Texas College Hacks Government Drone

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by texasgirl

 

Currently there are special rules in place for UAVs to fly through public airspace. The only ones that are really flying around through any kind of national airspace are Global Hawks. Predators are so small that they are hauled anywhere long distance on a C-130, C-5, or C-17. When a Global Hawk does fly, they try to keep from going through congested airspace. When they do have to, they are in contact with ATC, just like any manned aircraft, and follow instructions like just a manned aircraft. The RQ-4 however, flies higher than any commercial or even private aircraft flies, so there is little to no chance of a conflict with another aircraft.

The FAA is in the process of testing two systems with future UAVs. One is the ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) that is also used on current commercial aircraft. It broadcasts a signal showing where the aircraft is, so any aircraft that has a receiver will know there is another aircraft in the area.

Far different from radar, which works by bouncing radio waves from fixed terrestrial antennas off of airborne targets and then interpreting the reflected signals, ADS-B uses conventional Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technology and a relatively simple broadcast communications link as its fundamental components. Also, unlike radar, ADS-B accuracy does not seriously degrade with range, atmospheric conditions, or target altitude and update intervals do not depend on the rotational speed or reliability of mechanical antennas.

In a typical applications, the ADS-B capable aircraft uses an ordinary GNSS (GPS, Galileo, etc) receiver to derive its precise position from the GNSS constellation, then combines that position with any number of aircraft discretes, such as speed, heading, altitude and flight number. This information is then simultaneously broadcast to other ADS-B capable aircraft and to ADS-B ground, or satellite communications transceivers which then relay the aircraft's position and additional information to Air Traffic Control centers in real time.

The 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver ("UAT") variant is also bi-directional and capable of sending real-time Flight Information Services ("FIS-B"), such as weather and other data to aircraft. In some areas, conventional non-ADS-B radar traffic information ("TIS-B"), can also be uplinked as well.

www.ads-b.com...

The other is being developed by the military to use on UAVs, that is a "see and avoid" technology. The UAV will have a small radar set installed, and when it sees another aircraft near it, it will take action to avoid any kind of conflict with that aircraft.

The goal for UAV introduction into the US NAS is an equivalent level of safety, including collision avoidance for UAV operation, when compared to piloted aircraft. Flight International quotes the FAA's Nick Sabatini on this issue.


Of the remaining regulatory and technological issues, the goal is the certification of a system of technology, feedback, analysis and control, which reduces the risk of an air to air collision, to the same level of risk currently enjoyed for manned flight, is of paramount interest and importance. The regulations governing DSA are contained within 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules". ASTM has published a standard, F2411-04e for "DSA Collision Avoidance" and is available for purchase from ASTM International. David Grilley of Alion Science has recently published a paper with AUVSI which describes the problem and represents an analytical framework to evaluate systems that qualify as candidates for DSA within a small UA system.


The most common term for this capability is Detect Sense and Avoid (DSA). The military uses deconfliction. Progress has been made in DSA technology development, is continuing, and more advances are inevitable. The question is - What level of efficiency is sufficient to satisfy the "Comparable to Manned Aircraft" level of safety requirement for collision avoidance for UASs?

www.uavm.com...

You know, I'm not so sure. There was a close call with a Cessna a few weeks ago in Colorado:

www.breakthematrix.com...

Maybe it's been corrected now?

reply to post by texasgirl


There are close calls with manned aircraft as well. There are dozens every year that are reported, and probably more than that, that aren't reported. Anything from large aircraft to small. The best system for a UAV is the Detect Sense and Avoid system. ADS-B only works if the other aircraft has a receiver for the system.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by texasgirl

 

There are close calls with manned aircraft as well. There are dozens every year that are reported, and probably more than that, that aren't reported. Anything from large aircraft to small. The best system for a UAV is the Detect Sense and Avoid system. ADS-B only works if the other aircraft has a receiver for the system.

Okay, that makes total sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

They aren't going to be flying weaponized UAVs. They're talking about taking control of one and crashing it into something. That's what they did in this test, except they had a person take it back over at the last minute.

I'm sure the DOD has assessed the kind of objects that the drones can be flown into.

