Laser Powers Lockheed Martin's Stalker Drone For 48 Hours 129
garymortimer writes "Lockheed Martin (LMT) and LaserMotive, Inc., recently demonstrated the capabilities of an innovative laser power system to extend the Stalker Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) flight time to more than 48 hours. This increase in flight duration represents an improvement of 2,400 percent. Stalker is a small, silent UAS used by Special Operations Forces since 2006 to perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions."
Re: (Score:1)
Yo dawg, I heard you liked memes...vagina.
Sigh.
(I agree with you, especially about the sharks/lasers one, but this is the internet - you're looking for logic in the wrong place.)
Re: (Score:2)
No Explanation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That, sir, is what a laser is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser [wikipedia.org]
Re:No Explanation (Score:5, Funny)
I've played enough SimCity 2000 to know that this is a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:1)
I've played enough SimCity 2000 to know that this is a terrible idea.
SC2k used masers (microwave-based wireless power stations)
Lasers are perfectly harmless (as long as you don't look at them with your remaining eye)
Re: (Score:2)
Lasers are perfectly harmless (as long as you don't look at them with your remaining eye)
And sometimes when you do, as long as the surgeon doesn't screw up. They use lasers to repair torn retinas, repair damaged corneas, fix nearsightedness, and clean artificial implanted lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I would be interested to know about scalability. Could this be a future solution to commercial airliners? Save a shit-ton of weight by just having enough battery power to get a plane to the nearest airport but then charge in-flight through recharge corridors.
Probably not economically feasible but could be cheaper to build a laser station every 10km than to build transcontinental highspeed rail.
It was a test indoors, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article, "At the conclusion of the flight test, held in a wind tunnel,"
So they've pointed a laser at a photocell indoors, this is so far from doing it over hostile territory as to be laughable.
Re: (Score:1)
Not such a big problem in friendly areas where it won't have to dodge fire, can fly in a straight line for easy tracking, and support infrastructure is easily placed and guarded.
Hmmmmmmm, I wonder what they really plan to use this thing for...
Re:It was a test indoors, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article, "At the conclusion of the flight test, held in a wind tunnel,"
So they've pointed a laser at a photocell indoors, this is so far from doing it over hostile territory as to be laughable.
This is what research looks like. You don't start out testing a ready-to-deploy espionage platform. You take an idea, enhance it a bit, test it to see if your change works, enhance it more, see if your changes improved it, etc. Nobody's laughing at this stage, but I bet they were cheering.
Leaking the test results is also what 'marketing to investors' looks like. "Hey, Vulture Capitalists Inc., we've got a shiny laser powered spy drone for you to invest in, and we have proof of some ongoing tests ... the military is interested ... you'll get rich ... give us $20 million ... please?"
Re:It was a test indoors, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Fully agreed, but let's not forget who makes up the bottom tier of the investor pool. That would be us.
On a side note, if I had mod points right now, I'd be torn between modding your post insightful or funny. Unfortunately, there's no "sad but true" option. Maybe there should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorta, but aren't they called senators?
No. Venture capitalists spend their own money. Senators spend yours.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but Lasermotive might be. if the project is a bust, lasermotive takes the hit and shields lockheed from the fallout. if it works, LM acquires lasermotive and everyone wins.
Re: (Score:1)
Leaking the test results is also what 'marketing to investors' looks like. "Hey, Vulture Capitalists Inc., we've got a shiny laser powered spy drone for you to invest in, and we have proof of some ongoing tests ... the military is interested ... you'll get rich ... give us $20 million ... please?"
And when they accidentally blind a seagul is when this thing gets shutdown for years on end by environmentalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, so?
Money grabbing pitch. (Score:3)
Here are some issues that are greatly simplified by testing indoors in a wind tunnel;
1. Tracking; The aircraft does not move therefore tracking is trivial.
2. Range; Sure it may work at a few feet but does it work at a few kilometers?
3. Atmospheric conditions; Atmospheric conditions can be completely controlled indoors. Does it work in heat haze, rain, snow, dust, etc. at range?
