|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Visual is passive and difficult to jam. If you can overcome the issues with data interpretation and pair it with an INS, you have a system that's essentially immune to EW and able to self-correct and re-orient without external aid. You can jam it with clouds. I'd get it if you wanted to supplement the sensor suite of drones so they could self navigate with no signals emission. Navigating by stars would also be a good way to enhance INS. Platystemon posted:Cruise missiles have navigated by landmarks for decades—using terrain, not visual, granted. Yeah, radar-enhanced INS. Not exactly dead reckoning.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:um, excuse me, but cruise missiles know where they are at all times because they know where they aren't.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
 Computer vision is among the constellation of AI-related technologies that have been 5 years from maturity since the mid-80s. Like just the other month I was reading a Daniel Dennett chapter where he takes AIs reliably interpreting visual stimuli for granted in posing a philosophy of mind question and in a footnote goes "We don't have this now but Berkeley is networking 100 Apple IIs together and they're confident they'll have it cracked soon"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
For a laugh I suggested a local air taxi client of mine gets a Combat Caravan to add to their EX fleet and pitch it for contract for law enforcement, borders, and fisheries. They laughed for a minute as intended then the MD looked thoughtful and said something about "we should put it in the missions brochure anyway"... our local sea fisheries agency wants to spend £2.4m on a new patrol boat and the issue is a long-burning political flaming turd. It will never happen of course, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAUOPHqx5Gs Comrade Gorbash posted:If you can overcome the issues with data interpretation You can't just hand wave this away though. It's way, way harder than is obvious. Humans use immense amounts of imagination and intuition in decoding the visual world. It has been estimated that at any given time our brain is making up 70% of our perceived vision. As such visual interpretation seems incredibly obvious and easy to us, and it's hard to grasp for most why it's so hard for our robot pals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
My friend at work dropped this pearl of wisdom the other day: "we all have to die first". He explained it thusly.. Our generation, and the generation before, want a human up there controlling things. But everyone that comes after us is going to have grown up with self driving cars, Amazon drones, machine learning, and automation in all things, and they won't care if there isn't a human pilot up there flying the aircraft. Here's my half baked scheme for the (sufficiently distant) future of air navigation: cruise and taxi is fully managed by computers. For takeoff and initial climb, approach and landing, ATC employs ex-air force drone operators to oversee and if necessary remotely operate aircraft in their airspace for those flight phases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Ola posted:I'd get it if you wanted to supplement the sensor suite of drones so they could self navigate with no signals emission. For your other two points, a thick fog would be a problem, but you can't exactly call that up on demand. Automated celestial navigation is also a computer vision problem to begin with, and is a lot more difficult to compute than I think you're giving it credit for. ReelBigLizard posted:You can't just hand wave this away though. It's way, way harder than is obvious. Humans use immense amounts of imagination and intuition in decoding the visual world. It has been estimated that at any given time our brain is making up 70% of our perceived vision. As such visual interpretation seems incredibly obvious and easy to us, and it's hard to grasp for most why it's so hard for our robot pals. There are enormous benefits to solving the problem, thus why people keeping throwing money at it. And there has been progress - when the systems work, they have some pretty amazing results. That they're still terribly unreliable after all the money, time, and effort shows just how hard the problem is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
The device ban talked about yesterday came down for ME carriers. quote:Officials said devices like tablets, cameras, laptops, portable DVD players, e-readers, portable printers and scanners, and video games will have to be placed in checked baggage under the new policy, but medical devices will be permitted. The restrictions won't affect crew members.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:
American infrastructure is the great white whale of autonomous driving technology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The device ban talked about yesterday came down for ME carriers. I could've sworn I'd seen ATL-DXB on Delta and IAH-DXB on United when passing through ATL/IAH. Apparently no US flag carrier flies into DXB now? Hope you have club access in AMS or uh where would you go for star alliance, LHR?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: Last year a Navy exercise employing GPS jamming forced a bizjet to declare an emergency after it hosed with his autopilot, which started making unexpected control inputs. Read your NOTAMS, people. IIRC, that was caused because new Embraers use GPS as an input to their yaw damper, and it started seeing impossible position changes and kicked offline. Most autopilots won't function without an active yaw damper. Which is a little like a car where the steering wheel falls off when the nav system loses GPS signal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
Which is bound to be released anytime soon in this age of the internet of lovely things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
