Future Unmanned Systems Impact

UAS will have a significant impact on the future of society over the next two decades, despite many changes and developments with both unmanned ground and maritime systems.

While traffic on highways and roads are constantly being expanded to accommodate increased passenger movements with the ever-growing population, there is limited space for these vehicles to operate. While autonomous ground vehicles will help to improve safety and alleviate some of the traffic by improving driving and navigational efficiency, these vehicles over the next few decades will still be sharing the streets with manned vehicles, allowing for human error to be present in operations.

UAS (specifically passenger drones) will have the unique capability (once regulations are effectively established) to capitalize on low altitude airspace, tapping into a network that can be effectively managed and developed from inception (Mcneal, 2016). Additionally, passenger drones will have the ability to operate in multiple dimensions, not limited to ground travel, but able to utilize VTOL capability. While autonomous vehicles are being developed by several manufacturers with proprietary software and systems, while current drone technology is typically more open sourced, with collaboration between manufacturers and enabling innovation and rapid advancement.

With regards to other UAS applications, enhanced capabilities in aerial photography, utility inspections, search and rescue and disaster recovery efforts, drug interdiction, parcel delivery, geo mapping, agriculture inspection/monitoring, firefighting applications and even university campus guides will continue to press the boundaries for what these systems are able to accomplish (Carroll, 2013). In conjunction with advanced cameras, sensors and countless other payload attachments, the possibilities for what these systems can do is endless.  

Additionally, there are countless military applications for these systems, removing the risk to loss of life for pilots and crews in hazardous environments, and enhancing the capabilities of ISR, agile supply movements and ground support.

Over the next few decades, for UAS, the rapid increase in technology, hardware and software will allow for endless possibilities!

-Jonathan

References

Carroll, J. (2013, December 6). The future is here: Five applications of UAV technology. Retrieved from http://www.vision-systems.com/articles/2013/12/the-future-is-here-five-applications-of-uav-technology.html

McNeal, G. (2016, October 24). Four Reasons Why Drones, Not Driverless Cars, Are The Future Of Autonomous Navigation. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2016/10/24/four-reasons-why-drones-not-driverless-cars-are-the-future-of-autonomous-navigation/#46e2c2e23e45

Autonomous Strategy Implementation

When introducing an unmanned system, consideration must be given to privacy, ethics, safety and lost link/loss of system control in order to successfully implement. While an unmanned ground system may has many differences than a UAS, there are some very common and shared concerns that must be addressed. Much like the UAS, the specific operating environment, and mission specific requirements have a great deal of impact on what needs to be addressed and how requirements are implemented.

Privacy is a very important consideration, and unmanned ground systems have much in common with UAS with regards to peoples concern over where they operate and the information that they may collect or access. The article Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Privacy, the author identifies a situation where he is at a friends house, and the son of the friend is operating a small UGS (Finn, 2017). The father is dismayed at how intrusive his sons actions are with this device, and proceeds to apologize and express concern over the fact that the vehicle has a camera attached, identifying that it can be used to spy on him in his own house. ISR is a very real issue when it comes to UGVs, and with the rapid acceleration of autonomous vehicles in general this concern is likely to grow. The information collected about where you go and who you travel with, as well as a slew of personal data could be damaging and used against you. Having robust privacy controls, and being transparent with consumers about what information is gathered and how it is planned to be used is the best strategy for implementation.

Also, much like the issue of privacy in UGV operations, the issue of ethics in this realm deal with how and what information is collected, and what the intent of use is. Recreational usage should consider where the vehicle is operated, and what the function is. Obviously we can’t always know peoples intent of use, so without robust regulations or rules governing recreational use, the individual user would be under their own interpretation of ethical usage. Commercial autonomous UGS operations are a little easier to regulate, and like with the issue of privacy, should be transparent regarding the information that is collected and used. As their primary customer will be the general public, the commercial autonomous operating companies will have to ensure they maintain this transparency, to avoid significant public backlash in the case of breaches of trust.

Safety is another issue that must be addressed in implementation of a UGS system.  As there may be varying levels of human intervention depending on the mission, system capabilities and any embedded safety features, great consideration must be given in addressing how the system interacts with the environment and personnel encountered. To address, you must begin by identify the hazards, assessing the risk involved, identify risk mitigation options and then implement these mitigation techniques (Owens, 2014). Finally, you must validate the effectiveness of the options you choose, and determine if additional actions need to be taken, or new issues addressed.