At least do a test that remotely approximates a real world situation. Everyone knows that power can be transmitted by laser which is
Re:Money grabbing pitch. (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you RTFA? It said nothing about the test conditions inside the wind tunnel, only that “This test is one of the final steps...The next step in proving the reality of this technology is to demonstrate it outdoors in an extended flight of the Stalker.”
They could have used a low powered laser to simulate range. They could have introduced dust, smoke and fog into the tunnel to simulate weather. And they don't need to prove the tracking platform works if they already have a tracking platform that works, and such tracking platforms were demonstrated last year on test aircraft at distances of 20km or more. And none of that info made the blurb, which as I said looked designed to stimulate investment.
Re: (Score:2)
In a documentary about early radar guided missile tests, circa 1950s and 1960s, one of the engineers talked about how they needed film footage of the hits (or misses) to evaluate how well the system was working. How do you aim a camera at the point where two nearly-supersonic objects are going to
Re: (Score:3)
Nuh-uh! I've seen James Bond. I'm sure Q will walk in any moment now with a perfect, bug-free device that will provide the perfect plot element at just the right time.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaking the test results is also what 'marketing to investors' looks like. "Hey, Vulture Capitalists Inc., we've got a shiny laser powered spy drone for you to invest in, and we have proof of some ongoing tests ... the military is interested ... you'll get rich ... give us $20 million ... please?"
$20M is not much money at all. Instead, most likely, this data was published (I really really doubt it was "leaked" in any way, shape, or form) in preparation for a contract proposal worth hundreds of millions, if not over a billion, dollars.
Dilbert (Score:2)
Just in time for today's dilbert
http://www.dilbert.com/2012-07-12/ [dilbert.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we should use this technology for a space elevator instead.
Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure that any airborne attackers will greatly appreciate this opportunity to locate the ground station.
Re: (Score:3)
The ground station will probably be well protected, the US tends to operate with air superiority these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing this will only be used intermittently to charge batteries.
if it could be used meaningfully intermittently then it could also extend the flight time indefinitely, but they "only" got 48 hours...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it would have only gone 36 hours without the laser, but they were able to extend operational life by 33%. That's not chump change. Maybe what's limiting the use right now is cooling for the laser system?
Re: (Score:2)
They "only" got 48 hours because by that time the test had proved all of their objectives and there was no point in continuing it, according to TFA.
Unfortunately with all the details lacking in TFA, there's no way to know if the laser was fired intermittently, or if it was continually charging the UAV.
Re: (Score:2)
the ground station should have an anti-missile defense system-- someone could drop an IR homing missile into their beam and ruin their whole day.
A small array of IR photodiodes and a comparator sending yaw & pitch feedback to a mini RC-aircraft-type controller/servo system to control tail-vanes on a home-built rocket or even to help guide a programmable autonomous Raspberry-PI-controlled quadrotor might be places to start for an improvised system.
I'm not aware of any currently-operational or even testing-stage military anti-quadrotor weapons systems. Especially one that could successfully engage multiple simultaneous flying targets capable of he
Re: (Score:2)
Ground station? Who cares, you're really pointing a bright (at some wavelength) laser beam at the aircraft. Pointing out where it is. I'm guessing this will only be used intermittently to charge batteries.
That's a really foolish thing to say. Take out the ground station and you remove the aircraft's reason to exist, and besides, air to surface is a lot easier than surface to air, you can just drop shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't necessarily have to come from the ground; or from a static source, or be continuous. Other options are:
1) space based laser
2) larger plane nearby
3) multiple dynamic ground stations
4) shorter bursts that "charge" batteries so no continuous beam required.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll listen to Reason.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm no pro (though I've been shooting a long time), and I can reliably put 25 x .22lr rounds on a quarter at 100 yards, prone, sling (no rest), using only the aperture sights on my anschutz. With a .308, good glass, a couple sighting rounds and good conditions, a pro could almost certainly land a good percentage of rounds fired on a dime. I wouldn't bet what I have in my wallet that I could do it, though.
