose is to burn oil and their's is to make sure they get more power and weapons so you can burn more oil.
Re:More war (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has enough bombs to blow up the world already, what makes you think having robots will change anything?
I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but over here in AU it makes the news when one of our soldiers dies overseas, or even when one gets hurt, and then again when their bodies arrive back home. Too many nationals (eg more than 0) getting killed makes war unpopular. The press only tags along because there are soldiers there, and we don't really hear about any of the "enemy" getting killed anyway. If it was all robots on the front line then war wouldn't seem so unpopular to the average viewer... hell it would almost seem like a sport with appropriately mounted cameras and is probably less graphically violent than most video games/movies.
Having robots on the front line could change everything.
Re:More war (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure what it's like in the AU, but over here on Cybertron it makes the news when one of our robots dies extraplanetarily, or even when one gets hurt, and then again when their chassis arrive back home. Too many mechanoids (eg more than 0) getting killed makes war unpopular. The press only tags along because reality TV is popular there, and we don't really hear about any of the "organics" getting killed anyway. If it was all meat-sacks on the front line then war wouldn't seem so unpopular to the average viewer... hell it would almost seem like a sport with appropriately mounted cameras and is probably less graphically violent than most recycling plants/junk yards.
Having pain-slaves on the front line could change everything.
Re:More war (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, like opening you up for war crimes and really horrible mistakes.
Someone piloting this thing from hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away, or a completely automated device, brings with it the possibility to really screw up. Hell, from the sounds of it, the automated drones are already inflicting more civilian casualties than they should be ... they don't sound like they're being used judiciously enough to prevent it. It would seem that Pakistan can attest to that fact.
At the very least, I don't think we want war to "seem like a sport" ... it's serious business, for high stakes. It's not some game. I'm all for saving lives, but automated warfare is something which gives one pause for concern. If you make it too arm's length, you risk losing sight of what you're doing ... if it's just a game, why not strafe that schoolyard for the hell of it?
Having your people get killed has always been "unpopular" ... it's not supposed to be "popular", but it might be a necessary thing to protect others.
And, for the record, pretty much every Canadian who has been killed overseas gets news coverage and attention. No country likes to bring home dead soldiers ... but I don't know that I'm entirely cool with the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" approach that seems to be happening with some of these automated drones. Way too many civilians are ending up as "collateral damage".
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I was born in USSR but I haven't lived in it since the 93 I think. Where I am now... certainly not living in the former Soviet block. So that's a stupid non-starter argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Or manned? Rescue missions flown remotely? That would make a huge difference here in the Pacific Northwest (especially after we had that Blackbird roll down Mt. Hood).
Re: (Score:3)
At 1:20 they explain that this helicopter started as a commercial aircraft, but later was adopted for 'special operations'.
When I saw "harpoon system" mentioned in the summary my first thought was Japanese whaling. I could see these used as automated hunter/killer craft for the Japanese "research" whaling fleet. I doubt that's the special op you're talking about. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
From the article summary:
"This automatic system for take-off, landing and deck-landing of UAVs is the fruit of the joint expertise of Thales and DCNS. Thales is responsible for the positioning system and its interface with the UAV system, the supply of a UAV demonstrator system and slaving of the flight path along a trajectory. DCNS is responsible for predicting the vessel motions, the harpoon system as well as the interface and integration with the vessel."
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure that whichever hellhole you happen to be from, your government wants to buy some of these UAVs from us. And if not your government, then your bankers want some for crowd control.
Come See the Violence Inherent in the System (Score:2)
Too bad the outcome of all this wonderful 'care' is a war economy.
Well, of course it is - we're talking about a governmental system based on a monopoly on violence. So, shocker, they focus on being the best at violence.
That's why these people jumping up and down to start an armed revolution are barking up the wrong tree. Who says, "if only Martin Luther King had gouged a few peoples' eyes out, he would have done better"?
Here's a private UAV used for intelligence [youtube.com] against the violence types. Much more effe
Re: (Score:2)
"a governmental system based on a monopoly on violence."
Since when? Their monopoly isn't very effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Great economy you are having there. Glad to see you care about your environment and air and all that 'welfare'. Too bad the outcome of all this wonderful 'care' is a war economy. But ask yourselves this: once they have enough robots to kill people all around the world, why do they need you at all? You don't produce anything else and all the weapons they need they will have automated. I guess your purpose is to burn oil and their's is to make sure they get more power and weapons so you can burn more oil.
