5 ms·

There are 2 short segments in the video showing the actual performance and thus far it is a complete [1] failure [2]. The guy has a talent, and he put together

• tamimio 7mo ago
  And that’s ok if it’s failing to do the job as intended, learning is acquired, and it looks fun to build, I am in the field and I find it great homemade concept. Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually let alone with AI, you might have some workarounds, but never a real counter.
  • tzury 7mo ago
    "let alone with AI" what's falling into the AI category here perhaps is the key question, since microseconds counts, and LLM are very slow! Even the fastest "real-time" LLM frameworks currently report sub-second latencies around 120ms. This is fine for high-level mission planning (e.g., "fly to the red house") but too slow to prevent a drone from hitting a tree at 50mph (80 KM/h)[1] Whilst the Shahed-136 kamikaze drone typically flies at a maximum speed of around 185 km/h (roughly 115 mph or 100 knots). [1] https://arxiv.org/html/2602.19534v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2602.19534v1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136
    • ninjagoo 7mo ago
      > "let alone with AI" what's falling into the AI category here perhaps is the key question, since microseconds counts, and LLM are very slow! LLMs (Large Language Models) are far from the only type of AI around. It's a pretty broad field, and there are real-time AI systems, for example, self-driving cars, which have the response times you're thinking of. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mod...
      • tzury 7mo ago
        hence: "what's falling into the AI category here perhaps is the key question" YOLO is a good example for something that can work. https://docs.ultralytics.com/models/yolov8/ https://docs.ultralytics.com/models/yolov8/
  • lukan 7mo ago
    "Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually " Why would lasers not work? Those cheap drones are made from plastic, if you have a laser powerful enough and a target guidance system (like a camera and a PI) - then you would just need enough of them.
    • condensedcrab 7mo ago
      At long distances the small cross section of the drone requires tight focusing (expensive optics) or a high power, preferably pulsed laser (expensive laser) or both. Not impossible but many times more expensive than the drone
      • tjoff 7mo ago
        Expensive is fine since it is reusable.
        • rdtsc 7mo ago
          At some point it itself becomes a target. It has to be able to get almost 100% kills, otherwise the enemy can swarm it with cheap drones, destroy the expensive installation, then continue as before.
          • tjoff 7mo ago
            Sure, but it needs many "many times" for that to be a factor. And even in the case it could be useful as an addition to or paired with a tank etc.
            • rdtsc 7mo ago
              Many times more is about what it comes out to. There are some companies selling laser defense systems but they are many times more than cheap FPV drones with grenades attached.
    • tamimio 7mo ago
  • skybrian 7mo ago
    I don’t know if it will work, but here’s a startup that seems to be building an AI-controlled shotgun: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/9-mothers-corporation https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/9-mothers-corporation Given the war in Ukraine, wanting to build such things is certainly understandable. But still, this is the stuff of nightmares.
    • wombatpm 7mo ago
      David Suaez in Kill Decision had swarms of small single shot drones with the targeting intelligence of ‘00 camera. Identify a face, fly towards it, fire when close. It was an implementation of quantity has a quality all its own.
  • danmaz74 7mo ago
    > Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually let alone with AI What kind of systems are you thinking about? Jet airplanes for sure are completely safe from small drones.
    • chrisweekly 7mo ago
      "Jet airplanes for sure are completely safe from small drones." That feels like a bold and unsupported assertion. Ask a pilot how they'd feel about takeoffs or landings through airspace filled with adversarial drones.
    • fragmede 7mo ago
      maybe in the air, but I seem to recall the Ukrainians being successful at attacking Russian planes on the ground.
    • rdtsc 7mo ago
      > Jet airplanes for sure are completely safe from small drones. Until they land then, due to their cost, they become a very juicy target to aim for.
    • 15155 7mo ago
      A flock of unlucky geese can knock out a jet turbine, how is this a "for sure" conclusion?