But I think the original point was, with a computer controlling a recoilless device that isn't affecte
Re: (Score:2)
while the target is flying away at 100mph +?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and how many fractions of a second is that? How much current can that generate?
Re:so you can get a line of sight? (Score:5, Interesting)
earth is curved, lasers are straight, how many seconds can you actually do this in the field before you loose the tiny target ... not counting in wind, drift, clouds, rain, or some dipshit playing with his watch?
Stabilized aiming platforms better not be a challenge for the military. Hell, there are kids making segway-clones and auto-aim-paintgun-bots out of web cams, Arduinos, and old inkjet printer stepper motors. You think a funded organization with a military product can't simply place an order with www.mobileweaponsplatforms-R-us.com and have one delivered tomorrow?
Re:so you can get a line of sight? (Score:4, Funny)
I was so hoping for that link to be real.
Re: (Score:3)
It does not matter how stable the aiming platform is it it can not track the target that is unstable as it reacts to winds. The other issue is that lasers are dispersed by airborne particles (dust), rain, head haze, range, etc. Will enough energy be transmitted over kilometers to keep the UAV in the air? What about trees, buildings and hills? Will they obstruct the beam. How heavy is the sending laser? The Stalker is designed to be deployable by a single Special Forced soldier. Can one deploy the laser rech
Re: (Score:2)
presumably, without researching, they would use some small mirrors that can be varied in position in extreme speeds to stabilize the ray on the drone - but still, that's the part that I'd have asked them to prove that works.. not a stupid wind tunnel test.
of course it's useless if it needs _constant_ recharge. but it could just return to the charging area every now and then.
Re: (Score:2)
In the last year there was a test of a real world tracking system aimed at an aircraft. I don't remember the date, but it was published on a NOTAM keeping pilots 100km away from a test area because they were shining a laser on a target aircraft. It certainly could be related to this test.
I suspect the laser will be vehicle mounted, as it will need a lot more power than a soldier can carry. There's no technical reasons to limit one vehicle to carry only one laser, and also no reason one laser couldn't mainta
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why people think tracking an aircraft can't be done.
I never said it could not be done. I just said that doing it in an uncontrolled environment is very different from doing it in a controlled environment. I would have the same opinion is Big Dog. had been tested indoors on a rubber floor and the touted as being in its " final steps" of testing for real life deployment.
By the way, the tracking system you saw last year was for a much larger UAV. This is a man portable UAV,is much harder to track at distances and the area of the power receiver is also much sma
Re: (Score:2)
It probably won't be satellite based, because the problem with satellites is delivering enough energy up to space (there are no gas stations up there.) It will probably be vehicle based, where you just drive a truck to the highest peak on the battlefield.
The straightness of the line might matter a little bit for coarse initial acquisition of the drone, but not in continual precision mode. Not being mathematically "straight" doesn't matter because the system almost certainly employs feedback from the targe
DO NOT WANT!!! (Score:2)
> Since it's a laser to deliver power, why can't it be mounted on a satellite?
1) We're not talking relatively low-power TV broadcast satellites where the receiving antenna gets a few microvolts, maybe millivolts from the satellite. Lasers capable of recharging a drone in flight require a lot of power, and it's bleeping expensive to continuously refuel/resupply a satelite even in low earth orbit. Just look at the costs of ISS (International Space Station).
2) Assuming that you could mount a powerful laser
caveat (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Easy. Just power it by a third laser sourcing UAV.
relative terms (Score:5, Funny)
<LMT> "Stalker is a small... it's only half the size of a predator drone!"
<guy> "Oh?... How large is a predator drone?"
<LMT> "The size of a bus."
Better hope the laser is infra-red (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise it'll be pretty obvious (in any atmospheric conditions where there are particles or aerosols) as to just where the drone (and base!) is.
Of course with a pair of night vision goggles the same might be true of an infra-red laser. How about x-ray? ;)
Power it from above (Score:5, Interesting)
You can power them from satellites rather than ground based - you'll escape all the dust and much of the atmospheric crap, and your power will be free from the sun. Park a satellite over the Middle East and you have LOS everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, I was thinking same. The laser from ground will limit its usefulness to line-of-sight distance only.
