Robotics taking on the hardest jobs:)

On 7/11/2013 9:52 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
So they were successful two out of three times. Good thing this is an
"X" vehicle. Had this "anomaly" happened at sea, there wouldn't have
been a "landing field ashore" for it to land. Then we'd be kissing that
$1.4 billion dollar research investment goodbye.

What do you know about carrier operations? Even humans abort carrier
approaches for a variety of reasons. Human carrier pilots also "bingo"
to shore landings for a variety of reasons. In fact, they hate "blue
water" operations where a bingo is impossible.

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:19:04 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/navy-attempt-1...093729424.html

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) ? The Navy will attempt to land a drone the size of a
fighter jet aboard an aircraft carrier for the first time Wednesday,
showcasing the military's capability to have a computer program
perform one of the most difficult tasks a pilot is asked to do.

Note that this is the very first attempt to do this. All of the
simulations they've done indicate it's possible, but as we all know, the
real world quite often doesn't match the simulations. The unknown
unknowns are what get you, and *those* are never programmed into the
simulations...


Note that MANNED FIGHTERS CAN ALREADY DO 'UNMANNED' LANDINGS ON
CARRIERS. So this is NOT "the very first attempt to do this" except
for this particular airframe.

True, but performing an automated landing with a pilot in the aircraft
who can take over if the automated system runs into problems is not the
same as an unmanned drone. Since the requirements are different, I'd
expect the software to be different as well.

Also note that this project has been done at a cost of $1.4 billion and
that it's an X vehicle, not something that is likely to go into
production. In other words, this is research into a technology which
might prove ready for prime-time, given enough testing. We're not there
yet, despite your assertions to the contrary.


Google UCLASS for what this technology is going to feed into.

In short, the Navy has a desire to duplicate the capabilities of
aircraft like the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel (CIA), but on a
platform that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier (similar to
the manned F-35C, the Navy version of the Joint Strike Fighter). Hence
the acronym: Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
(UCLASS).

A couple other things that tend to explode Bobbert's optimism:

1) We won't start seriously fielding large numbers of F-35 until 2020
or so. They'll likely be in service until out past 2060.

2) Both USN and USAF have put out RFIs for development of a 6th
Generation manned fighter to start fielding in the mid-2030's or
thereabouts. That means there will be manned fighters in service
until around 2080 or later. Google F/A-XX...

Hence my desire for Bobbert to hold his breath waiting for manned
fighters to be replaced by UAVs.

At the very least, the Air Force and Navy is hedging their bets by
continuing to fund development of next generation manned aircraft,
despite the prediction of some that manned military (fighter) aircraft
will be replaced by unmanned aircraft.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

On 7/11/2013 9:52 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
So they were successful two out of three times. Good thing this is an
"X" vehicle. Had this "anomaly" happened at sea, there wouldn't have
been a "landing field ashore" for it to land. Then we'd be kissing that
$1.4 billion dollar research investment goodbye.

What do you know about carrier operations? Even humans abort carrier
approaches for a variety of reasons. Human carrier pilots also "bingo"
to shore landings for a variety of reasons. In fact, they hate "blue
water" operations where a bingo is impossible.

This is true. The ability to "bingo" to a shore landing is a "good
thing" for any carrier based aircraft. But my guess is that the
"anomaly" encountered will prove to be unique to the X-47B. In other
words, it's still experimental.

My point is, Bob seems to think these things are "ready for prime-time".
But, they're clearly not.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

unmanned landing on a carrier is one of the toughest jobs there are, a mistake puts the entire carrier at risk.....

as such its a big leap in robotics.....

despite posters claims here robotics are taking over, begining with any job that can be done by machines cheaper than by a human......

now look at the lost jobs in the last 30 years in just one example.....

ATMs automated teller machines. while they dont replace a teller completely, consider how many tellers they have replaced.

a customer can do much of their banking by machine....

their paycheck gets electronically depoisted. they pay their bills on line, obtain cash from ATMs

much more convenient and saves banks a fortune in pay, benefits, sick days personal days, maternity leave etc etc...

these are all examples of technology replacing humans. this will accelerate in the future

and never before did unmanned robot controlled vehicles land on a aircraft carrier....

In article ,
says...

On 7/13/2013 7:36 AM, bob haller wrote:
the difference is the unmanned version has no backup at all,

Perhaps you know enough about the X-47B to expand on that?

I can say with confidence that, he doesn't have any knowledge outside of
what he's read in the press.

I'll admit to having no direct knowledge of the X-47B, but my guess is
that it has multiple backups in the loop, likely including a
pre-programmed abort if certain parameters are exceeded or
communications failure detected, and almost certainly including
real-time human supervision. The main difference from a piloted plane
landing on autopilot would be that the human "supervisor" isn't actually
aboard the plane.

You can also make the argument that a conventional single-seat carrier
plane making a manual approach has no backups at all. If the human
screws up or becomes disabled, the plane becomes an unguided missile and
there's little the aircraft carrier can do about it.

That's more or less my guess as well. The example Fred gives with the
F/A-18 on a Type I Approach would have the pilot available as the backup
in case the automation software can't handle the approach for some
reason. An unmanned vehicle doesn't have that luxury, and since the
Navy would not want an unmanned aircraft crashing into a carrier, an
unmanned vehicle would need some sort of automated landing abort
capability which avoids the carrier.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

yeah but in the end its all robotics and some level of AI....

my point is no human is available at all.

unlike hands off landings.... where the human can take over if things go wrong

On 7/13/2013 12:32 PM, bob haller wrote:
my point is no human is available at all.

And your "point" is likely erroneous. Are you saying that there is no
real-time human supervision of the flight? How do you know? Do you
have a reference?

i would be stunned if people on the carrier lacked the ability to wave off a landing.

but when everything is considered airplanes with npo operators landing on a aircraft carrier are still a accomplishment.

the miltary wants to use lots of robots and automation.....

Jeff Findley wrote:
Navy would not want an unmanned aircraft crashing into a carrier, an
unmanned vehicle would need some sort of automated landing abort
capability which avoids the carrier.

Phalanx ?-)

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...