  • ninjagoo 7mo ago
    > Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually let alone with AI, you might have some workarounds, but never a real counter. Weaponized drones (say D_A) can be countered by other weaponized drones (say D_B), equally cheap or cheaper than D_A because the D_A is usually targeting something larger (so more payload) and typically has a longer range. D_B only needs to wreck D_A at a shorter defensive range. That's what Ukraine is doing. You can also use drone swarms with coordinated action so that each drone in the swarm is only targeting one other drone, and automatic re-targeting if one node misses. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics
    • maratc 7mo ago
      > equally cheap or cheaper I doubt it, as D_A's target is stationary (and could be reduced to GPS coords) while D_B's target is moving.
      • ninjagoo 7mo ago
        > I doubt it, as D_A's target is stationary (and could be reduced to GPS coords) while D_B's target is moving. It's a good point, though I should point out that GPS denial is assumed in those sort of contexts as a first countermeasure so D_A likely has alternative targeting, and that smaller drones can move faster with less energy storage, which itself requires less weight, compounding the benefits of being smaller.
        • maratc 7mo ago
          I think you underestimate that. D_A only needs to get to coordinates (X, Y) with a minimal requirements for Z as "some meters above ground." It doesn't matter if it gets there in 15 minutes or in 20 minutes, or in 2 hours. D_B needs to absolutely nail X, Y, Z -- but also t! To be at the time t0 at the point (X0, Y0, Z0), the defence drone needs to be at some other point (X1, Y1, Z1) at the time t1 -- given the speed and the direction of the attack drone. But what the defence drone has is just an estimation of these. The amount of back-propagation calculations for the defence drone is simply immense.
  • torginus 7mo ago
    From what I can tell, Ukrainians are having some success with converting guns into automatic turrets that can track and shoot down drones via sensors, and the rifle-equivalent of birdshot.
• mikkupikku 7mo ago
  Yes, I don't think this project is a serious threat as a weapon, it's more interesting if viewed as a politically provocative stunt, to get people thinking about the relationship between technology and war.
  • make3 7mo ago
    I always wonder why rockets are millions of dollars each, that seems insane to me.
    • lukan 7mo ago
      Fireworks rocket do not cost as much. But if you want high precision and high speed, that simply is expensive. Also the area is of course restricted making it more expensive as most states do not want DIY rockets everywhere.
    • mikkupikku 7mo ago
      Check out Joe Barnard's youtube channel BPS.Space where he's documenting his development of "high power" (hobby) rockets. Those are relatively small rockets still but nonetheless he's getting into performance regimes where the engineering starts to be tricky and the details really matter. The more extreme your rocket gets, the difficulty really ramps up quick.
    • dcrazy 7mo ago
      It’s not a complete explanation, but I was awed by the precision of the shower screens used in modern rocket engines. In the 60s it might have sufficed to just spray fuel into the combustion chamber using some nozzles, but now we have highly precise matrices of micro-perforations that maximize combustion. Also if you want to harden the rocket against EMP attacks you need an inertial guidance system, and those things also demand extreme precision.
    • runako 7mo ago
      Part of it is the sophistication. Take the Tomahawk: assumed range of ~1000 miles , estimated accuracy of 30 feet. Can launch from above or below water. Etc. The other part is the limited production runs. Until last month, the DoD was generally purchasing ~100 of these annually. There's no scale economy in making these, so those 100 missiles need to support the entire production & R&D of the product.
• rancar2 7mo ago
  Taking a quick look at the BOM, it lacks the correct sensor selection.
  • firesteelrain 7mo ago
    Even if the correct sensor could be chosen (whatever it is), unlikely is attainable by consumers and the technology would definitely be export controlled in the US.
    • torginus 7mo ago
      I think MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers used in consumer drones should be just about good enough to measure orientation and acceleration, and those are cheap and easy to get. You could integrate acceleration to get speed - the flight is short enough to make compounding errors easy to ignore. I think thanks to drones and RC hobbyists, there's a generally nice body of knowledge on how to get good enough data from consumer hardware to keep things flying.
