Blogs

"Not even the bucolic Berkeley hills are immune to security concerns in a post-Sept. 11 world, as the editor in chief of Wired magazine has discovered.

Chris Anderson, a 45-year-old Berkeley resident and aerial-reconnaissance enthusiast, sparked a minor security scare Sunday when his remote-controlled plane - equipped with a camera - crashed into a tree at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

Security personnel apparently didn't notice the plane until Anderson asked for help retrieving it, but they've taken notice since.

UC Berkeley police are investigating and federal authorities may be notified about the breach at the hillside lab, which is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed by the university. Unlike UC-managed labs at Livermore and Los Alamos, Berkeley is not involved with nuclear weapons and does not conduct classfied research.

It does have important equipment that needs to be protected, said Dan Lunsford, who manages lab security.

"I think, post-9/11, when we see an event that is out of the ordinary, those are things that gain our interest," Lunsford said. "The greatest thing right now in the war on terrorism is prevention."

Anderson, who lives within walking distance of the lab, does not appear to have broken any laws, Lunsford said. In fact, Anderson said, firefighters helped him get the 4 [ed: that should actually be around 40] -ounce foam plane back when he came calling at the lab's front gate.

"They were incredibly nice about it," he said.

The flight was an attempt to take photos of the unusual architecture of the lab's cyclotron, a mostly round particle accelerator. The photos were to be posted on his personal Web site, diydrones.com, devoted to unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones.

Instead, Anderson, whose children took turns piloting the plane, ended up with a partial photo of the cyclotron and a blog entry titled: "Lesson: Don't fly planes over secure national labs!"

Anderson, who worked at Los Alamos lab in New Mexico, acknowledged he should have known better than to take the close-up aerial photos.

"I promise not to fly over secure national labs anymore," he said."

I had the wackiest near-catastrophe this weekend. My kids and I were running aerial mapping patterns over the Lawrence Berkeley Labs cyclotron (which is very distinctive from the air) and testing some ISO settings on the Pentax A30. Because we were over a built-up area and had to hand launch and recover from a hillside, we were using the Mutiplex EasyStar, which is just an RC plane, not a UAV. Which means that it's all up to the pilot to keep things in hand.

Unfortunately I was the pilot for one run where the sun was in exactly the wrong position and I got momentarily blinded. When I found the EasyStar again I couldn't tell what it's orientation was. Needless to say, ten seconds later it was in the top of the highest tree inside the gate of a super-secure National Laboratory. Yikes.

I dropped the kids off at home and went to the main gate of the lab and explained what happened. To my astonishment, they neither laughed at me nor arrested me. Instead, the head of security escorted me to the cyclotron and we started looking around. I went and got the transmitter and gunned the motor, and eventually we were able to find the plane by following the sound. Sure enough, it was 60 ft off the ground in the tree and really wedged in.

There wasn't much to be done, but at least we'd located it. I left my contact details and we agreed to have me come by the next weekend and see if the wind had budged it at all. Then I went home.

Half an hour later I got a call from the lab. "How would you feel about us using a hose to knock it down?" Needless to say, the risk of water damage seemed a lot better than losing the whole thing, camera, GPS, radio and all. "Go for it!" I said and dashed down the hill again to see what I could do.

When I got there it looked like the scene of a real airplane crash. A lab fire engine with lights flashing was at the base of the tree and searchlights had pinpointed the plane. Hoses snaked across the road and emergency radios were squawking. A fireman was braced against the truck and was about to let loose a high-pressure stream at the plane.

It actually turned out to be harder than it looked, given how high the plane was and how dense the tree was. They had to replenish the water tank once from a fire hydrant before they finally knocked it to the ground. The foam wings and tail were torn off (that's okay--they're just $20 to replace), but the fuselage and the all-important electronics were all there. I thanked everyone profusely and took it all home to dry things out and gauge the damage.

Right now the radio, motor and GPS look fine. The camera is going to have to dry out more before I can tell if it's going to be okay [UPDATE: It's fine!] , and so too for the LiPo battery. But I'm so pleased to get the rest back that I hardly care. Meanwhile, the image data on the card was really pretty good (a PTGui stitch of one pass is above).

Thanks LBL guards and firemen! I promise not to fly planes over your super-secure lab again!

Why you ask why.

Check out this great post from the winners of the Australian amateur UAV contest--the guys at Dionysus Designs, a Chico, CA-based team who focus on advanced RC technology, aerial photography and now amateur UAVs. They built their own airframes, then modded a beautiful powered glider (shown here neatly packed into a golf case to make the trip) to win best in show. Loads of helpful links in that post, too. Get in touch guys! We can use that sort of initiative here ;-)

Meanwhile, if you want other shots of contestents and UAVs from what sounds like a really sucessful contest, check out the photo archive here.