With regards to lost link or loss of control, addressing these issues in the developmental strategy is important. Whether it be a redundant return to home location as found on several commercial or recreational UAS, or a predetermined autonomous program to continue to another previously identified location, it is paramount to ensure these issues are addressed. The mission set of the UGS must be considered as well, as the operating environment and requirements can have a great impact on the necessity of certain lost link or loss of control features.

References

Finn, W. (2017, July 11). Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) & Privacy. Retrieved from http://amrel.com/unmanned-ground-vehicles-privacy/

Owens, T. (2014). system safety considerations for unmanned ground vehicles. Retrieved from http://issc2014.system-safety.org/71_Owens_System_Safety_Considerations_for_Unmanned.pdf

Robots vs Astronauts

In the article Robots vs Astronauts, Dr. Joshua Colwell and Dr. Daniel Britt take two sides of the debate on manned vs unmanned exploration, but come to similar conclusions.

Dr. Britt conveys that in terms of deep space exploration, there is really only one option that we as humans have right now, and that is unmanned systems utilization (Colwell & Britt, 2017). As we are limited in our technology, our reach to explore space with manned operations is also limited. We are susceptible to factors in the space environment such as extreme heat and cold, a need for consumables (water, air, food), as well as several redundant engineered systems required only to sustain life of the manned crew. The high energy radiation exposure during longer manned space exploration trips such as to Venus, Mercury or Jupiter would be deadly, and there are no current workable solutions for preventing the bone loss and muscle atrophy that would be encountered by the astronauts. Additionally, manned missions could present a situation whereas foreign matter and contaminating substances are introduced into these new worlds, potentially contaminating these environments.

All the above being considered, Dr. Britt points out that manned missions do bring about a great deal of “flexibility inspiration and native intelligence” (Colwell & Britt, 2017). In conjunction with this statement, I found another article that expands upon some of these key characteristics by explaining some of the roles that manned crew have played in support of continued mission/operational success. In one example, astronauts repaired the initially flawed Hubble Space Telescope, and have continued to perform routine maintenance to ensure its continued successful operation (Slakey & Spudis, 2008). Several instances have arisen over the years, where astronauts were able to repair hardware in space, preserving valuable missions. Another factor to consider, elaborate robotics are being developed that may someday deploy highly sensitive instruments, however at this time robotic deployment is rough, so we may experience lower sensitivity and capability than the instruments humans could deploy.

One of the most interesting points that this article discusses, as from the perspective of Dr. Colwell, is how manned space exploration isn’t so much about the scientific breakthroughs or advancement of technology and ideas as it is about preserving a much needed component of space exploration as a whole- curiosity and an inspiration to pursue our lofty goals (Colwell & Britt, 2017). Unmanned operations are decisively the most cost effective method to explore space, however manned operations satisfy some of our most basic desires in wanting to excel and explore what is over the horizon. In fact, the initial drive behind the space program was a desire to excel above our Russian counterparts.  NASA has recognized the need for publicity, and has done a good job of highlighting missions with exciting visuals and entertaining characters. One such example is John Glenn’s return to space at the age of 77 to enable various “medical experiments” (Slakey & Spudis, 2008). The real winner in this mission was NASA, as it became the most actively followed mission since the Apollo moon landing. In justifying a need for $16 billion dollars annually, manned missions do provide the excitement and garner the attention needed to keep the space mission relevant in the public eye. Dr. Colwell points out that it would be naïve to expect that politicians would spend the same sums of money on purely “scientific exploration”, and I agree. He continues to speculate that if the manned program was cancelled today, its budget would disappear, and not be spent on any other space exploration endeavors (Colwell & Britt, 2017).

Dr. Colwell provides great insight with the statement “We need to move past the debate of manned versus unmanned programs and recognize that they serve different yet complementary roles, and that each endeavor ultimately strengthens the other” (Colwell & Britt, 2017). I agree with this, as well as the argument from both Dr. Britt and Dr. Colwell that manned and unmanned space exploration may be synergistic and mutually dependent. Even prior to the moon landings, unmanned platforms were used to gather the necessary data to determine atmospheric conditions and where the best landing site would be. Unmanned exploration in advance of manned operations is necessary, to reduce the risk of loss of life, provide valuable context and provide necessary information. 