internet of things devices would be far more tolerable if it weren't for the fact that everyone does them entirely wrong. Like suppose you have a thermostat that you can control from a cellphone or whatever. Instead of *directly connecting to the thermostat* the thermostat connects to some server and then you connect to the server and the server tells the thermostat what temperature it should be set to. Then this server is actually running on amazon AWS. Then to pay for this server the company collects data on your home heating habits and sells it to advertising data analytics companies. And then when the server dies your home freezes and your loving pipes burst. It's aggravatingly stupid. Just make the device the server. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:internet of things devices would be far more tolerable if it weren't for the fact that everyone does them entirely wrong. The problem with that is you're relying on Joey Homeowner to manage things like DNS and NAT and dealing with it when his ISP changes his IP address for no good reason. A lot of time and effort has gone into getting technology to a point where people don't have to be CCNA certified to google "ask jeeves dot com" any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
I wonder if the recent AWS outage caused any dehydration deaths when smart water bottles failed to notify their owners they were thirsty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:The Concorde wasn't a comfortable plane to be in. Sure the service was nice, but cabin-wise it's CRJ coach with nicer materials and maybe more legroom. Also that "Why don't planes fly faster" video takes ten minutes to say "it gets real expensive real quick if you go any faster than they do, and people won't pay for it." The do actually fly a bit slower these days than they used to, at best fuel economy speed rather than the fastest they can before Mach effects become a problem, as they did in the '60s when Jet A was cheap. PT6A posted:Has anyone been working on making an autopilot based on computer vision instead of external navaids? If so, how successful has it been? And since somebody mentioned cruise missiles, ICBMs navigate by getting a fix on fuckin' stars, same as the mariners of old. GPS is easy to jam/spoof, the view of the sky from just above the atmosphere is somewhat more difficult to gently caress with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:20
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Drones like the RQ-170 use also terrain radar and stored onboard terrain data to navigate without GPS, which punches some holes in the Iranian hijacking story. This was done in 2012 by MIT and I'm sure there are even cooler things under development with classified money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYs215TgI7c
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Drones like the RQ-170 use also terrain radar and stored onboard terrain data to navigate without GPS, which punches some holes in the Iranian hijacking story. There been autonomous drone contests for students for at least a decade. The problem with all this is that if things go off the rails they completely go off the rails. Human being are really good at adapting to little changes that may cause your neural net created control system to go off to infinity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
This popped up in my local pilots group, and I don't recall this being posted here. It's the cabin of the Challenger 604 that hit the A380 turbulence. Sauce 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
 not sure if blood or raspberry cheese cake
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Has anyone been working on making an autopilot based on computer vision instead of external navaids? If so, how successful has it been? Wouldn't the best way to make a vision-based airplane nav system be to just point a camera at the cockpit guages
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Entone posted:This popped up in my local pilots group, and I don't recall this being posted here. It's the cabin of the Challenger 604 that hit the A380 turbulence. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:There been autonomous drone contests for students for at least a decade. The problem with all this is that if things go off the rails they completely go off the rails. Human being are really good at adapting to little changes that may cause your neural net created control system to go off to infinity. In an older report, the chief scientist of the USAF said that a problem with autonomy is verifying the autonomy algorithm. An autonomous algorithm has potentially an infinite input space, so testing cannot cover all possibly inputs. Yet, such exhausting testing is necessary to avoid the autonomy algorithm being vulnerable to a shift in inputs. For example, attacks are possible against neural networks where a tailored adjustment to the inputs causes the network to change it's decision output significantly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:In an older report, the chief scientist of the USAF said that a problem with autonomy is verifying the autonomy algorithm. An autonomous algorithm has potentially an infinite input space, so testing cannot cover all possibly inputs. Yet, such exhausting testing is necessary to avoid the autonomy algorithm being vulnerable to a shift in inputs. That’s also true of the human brain, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The device ban talked about yesterday came down for ME carriers. Ugh. Because a bomb in an overhead bin is so much more dangerous than a bomb in a luggage hold. Guess I'm never flying Emirates again. No-way in hell I'll check my laptop so it can get lost or stolen. I can't work without it and it's the sole loving reason I'm traveling. And if you think my expensive camera lenses can get thrown around by your average baggage handler monkey, thing again. Countdown until Qantas is hit too. [Note: The same rule applies to the UK now] e: looks like the UK considers Emirates, Etihad and Qatar safe enough. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Device ban strikes me more as a protectionist thing than security thing. Gives a competitive advantage to domestic carriers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Device ban strikes me more as a protectionist thing than security thing. Gives a competitive advantage to domestic carriers. The ban isn't airline specific. If US carriers flew those routes, they would face similar requirements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:
