Dave jones couldn t ship his uCurrent internationally with a cr2032 because it was in violation of some law not sure which one, shipping lithium batteries by airfreight. but if the ifind does have a battery then they will be in violation of that law. I always have been skeptical of anything with a cool name and an even cooler graphical presentation but accompanied by the absence of any technical detail. It usually indicates they re spending the most money time on presentation which is common practice among fraudsters.
Sticking a lowercase i in front of a word is not a cool name. It s a lazy ripoff of a very tired old Apple gimmick that needs to just go away. I think that anything that helps promote critical thinking and discusses good design practice is a good thing. Please continue posting these on HAD. Clearly their plan is. Create fake kickstarter pitch 2. Tip off HAD 3. There is an xkcd comic in there somewhere. Read through the comments to find easiest way to actually build this.
seems like a big lie to me. Looks a lot this. These only last one year. I thought these were a new version of the tile for a minute. Cymbet make tiny solid state SMD batteries 3. Which easily could be used in order to harvest the energy to, would fit as well, though im doubting using the bluetooth and the buzzer at the same time, seems a long shot to get it loud enough.
The FAQ on their website contains this How long will my iFind last. TWO DECADES, as long as it is not subject to extraordinary physical abuse. I wonder if this is referring to physical wear and tear, or to the the power supply. Not sure, could be the rechargeable battery. It could also be a calculated MTTF figure. It doesn t look like anything you would do, and I hope it is not from the Hackaday Team kck. They re claiming they have received an email threatening one of their personnel.
according to them it s for real. I wasn t even expecting a reply, so. I sent them an email asking for clarification on the math of the whole thing and asked them if this was a publicity stunta scam or if they really believed that this was possible And to give them a chance to Scientifically defend themselves I try to always follow Carls Sagans scientific skepticism, meaning that if they convince me of that it is possible I would endorse themI asked for evidence.
They did clarify however that the person who shot the video and was stating on facebook that it was not too shabby for a few idiots with a camera isn t with them is not part of their company so they weren t mocking their backers on facebook. I then replied that I did not want to see their device nor was threatening anyone I did say that if they couldn t convince me I d report their project to KickStarter, which in my mind is more than a reasonable action based on the total lack of evidenceAnd that what I want is the maths behind their amazing claims regarding psu and their theoretical supply current.
Really, if I were involved in a commercial project, where my own financial well being was based upon it succeeding, then I wouldn t tell anyone how it works either. Try asking Samsung how their HW achieves their claimed battery life they won t tell you. Again, their claims seem valid ie it can work. It s not a new science and their theory of operation has been proven many times. What is dubious and is a glaring omission is the use cases and caveats.
What I mean is details regarding what the tag can do and how often. If they claim it can operate in rope mode, flash it s LED, beep its beeper etc continuously ad infinitum then that would appear to be a challenge and would require a consistent few mA which is unlikely from ambient RF. This would deplete the battery energy store after a while as the RF harvesting is unlikely to replenish it quick enough.
I think the devil is in their lack of detail. The problem isn t the energy harvesting technology itself as you stated Linear has some very interesting regulators that could potentially be used to trickle charge low leak caps or even one of those Battery Life Extenders LTC3330. The problem is the claims that they don t have any battery or supercap and just like you said they promise a highly responsive operation ropea buzzer an accelerometer that would require quite a lot of power to be constantly harvested from the environment without any special transmitter or RFID Gen2 style portal.
A nice harvesting example can be found at Linear s DN483 appnote Two 12 24 copper panels are placed 6 from a 2 4 fluorescent light fixture. resulting in a 200uW 6 inches. Now if you had an antenna the size of a quarter that could vastly outmatch the performance of DN483 setupcapable of harvesting enough constant power remember no battery supercap claim to actually poll the BLE RX at a decent rate AND transmit at 60m not just leave it in idle along with the operation of a loud buzzer and accelerometer without any distance restriction from a transmitter the only restriction would be for it to be anywhere in a urban environment.
basically the holy grail of RFID Would you -Sell it to the highest bidder at probably several hundred million usd. This is THE holy grail in active tag business -Start a Kickstarter initially asking for 25K and sell it at cost. What you are threatening is their 80,000 so far nest egg on Kickstarter. It s now 100k but hey, that s chump change when taking to market a new product, trust me, I ve done it many times before.
