3 ms·

Well, that scary to hear.

sudosysgen 6y ago
It really is. I came to this realization on the way back from a robotics competition, I was editing pictures I took with my new camera. I was reading articles about improvements we could make to SLAM, and editing pictures I took on the trip. When I realized that I had so much dynamic range that was able to completely remove haze and flaring from incredibly bright objects very close with a very middling lens, and combining that with the very impressive results in optical SLAM, it certainly gave me pause. Since then I've done quite a bit of research on this and I haven't been able to find any kind of usable countermeasure. Hanging out on photographers forums, there's people who have been able to edit out details by substracting up to seven stops, with current consumer tech and optics, and improvements are coming every few months. Canon just demonstrated a sensor with 20 stops of dynamic range. Coupled with IR sensors, far UV sensors, and different wavelength filters to filter out lasers, there's really not much that can be done anymore. Except for kinetic or directed energy approaches, but they are incredibly expensive and incredibly vulnerable to saturation.
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  You cannot have active measures against an intelligent swarm of drones. If drones are wired to explode in case of landing or power failure, active measures cannot be taken when the drones are over crowded areas or near high profile targets. The alternative would be to destroy them from far away areas. And that is really really hard. I guess we have to come up with special guns and ammunition that can create a wall of destruction for drones.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Of course you can. There’s always an escalation to beat the latest weapon. There’s a myriad of possibility. Flak guns, modified chaff, glue, directed energy, hunter killer drones, etc.
    - onion2k 6y ago
      kumarvvr's point was that you[1] have to consider the collateral damage of shooting down drones. If you make an enemy drone crash there's a possibility that it could crash in to a school or a hospital. That would be bad. [1] The person defending something, not you. Your comment makes it clear you believe in defence at any cost.
      - Spooky23 6y ago
        When you need to defend, it's too late. If you're at a point where you need to take specific action in defense of a drone, you are already have crossed the rubicon where you are in conflict, and the outcome of that action may include harm to others. Any other constraints around the application of violence is wishful thinking at best -- there are too many variables in these scenarios. The obvious solution that will happen is heavier licensure requirements and criminalization of unlicensed operation. You'll have toys and professional devices, and there will be a presumption that a drone is bad unless proven otherwise.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Good point.

It really is. I came to this realization on the way back from a robotics competition, I was editing pictures I took with my new camera. I was reading articles about improvements we could make to SLAM, and editing pictures I took on the trip. When I realized that I had so much dynamic range that was able to completely remove haze and flaring from incredibly bright objects very close with a very middling lens, and combining that with the very impressive results in optical SLAM, it certainly gave me pause. Since then I've done quite a bit of research on this and I haven't been able to find any kind of usable countermeasure. Hanging out on photographers forums, there's people who have been able to edit out details by substracting up to seven stops, with current consumer tech and optics, and improvements are coming every few months. Canon just demonstrated a sensor with 20 stops of dynamic range. Coupled with IR sensors, far UV sensors, and different wavelength filters to filter out lasers, there's really not much that can be done anymore. Except for kinetic or directed energy approaches, but they are incredibly expensive and incredibly vulnerable to saturation.

kumarvvr 6y ago
You cannot have active measures against an intelligent swarm of drones. If drones are wired to explode in case of landing or power failure, active measures cannot be taken when the drones are over crowded areas or near high profile targets. The alternative would be to destroy them from far away areas. And that is really really hard. I guess we have to come up with special guns and ammunition that can create a wall of destruction for drones.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Of course you can. There’s always an escalation to beat the latest weapon. There’s a myriad of possibility. Flak guns, modified chaff, glue, directed energy, hunter killer drones, etc.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    kumarvvr's point was that you[1] have to consider the collateral damage of shooting down drones. If you make an enemy drone crash there's a possibility that it could crash in to a school or a hospital. That would be bad. [1] The person defending something, not you. Your comment makes it clear you believe in defence at any cost.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      When you need to defend, it's too late. If you're at a point where you need to take specific action in defense of a drone, you are already have crossed the rubicon where you are in conflict, and the outcome of that action may include harm to others. Any other constraints around the application of violence is wishful thinking at best -- there are too many variables in these scenarios. The obvious solution that will happen is heavier licensure requirements and criminalization of unlicensed operation. You'll have toys and professional devices, and there will be a presumption that a drone is bad unless proven otherwise.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Good point.