5 ms·

Actually, if you don't sell it for at least 1M$, you won't get any contract, it doesn't look serious enough. Terrestrial drones were being done during WWII, Rus

by Iv 15y ago

Actually, if you don't sell it for at least 1M$, you won't get any contract, it doesn't look serious enough. Terrestrial drones were being done during WWII, Russians were remote-controlling full-sized tanks in the 40s, these techs should be obvious by now. I have been working for a defense project about instrumenting some armored vehicles with video cameras and monitors. The project was more than 10 years old when I arrived in it. I couldn't help but thinking "bring the prototype to any hackerspace and pay 20k of salary for two weeks of dev and you'll be done."

Cushman 15y ago
Let me be the first to say thank god they don't. We should all count our blessings that hackers tend to be peaceful people by nature. Imagine if we were trying to kill each other.
- rokhayakebe 15y ago
  Well who do you think writes software that controls missiles?
  - Cushman 15y ago
    I don't doubt there are some smart people who are trying to figure out how to kill each other. I'm just glad that's not most of us. Edit: Although I guess I can extend that to human societies in general, not just hackers. Edit 2: Man, no idea who manages to disagree with that.
  - shabble 15y ago
    I can't remember the exact quote, or even the source, but it was along the lines of "For engineers, the biggest [moral] issue with weapons development is that it is fun". You can build some really neat things when you have a military R&D budget behind you. The downside is of course that it actively or passively hurt people. And then there's the whole calculus-of-death/unintended consequence thing, where in theory, a more accurate missile is better for everyone because it reduces collateral damage. But because it kills less innocents, there are fewer qualms about using it more often. This applies strongly to the current UAV trend - You can politically spin (or just bury in accounting) "Ooops, We lost a $xMM drone", versus actual pilots dying.
    - rokhayakebe 15y ago
      Yup. I am sure they pitch it as you can build something that saves lives. Little Bob can ride his bicycle safely because of your work. As opposed to you can build something that can kill the enemy in mass in seconds.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      There's the old joke: a decent software engineer would never write a destroyLisbon() procedure - he would write a destroyCity() procedure and pass the city as an argument.
    - Perceval 15y ago
      > "For engineers, the biggest [moral] issue with weapons development is that it is fun". This reminded me of a very similar quote from Edward Luttwak about the disconnect between students of war and the people who fight wars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vz1BpRf3Lc&feature=player_detailpage#t=2774s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vz1BpRf3Lc&feature=playe... The entire interview is fascinating and worth the time. It's a bit dated (from 2007), but still has a number of really interesting tidbits throughout.
- johngalt 15y ago
  Yes, lets leave that to the physicists please.
rokhayakebe 15y ago
It seems like the truck used in this example costs around 300 usd. If I were a soldier, I think I would not wait for the government to commission a million dollar truck. I would get 3 of these for now.
- sequoia 15y ago
  That toy truck cost 300 fucking dollars??
  - rokhayakebe 15y ago
    On the low end it seems.
  - retroafroman 15y ago
    That's a hobbyist RC car, meant for adults with money, not kids. I have a friend who has a similar model, and he spends time buying new parts and upgrading, like any other hobbyist. It has a gas motor and I suspect this one does as well-it goes as fast as their Humvee on the limiter. A cheap toy store model wouldn't last a week in those conditions and wouldn't hit the speed to make it effective.
digikata 15y ago
At that point you'll have one. Now try to make it it work through extreme weather - hot, cold, pouring rain, etc. Now make it reliable to shock so you aren't fixing thing every 50 miles or so. Ok, write the reference manuals so that 18yr old mechanics how to install, maintain, replace them. You've got some sharp mechanics there, but you have a few dumb ones too. The manual will involve breaking things down to a painful level. Setup logistics for contracts, replace/repair. Oh now setup a production line to make hundreds or thousands. And, by the way, that production line may or may get shut down after the first order. Or you may get another order for exactly the same thing two years later after the last one rolled off the line. It shouldn't take 10 years, but it isn't a simple trip into a hackerspace either.
- Cushman 15y ago
  Yeah, that's gonna take more than a trip to the hackerspace— maybe a Kickstarter.
- RomP 15y ago
  Some of the things you're listing are must-haves (secure channel), but most are not. If increasing reliability and versatility makes the drone last 10 times longer and costs 10 times more -- it's not worth it in the long run: it's goal to trigger the first IED it can find, anyway. Even if it's not, it still would be cheaper and easier to buy 10 drones or make them modular enough so anybody with some X-Box experience can snap a new one together in the field. Manuals? -- nah, see the X-Box thing above. Besides, who reads RC cars' manuals? Replace/repair? -- a dumpster full of modular parts is lightyears ahead of any repair technician in the field. Production lines? -- there already exist production lines for RC cars, aren't they? To put it in the familiar context: what you're describing (and what DoD is used to) is a mainfraime. These guys just made a PC.
  - digikata 15y ago
    I'm no military historian, but there are terrible failure stories for products pushed out before they're ready to the frontlines too. Beauacracy is a waste, but some of those steps seen as wasteful in the DoD procurement process are "scar tissue" from where things went wrong either in the battlefield or, as often, protection against incapable, or worse, fraudulent contractors. You're right, my post wasn't a list of requirements, just an illustration of some of the things one might end up having to care about when packaging up a military product used in dangerous situations. There's a balance to be made, it should be made on a case by case basis.

