Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 6030 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.

  • in reply to stevemann

    True, but the perceived threat is still very high.

    Unless Drone users demonstrate some restraint in their use, then I am afraid that the press will continue to shout that the sky is falling.

     

    DAB

  • In both cases both the hawk and the net-firing drone are targeting stationary drones simply hovering in place.  Wow, big deal. anyone can hit the side of barn while standing next to it.

     

    There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been more than a million hours of flight of small drones, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash in the US that resulted in a serious injury as defined by the NTSB* to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. It is a safety rate that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. There is also not one verifiable report of a collision between a small drone and a manned aircraft. Not one. When it happens, the aircraft crew is probably not going to be aware of it, and the drone pieces will be scattered over a square mile. An FAA executive speaking to a nervous audience of helicopter operators at HAI Heli-Expo in Orlando (March 2015) and said that while there's never been a reported contact between an sUAS and a civilian aircraft, the military has some experience in that regard. In all cases the aircraft was virtually unscathed while the UAS was "smashed to pieces."

     

    Keep the risk of personal drones in perspective.

     

    Today (if this is an average day in the USA):

    1560 people will die from Cancer

    268 people in US hospitals will die because of medical mistakes.

    162 people will be wounded by firearms in the US.

    117 Americans will die in an automobile accident.

    98 people in the US will die from the flu.

    53 people will kill themselves with a firearm.

    46 children will suffer eye injuries.

    37 will die from AIDS.

    30 people will die in gun-related murders.

    18 pilots will report a Laser Incident

    3 General Aviation airplanes will crash in the US.

    0 people will be seriously injured or killed by a small drone accident.*

     

    Zero. Why are so many otherwise rational people so terrified of zero?

    The panic, here, is completely out of any sort of proportion to reality.

     

    * A band-aid is not a serious injury. CFR 49 §830.2 contains the definition of "Serious Injury" that the FAA and NTSB use in their aircraft and vehicular accident statistics. It is important to hold small UAS accidents to the same metric, otherwise comparisons are meaningless.

  • in reply to mcb1

    Yes, the Mythbusters "proved" that a propeller held to a stationary piece of meat for several seconds could cause lethal lacerations.  Dumbest conclusion yet.

  • in reply to Dudley

    Hi Dudley,

    250' may well be the case actually. The Bernstein v Skyviews was just the first case that established that property doesn't extend infinitely upwards, but it was probably refined later with legislation.

    I'm halfway through 'Destination Disaster' since you recommended it - extremely interesting book (and very moving reading in detail exactly what occurred).

  • in reply to gadget.iom

    I'm not often right, but seems I'm wrong again. Thanks for keeping me straight image

     

    And the problem isn't just the engine. Engines, windshields, landing gear, nose cone, wing leading edge, they all get tested for bird strike with a flesh and bone bird, but drones aren't made of flesh and bone. And while a bird is undoubtedly a lot less fragile than a drone - it's not hard to imagine what might happen to a stray piece of metal or a ballbearing hitting the fuselage at a bad angle might do to the fuselage. Bear in mind that closing speeds of 200mph are not uncommon.

     

    The analogy is if you were to hit a small bird when you're doing 110kph, it might do no damage to your car, but if you replaced it with a ballbearing of the same weight as the small bird, it's more likely to do some damage. Especially if it hits something inherently more fragile. Now make the ballbearing a sharp jagged piece of metal, and it's going to do even more.

     

    And also bear in mind that it doesn't have to be the big commercial jets when considering a collision with a drone - it could just as easily be a helicopter, or a light aircraft. They're much more prone to damage from a collision than the bigger planes.