Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Robot Planes to Track Weather and Climate

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the and-watch-you-too dept.

Robotics 48

coondoggie writes "The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week announced a $3 million, three-year program that to test the use of unmanned aircraft to measure hurricanes, arctic and Antarctic ice changes and other environmental tasks. The agency said the drone aircraft would be outfitted with special sensors and technology to help NOAA scientists better predict a hurricane's intensity and track, how fast Arctic summer ice will melt, and whether soggy Pacific storms will flood West Coast cities. Starting this summer, unmanned aircraft will take instruments on research flights that are too dangerous or too long for pilots and scientists."

cancel ×

48 comments

Couldn't they be put to better use tracking nigs? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22164384)

"coondoggie" of all people should understand. Niggers are a problem.

RON PAUL '08

Robots could've saved Heath's life (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22164400)

If only they had been tracking something useful like Heath Ledger's drug intake rather than mysterious inanimate complex systems. Result? Better meteorology, and no more buttfucking on celluloid. Happy, science? ARE YOU HAPPY WITH WHAT YOUR ROBOTS LET OCCUR?

RIP Heath

In the old days we used niggers. Not robots. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22164408)

Robots can think a whole lot better than them stinky niggers, though. That's fer damn sure.

TEXAS CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL

$3 million for weather? yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22164424)

More likely the NOAA is just trying to scare pilots flying parallel into thinking AHHHH GHOST PLANE

Unmanned aircraft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22164438)

Well
It's better than unmanned air niggers :)

ron paul

i love niggers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22164450)

Changed my mind. ignore those newsletters

Ron Paul

But... (3, Funny)

floydman (179924) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164452)

Re:But... (2, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165030)

And kill! [wikipedia.org]

been done before (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164480)

isnt this what the satellites do?


no i didnt rtfa or rtfs

Re:been done before (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165440)

From TFA:

NOAA said unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAV) could operate for sustained periods at lower altitudes and give meteorologists a continuous sampling of data, including wind speed, temperature, pressure and moisture, unlike most manned operations that occur today.
I know next to nothing about the subject, so I'm just making assumptions, but I'm sure it would be difficult to measure much more than the amount of ice and wind speed (with clouds present to move in said wind, something that seems unlikely in an area with next to nothing evaporating) without having instruments in the atmosphere.

Also, you can bring back a UAV for maintenance for everything short of a dead engine; with a satellite, you're going to have to wait for someone to get up there and fumble around miles above the planet, and to maintain ground equipment you need to send someone out (or more likely leave someone) there for when problems arise.

Re:been done before (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165606)

with a satellite, you're going to have to wait for someone to get up there and fumble around miles above the planet,
Not really... human maintenance of "ordinary" satellites went out with Challenger (Hubble being the one notable exception). If they can't fix the problem from the ground, the insurance takes the hit and they build another one. It's also cheaper that way, really; and it'll probably stay like that until space access really gets to be affordable--ie, extremely cheap launch costs, and close to airline-like operations and reliability.

Re:been done before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22166360)

Robot Panes to Track Weather and Climate...

And your ass walking down the street if they want. Don't believe for a second that everything is what it seems.

Robot planes (3, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164496)

So these will be fully equipped with robotic snakes as well?

Re:Robot planes (2, Funny)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164686)

And a robotic Samuel L Jackson 'anti-malware' incase the snakes go out of control.

Re:Robot planes (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164712)

incase the snakes go out of control

I don't fully understand this context. You say it as there was any other possibilities?

Announcing themselves? (3, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164546)

So, there I am... flying along in my rented Cessna 172, with a couple kids in the back, touring a local mountain range and making the kids squeal by stalling the plane every so often so that it suddenly drops a few hundred feet...

How am I supposed to know that there's a UAV nearby? It's not like a UAV will announce, in a friendly tone: "Orland Traffic, UAV N301A 4 thousand feet, 3 miles southeast, heading 140, Cessna in sight, no factor.". (Note: UAV == "Unmanned Air Vehicle") For those who don't know, this call means:

Orland Traffic = the airport in question. Click here if you are curious [skyvector.com] .

UAV N301A = the type of aircraft, and the registration number.

4 thousand feet = the altitude of the aircraft at the time of call.