I do agree with both Dr. Britt and Dr. Colwell that current limitations of technology will limit our ability to pursue manned space operations, and that until the technology that will allow support is available, we should focus on sticking to unmanned exploration of space. As they mentions, all the data that is garnered in the meantime can only help us when we get to a point of potentially seeking to again pursue manned exploration in the future.

References

Colwell, J., & Britt, D. (2017). Are robots or astronauts the future of space exploration? Retrieved from https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/opinion/

Slakey, F., & Spudis, P. (2008, February 1). Robots vs. Humans: Who Should Explore Space? Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robots-vs-humans-who-should-explore/

Forget flying cars — passenger drones are the future

In the article Forget flying cars — passenger drones are the future, author Joe Blair paints a picture where 10 years from now, passenger ride-sharing drones may be the option of choice for personal travel (2017).   

Mr. Blair illustrates that while the conventional thought of people in the future flying around in their personal flying autos like the Jetsons is common, in reality it is not a viable option considering that there are some 326+ million people in the United States ("Population Clock," 2017). With an estimated 2015 tally of registered vehicles in the U.S. at around 236 million, the likelihood of shifting any significant portion of vehicular traffic to the airspace would be a nearly impossible feat (Statista, 2017). With passenger, military and commercial aircraft, coupled with the onslaught of commercial drones that will soon be operating in our skies, there won’t be much unused capacity remaining in our airspace.

 As Mr. Blair points out, if all personal flying auto operators were required to amass 40+ flying hours in order to earn an FAA approved flying certificate, the market for these craft would likely be small (2017). As such, he points out that to achieve a realistic outcome, passenger drones of the future will need to be fully automated. Due to the likely exorbitant purchasing cost, these automated drones will also likely be available to the general public as a ridesharing or taxi service much like the current Uber or Lyft services, allowing for on-demand transport without substantial cost investment. When considering Mr. Blair’s reasoning for this technology being used primarily for ride-sharing, I do agree that this might be the most realistic outcome of passenger drone development.    

Machine learning algorithms, sensors and safety systems like collision avoidance currently being developed by Tesla, Uber and Google for use in their autonomous vehicles will serve the passenger drones just as well. It is likely that these passenger drones may have an easier time navigating the skies than autonomous automobiles have, as there are often fewer unpredictable obstacles encountered in the skies, and there are more options for evading them (Blair 2017). 

These automated rideshare drone designs will likely be a blend- a large quadcopter with fixed wings to sustain heavy weight while maintaining maneuverability in a cluttered urban landscape, and may be closer to reality than many believe. The Chinese firm EHang has already received clearance from Nevada to test the world’s first passenger drone. The craft can reportedly fly at 11,500 feet, and travel at speeds up to 63 mph, although limited to 23 minutes flight time (Blair 2017).  Uber is also working on an autonomous air transportation service with Uber Elevate, utilizing Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft, with the goal of operational service within the next decade.

There are challenges that will need to be addressed if these companies are to succeed. First, current battery technology limits the operational range of drones. The rapid rate of technological advancement however, could find a viable replacement for the traditional lithium-ion batteries currently in use. One option discussed in this article centers around a Seattle based company, LaserMotive.  LaserMotive teamed with Lockheed Martin in 2012, using lasers targeting photovoltaic cells mounted on the Stalker UAS, maintaining flight for 48 hours (Blair 2017).

Additionally, regulations are a challenge that need to be addressed to move forward in the near term. FAA rules for line of sight operations and operator requirements may stifle U.S. placement as a leader in passenger drone innovation, as other countries are already working to be at the forefront of autonomous commercial drone usage. Delft, a city in the Netherlands has already approved hosting a fully autonomous drone network, with docking stations and rentals. Domino’s pizza has already teamed with drone maker Flirtey, delivering the first pizza using a commercial drone in November of 2016.   

Mr. Blair identifies a path forward for the U.S. to regain its footing, by opening testing of passenger drones for emergency services. He suggests using passenger drones for search and rescue and ambulance services in life and death situations. An example being a cardiac patient in New York city, who requires attention within 6 minutes, while the standard ambulance response time in 2015 was over 12 minutes. In this case, a passenger drone could airlift a paramedic and equip rapidly to the scene.

