Drones in your sky?

reible · Post by **reible** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:31 pm

I spotted something in the sky yesterday.

While it was too far away to identify by eye sight my zoom camera was another thing altogether.

I got a nice zoomed in picture to take back home to check out later.

It was a drone!

The photo here has been cropped to make it easier to see and then zoomed in with software. Like the red and green lights.... and camera.

We were at a Kite Festive and off to the side and quite high up I just happened to spot it, Bet they didn't think anyone would notice with all the kites in the sky.

[ATTACH]26193[/ATTACH]

Ed

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:35 pm

Great shot, Ed.

It doesn't look like it is carrying any privacy intrusion gear (yet).

I could get into a lot of trouble around here with that and a good camera attached. Most of my neighbors who have pools also have high fences but not that high.

reible · Post by **reible** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:09 pm

If you think that if my camera could see that much detail how much detail can a drone see?? I mean this is only a less then $400 camera I have so what would it take to double the quality of what I have and put it in a drone.

Very different world we live in now then when we were kids.

Ed

cincinnati · Post by **cincinnati** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:24 pm

Looks like ones I see at a local park. Think they must sell them at hobby stores.

skou · Post by **skou** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:06 pm

cincinnati wrote:Looks like ones I see at a local park. Think they must sell them at hobby stores.

I'm agreeing. Looks like a "quadcopter," not a drone. They are simple-to-control RC aircraft, but don't have the surveillance features a real drone does. (Although, they can lift quite a bit, so the camera is a distinct possibility.)

steve

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:22 pm

It's not a "drone." It's a radio controlled helicopter. "Drone" has a military/police/spy association with it and I don't like seeing that term applied to these hobbyist "toys." I have a couple friends who are into these quadcopters. I bet the guy flying this one just wanted some aerial photos of the kite festival.

reible · Post by **reible** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:41 pm

Perhaps this might help with what these are like:

http://www.ruralking.com/toys/remote-co ... o-fly.html

If you want more examples use google for "hobby drones".

It is amazing what you can buy.

If I had the money I get one and mount a go-pro camera as an upgrade after I was sure I wouldn't be crashing it all the time. Well that and not loosing it if the self return doesn't work.

Like the ones that let you see the images in real time on your phone/tablet that has got to be cool.

Ed

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:12 am

They indeed are a lot of fun!

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:14 pm

reible wrote:If you think that if my camera could see that much detail how much detail can a drone see?? I mean this is only a less then $400 camera I have so what would it take to double the quality of what I have and put it in a drone.

Very different world we live in now then when we were kids.

Ed

I was at a conference in San Francisco back in the early 80's than admiral was talking about this country, nuclear arms treaties and such.

He showed a declassified picture of the guy smoking a cigarette sitting in a chaise lounge in his back yard taken from a satellite. They zoomed the picture down from a picture of the US, down to California down to San Diego down to a city block, down to a back yard down to guy sitting in the chaise.

The speaker said in the classified pictures which he wasn't allowed to talk about they could "almost" tell the cigarette was a camel. Which he said with wink and a smile.

If they could do that in the 80's is it any wonder a $400 camera today can take a picture of a drone that far away and allow you to see such detail?

I was watching a program on National Geographic channel of a drone watching two terrorist setting a IED on a road in an attempt to blow up a US convoy of 4 vehicles. The control room could not alert the convoy due to radio problems. But thankfully the device was a dud.

In the picture taken at night you could see the men, the device, what each guy was wearing.

My frustration was why the drone wasn't armed and able to take the two guys out to begin with.

They also showed pictures of terrorists outside the fence of the big airbase in Afghanistan (Belmugan or something like that) at night. They would stay about 50 yards away and then go up toward the fence and back off. Later that same evening short range missiles hit on base and 14 injured and 4 killed. Again I wondered why they didn't arm the drones and just blow anyone away that came within 100 yard of the fence at night.

WmZiggy · Post by **WmZiggy** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:02 am

Ed in Tampa wrote:
My frustration was why the drone wasn't armed and able to take the two guys out to begin with.

They also showed pictures of terrorists outside the fence of the big airbase in Afghanistan (Belmugan or something like that) at night. They would stay about 50 yards away and then go up toward the fence and back off. Later that same evening short range missiles hit on base and 14 injured and 4 killed. Again I wondered why they didn't arm the drones and just blow anyone away that came within 100 yard of the fence at night.

The Base is Bagram AFB. The reason they don't kill these terrorists are ROEs (Rules of Engagement). It's the old story since Vietnam (perhaps Korea) - politicians. When war is politicized, military members needlessly die. If they just let the generals run the Nation's wars and let military members do what they are trained to do, there would be less loss of life. The current Administration is the worst, in this regard, of any I have experience in my lifetime and during my 30 years of military service.

Finally, I have a good friend and former Wing commander who is the executive director of drone studies at UND School of Aerospace in Grand Forks, ND. They are working hand-in-hand with the FAA at developing rules (including ethics) that will regulate drone use by individuals, industry, business, military and government in the U.S. North Dakota currently has air space approved and set aside for testing drones. PS: the "toys" referred to here are classified as drones and the rules/standards/license to use/ and all the rest will be determined by the FAA in the near future.