3 miles southwest = where the airplane is relative to the airport in question (Orland)

Heading 140 = what direction the plane is travelling. In this case, East of due south. (it's heading away from Orland airport, but crossing due south)

Cessna in sight = I see the plane that was just mentioned on the airwaves.

No factor = I couldn't hit it if I wanted to.

A UAV is controlled by a COMPUTER which has no concept of instruction like what I just gave. It could announce itself in some fashion digitally, which would mean that planes that have digital "situational awareness" systems with RADAR and XM Satellite weather might display them just fine - but many planes don't even have a RADIO! (planes with no radio do not fly over major cities - you'd be shocked at how much airspace this still allows)

How could this possibly work? Until there's a consistent, legally defined way for civil aircraft to know that there's a UAV nearby, this is a non-starter. But no way has been declared, and (as of last summer) it has not even been announced to pilots as a possibility. I don't even have the OPTION of knowing where these UAVs might be.

So when I hit a UAV, am I supposed to sue the Federal Govt? (assuming I live to tell about it)

I sense severe stupidity at work, here, and this is not my sig line. UAVs are not a problem, but they have NOT been incorporated into the existing (human/pilot based) aviation system. This is a slow disaster in the making. When an unannounced UAV hits a private plane filled with a happy, loving family, who is to blame for their deaths?

Re:Announcing themselves? (3, Insightful)

nguy (1207026) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164594)

Most UAVs fly high enough so that there's no chance of a collision. When they fly in regular air space, UAVs avoid you.

Re:Announcing themselves? (5, Funny)

bronney (638318) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164688)

When they fly in regular air space, UAVs avoid you.

Not in Soviet Russia.

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164912)

ahhh yes.. and UAV's there are manned.. by Russian MIG pilots...

Re:Announcing themselves? (2, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164818)

Ain't there traffic controllers in charge of making sure that doesn't happen? And you're not concerned with the odds of hitting a weather balloon?

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165096)

Well, I'm wondering what would stop him from hitting another plane that doesn't have a radio to announce their location either.

Maybe hitting the UAV or another plane wasn't his point, maybe it is having a clear authority to sue. Surely painting the UAVs with some reflective or highly visible marking wouldn't be out of the question seeing how it isn't being used to war efforts or anything.

Re:Announcing themselves? (5, Informative)

docbombay (722076) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165102)

Although the article talks about "automated" unmanned vehicles, the only way that any of the vehicles mentioned in this article are fully automated is in systems responsible for gathering data, *not* navigation or maneuvering. In fact, an FAR clarification notice posted a few years ago http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf [faa.gov] states that the only way that an unmanned vehicle is allowed to fly in the United States is if it is in control (albeit remotely) by a human pilot-in-command, and under constant watch by a human observer, "either through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft". In controlled airspace, there must also be "communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC)".

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

fireforadrymouth (1064330) | more than 5 years ago | (#22174254)

I'm not trying to argue with what is written in the document but wouldn't following a UAV with a "chase aircraft" defeat the purpose slightly?

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

docbombay (722076) | more than 6 years ago | (#22177498)

Not necessarily. There is nothing to say that there has to be one observer per UAV in the air. For example, an airport could have a chase plane on observation duty to keep an eye on all UAV's within its airspace.

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165212)

Here's some advice for all pilots. When you're about to fly into a UAV, try not to fly into a UAV.

Re:Announcing themselves? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22165434)

Rather than looking for the opportunity to show off your pilot's license (I.E. Cptn. bigcock), you should have spent 30 seconds to read the article.

You would have found that unless you fly these happy families into the eye of hurricanes, over the arctic, or from New York to England via ocean route (is there any other way?), you have absolutely nothing to fear of collision with an UAV.

In the incredibly unlikely event that you actually do in fact fly a Cessna over the arctic or across oceans just for the joygasm, you honestly have a better chance winning the lotto by playing your tail numbers (I know, theres letters in there sometimes too) than actually hitting a UAV. I'd give you an actual number, but I make it a rule not to calculate anything that I know will be over 9 decimal places long unless I'm being paid to do it.

Just how does one get a pilot's license without studying the books anyway?