 I do support further research/development of this technology and usage (once refined) in emergency situations, as it has the potential to save countless lives. As Mr. Blair says, “Why not take a risk on saving people who would have no chance otherwise?”

References

Blair, J. (2017, January 28). Forget flying cars — passenger drones are the future. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/28/forget-flying-cars-passenger-drones-are-the-future/

Population Clock. (2017). Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/popclock/

Statista. (2017). Number of cars in U.S. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

Forget Autonomous Cars—Autonomous Ships Are Almost Here

Forget Autonomous Cars—Autonomous Ships Are Almost Here

Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMS) are increasingly playing a greater role in both civilian and military functions. A UMS can often perform functions safer, at a lower cost and often more efficiently than manned crew operations. Tasks such as diver inspections of pipelines or ship salvaging, mine detection and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations have all experienced increases in efficiency due to UMS utilization. Regardless of application, rapid technological advances have enabled swift growth across the spectrum of maritime operations.

One area that could revolutionize global markets, is the use of automated cargo ships. Recent technological improvements have allowed advancement in the autonomous ships, capable of being piloted remotely, as well as autonomous craft that can take corrective actions for themselves. While fully autonomous cargo ship may be a few years away, automated commercial ships such as ferries/tugs that navigate themselves through local coasts may be a reality in the next few years (Levander, 2017).

Rolls Royce is a part of a joint project in Finland called the Advanced Autonomous Waterborne Applications (AAWA), working to develop and improve technology necessary to make fully automated commercial shipping a reality. Ships have been downsizing the amount of crew required to operate steadily over the past few centuries, as technology helps civilization adapt to new ways of accomplishing tasks. As such, crew downsizing and advancements are part of the natural evolution we have been practicing for some time.

This article discusses the technology that is required to ensure safety of commercial autonomous shipping operations.  The vessel will need to be able to utilize proximity sensors to monitor and evaluate surrounding obstacles and environmental considerations, communicating data to a remote operator, or utilized by onboard computers capable of taking actions based on available inputs. These sensors allow for collision avoidance, and are necessary to help perform complicated functions, such as docking on arrival to a port. Rolls Royce is working on situational awareness systems that use high definition visible light and infrared cameras, along with utilization of LIDAR and RADAR inputs to provide a thorough picture of the ships environment. Additional information available to the autonomous computing system or remote operator would include satellite location data, weather reports and other ships reported information.

There are many benefits to automating commercial shipping vehicles- labor is a significant cost of shipping operations. Automating systems to reduce the manual labor required to support can result in a lower bottom line for companies, translating into lower production prices and those offered to customers. Differencing power systems may evolve, allowing ships to operate and rely less on traditional fuel sources, incorporating electric and solar systems to reduce the carbon footprint. Security would also be positively affected. As shipping routes through dangerous waters patrolled by terrorists is sometimes necessary/more efficient, not having onboard crews that could be held hostage could reduce the likelihood of targeting by these groups. Additionally, ships could be designed to repel these attacks, and make access more difficult, having shipboard controls more secured. Safety would also be positively affected- according to a German insurance company report in 2012, approximately 75 to 96 percent of maritime accidents are human error related, often due to fatigue. Ships could be maintained without the footprint required to support personnel, reducing weight and possibly making the ships design more effective with less wind resistance and reduced fuel consumption.

Several concerns do arise when discussing shipping automation. Concerns for weather events limiting or taking communications/control offline is one possible issue that would need to be addressed. A ship without control capability could put other seafaring vessels at risk in the case of potential physical contact. Additionally, the threat of hacking is another issue that arises. As mentioned in another module, hacking of vehicle systems have been demonstrated recently, leading to concerns that these vehicles/systems could be utilized to support a large scale terrorist type attack, or be used to inflict harm on individual persons or targets.

As shipping plays such a major role in global transport, supporting automated commercial cargo shipping is a good pursuit in my opinion. In the port of Long Beach alone, nearly 6.75 million containers travelled through the port in CY 2016 (Port of Long Beach, 2017).  While many of the laborious jobs may be reduced, as with most other sectors, we will increasingly have to rely on more technologically advanced skills to complete operations. Shifting some of these manual labor jobs to tech monitoring, control and repair/support will help the job market and personal tech skills grow and advance as well.

