×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Remote Operated Aircraft Targets Hurricanes

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the auction-off-the-live-view-rights dept.

NASA 56

burnin1965 writes "Usually news articles about remote operated UAVs involve blowing people up. NASA's application takes a different path and uses the utility of the aircraft for scientific research that will benefit humanity. I haven't read much about NASA's Global Hawk lately, but they have been busy providing up-close access to the recent string of hurricanes."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

56 comments

"NASA's application will benefit humanity" (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616162)

Finally?

This could save big money. (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617732)

Presently, Mississippi politicians have larded up the hurricane hunter fleet in Biloxi, MS.

The use of drones could eliminate the need for putting pilots and crew in harms way and shut down an over-expensive program. Its time the government began investing in technologies that will save money rather than just protecting political pork.

Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33616170)

Now we'll have HAL on Earth. Yay.

Just Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33616210)

Just wait until Stuxnet infects these things ..

UAVs are not normally used to 'blow people up' (0, Troll)

bball99 (232214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616230)

fucktard! they are used for surveillance, firefighting, search and rescue and humanitarian missions besides sending ragheads to Allah!

Re:UAVs are not normally used to 'blow people up' (2, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617032)

Depends. The original UAVs, the Predator and Global Hawk UAVs were not originally carrying anything except surveillance gear. Now, both the Predator and it's big brother the Reaper [http://www.google.com/search?q=Reaper+UAV] carry Hellfire missiles in day-to-day operations. I don't believe the Global Hawk does this though (although they are *great* for long range/loiter operations compared to the Predator/Reaper).

piloted aircraft CAUSE hurricanes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33616272)

anyone with a conscience, & some form of attention span left, may find this interesting;
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/178/722/By_Way_of_Deception,_Thou_Shalt_do_War.html

Retired NORAD Officer's New Book Predicts a Tentative Worldwide UFO Display on October 13, 2010

it would have helped with scheduling if the time was supplied; like between 1-6pm, or after the tornadoes, something.

as for unfairness, we like this reference; google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation

& this one; google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+rumsfeld+wmd+blair+obama+weather+authors

meanwhile (after a further while of continued death, debt & destruction); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Re:piloted aircraft CAUSE hurricanes (3, Funny)

rvw14 (733613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616298)

You forgot to add that the 8 corners of the timecube are false.

Re:piloted aircraft CAUSE hurricanes (2, Funny)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616460)

Four! Four corners! What are you, educated stupid?

mynuts won, HUH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617064)

you both forgot to add that you're both afraid, no demeaning retort intended.

Re:piloted aircraft CAUSE hurricanes (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617380)

Damn straight.... because there are 4 corner days 4 quads; cubic time cubes. That's 16 corners, not 8.

The 16 corners are the one true number.
4 days rotating simultaneously within a single rotation of earth. [sic]

etc etc etc [paraphrasing timecube.com]

Remote operated UAVs? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33616284)

Usually news articles about remote operated UAVs involve blowing people up

Remote operated UAVs? As opposed to all the manned ones?

Re:Remote operated UAVs? (0)

deapbluesea (1842210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616338)

Usually news articles about remote operated UAVs involve blowing people up

Remote operated UAVs? As opposed to all the manned ones?

I was wondering more about where all the references to UAVs "blowing people up" come from. So far, that's only been the paranoid, uneducated, misinformed, and bogus slashdot responses to stories about UAVs. The stories themselves generally involve things like Google testing an airborne camera [slashdot.org].

Re:Remote operated UAVs? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616478)

Are you actually not aware that UAVs are regularly used to perform military strikes, or what?

Re:Remote operated UAVs? (1)

deapbluesea (1842210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33621362)

Are you actually not aware that UAVs are regularly used to perform military strikes, or what?

No, just pointing out that the number of UAV flight hours dedicated to strike missions is a tiny percent of all UAV flight hours ref2 [wikipedia.org] ref2 [military.com] (500,000 flight hours per year, 92 projected attacks in 2010 at ~10 hour mission per attack is 920 hours - so 0.1% of flight hours on attack). It's the equivalent of saying that all planes are only used for bombing while ignoring every other aspect of aviation.

Re:Remote operated UAVs? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33622022)

If anybody had said anything like that, you might have a point, but nobody did.

How? (-1, Troll)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616288)

How exactly is watching hurricanes, which redistribute energy and bring water to the Americas, going to benefit humanity? With super HD footage for the Discovery channel? Saving a few lives when 100x as many die every year to massive overpopulation? Nah. It won't benefit humanity. It's cool though.

Re:How? (1)

blantonl (784786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616350)

This post clearly shows that Slashdot is doomed. My Karma be damned for posting this. Someone had to say it, and if it results in a down vote (or whatever it is here) then, well so be it.

Re:How? (0, Redundant)

metobillc (1841466) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616356)

They gather data that gets blended with numerical models to aid in track and intensity prediction, which provide quite a significant benefit to humanity.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616406)

How does that provide "quite a significant benefit to humanity"? It provides some insight, sure. But it does not do what you claim it does.

Re:How? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616490)

Yes, better warnings for hurricanes benefits nobody.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616520)

Sure, it benefits somebody. Just not humanity.

Re:How? (2, Insightful)

hex0D (1890162) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616764)

Exactly how many individuals does something have to benefit before you consider it beneficial to humanity?