Their project is plausible, as I have said, can be made from parts from Farnell, reasonably priced and there seems to be no cloak and dagger. Their unwillingness to tell the world how it works isn t a sign that it doesn t. It s commercially sensible to keep quiet especially if there are patents pending I know they may have filed applications but they don t want a h t storm of objections and challenges. Why not throw down 14 or whatever and get in line for a product, you will then be a customer and may get some response when asking about the project.
Don t expect too much though, you can buy any high-street electronics but its unlikely the manufacturer will let you have a schematic or maths. Again, just my 2c or 0. 015 over here. Steve, You say it is plausible, but the majority of posters here appear to disagree. If these tags are plausible, wouldn t it also be plausible to create a batteryless bluetooth mouse using the same technology and at about the same price.
That would obsolete almost all wireless mice currently in use, and make the inventor very wealthy I would imagine. Yes, Technight, it would be possible on a larger scale for mice and yes, I do think its plausible no matter what the masses say, I am fairly technical and can make my own mind up based on experience and research. I have designed a number of BT not BT LE I might add mice and the pwr consumption is much higher than this tag check out Agilent ADNS. for mouse sensors, many mA required the optical sensor is the dominant consumer of power.
A mouse has much more space inside due to it being for a hand to clasp, much more space to employ a more sensible harvesting technique such as movement ie moving magnet or thermal etc. Actually, if it did employ EM harvesting, it could do quite well being located typically so close to electrical equipment. Problem is, as a consumer, would you rather pay 20 for a wireless mouse which takes 2x AA batteries and lasts a year until you change them or 50 for a mouse which has no batteries.
Do bear in mind that the imaginary 30 differential buys 10 years worth of AA batteries. These are the types of things a business will consider before over-engineering a product. At the end of the day, the usage scenario for a mouse means its not as much of a pain to change the batteries when was the last time you lost your mouse as it is for something like a locating tag. For a tag you don t want to have to remember to change the batts, you just need to rely on being able to find it.
Mind you, if you had to check and replace the batteries on a tag you might not lose whatever it s attached to so much. Steve, I am not sure where you come up with the 50 figure for a mouse using this technology. An iFind if viable is 14. A wired mouse can easily be gotten for 6. Throw in 5 for misc additional costs, which is more than generous and we are talking 25. I think you would find a lot of people willing to buy a 25 wireless mouse that will iq options need a battery.
Also, it s unlikely to make the inventor there s lots of prior art, check the web wealthy, the bom cost would present a cost barrier for the consumer vs traditional primary cell equivalents. For the consumer there is no financial incentive to buy one. There is, potentially, a green environmental benefit but not a financial one. money in your pocket is what matters to what we would call the masses.
To be honest, I would like this technology to prove viable, as it would serve as a gateway for all kinds of new batteryless gadgets, but the realist skeptic in me is far from convinced that it can work. Time will tell, as the iFinds are supposed to ship in October. I see what you re saying. 50 seems to be a reasonable cost for a half decent BT mouse my last one cost a lot more.
Whether its a mouse or tag, the EM ambience is outside of your control, it s much easier to power a tag at. uW vs a mouse at when I was making them 140mW. I think a mouse may be able to be charged via EM harvesting not operated but, given the extra space in a mouse, it s more suited to a more traditional energy harvesting techniques. or primary cells.