by Iv 15y ago

Cushman 15y ago

Let me be the first to say thank god they don't. We should all count our blessings that hackers tend to be peaceful people by nature. Imagine if we were trying to kill each other.

rokhayakebe 15y ago
Well who do you think writes software that controls missiles?
- Cushman 15y ago
  I don't doubt there are some smart people who are trying to figure out how to kill each other. I'm just glad that's not most of us. Edit: Although I guess I can extend that to human societies in general, not just hackers. Edit 2: Man, no idea who manages to disagree with that.
- shabble 15y ago
  I can't remember the exact quote, or even the source, but it was along the lines of "For engineers, the biggest [moral] issue with weapons development is that it is fun". You can build some really neat things when you have a military R&D budget behind you. The downside is of course that it actively or passively hurt people. And then there's the whole calculus-of-death/unintended consequence thing, where in theory, a more accurate missile is better for everyone because it reduces collateral damage. But because it kills less innocents, there are fewer qualms about using it more often. This applies strongly to the current UAV trend - You can politically spin (or just bury in accounting) "Ooops, We lost a $xMM drone", versus actual pilots dying.
  - rokhayakebe 15y ago
    Yup. I am sure they pitch it as you can build something that saves lives. Little Bob can ride his bicycle safely because of your work. As opposed to you can build something that can kill the enemy in mass in seconds.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    There's the old joke: a decent software engineer would never write a destroyLisbon() procedure - he would write a destroyCity() procedure and pass the city as an argument.
  - Perceval 15y ago
    > "For engineers, the biggest [moral] issue with weapons development is that it is fun". This reminded me of a very similar quote from Edward Luttwak about the disconnect between students of war and the people who fight wars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vz1BpRf3Lc&feature=player_detailpage#t=2774s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vz1BpRf3Lc&feature=playe... The entire interview is fascinating and worth the time. It's a bit dated (from 2007), but still has a number of really interesting tidbits throughout.
johngalt 15y ago
Yes, lets leave that to the physicists please.

rokhayakebe 15y ago

It seems like the truck used in this example costs around 300 usd. If I were a soldier, I think I would not wait for the government to commission a million dollar truck. I would get 3 of these for now.

sequoia 15y ago
That toy truck cost 300 fucking dollars??
- rokhayakebe 15y ago
  On the low end it seems.
- retroafroman 15y ago
  That's a hobbyist RC car, meant for adults with money, not kids. I have a friend who has a similar model, and he spends time buying new parts and upgrading, like any other hobbyist. It has a gas motor and I suspect this one does as well-it goes as fast as their Humvee on the limiter. A cheap toy store model wouldn't last a week in those conditions and wouldn't hit the speed to make it effective.

digikata 15y ago

At that point you'll have one. Now try to make it it work through extreme weather - hot, cold, pouring rain, etc. Now make it reliable to shock so you aren't fixing thing every 50 miles or so. Ok, write the reference manuals so that 18yr old mechanics how to install, maintain, replace them. You've got some sharp mechanics there, but you have a few dumb ones too. The manual will involve breaking things down to a painful level. Setup logistics for contracts, replace/repair. Oh now setup a production line to make hundreds or thousands. And, by the way, that production line may or may get shut down after the first order. Or you may get another order for exactly the same thing two years later after the last one rolled off the line. It shouldn't take 10 years, but it isn't a simple trip into a hackerspace either.

Cushman 15y ago
Yeah, that's gonna take more than a trip to the hackerspace— maybe a Kickstarter.
RomP 15y ago
Some of the things you're listing are must-haves (secure channel), but most are not. If increasing reliability and versatility makes the drone last 10 times longer and costs 10 times more -- it's not worth it in the long run: it's goal to trigger the first IED it can find, anyway. Even if it's not, it still would be cheaper and easier to buy 10 drones or make them modular enough so anybody with some X-Box experience can snap a new one together in the field. Manuals? -- nah, see the X-Box thing above. Besides, who reads RC cars' manuals? Replace/repair? -- a dumpster full of modular parts is lightyears ahead of any repair technician in the field. Production lines? -- there already exist production lines for RC cars, aren't they? To put it in the familiar context: what you're describing (and what DoD is used to) is a mainfraime. These guys just made a PC.
- digikata 15y ago
  I'm no military historian, but there are terrible failure stories for products pushed out before they're ready to the frontlines too. Beauacracy is a waste, but some of those steps seen as wasteful in the DoD procurement process are "scar tissue" from where things went wrong either in the battlefield or, as often, protection against incapable, or worse, fraudulent contractors. You're right, my post wasn't a list of requirements, just an illustration of some of the things one might end up having to care about when packaging up a military product used in dangerous situations. There's a balance to be made, it should be made on a case by case basis.