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33616860)

Don't pay him any mind. Everyone else gets it, and he probably does too. He's just pretty much arguing and questioning it for the sake of douchebaggery.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33620452)

Check a dictionary sometime.

Re:How? (1)

hex0D (1890162) | more than 3 years ago | (#33621504)

OK. from http://dictionary.reference.com/ [reference.com] : 1. all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. 2. the quality or condition of being human; human nature. 3. the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence.

It clearly benefits humanity in the 2nd & 3rd meaning of the word. As for the 1st, that's a subjective call as to how many people need to benefit, and by how much, before it's a collective benefit.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33621564)

How does it clearly benefit human nature and kindness? Throwing 'clearly' in front of something does not make it clear.

Re:How? (1)

hex0D (1890162) | more than 3 years ago | (#33621714)

giving someone advance warning of an oncoming storm qualifies as kindness. I'm sincerely sorry if that is not clear to you.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33621754)

Once again, advanced warnings may be kind. But it does not benefit humanity.

Re:How? (1)

hex0D (1890162) | more than 3 years ago | (#33621780)

Once again, how many people need to be helped before you consider it a benefit to humanity? All of them? There's people who have never had antibiotics so you would not call antibiotics benefit to humanity?

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33621920)

Antibiotics help everyone and have the potential to help everyone. Advanced warnings of hurricanes do not. Apples and oranges, bro. Apples and oranges.

Re:How? (1)

hex0D (1890162) | more than 3 years ago | (#33622810)

Advance warning of storms are just like antibiotics in that they only help those who receive them when needed. Which is not everyone. But the more who do receive help, the greater the benefit to humanity. Which was kind of the point of my original pointed question, so this is getting tedious.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33623284)

We're talking about the potential advanced warning of hurricanes and the prediction of their path. These impact very few people and those who would greatly benefit from this knowledge (those who lose homes and lives to them) are an even smaller and almost insignificant percentage of the population of this planet.

Contrast that with bacteria which affect EVERY single person on this planet. In most, bacteria even result in disease and sickness, and the availability of antibiotics to most people in the world benefits just about everyone. Your argument hinges on these not being readily available to most people but for instance a bar of antibacterial soap is incredibly cheap and lends itself a lot to the prevention of disease. Further, for those that cannot afford ingested antibiotics to fight off serious infection, the availability of antibiotics to them would almost certainly prove effective.

Now consider the absolute availability of predictive information for hurricanes. This information, even if totally pervasive and given for free to every single individual on the planet, would still benefit very few people. By your logic, it will greatly benefit humanity for our governments to make it illegal to inhabit areas hit hardest by hurricanes.

You were correct about a single thing: this is getting tedious.

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33623672)

Wow, man. You're really getting into this. Is this a sensitive topic for you? Do you need a hug, sweetie?

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33616944)

your post made me think of this xkcd post:

http://xkcd.com/174/

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33618360)

best xkcd ever!

Re:How? (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616358)

Saving a few lives when 100x as many die every year to massive overpopulation?

The overpopulation problem seems to be fixing itself then.

Re:How? (2, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33616874)

By that logic, the fire department should just shut down. The lives and property they save are just a drop in the bucket.

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617378)

You're a dumbass who has no comprehension of the subject, yet feels the need to announce his ignorant-pissed opinion to the world. Google hurricane prediction or something or some shit like that it shouldn't take you too long to figure it out.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33620492)

Again, the point is it's not cool or doesn't provide us with information. The point is that it does NOT benefit humanity. The utter amount of stupidity around here is shocking. As if my comprehension on the subject at all affects the utter misuse of a word. It makes me sad to see people dogging someone about their stupidity when they all seem to fail at comprehending English.

Re:How? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33620814)

Here's a hint: If you find that everybody is doing something wrong and you're the only one who gets it right, that probably doesn't mean it is they who are wrong.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33620910)

"Majority gets it wrong" is not proof that I am wrong. Welcome to logical fallacies as well. I really hope you enjoy failing at everything.

Re:How? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33622034)

It is not proof, but it is a pretty strong indicator. Nobody was trying to build a logical proof.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33622066)

It's not even a strong indicator. There are plenty of things MOST people get completely wrong.

Re:How? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33623394)

Or so you like to tell yourself, rather than admit you're on the losing side of an argument.

Re:How? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33623496)

What is this, 5th grade debate? "You're losing the debate" is not a valid argument in your favor, nor is it even factually correct. Try again. Your argument so far is "because people get it wrong, and you got it right, you must be wrong." Maybe you should think about that for a little while.

Live streaming paintball bombardment (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617160)

Come on, NASA, let us queue up for 30 seconds of access to a live feed with the ability to move/aim/zoom the camera and fire a paintball! Charge for it and make millions!

Aerosonde has been doing it for a while (1)

highways (1382025) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617558)

The (former) little aussie that could :) - they have since been bought out by Boeing (Insitu).

Aerosonde has been doing it for a while [nasa.gov], hence aero-sonde. I believe they started doing crazy weather stuff some time before they were the first UAV to cross the Atlantic [wikipedia.org] in 1998.

Hurricanes exist for a reason (1)

regexgreg (1387053) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617858)

How can stopping hurricanes be a good thing? How do we know what adverse effects could occur if we interfered? Imagine we stopped volcanoes? Like all things natural; when we try stop them; something worse replaces them!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...