Mice aside, I think a BTLE module is rechargeable via EM although operating from EM is another very different and challenging story. They claim no battery but I suspect there is one or a bank of ceramic caps. Would you be interested in sharing the details of that email exchange with the drop-kicker. I love this line We are negotiating with several large companies for the technology.so they do not have the technology themselves. or the right to use it in a product that they are selling.
sounds totally legitimate to me. Price negotiations and licensing legalities can take a while and it s not something you want to take lightly. If taking a high ish volume product to market you should know this. Sounds like they are doing things right. Never miss a hack. If you missed it. The O-Bahn Busway Obscure Transit For The Masses. 3D-Printed Thermite Brings The Heat, And The Safety. Size Does Matter When It Comes To SD Cards. Teardown Mini GPS Jammer. Cousteau s Proteus Will Be The ISS Of The Seas.
Our Columns. The Egg-laying Wool-Milk Pig. Linux Fu Literate Regular Expressions. Hackaday Podcast 084 Awful Floppy Disk Music, Watching A Robot Climb Walls, A Futuristic Undersea Lab, And Inside A Digital Pregnancy Test. Security This Week Racoons In My TLS, Bypassing Frontends, And Obscurity. Google Turns Android Up To 11 With Latest Update. When I pointed out that Sparkfun breakout board with that EOL accelerometer on their video and sent them the same calculations as I presented above in the comments at that point they said that I was threatening them Pand that I wanted their device Straw Man Fallacy.
reg on A Bit Of DIY Helps Cut Straight And Happy Threads Brian McEvoy on Toy O-Scope Is Dope RW ver 0. 1 on Toy O-Scope Is Dope RW ver 0. 1 on TV Output From Arduino 1980s Style. Karl Ramboz on Friendly Fiberglassing Can Hide Glue Replace Epoxy. Severe Tire Damage on A Bit Of DIY Helps Cut Straight And Happy Threads Gregg Eshelman on PLA-F Blends PLA And ABS Jeremy H. Now on Hackaday.
on Official Arduboy Upgrade Module Nears Competition Andy Pugh on A Bit Of DIY Helps Cut Straight And Happy Threads Miroslav on Friendly Fiberglassing Can Hide Glue Replace Epoxy. Matteo Borri wrote a comment on SKY ANCHOR 5G LR WIFI DRONE BRINGS THE GIG. scherbinski liked L2 Camera. rathorevishalsingh647 liked Hackaday. Chathura Nimesh has followed a list. Guillermo Herrera-Arcos has updated the project titled ALICE Robotic Exoskeleton. Krys Kamieniecki liked Raspberry Pi 0 HQ USB Webcam.
Todd Decker wrote a reply on Game Boards for RC2014. Craig Hissett wrote a comment on project log About what I m about to post. Alpenglow Industries has updated the log for Bite-Sized Breadboards Light Sensor. Drass has followed a list. Home Blog Hackaday. By using our website and services, you expressly agree to the placement of our performance, functionality and advertising cookies. io Tindie Hackaday Prize Video Submit A Tip About Contact Us.
Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1eda23c8db0847 Your IP 54. Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1edb09ee50cd8f Your IP 54. Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1edc822e6b2bad Your IP 54. Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1edccc2c540820 Your IP 54. Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1edceb7f920877 Your IP 54. Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1ee5042a290824 Your IP 54. Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1ee51c0c7f0853 Your IP 54. Cloudflare Ray ID 5d1ee51d4a86ee48 Your IP 54. Since you re not logged in, we have no way of getting back to you once the issue is resolved, so please provide your username or email if necessary.
Please enter the details below. Would you like to receive premium offers available to Myfxbook clients only to your email. You can unsubscribe from these emails at any time through the unsubscribe link in the email or in your settings area, Messages tab. Please enter your email Email. What is Myfxbook. Myfxbook is an online automated analytical tool for your forex trading account and a social forex community first of its kind. How can Myfxbook help you.
Here are just a few examples of what you can gain by using Myfxbook. Analyze your account with our advanced statistical analysis and understand your trading habits, inside out. Use our innovative dashboard to stay up to date with the markets. As a money manager looking for new clients, use your public system page as a resume of your trading skills. Learn, compare and improve your trading skills with the help of our community.