List might include (Gasoline Storage Tanks at refineries & airports, Planes/Helicopters in flight, Moving vehicles on the street/roads/highways, Flying into high rise buildings, nuclear power plants, Someone can use their own version of RC plane to contaminate or spread bio-germs??? since there are other drones flying around and who's to know who is flying what? ) List of possibilities and/or creativity are endless since if not armed with explosive weapons, they can easily be loaded with other harmful elements and/or flight/landing path/zone if successfully hacked. Just my 2 cents.

This is no mistake. When the public knows they are "easily hacked" the blame shifts from government bombing citizens, to anonymous bombing citizens.

EDIT: Thus, the scapegoat door has now been opened... so once the bombs start dropping they can just say oops, anonymous did it, not us!

Originally posted by chadderson
This is no mistake. When the public knows they are "easily hacked" the blame shifts from government bombing citizens, to anonymous bombing citizens.

EDIT: Thus, the scapegoat door has now been opened... so once the bombs start dropping they can just say oops, anonymous did it, not us!

edit on 28-6-2012 by chadderson because: (no reason given)

So, you are talking about a 'patsy' type scenario? The government can blame an 'incident' on a local police drone even though the police had nothing to do with it?

Its inevitable, its the power of the internet.

College proves it can be done, Now give the internet some time... its crowd sourcing, and they have more employees than all the governments combined to work on this type of thing...

reply to post by benrl


Drones being used to spy on people, to be used against criminals, etc...Although I understand using unmanned drones in foreign countries to lessen the deaths of our soldiers I do not like that civilians are innocently killed. And I don't want them in our skies. This is just wrong, however way you look at it. I can see this being abused very quickly!

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well.. obviously I was responding to the OP.

They said it would be scary if they could hack and use a weaponized drone. I said it would be the governments fault for flying weaponized drones over the US. Which supposedly they won't be (but in reality they will be, not on duty, but easily put to use). You jumped the gun too eager to disagree my friend.

However you are wrong in a sense, because they are already talking about using non lethal weapons in UAVs for riot control and etc. Also just as planes armed with nukes have flown over, and even crashed in, America, there will be drones doing the same thing.

reply to post by chadderson


That's not realistic. If there was one incident then the government would shoot itself in the foot as they wouldn't be able to fly drones as freely as the wanted to. It would be the most absurd over reach imagineable when the same effect could be acheived by just using a bomb and a random person (if you are talking the falseflag angle which is what I am sensing here).

Iran has already shown that this can be done, but good job for the students to repeat that fact. This will only lead to the eventual development of AI drones that cannot be hacked...

Any weapon you have is a potential weapon against you as well.

An arsenal that is yours is not as good as an arsenal that is your enemies.

1 pound of your supplies is not as good as a pound of your enemies supplies.

The US military needs to take a different approach. They also have to be tasked with different things than what they are called for now.

bravo!
this is good news
can buy frequency jammers to do in the gps
my weapon of choice is this little bastard

Mini HK Quad Rotor

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Iran has already shown that this can be done, but good job for the students to repeat that fact. This will only lead to the eventual development of AI drones that cannot be hacked...

Was it confirmed that Iran brought down our drone? I never really heard the official cause, although I wouldn't doubt they did, especially since these students made it look easy!

reply to post by texasgirl


There were claims by Iran that they shot it down, then that they hacked it and landed it, and then that it crash landed. There were some oddities with the UAV shown as well.

www.youtube.com...

iff you talk about the future

rt.com...

Same Story, but multiple sources always help.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by texasgirl

 

There were claims by Iran that they shot it down, then that they hacked it and landed it, and then that it crash landed. There were some oddities with the UAV shown as well.

At the same time, there are several types of drones in the US arsenal. The ones intended to be used domestically vs the ones to be used outside the US. I wonder which version of drone was thrown at the UT students? Just curious.

Originally posted by Itisburgers
rt.com...

Same Story, but multiple sources always help.

Thank you for that article. At the bottom they made a correction in that it was actually not a government drone but a UAV owned by the university. Isn't that interesting? Hmmmm....

reply to post by hp1229


It has to be one of the micro UAVs. A number of articles say it was a DHS drone, but it appears that it was owned by the University of Texas, which means it was pretty small. I don't see a university having the money to buy say a Predator.