Helicopter- Why the EFlite Blade CX

It is small, light weight, modifiable, and parts are cheap and readily available at the local hobby shopor on eBay. The Blade CX is consideredan indoor outdoor, meaning I can test the helicopter indoors during inclementweather, and a Ready To Fly (RTF) helicopter, so limited set up isnecessary. It is also a twin rotordesign with counter spinning blades, meaning there is little learning curvewhen flying. This will make it mucheasier to program for as the helicopter should be a stable startingplatform. Also I already have one.

I picked the CX over the CX2 model as the CX uses standard FM signals over the CX2’s 2.4 GHz. This means that even though I lose theability to jump frequencies, the helicopter’s operation will not be affect by,or affect nearby 2.4 GHz systems, such as wireless LANs, Bluetooth, or othercommon devices.

The blade CX has a 300ft out door unobstructed range. This can be enhancedwith a more powerful radio, but 300ft is plenty for demonstration purposes.

Wireless Camera- Why the ZT-811T

This is a small camera with a 2.4ghz/900mhz frequency. I would ratherthe 900mhz, due to wifi interference and future implementations, however i doneed to use it as 900mhz needs “line of sight” to work while the 2.4 ghz seemsto just have reduced quality and range. Since this camera is needed for seeing out of the “cockpit”, just incaseyou need to navigate treacherous airspace with precision, or you lose sight ofthe copter and just want to know what its doing and where its going, this isvery necessary. The near VGA qualitymeans that the image comes out large and clear. Also, as it is a pinholecamera, focusing won’t be a problem unless you are viewing it in a low lightsituation. Specs are below

· Iris Automatic

· Exposure Automatic

· Focus Adjustable 30 mm to Infinity

· Validity Pixel: NTSC - 510x492

· Resolution 380 Lines

· Horizontal Viewing Angle 52 Degree

· Effective Range 300-1000ft

· Voltage 9 to 12 volt DC (receiver)/6-9 volt DC(camera)

· Power Consumption 200 mWatt (camera) 200mWatt (receiver)

· Current Consumption 200 mA (camera) 500 mA(receiver)

· System NTSC ONLY

· Operation Duration of Camera 8 hours on 9 voltDuracell or Energizer

· Dimensions 20mm x 20mm x 20mm

· Video Output Through RCA Video Cable

· Minimum illumination 3 Lux

Microcontroller board.for output

This is still under evaluation with my friend who is an EE. Looks like I’ll have to besoldering. At the moment, we’ve jumpedform analog outputs to digtal outputs with a digital pot for each joystickcontrol.

Independent Study Proposal

Primary Goal

Build an interface to control an RC helicopter via a computer, effectively creating a UAV

Time Line

Ø By October 1^st- have research completed.

Ø By mid October- have all the materials gathered/enroute as needed

Ø By November 1^st- have the model mechanically assembled

Ø By Mid November- have the basic computer controls operational

Ø By December 1^st- have computer controls tweaked

Ø By Last day of Class, have research project written up and we present the final model

Meeting

Professor Samaras and I will meet bi weekly to discuss the project. During this time, concerns, issues, help, guidance, and expertise will be exchanged towards completing whichever goals we are at.

Grading will be based on these criteria

• Research (10)
• Written report (10)
• Completion of the mechanical side (20)
• Completion of the electrical side (20)
• Completion of the computer programming side (20)
• Smoothness of controls (scale of 1-5)
• Ergonomics (ease of controls (scale of 1-5)
• Ability to stick to agenda without falling too far behind (1-5)
• Staying on task (1-5)

Secondary Goal

Have the helicopter return its global position and a visual feed of its whereabouts. Also, the vehicle will be able to fly about in space after inputting where on a map you want it to go and how high you want it to go.

Tertiary Goal*

Have the helicopter be able to monitor positions, track objects, and post alerts and react to different stimuli, and attempt to find home when it sense that any of the above feeds are too low.

*As the tertiary goal will have computer vision components, if the decision is made to continue the project into another semester to incorporate such goals, in other words, the secondary goal Must be fulfilled, then credit for the computer vision class will be given at the end of the following semester

1. It only records a GPS record every 15 seconds in low-power mode and every 5 seconds in high-power mode. Even at the highest, battery-draining settings, that's way too slow for aerial mapping.
2. It takes forever to get a satellite lock. The first time, it took more than half an hour and subsequently it took more than three minutes.
3. Keeping that satellite lock is a struggle, too. By having a terrible GPS chip that only sees 12 satellites, the Trackstick II suffers from frequent drop-outs and glitchy datapoints. We found it essentially unusable.
   

"The Defense Department's unmanned air force has grown exponentially; there are now more than 3200 mil-drones in the fleet, up from about 200 in 2002. But after spending some time in Iraq, I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of those robo-planes are sitting on the shelves, barely used.

Here's why. The military's big unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are controlled by colonels and generals. The local commanders on the ground basically have no say where the things fly. For example, a company commander, recently returned from Anbar province, sa id his area got a grand total of eight minutes of coverage from the Predator spy drone per day.