Currently supporting over 100 brokers, enabling you to track, compare, analyze and share your trading activity. Publish your account statement. If you re still not convinced Myfxbook can help you, click here to learn more. No files, installations or complicated configurations. Because your account s safety is our first priority, we will never ask you for your login details to your trading account.
All we require is a read only access to your trading account Click here to learn how. Have we mentioned it s absolutely free. Sonix automatically converts audio video to text. 1 Create a free account. 2 Securely upload media files. Our industry-leading speech-to-text algorithms will transcribe faster than the time to make a cup of coffee.
3 Edit easily. Automated transcription isn t 100 accurate easily review and polish with our audio word processor. 4 Export and share. We love our customers. Download your final transcript in a variety of file formats so you can bring it into your current workflow. Ridiculously easy. And even though the accuracy wasn t perfect it saved several days in a typical transcription cycle and the hourly cost we usually pay. Sonix is easy to use. Kyle Artaega, Co-Founder at The Bulleit Group.
Sonix is the best way I know of to get my podcast out there for a wider audience. We tripled our listeners using the Sonix media player. Blake Oliver, Host at Cloud Accounting Podcast. I love how easy and intuitive it is to use Sonix. Elina Lin, Designer at Amplitude Analytics. I can now put my energy and focus on actual content, instead of going through the tedious and time consuming process of transcribing audio.
Sonix picked up words that even I couldn t understand. Sonix is amazing. Aliona Reselian, Analyst at Bainbridge Strategy Consulting. Sonix can quickly generate a transcript and it has cut my workload by more than half. Marina Bay, CoFounder CEO at BeFast. I ve tried several different digital software packages and nothing has even approached giving me a usable transcription. The results from Sonix are the best I ve seen.
I d given up on having my recordings automatically transcribed. Dan Klass - Founder President, Jacket Media. I love, love, love this service. Your first 30 minutes of transcription are free, no credit card required. I plan to use the transcripts I ve gotten so far iq options update the content of my podcast so that it will aid in SEO on my website. Kiki L Italien - Founder CEO, Amplified Growth.
Very, very useful. Easily convert your audio to text with Sonix. The best automated transcription service in 2020. Sonix transcribes, timestamps, and organizes your audio and video files in over 35 languages so they are easy to search, edit, and share. Start your free trial now all features included, no credit card required. Transcribe and translate confidently knowing you re backed by our award-winning team who is ready to answer your questions.
You can also visit our Support Center for tips, articles, and videos. Try Sonix for free Includes 30 minutes of free transcription. Features Fast transcription Automated transcription. SEO-friendly media player Subtitles and captions Transcript clean-up. Pricing Testimonials Five reasons to transcribe How to capture great audio. Introduction to Sonix Frequently asked questions Resources Help center.
Journalists Researchers Video producers Podcasters Lawyers Coaches Students Marketers Filmmakers. For Businesses. Enterprise Education Legal firms Newsrooms Non-profits Radio stations Research firms Transcription agencies Accessibility. Transcribe a Zoom meeting Transcribe a GoToMeeting recording Transcribe a Google Meet recording Transcribe a Loom recording Transcribe a UberConference meeting Transcribe a WebEx meeting Transcribe a Skype call Transcribe a RingCentral meeting Transcribe a Microsoft Teams meeting Transcribe a Join.
API documentation API dashboard Affiliate program. Transcribe your files. Video Conferencing. Languages we transcribe File formats we transcribe Audio file formats Video file formats. me meeting Transcribe a BlueJeans meeting. About Careers We re hiring. Press Contact Security. Transcribing and editing audio and video is painful. Sonix makes it fast, simple, and affordable. 2020 Sonix, Inc. Made with in San Francisco. Autonomous Weapon Systems. Report by Professor Christof Heyns, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Sophie Bobillier, Master student at the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, under the supervision of Professor Marco Sassòli and Ms. Case prepared by Ms. Yvette Issar, research assistant, both at the University of Geneva. The use of LARs by States outside armed conflict. The experience with UCAVs unmanned combat aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones has shown that this type of military technology finds its way with ease into situations outside recognized battlefields.