No. Those two examples are nothing alike, the Apple IIs one is TRL 0 or TRL 1 if it actually sorta works. The Tesla is TRL 9. It is a working system. We have actual cars that navigate on computer vision, or CV with sensor fusion now. You posted a video of one. Cars which are statistically half as likely to get into accidents as their human counterparts despite millions of miles driven in hundreds of environments. Its the highest technology readiness level on the DoD scale, significant actual use of the complete system in a range of environments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Device ban strikes me more as a protectionist thing than security thing. Gives a competitive advantage to domestic carriers. They make a point of saying there aren't any domestic carriers on those routes (to the US). It's definitely a "all Muslims are terrorists" thing combined with a "you SHOULD be scared" thing and a dash of "only conservative governments can keel you safe" thing. And you'll be reminded every time you travel. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:
  Edit: Being able to call it up on demand is only part of the problem. It's an environmental concern that you can't just ignore. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Ola posted:Don't know if the best ones are accurate enough to autoland after an intercontinental trip. The best ones? Yeah, the best ones are that accurate. No one is paying to put the best ones on commercial aircraft though. The IMU alone might cost almost as much as the aircraft carrying it. Maybe in another couple decades. Gyros and accelerometers are progressing pretty steadily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The best ones? Yeah, the best ones are that accurate. No one is paying to put the best ones on commercial aircraft though. The IMU alone might cost almost as much as the aircraft carrying it. We currently have UAVs capable of landing on carriers autonomously right now. I tend to believe they can do so with a lot of degraded conditions such as no GPS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Automating landing on some early drones instead of letting military do it reduced crashes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Ugh. Because a bomb in an overhead bin is so much more dangerous than a bomb in a luggage hold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Not sure if you're serious or /s When was the last time you checked in on an international flight and they asked "do you have any spare batteries in your carry on luggage"? Spare batteries (regardless of size) can't go in checked luggage because of the actual risk of fire. Now batteries can't go in carry on because of the imaginary risk of terrorists. Unless you remove the battery from your laptop so it can go carry on and the laptop is checked. In which case, what have you achieved from a safety perspective? In case you weren't being sarcastic, the perceived "threat" is bombs in laptops. Maybe they should - I dunno - x-ray the laptops then? (The actual threat is the batteries though) Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:They make a point of saying there aren't any domestic carriers on those routes (to the US). Yes, but people connect through those hubs on those airlines to other final destinations, which competes with US routes. e: so, I don't have any evidence that this was motivated behind the scenes by trying to help out US airlines, but regardless of whether it was I bet they're happy about it. And I'm curious if it could violate WTO. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:We currently have UAVs capable of landing on carriers autonomously right now. I tend to believe they can do so with a lot of degraded conditions such as no GPS. With just the imu? Or are they using other systems when they get close to the carrier? I agree that a moderately priced IMU will get you close enough to an airport after a transatlantic flight to pick up other nav aids that aren't GPS and land relatively safely. That's not what I interpreted the question to be though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Yes, but people connect through those hubs on those airlines to other final destinations, which competes with US routes. Oh, probably. The current administration doesn't really do "consult with experts."
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Murgos posted:With just the imu? Or are they using other systems when they get close to the carrier? If I knew I couldn't say but I'd have to assume they'd use a variety of nav and landing aids. Really I should've probably quoted the original post and not yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Yes, but people connect through those hubs on those airlines to other final destinations, which competes with US routes. Some more speculation along these lines. I believe WTO has a security carveout generally, but yeah you'd think you'd have to be prepared to prove it up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.57f59da77133
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Godholio posted:
CarForumPoster posted:No. Those two examples are nothing alike, the Apple IIs one is TRL 0 or TRL 1 if it actually sorta works. The Tesla is TRL 9. It is a working system. What's holding programmed systems back currently is that they keep finding systematic errors. That is, if it screws something up, it'll screw it up exactly the same way every time. That's a huge issue when you're talking about large scale deployment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:22
|
|