-Jon

References

Levander, O. (2017, January 28). Forget Autonomous Cars—Autonomous Ships Are Almost Here. Retrieved from https://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/marine/forget-autonomous-cars-autonomous-ships-are-almost-here

Port of Long Beach. (2017). Port of Long Beach - Yearly TEUs. Retrieved November 5, 2017, from http://www.polb.com/economics/stats/yearly_teus.asp

Driverless Convoy Technology May Be Fielded Soon

Driverless Convoy Technology May Be Fielded Soon

Lockheed Martin has been working on a project for the past 14 years, called the Autonomous Mobility Applique System (AMAS), aimed at automating vehicles utilized in convoy operations. The system is a kit that can be retrofitted to an existing platform, and can allow convoys to operate with little to no human inputs.

The Autonomous Mobility Applique System has amassed more than 55,000 hours of road time on nine modified vehicles, and is getting close to being fielded. Successful demonstrations with TARDEC (Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center) in 2014 at Fort Hood Texas, where the AMAS system demonstrations utilized M915 trucks and the Palletized Loading System flatbed vehicles while performing convoy operations have helped keep momentum going on this program (Seck, 2017). Previous testing at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River facilities in South Carolina saw the use of seven vehicles in a convoy formation travelling at speeds of up to 40 miles per hour. Additional testing of the AMAS system was accomplished in 2016 following Lockheed’s completion of the development of their advanced Leader-Follower capabilities, demonstrating operations with seven Palletized Loading System vehicles and two Light-Medium Tactical Vehicles for safety evaluations (Dennehy, 2017). In October 2016, five of these vehicles took part in the Army Warfighter Assessment (AWA) at Ft. Bliss, Texas, where the new capabilities were demonstrated.

Currently, a manned lead vehicle controls the following automated convoy vehicles. The AMAS system uses a three-part drive-by-wire system- an environment sensor, actuators to move the vehicles and pump the brakes, and a central computer that processes sensor data and gives driving commands (Seck, 2017). Lockheed’s autonomous system developed to monitor and control navigation utilizes GPS, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and automotive radar (Bogue, 2016, p. 358). The system also provides collisions mitigation braking, lane-keeping assist, roll-over warning systems, electronic stability control and adaptive cruise control.

Demonstrations have shown that the AMAS system is capable of tasks including: obstacle avoidance, following lead vehicles and the road, as well as maintaining sufficient set distances between other convoy vehicles (Seck, 2017). One field test navigated oncoming traffic, followed the rules of the road, identified and avoided pedestrians encountered, and even re-routed itself through portions of the test areas to arrive safely at its destination (Bogue, 2016, p. 358). Fully autonomous software is still currently in development, aimed at allowing these vehicles to be dispatched to a set location for delivery of food and supplies, and return to a supply point (Seck, 2017).

The benefits of using a system such as AMAS to automate convoy operations are plentiful, and have the potential to save numerous lives. An autonomous convoy could depart in substandard weather environments, and navigate treacherous terrain to deliver supplies to the operating field units. Reducing the number of lives exposed to dangerous convoy duties is another benefit, and allow those personnel to focus on more operationally relevant functions. Ultimately, the number of members who must be deployed to a combat environment to support these convoy functions could also be reduced. Additionally, autonomous vehicle technology could ultimately be used to allow a lead autonomous vehicle to run point in a convoy, identifying and removing the hazard of IED’s and other ordnance encountered (Bogue, 2016, p. 358).

I do agree with the development of technology such as this, that will allow for a smaller deployable footprint, while enabling accomplishment of mission objectives. Also, the potential to save lives that are lost supporting operations such as convoy movements makes utilization of a system like this necessary. Along the lines of the questions that arise regarding the kill decision for UAS/RPA personnel removed from the battlefield, I am curious how all the automation we strive to implement will impact our future decision-making processes when determining what operations to pursue/support.

References

Bogue, R. (2016). The role of robots in the battlefields of the future. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 43(4), 354-359. doi:10.1108/ir-03-2016-0104

Dennehy, K. (2017, February 28). Lockheed Martin's Autonomous Systems Unit Testing Air-Ground Vehicles. Retrieved from http://insideunmannedsystems.com/lockheed-martins-autonomous-systems-unit-testing-air-ground-vehicles/

Seck, H. (2017, March 30). Driverless Convoy Technology May Be Fielded Soon. Retrieved from https://www.defensetech.org/2017/03/30/driverless-convoy-technology-fielded/