Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 5690 views
  • Likes 5 likes
  • Comments 59 comments
Related
Recommended

Drones Vs. Drones

plowe

image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Robotic falconry via Wired.Com)

 

The rise of Quadcopters and Drones has been a pretty quick one. You only have to look back to Christmas and see the numerous gadget shops that offered all sorts of cheap, off of the shelf remote controlled quadcopters to see that the technology has captured the imaginations of thousands of people around the world.

 

But what happens when that technology then needs to be kept in check? What happens, if that technology is being used for evil instead of good? (Insert your own version of 'with great power comes great responsibility' anecdote here). Well, it appears that the answer is to fight fire with fire...or more accurately Drones with Drones. Mechanical engineers from Michigan Tech University have developed an anti-drone drone that has abilities Spiderman himself would be proud of.

 

The weapon of choice is a giant net that not only fires at the offending drone, but remains attached for the attacking drone to drag its prey off to pretty much where ever it chooses. Mo Rastgaar, associate professor of mechanical engineering, said "It's like robotic falconry. What makes this unique is that the net is attached to our catcher, so you can retrieve the rogue drone or drop it in a designated, secure area."

 

Effective from up to 40 feet away, the drone catching net brings its target down upon impact and the idea of being able to carry it off means any intel that the drone has collected (as long as it's stored locally) is reclaimed and, in worse case scenarios, if the Drone is armed with explosives it can be brought down in a designated safe zone to reduce casualties and/or damage to surrounding buildings.

 

It's not the first attempt at using drones to police other drones,  in August Boeing unleashed their ground to air laser drone defense system which pretty much does what it says on the tin- spots a drone, fires laser, drone is dead...scary stuff. Others seem to be turning to more tech related methods to stop unwanted attention from the sky in the form of geo-fencing systems which prohibit a drone from flying in places by using GPS.

 

With rumors that the UK may be under threat from drones carrying explosives (Disclaimer: not sure just how true that is or how big a risk it is- please don't panic and buy anything to shoot down drones) it appears that this rise in anti-drone tech could be the start of an influx of tech based defenses to protect people from miniature aerial threats...

 

However, seeing as bears and even an eagle has been reported to have taken drones out then maybe a more natural solution could be considered- everyone is familiar with the resident Eagle at the Wimbledon Tennis Tournament which is employed to keep pigeons off of the courts; could we soon see homes and estates employing birds of prey to ward off drones?

 

Cue an epic battle in the skies that will ring throughout the ages: Drones Vs. Eagles...think I'll stay indoors for that one.

 

This video is unavailable.

Parents
  • in reply to Former Member

    Catching things in the air with a giant net?

     

    Like this you mean?

     

    (Warning, contains bad language)

     

    Begs the question, what happens to the person living underneath the drone that's been entangled. And whose liable for any damage? The drone owner? Or the person that wrapped the drone in a net?

  • in reply to Dudley

    Dudley Nelson wrote:

     

    Begs the question, what happens to the person living underneath the drone that's been entangled. And whose liable for any damage? The drone owner? Or the person that wrapped the drone in a net?

    Is this bad-boy being enforced in the states?

    http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf

  • in reply to gadget.iom

    We have a similar regulation here. It is, if anything, even more unwieldy and more legalese than the US one.

     

    I don't know about the states, but here there's a looming crisis. Air regulation relies on two basic premises

     

    A) If you mess up we'll throw the book at you and void any insurance you might have had, and

    B) maybe not let you fly again.

     

    Neither of these work though when the person in question is usually anonymous, and if told that they can't fly, will go somewhere else, and if their equipment is seized, they'll just buy a different drone.

     

    I think drone tech is really exciting, and has mountains of potential, but there is a real challenge with regulation. And it'll probably stay that way until there's a collision between a drone and a passenger airliner. And then, who knows?

     

    In the meantime, the near misses just keep happening.

Comment
  • in reply to gadget.iom

    We have a similar regulation here. It is, if anything, even more unwieldy and more legalese than the US one.

     

    I don't know about the states, but here there's a looming crisis. Air regulation relies on two basic premises

     

    A) If you mess up we'll throw the book at you and void any insurance you might have had, and

    B) maybe not let you fly again.

     

    Neither of these work though when the person in question is usually anonymous, and if told that they can't fly, will go somewhere else, and if their equipment is seized, they'll just buy a different drone.

     

    I think drone tech is really exciting, and has mountains of potential, but there is a real challenge with regulation. And it'll probably stay that way until there's a collision between a drone and a passenger airliner. And then, who knows?

     

    In the meantime, the near misses just keep happening.

Children
  • in reply to Dudley

    Hi Dudley,

     

    I suspect that drone owners will be their own worst enemy in these regulation wars.

    Every time a drone interfers with an event, there will be more calls for limiting their assessibility to populated areas.

     

    As long as some users abuse the laws and risk public safety, there will be more rules and regulations imposed on their use.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to Dudley

    Airways recognised the issues becoming bigger than a plague and kicked off this website

     

     

    The rules they refer to is

    RPAS, UAV, UAS, Drones and Model Aircraft

     

     

    A bit more web designer intelligence is needed though

    Click NO on this and get the NO response ... but you have to search for the 'rules' (rather than make the button a link.)

    imageimage

    A correct answer get s you to the next question.

         image

     

     

    It won't stop the problem but at least the rules give Proper Operators the means to go about 'commercial' flying.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to mcb1

    Can't  drone operators find some where else to fly other than airports ...They used to Ironically after paranoia laws come in they will probably be edged out into similar  areas as planes. Once again regulations to keep stupid people in control ..only problem they dont/can't read

  • in reply to Problemchild

    Can't  drone operators find some where else to fly other than airports

     

    It isn't actually the "airport' but more the flight paths.

    On some airports this is directly inline with the Airport, but at many there are turning areas and other areas for 'missed approach', etc.

    For most commercial aircraft the closest turn onto the runway is 9nm so that is roughly a 22 mile radius of an Airport.

     

    In Chch that covers the entire city.

    image

     

    For any other non city/built-up area 500ft above ground is the lowest allowable limit, and it isn't hard to get a drone to 500ft.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to DAB

    We don't see many of those. Even when one makes global news we don't see that many except maybe that one that went out of control at the ski event.

    We should be more circumspect and not believe everything we are told after all these are the same people who believe  that some kid putting the guts of a clock into a box makes him a terrorist.