Lethal autonomous robotics LARs are weapon systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. One manifestation of this, whereby ideas of the battlefield are expanded beyond IHL contexts, is the situation in which perceived terrorists are targeted wherever they happen to be found in the world, including in territories where an armed conflict may not exist and IHRL is the applicable legal framework.
The danger here is that the world is seen as a single, large and perpetual battlefield and force is used without meeting the threshold requirements. LARs could aggravate these problems. On the domestic front, LARs could be used by States to suppress domestic enemies and to terrorize the population at large, suppress demonstrations and fight wars against drugs.
It has been said that robots do not question their commanders or stage coups d état. The possibility of LAR usage in a domestic law enforcement situation creates particular risks of arbitrary deprivation of life, because of the difficulty LARs are bound to have in meeting the stricter requirements posed by IHRL International Human Rights Law. Phrases such as riskless war and wars without casualties are often used in the context of LARs. This seems to purport that only the lives of those with the technology count, which suggests an underlying concern with the deployment of this technology, namely a disregard for those without it.
LARs present the ultimate asymmetrical situation, where deadly robots may in some cases be pitted against people on foot. LARs are likely at least initially to shift the risk of armed conflict to the belligerents and civilians of the opposing side. Implications for States without LARs. There is likely to be proliferation of such systems, not only to those to which the first user States transfer and sell them.
The advantage that States with LARs would have over others is not necessarily permanent. Other States will likely develop their own LAR technology, with inter alia varying degrees of IHL-compliant programming, and potential problems for algorithm compatibility if LARs from opposing forces confront one another. There is also the danger of potential acquisition of LARs by non-State actors, who are less likely to abide by regulatory regimes for control and transparency.
Taking human decision-making out of the loop. It is an underlying assumption of most legal, moral and other codes that when the decision to take life or to subject people to other grave consequences is at stake, the decision-making power should be exercised by humans. The Hague Convention IV requires any combatant to be commanded by a person.
The Martens Clause, a longstanding and binding rule of IHL, specifically demands the application of the principle of humanity in armed conflict. Taking humans out of the loop also risks taking humanity out of the loop. LARs and restrictive regimes on weapons. The Martens Clause prohibits weapons that run counter to the dictates of public conscience.
The treaty restrictions placed on certain weapons stem from the IHL norm that the means and methods of warfare are not unlimited, and as such there must be restrictions on the rules that determine what weapons are permissible. The obligation not to use weapons that have indiscriminate effects and thus cause unnecessary harm to civilians underlies the prohibition of certain weapons and some weapons have been banned because they cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to soldiers as well as civilians.
The use of still others is restricted for similar reasons. Experts have made strong arguments that a regulatory approach that focuses on technology namely, the weapons themselves may iq options misplaced in the case of LARs and that the focus should rather be on intent or use. In considering whether restrictions as opposed to an outright ban on LARs would be more appropriate, it should be kept in mind that it may be more difficult to restrict LARs as opposed to other weapons because they are combinations of multiple and often multipurpose technologies.
Article 36 of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions is especially relevant, providing that, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or methods of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party. The United States, although not a State party, established formal weapons mechanisms review as early as 1947.
While States cannot be obliged to disclose the outcomes of their reviews, one way of ensuring greater control over the emergence of new weapons such as LARs will be to encourage them to be more open about the procedure that they follow in Article 36 reviews generally. Source BOLTON Matthew, NASH Thomas, MOYES Richard Ban autonomous armed robots in article36.