But wait, you say. The vast majority of America's UAVs are little, hand-launched drones, like the four-and-a-half pound Ravens and the five-pound Dragon Eyes. The local captain has control over those, right? Well, theoretically, yeah.

But there are so many bureaucratic hoops to jump through to get those tiny UAVs in the air that many captains have stopped bothering to try. Air clearance is the hoops that comes up most. Although the drones are small, they can get up pretty high -- 1000 feet, or more. Which means there's a concern about the UAVs getting tangled up with helicopters. Setting aside space for the drones can take 24 to 48 hours -- and insurgents don't usually stay in one place that long.

A few weeks ago in Anbar, I spoke to local Marine commander who had basically given up on using his Dragon Eye, for this reason. The same thing happened in Tarmiyah, north of Baghdad, where Captain Pat Roddy told me, "the Raven? Never fly it." Which is particularly frustrating. Because Roddy regularly gets airspace for himself, to fire mortars. But his higher-ups won't let him launch his drone during that time, because the computer program that tracks airspace says its a no-aircraft zone. Roddy has been told that he can make an emergency switch from mortar to Raven airspace -- and it'll only take an hour to make the switch in the computer. But he can only do so if his troops are in a firefight. And firefights in Iraq almost never take more than a few minutes. An hour later, the Raven is all-but-useless."

And from the bottom, it looks like this:

In a comment on a thread at right, David Albert makes an important point about frequency clashes between spread specturm radios and 2.4 Ghz video downlink systems, such as the RangeVideo and Black Widow AV setups that we use. If you haven't been following the chatter on aerial photography newsgroups, you might have missed this (as I did). This info may save your plane!

• "Having a 2.4Ghz Tx right next to a 2.4Ghz Rx is a bad idea. Regardless if it is Spektrum, Futaba, or Xtreme Power Systems. Once you get a certain distance, the video TX will swamp (overload) your Rx. Imagine looking into a bright spotlight and trying to see a candle in the distance. Even if the candle is changing colors (changing frequencies, ie spread spectrum) it is just a matter of time and distance before you can no longer see the candle. Check out ezonemag.com there are many many threads on this under the UAV forum and FPV forum on this. That is the reason why people with 2.4Ghz RC systems are moving to 900Mhz video or keeping 2.4Ghz video and using plain old 50Mhz or 72Mhz RC Transmitters."

I hope we can all contribute to the Anti-Terror war, by building UAVs, sending them into the DOD and having them take consumer research and make it into something that will protect us in return forn our troubles...

I certainly will donate some of my butterflies...

• How an IMU works
  
• How accelerometers can control pitch and roll
• How gyros can control pitch, roll and yaw
• How Kalman filters work
• A review of one commercial autopilot (Micropilot MPO2028)
• Other commercial IMUs

• For the ailerons, you'll need micro servos like the Futaba S3114s. When you're threading the servo extension cables through the wing, wrap the connectors with tape and taper the wrapping into the wire, to avoid connector edges that will catch on wing bulkheads.
• You definitely want steerable landing gear. There are a lot of good tips on how to do that in this thread. One of the things that stumped people was how to use servo mixing for the V-tail and still use the rudder to steer the nose gear. The answer is to use a VeeTail hardware mixer, with a Y-connector from the receiver going to the nose gear servo and the VeeTail input. The VeeTail board is also compatible with the UNAV PicoPilot autopilot, which we'll be using later.
  
• I used a Hacker A30-28S motor with an 8x6 pusher prop. I had to use 1/2" spacers to get it far enough back to clear the fiberglass rear cover. And even then I needed another 1/4" nut on the prop shaft to get the prop far enough back to clear the cover. (BTW, if you use the Hacker you'll have to trim away an eighth of an inch around the open in the back of the fiberglass cover to clear the prop mount.
  
• I made the wings removable. This involved putting little hooks in the side of each wing and drilling a corresponding hole in the fuselage on each side. A short rubber band, threaded through the fuselage with a paper-clip hook, keeps the two wing halves from falling off.
• I put two spruce rails on the bottom of the plane, just ahead of the landing gear (ie, right on the center of gravity) , and put screws sticking out them at the front and back sides of each. This will serve as our payload attachment point, and the screws sticking out are for rubber bands. It fits our stabilized camera mount beautifully.
• It remains to be seen how well the UNAV PicoPilot flies this plane. UNAV warns against planes with ailerons and little dihedral, which is the case here. Until I test it in autonomous mode, consider this just a very cool looking R/C aerial photography plane.
  

Hi everyone, I am running a student satellite project in Pakistan. http://www.informationvision.net . Now I want to start a student UAV project. My aim is to develop an agriculture UAV which can monitor SALIN water in Rahim Yar Khan which is major issue for the farmers in the region. Can anyone help me with documentation for the projeect.