      • obidee2 7mo ago
        > You could integrate acceleration to get speed - the flight is short enough to make compounding errors easy to ignore. ‘Easy to ignore’ is not a term I would use here, especially given the motion environment of a rocket. It seems like it might be beginning to be borderline possible.
      • the__alchemist 7mo ago
        > You could integrate acceleration to get speed - the flight is short enough to make compounding errors easy to ignore. False, given how noisy MEMS IMUs are, and the accuracy required. Even Ring Laser Gyros drift quickly.
        • torginus 7mo ago
          I did a bit of googling and this was the first result: https://www.h4-lab.com/store/p/qmu102 https://www.h4-lab.com/store/p/qmu102 This sensor has a 16G limit, which is well above what an amateur rocket cold and the compounding velocity error at 10G would be something like 0.0002 (m/s)/s. Which is way more than good enough, at least for short flights measured in minutes max.
• daymanstep 7mo ago
  I'm surprised nobody else has pointed this out. The entire YouTube video has only two short clips of the actual rocket being fired, and in both cases the clips are very short and only show the rocket being fired and then following an erratic flight path, and then get cut before showing the rocket hitting anything. For all the technical info given in the video, there is a curious lack of any data regarding the actual accuracy of the system. What percentage of rockets tested managed to hit anything and at what range?
  • __MatrixMan__ 7mo ago
    The video references "future tracking systems," so I don't think it aims at all yet.
  • walterbell 7mo ago
    > curious lack of any data regarding the actual accuracy of the system No lack of entrackment data generated by [edit] d̶i̶g̶i̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶w̶i̶n̶ github repo of "the system".
    • ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago
      "digital twin"? Is there a simulation that has been documented to have the identical behavior and flight characteristics as the real thing? Does not seem like it. If there is a difference, it is not a twin.
      • walterbell 7mo ago
        Thanks for the correction.
  • simonh 7mo ago
    I suspect a major problem is the quality and consistency of the propellant and getting a symmetric burn.
• DivingForGold 7mo ago
  Get connected with DARPA ASAP, just to let the overlords know you are on "the right side of the fence" - - before Homeland pays you a "very uncomfortable" visit
• vidarh 7mo ago
  You don't need to win any wars with it if you can use them to sow confusion, obscure the firing of more serious rockets, and/or trigger a sufficiently more expensive response. It clearly needs more work, but if an amateur can get this far at this low cost, odds are you'll see attempts at overwhelming attackers or defense systems by sheer volume with cheap decoys like this long before they become an actual threat in and of themselves. Get the rocket a bit more stable, and force an attack to try to take out dozens of these because one of them might be a real threat, and you'll have created a problem.
  • jacquesm 7mo ago
    With a 3D printer and some 'ordinary household chemicals' to quote a certain movie you can do pretty scary stuff.
    • ge96 7mo ago
      McGuyver pouring sap on a pinecone Hiya! (Grenade)
    • bluescrn 7mo ago
      People can do very scary things with a knife, a car, or petrol+matches. We don't try to regulate those things out of existence like we do with new technology (drones and now 3D printers) Kind of ridiculous that a country with more guns than people and 45k firearms deaths per year wants to regulate 3D printed plastic. Yet collecting and shooting actual guns is still an acceptable hobby in many states.
      • jacquesm 7mo ago
        Oh, I totally agree. I always see this as evidence that the terrorism threat is overblown, if it were really as large as we are led to believe the number of successful attacks would be far higher than it is.
      • tpmoney 7mo ago
        The same states that want to regulate 3d printers and force you to register them and install only software that will prevent you from printing anything that even looks like a gun part are also the same states that have been trying (or succeeding) in enforcing those same sorts of broad and dubious regulations on firearms too. When you think of states whose legislatures think collecting and shooting guns is an acceptable hobby, California and New York don’t exactly top the list.