Another improvement could be to use solar heat on the fly and run Stirling Engine for additional power. That way the plane would be used for way longer period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But think of the amount of popcorn they could produce in remote locations...
Re: (Score:2)
But think of the amount of popcorn they could produce in remote locations...
Give your ground troops a tan.
Re: (Score:2)
But think of the amount of popcorn they could produce in remote locations...
The Crossbow Project
There's no defense like a good offense.
Re: (Score:2)
The Crossbow Project
There's no defense like a good offense.
"This is Jesus, Kent!"
reference missed by the over-5000 set.
Re:Power it from above (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Power attenuation (due to atmospheric interference and beam divergence) would probably be the limiting factor. These drones are probably flying between 1-4 miles from the ground. Compare to 22k miles for a geosynch satellite "parked over the Middle East" or ~200 miles for a LEO satellite in a constellation of satellites. Attenuation increases as the function of the square of the distance, so even an increase in a factor of 50 for a LEO sat would probably be a deal breaker.
I'm assuming the system they would
Re:Power it from above (Score:5, Funny)
I tried to design a system like that once, but during the development I had a dream where I was dressed in a Sun God robe surrounded by naked women chanting and throwing pickles at me. That brought and end to it all.
Re: (Score:3)
Good to know I'm not the only one who has that dream.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? That kind of dream would only motivate me to finish sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you, by chance, on top of a pyramid?
Re:Power it from above (Score:4, Insightful)
Satellite power isn't free... In fact it's EXTREMELY expensive. Satellite EoL is most commonly when solar panels have deteriorated enough that they can't provide the trickle of power most sats need.
Yes, you escape dust problems, but then you pick up the problem of hugely-increased distances from laser to drone.
And the biggest problem is targeting... Drones are small, subject to atmosphere turbulence and ground control, both of which can cause sudden location changes, and the satellite is going to need to handle this, in real-time, or else a massive laser beam suddenly shines down at the feet of the people who aren't supposed to know they're being spied on.
Re: (Score:3)
Satellite power isn't free... In fact it's EXTREMELY expensive. Satellite EoL is most commonly when solar panels have deteriorated enough that they can't provide the trickle of power most sats need.
Incorrect. EoL is when they are out of fuel for position control.
Re: (Score:2)
You can power them from satellites rather than ground based - you'll escape all the dust and much of the atmospheric crap, and your power will be free from the sun. Park a satellite over the Middle East and you have LOS everywhere.
And if you miss the little flying drone and happen to fry some people on the ground...oh well, shit happens...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And down at the end of the titles... (Score:2)
"No birds were blinded in the making of this invasion."
Stalker. (Score:2)
Stalker... that's a nice name for a drone.
The complete series will go something like Stalker, Creep, Pedo.
Espionage? With Lasers? (Score:2)
While I can see applications for something like this, I don't see how espionage and special forces ops are among them.
The whole point of these kinds of operations is to not let anybody know they are happening. They even talk about this drone as being extra quiet and stealthy. So, if that is the case, does it really make sense to shine a big laser at it? Maybe you could start it out quiet and then only turn the laser on after the bullets start flying, which makes more sense for special forces than espiona
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
for recharging the drone can leave the operation area. E.g. if it is a carrier based drone it moves 10km out of the surveilance area closer to the carrier and get recharged in flight. Saves the full round trip and the landing / launching.
Laser targeting ? (Score:2)
Oh yeah... (Score:2)
So that's what they need the Sharks with freaking Laser beams for...
How good?? (Score:1)
I don't get it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
not for a fair fight (Score:2)
no.. that's not really the point, it recharges a drone whilst it's in air.
it's presumably to be used in situations where it doesn't matter that you give your position away.
it's not for a guerilla mission, but for mop up, think about keeping an eye on protest campers and fighting against guerillas who already know where your base is.
it's not to be used in a situation where it's a certain sized and enabled group vs. another. but more like elephant(usa) against a squirrel. squirrel knows where the elephant is
Re: (Score:1)
great idea (Score:1)
If anyone ever makes a missile... (Score:2)