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165460)

from New York to England via ocean route (is there any other way?),

Yes, You can fly over Canada, greenland, on to england. That is called the land route. Likewise, you could go further north, which is a polar route. The Ocean (or water) route is where you pretty much fly only over the ocean, AND can not make land through the bulk of the flight.

And yes, pilots will do all 3. All would prefer to fly south of greenland (better landing in emergency), but it and the oceans are pretty full. I no longer remember, but I believe my father said that flights must remain 75 miles apart. That limits the density, because there is no flight controller.

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

Pwnzer78 (1226140) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165864)

Thats why companies like MicroAir are making UAV transponders www.microair.com/au and companies like Prioria www.prioria.com, are doing cool UAV collision avoidance stuff.

Re:Announcing themselves? (0)

kabocox (199019) | more than 5 years ago | (#22166694)

A UAV is controlled by a COMPUTER which has no concept of instruction like what I just gave. It could announce itself in some fashion digitally, which would mean that planes that have digital "situational awareness" systems with RADAR and XM Satellite weather might display them just fine - but many planes don't even have a RADIO! (planes with no radio do not fly over major cities - you'd be shocked at how much airspace this still allows)

I don't fly unless I really have to. There is a part of me that has never trusted transportation that I or a family member isn't driving. I don't trust the drivers of planes, trains, and buses. UAVs are coming and soon. A few months ago I came across a page relating air plane safety and what the effects where with the FAA were after words was. You only have air traffic controllers because of a couple major air planes running into each other. It seemed like every safety device that you have on the plane is because of a couple of other planes crashed to the FAA finally did something.

My predictions: some entity will launch a small number of these and they will prove popular for everyone. (I'm talking local cops, high school sporting events pretending to be big leagues, county wide mapping, traffic monitoring, wild life monitoring, watching natural lands where people aren't supposed to be.) Now either one of two things will happen a UAV will be hit by a small plane with less than five people aboard or it'll be hit by a major airline causing either the plane to crash or make an emergency landing.

If the smaller craft is lost, I hate to say it, but not much will be done. Oh if you are lucky it "might" spark off ATC for UAV but I wouldn't count on it.
If a couple of larger aircraft go down, then one of two thing things will happen. UAVs will either been banned out right, which would be a big shame, or the FAA decides to pause all UAV until ATC are upgraded and there are master federal ATC that have control over every human flying object up there. Planes that can't download and fly according to the new ATC rules might be grandfathered in, or they might be deemed a safety risk and all planes would have to have some new hardware downloading from ATCs where everyone else is.

That all planes aren't required to have a radio shows what effect grandfathering in crap allows.

Re:Announcing themselves? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22168366)

This sounds like a pretty uninformed opinion that has not been well thought out.... You say that UAVs will not be able to announce themselves like a manned aircraft, and a moment later go on to say that some aircraft don't even have radios... Well dummy - how do those non-radio equipped aircraft announce themselves? UAVs operating in the national airspace have transponders on board, their operators are in constant communication with ATC, and sometimes even have TCAS systems or ground based radars helping them to look for morons that are tooling about stalling their aircraft with kids in the back and radios not installed... I only wish that you would take the same precautions that these small toy aircraft do to keep the skys safe.

Re:Announcing themselves? (3, Insightful)

CompMD (522020) | more than 5 years ago | (#22168850)

There's nothing that says these NOAA UAVs will be flying in US airspace, because right now it is still illegal. The only places in the US that UAV can fly are restricted airspaces. There's no "severe stupidity" at work here. There's only your knee-jerk, think-of-the-"happy, loving family" reaction to technologies you are clearly unfamiliar with.

If I were you, I wouldn't try to thrill the kids by inducing a stall in your 172 in a mountain range. Air currents in a mountain range are such that you could easily find yourself flipped over or finding new and exciting ways to attempt to control your aircraft.

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#22171652)

If I were you, I wouldn't try to thrill the kids by inducing a stall in your 172 in a mountain range.

You are right - I shoulda used an "or"...

So, there I am... flying along in my rented Cessna 172, with a couple kids in the back, touring a local mountain range *or* making the kids squeal by stalling the plane every so often so that it suddenly drops a few hundred feet...
There. Fixed that.