This process is one of internal introspection, not external inspection, and is based on the good faith of the parties. Ban autonomous armed robots. 1 Weapons that are triggered automatically by the presence or proximity of their victim can rarely be used in a way that ensures distinction between military and civilian. Despite eventual successes on anti-personnel mines, and more recently cluster munitions, technology develops faster than a humanitarian consensus.
A pressing challenge is the rapid evolution in military systems which are able to select and attack targets autonomously, moving towards the use of fully autonomous armed robots. 2 Although the relationship between landmines and fully autonomous armed robots may seem stretched, in fact they share essential elements of DNA. Landmines and fully autonomous weapons all provide a capacity to respond with force to an incoming signal whether the pressure of a foot or a shape on an infra-red sensor.
Whether static or mobile, simple or complex, it is the automated violent response to a signal that makes landmines and fully autonomous weapons fundamentally problematic it is killing by machine. 0 Executive Summary. S Department of Defense DoD Task Force Report on the Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. 1 Unmanned systems are proving to have a significant impact on warfare worldwide.
The true value of these systems is not to provide a direct human replacement, but rather to extend and complement human capability in a number of ways. These systems extend human reach by providing potentially unlimited persistent capabilities without degradation due to fatigue or lack of attention. Unmanned systems offer the warfighter more options and flexibility to access hazardous environments, work at small scales, or react at speeds and scales beyond human capability.
With proper design of bounded autonomous capabilities, unmanned systems can also reduce the high cognitive load currently placed on operators supervisors. 0 Operational Benefits of Autonomy. Moreover, increased autonomy can enable humans to delegate those tasks that are more effectively done by computer, including synchronizing activities between multiple unmanned systems, software agents and warfighters thus freeing humans to focus on more complex decision making. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
2 While UAVs unmanned aerial vehicles have long held great promise for military operations, the technology has only recently matured enough to exploit that potential. In recent years, the UAV mission scope has expanded from tactical reconnaissance to include most of the capabilities within the ISR intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and battle space awareness mission areas.
Without the constraint of the nominal 12-hour limitation of a human in the cockpit, UAVs can maintain sensors and precision weapons over an area of interest at great distances for longer periods of time, providing situational awareness to all levels of command. 3 In addition to expanded persistence, the integration of ISR and strike on the same unmanned platform, coupled with direct connectivity of UAV operators to ground forces, has led to reduced reaction time and is saving lives of U.
troops on the ground. Moreover, autonomous technology is increasing the safety of unmanned aircraft during auto-takeoff and landing for those organizations leveraging that technology and reducing workload via waypoint navigation and orbit management. 4 Unmanned aircraft clearly have a critical role in the DoD operational future. However, the development of these systems is still in the formative stage, and challenges remain relative to training, integration of command and control and integration of UAVs into the National Air Space.
Unmanned Ground Systems. In addition, due to developments in sense-and-avoid technologies, redundant flight controls, experience and revised procedures, the accident rate for most unmanned systems now mirrors manned aircraft. Generally designed as sensory prosthetics, weapons systems or for gaining access to areas inaccessible by humans, UGVs are reducing service member exposure to life threatening tasks by enabling them to identify and neutralize improvised explosive devices IEDs from a distance.
5 Similar to the value UAVs bring to the skies in the form of persistent visibility, Unmanned Ground Systems UGVs bring benefits to land in standoff capability. Today, UGVs are largely used in support of counter-IED and route clearance operations, using robotic arms attached to, and operated by, modified Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MRAP vehicles and remotely controlled robotic systems.
To a lesser extent, UGVs are being used in dismounted and tactical operations, providing initial and in-depth reconnaissance for soldiers and Marines. 6 In general, UGVs in combat operations face two primary challenges negotiating terrain and obstacles on the battlefield and performing kinetic operations within the Rules of Engagement ROE. Terrain negotiation and obstacle avoidance are driven by mechanical capabilities coupled with pattern recognition and problem solving skills. Operations within the ROE, however, represent a higher order, biomimetic cognitive skill that must fall within the commander s intent.