• slicktux 7mo ago
  Regardless, he made a prototype rocket enclosure and he seems to have the software down… I think the propulsion system will be the easy part. Hardest part will be tuning the PID so that the rocket goes where he wants it to. Then incorporating his tracking system will be another challenge of itself but that’s because of the form factor. As long as his calculus and linear algebra is good I see than being successful. Either way I’d hire simply to be a prototype engineer. Either Anduril or CIA would hire him in a heartbeat for prototyping.
  • FrojoS 7mo ago
    > I think the propulsion system will be the easy part. Really? I think rocket science is still not easy. Just look at how much nation states are spending on maintaining their liquid and/or solid fuel rocket programs. If they even have one, let alone both. This book might give some insights into the why https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd... Quote: "All this sounds fairly academic and innocuous, but when it is translated into the problem of handling the stuff, the results are horrendous. It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water —with which it reacts explosively. It can be It has recently been shown that an argon fluoride, probably ArF2, does exist, but it is unstable except at cryogenic temperatures. [...] kept in some of the ordinary structural metals — steel, copper, aluminum, etc. —because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminum keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes." Granted this is about a fuel that is AFAIK not used for MANPADs, but the joke about the running shoes could be made about most aspects of rocket propulsion.
    • slicktux 7mo ago
      With all do respect I think your over complicating the problem. It’s not rocket science (no pun intended). It’s essentially a hobby rocket that can be weaponized and it’s all DIY. That’s the point simple and off the shelf. Not meant to travel towards the stratosphere or even long range. Quick and dirty way to cause havoc in a localized area.
• giantg2 7mo ago
  "and you are not going to win any war with this toy, even if all your enemy has are rocks thrown at you" I don't want to use it for war. I think it would be a pretty cool technical project (if it works).
  • oofbey 7mo ago
    This design is pretty clearly optimized for weaponry. Eg the foldable fins - necessary if you want to keep a magazine of these things stored compactly before firing. Totally unnecessary for funsies. What nonviolent application are you imagining for a gps-guided rocket that is launched by pulling a gun trigger on a hand held mount?
    • atemerev 7mo ago
      Ukraine needs more cheap weapons.
    • blincoln 7mo ago
      > What nonviolent application are you imagining for a gps-guided rocket that is launched by pulling a gun trigger on a hand held mount? A launcher for a climbing rope or grappling hook. Have you ever tried getting a rope up over a branch on a very tall tree? Not joking - I considered it as a hobby project years ago until I discovered how hard it would be to do legally.
      • srean 7mo ago
        Hatari https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LqMAygTHEQ&t=120s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LqMAygTHEQ&t=120s
      • quesera 7mo ago
        > A launcher for a climbing rope or grappling hook. Have you ever tried getting a rope up over a branch on a very tall tree? You might look into arborist's throw line launchers and line guns. They come in slingshot and pneumatic varieties. With a little (mostly fun) practice, they can be pretty accurate and reach limbs over 100' up. I've used them to set solar mesh radio repeaters.
• f1shy 7mo ago
  Something far more interesting, you can find in this channel: https://m.youtube.com/@LafayetteSystems https://m.youtube.com/@LafayetteSystems
  • avidiax 7mo ago
    I've been subscribed to this guy for some time. His work is much more impressive, and IIRC, he either works for a defense contractor or is studying for that. I think there's lots of people talking past each other on this post. These kinds of designs won't be as reliable as the existing designs, and they may have a systemic flaw, for example, susceptibility to disabling with microwaves. And they aren't going to work after sitting in an ammo depot for 15 years in the desert or after being dropped from a plane. But these designs will cost just a few dollars more than the equivalent dumb munition (and can possibly be retrofitted), and can be two orders of magnitude more effective in the short term. The threat here isn't "guy in garage makes MANPADS", it's "IRGC converts 100's of thousands of existing unguided cold-war rockets into guided S2A and S2S missiles for $20 each". Even if it doesn't hit any target, each aircraft has a limited number of countermeasures and has to return to base if they run out or risk being hit. Guided munition at a dumb munition price is enough to invalidate many strategies.