Re:Announcing themselves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22169752)

The FAA actually does have procedures for UAV flight in the National Airspace. UAV users must obtain a COA to operate in the airspace and then operate with a chase plane that not only watches the UAV but watches for traffic. The aircraft mentioned in the article will most likely be a predator variant and operate IFR above 18,000 ft, so separation is provided by center. I am a pilot and UAV operator and have to operate within these rules every day. The operators of the UAV are also required to make announcement calls when operating in the chase plane situation. You mentioned that UAVs are computer controlled, which is only true in the sense that sometimes autopilot systems are used, but its still being operated by a human just like any other aircraft.

Re:Announcing themselves? (1)

ralewi1 (919193) | more than 5 years ago | (#22170176)

If you are hit by one of these UAVs, you are probably in the vicinity of a hurricane, well outside of an established flight route or flying in an announced exclusion area. I strongly doubt the FAA would let the UAVs fly into an air corridor. Here's a clip from NOAA lessons learned [noaa.gov] that should assuage your fears:

1. FAA clearances are a major UAS hurdle that needs to be streamlined. We were able to circumnavigate this issue for our lone Ophelia flight but this was in large part due to the fact Ophelia was stalled for 1-2 days prior to mission initiation. This in turn allowed the complicated flight clearance process to play out. In a nutshell, we were very fortunate. One seeming advantage for future UAS Aerosonde missions is that we fly into regions no commercial aircraft will go near let alone fly directly into (i.e. Hurricane environments). That fact alone should play in our favor when asking for future clearances.

Phew (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164552)

I read that as "Robot plans to track weather and climate". Was just tired enough to start wondering how I could have missed the robot overlords taking over. Thanks dyslexia!

in related news... (3, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164628)

...the robots would utilize an efficient means of communication, this network would be vastly aware of not only local but also the global climate and weather. It was now codenamed SkyNet. ...

but this is great, for example, in a hurricane, the sattelites base its data on what it sees (visual, thermal, radar, etc) but these vehicles could go more "local" and experience events or phenomenon occuring that sattelites cannot detect. It's like placing a man in there that lived to tell the tale. (and not lie)

Re:in related news... (2, Funny)

Badgam (1219056) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164864)

I'm just waiting for the Weather Channel to start learning at a geometric rate.

tracking (1)

chrisranjana.com (630682) | more than 5 years ago | (#22164996)

Hope the planes track only weather and climate :)

For a second... (1)

Dr_SimonCPU (1181635) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165074)

I thought I read, "Robot Plans to Track Weather and Climate". I guess we're still years away from true AI.

Some questions remain unaswered. (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165160)

Are the any two points in the robot plane that contain a single unique straight line, robotic too?

Re:Some questions remain unaswered. (1)

strcpy(NULL,... (1089693) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165578)

Any robotic line contains at least two robotic points in this plane.

Hope this helps.

I read that as... (2, Funny)

simplerThanPossible (1056682) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165196)

Robot Plans to Track Weather and Climate

Talk about intentionality

Darn, I misread that. (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#22165276)

heh. I misread that as "Robot plans to track weather and climate", and I thought - blimey! AI has really come along in recent years.

I just hope they keep the source open (-1, Flamebait)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 5 years ago | (#22166176)

Because I get the feeling that there will be some code in it like:

if (detected.warming.global() )
    dataset.delete();
(There, that should get my leftie and Linux freaks to de-foe me...)

Yeah, weather. (1)

trongey (21550) | more than 5 years ago | (#22167036)

Weather. Right, that's what they'll be watching with their cameras that can resolve 6pt text from 50k feet. I'm gonna add a wide brim to my foil hat so they can't see any part of me. I'll just be a shiny spot on the landscape.

Better yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22167256)

Why don't they make robotic fire-fighting planes (or even robotic or remote controlled gliding kamikaze-water-blimps to be released from planes). Splashing would put out forest fires more efficiently than spraying them like it is done today. Well, of course, provided there's not a person down there to get squashed with it!

Sure! It make sense! (1)

Mekkis (769156) | more than 5 years ago | (#22168180)

With their handy robots the Bush administration and its hand-picked shills at the EPA can ignore and/or redact even more evidence regarding global warming!

Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 5 years ago | (#22172650)

> science, robot, skynet (tagging beta)

Thank you!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...