Going forward, development efforts should aim to advance technologies to better overcome these challenges. Particularly in the latter case, the development of autonomous systems that allow the operator commander to delegate specific cognitive functions, that may or may not change during the course of a mission or engagement, would appear to be an important milestone in evolution from remotely controlled robotics to autonomous systems. Unmanned Maritime Vehicles.
7 Mission areas for unmanned maritime vehicles UMVs can generally be categorized into surface and underwater domains unmanned surface vehicles USVs and unmanned underwater vehicles UUVsrespectively. Unmanned surface vehicles operate with near-continuous contact with the surface of the water, including conventional hull crafts, hydrofoils and semi-submersibles. Unmanned underwater vehicles are made to operate without necessary contact with the surface but may need to be near surface for communications purposes and some can operate covertly.
8 USV missions may include antisubmarine warfare ASWmaritime security, surface warfare, special operations forces support, electronic warfare and maritime interdiction operations support. The Navy has identified a similarly diverse, and often overlapping, range of missions for UUVs, which include ISR, mine countermeasures, ASW, inspection identification, oceanography, communication navigation network node, payload delivery, information operations and time-critical strike.
Unmanned Space Systems. 9 Two promising space system application areas for autonomy are the increased use of autonomy to enable an independent acting system and automation as an augmentation of human operation. In such cases, autonomy s fundamental benefits are to increase a iq options s operational capability and provide cost savings via increased human labor efficiencies, reducing staffing requirements and increasing mission assurance or robustness to uncertain environments.
The automation of human operations, that is, transformation from control with automatic response to autonomy for satellite operations, remains a major challenge. Increased use of autonomy not only in the number of systems iq options processes to which autonomous control and reasoning can be applied, but especially in the degree of autonomy that is reflected in these systems and processes can provide the Air Force with potentially enormous increases in its capabilities.
If implemented correctly, this increase has the potential to enable manpower efficiencies and cost reductions. 10 A potential, yet largely unexplored benefit from adding increasing autonomous functions could be to increase the ability of space systems to do on-board maintenance via auto-detect, auto-diagnose and auto-tune. 11 Unmanned vehicle UxV technologies, even with limited autonomous capabilities, have proven their value to DoD operations.
The development and fielding of air and ground systems, in particular, have helped save lives and extend human capabilities. Increasing presence of such functionality in space and launch systems can be imagined to reduce the cost of mission assurance by making the systems more adaptive to operational and environmental variations and anomalies. 12 The Task Force observes that autonomy has a role in advancing both collection and processing capabilities toward more efficient, integrated ends, such as operating platforms from two to many in concert to improve look angles at priority targets, merging sensor data from multiple vehicles and alternative sources and using both mixed human computer teams and heterogeneous, autonomous agents.
13 The Task Force also notes that key external vulnerability drivers for unmanned systems include communication links, cyber threats and lack of self- defense. Internally generated limitations are dominated by software errors, brittleness of physical systems and concerns with collateral damage. 14 Findings Unmanned aircraft clearly have a critical role in the future. Appendix A Details of Operational Benefits by Domain. 1 Aerial Systems Strategy.
Admittedly, the development of unmanned systems is still in the formative stage with more focus being given to sensors, weapons, and manned unmanned operations than in the past. A s other nations continue to develop and proliferate unmanned systems, there is a growing need for counter adversary unmanned systems weapon tactics. Key Task Force findings are.
Autonomy can accelerate safe operations in the national air space Mission expansion is growing for all unmanned system groups Precision weapons are being added to almost all UAV medium and large unmanned aircraft systems Big data has evolved as a major problem at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency NGA. Over 25 million minutes of full motion video are stored at NGA Unmanned systems are being used more and more in natural and manmade disasters Homeland Security and other government agencies are increasing their investments in unmanned systems.
15 Benefits Unmanned systems will need to make use of their strengths and opportunities.