"You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you."
Re: (Score:1)
A war economy is different from a normal economy where weapons are just small part of it, so you can't peg this Terminator bullshit on me.
So what... (Score:3, Interesting)
We at Higheye b.v. did the exact same thing with DCNS years ago..
at sea...
on a moving barge...
and our HE80 VTOL UAV.
The test was largely successful even under rougher than expected sea, yes this was in international water by the coast of France.
If you are looking for the website we are dutch.
EJ Goeree
Former Chief Engineer
Higheye b.v.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmJi6fZikDw [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG5c-zGWLCo [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk3HRrMhrjw&feature=related [youtube.com]
People have been doing this for a long time. You'll notice that they are conducted at speed, in some awfully rough sea conditions, on small targets. We don't just land those things on aircraft carriers and troop ships. That last scene, of a helicopter landing aboard a destroyer is the scene that I'm most familiar with. Sometimes, you can feel the landing throu
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think it would be significantly more challenging with a bigger vehicle like this Boeing Helo, or is it basically the same problem?
Impressive (Score:2)
Impressive but still by far not as good as an experienced human pilot.
Re:Impressive (Score:5, Informative)
Impressive but still by far not as good as an experienced human pilot.
Humans have annoying requirements like food, water, and sleep. You can't build experienced human pilots in a factory. Machines are easiler to replace and don't mind if you send them on suicide missions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You also forget experience, those minor incremental improvements. In humans a trainer passes only a very small percentage of that knowledge to a trainee, but with machines, it's as simple as "version += 1"
And unlike humans, while you may have a few pilots, maybe hundreds in a very large airforce, getting there takes a lot of time. Replacing even one of those people is expensive and time consuming compared to installing some software.
Ships, planes, cars, tanks were initially built for their user, the human p
Re: (Score:2)
why do you say that? What makes it "not as good"?
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult to describe. There seems to be some lag when it tries to interpolate the future position of the moving truck, or something like that, at 0:35 in the first video. The heli is floating too long above the target and backwards relative to it. A good pilot (trained in doing this) will match the speed before reaching the target and then land "less tentatively" on the spot, like you would land on the ground. To be fair, I was assuming that the truck kept very constant speed, though. If it has changed spe
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, pilots are already capable of landing on moving surfaces, considering that's what the earth is ;-)
pffft (Score:1)
Landing a truck on helicopter would be more impressive
Aircraft carrier at sea (Score:3)
Re:Aircraft carrier at sea (Score:4, Informative)
The article says they will test with a frigate. That means lots of movement - they are much, much smaller than a CV. But I don't doubt it is doable. They just need to get in close enough to get hooked into the winch that can take it in and hold it down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a short description [helicoptersmagazine.com] of how the Canadians do it. I worked on a CVN myself, so I've never been personally involved in recovering helos on a small deck. I did spend a couple weeks on an FFG and looked over the equipment but we never used it while I was aboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice start (Score:3)
Re:Nice start (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fire Scout has been landing on carriers for 5 years. http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/articles/view/100497 [cotsjournalonline.com]
PROOF that these are for domestic use! (Score:1)
I mean really, where else in the world do they use moving trucks as frequently as they're used in the US? With as often as we buy (or, now, get kicked out of) houses, I bet we have three or four times as many moving trucks per capita as anywhere else. And now there's a DRONE specifically DESIGNED to land on them!
Wake up sheeple its 1984!!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you didn't even read the summary?!
Slashdot can only become a better place when some people stop reaching for the "Post" button...
Re: (Score:1)
Oooh Thales! (Score:1)
They build tubes. Pitot tubes. Pitot tubes for Airbus.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
could have been someone (some local cop jurisdiction?) was using a MD500 with NOTAR. Those helicopters are VERY quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Noise is strongly dependent on the flight condition of the helicopter and the orientation of the helicopter with respect to the observers; there's no simple answer for noise levels at some fixed distance, unfortunately. UAV are generally quieter because they're smaller and lighter and because the smaller rotor needs to operate at a higher RPM and hence higher blade passing frequency; this drives the frequencies of noise up where they are more readily absorbed by the atmosphere (albeit, they are also more a
SIMPSONS DID IT!! (Score:1)