9.3 Research Blog: Future Unmanned Systems Impact

For this week’s blog I was required to discuss which type of unmanned system (UGS, UMS, and UAS) I believed will have the greatest impact on society over the next two decades, what role it will play, and why.

I believe all manner of unmanned system, whether it be marine, ground or air, will have an impact on society in some form or another, but it is my opinion, that only those systems with the most exposure to a society will have the greatest impact.  In this regard I don’t foresee marine systems in their current application having an impact on a society as significant as ground or air based systems, in part because of their low or nonexistent visibility (i.e. out-of-sight/out-of-mind).  Therefore, given my position within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), I couldn’t help but address the implications or impact that unmanned aircraft systems will have on a modern society within the next two decades.

It’s not by accident that UAS have become the must have technology for civil applications.  Over the past two decades of armed conflict, UAS have shown their ability to remove man from the dull, dirty and dangerous operations of war.  Somewhere along the way the commercial industry saw the advantages of having an unmanned aircraft system added to the toolbox for the hazardous and costly operations performed in the commercial sector.

In an effort to ensure the fast paced environment of commercial UAS is done in a safe manner, the Federal Aviation Administration slowed the industries enormous potential by implementing operational standards to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) in a methodical and measured way.  One way of ensuring that UAS are operated safely in the NAS is to define and regulate operator or pilot-in-command requirements.

In the article, The Future of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Pilot Qualification (2013), A. Mirot explained:

UAS Operator qualification is a complex issue that will set the foundation for other integration issues. The FAA's initial guidance is simplistic and will not appropriately manage the diverse requirements of UAS operations. The FAA has understandably made UAS operations very restrictive and placed qualification requirements on UAS crews that far exceed current manned aircraft or model aircraft requirements (Summary, pg. 26).

Overtime, as collected data shows the reliability of the technology these stricter operator requirements will be relaxed.  Only then, after the technology has been slowly proven out and accepted by society will true Integration in the NAS be realized.

In his report, Sustaining the U.S. lead in Unmanned Systems, Military and Homeland Considerations through 2025, (2014) S. Brannen suggested;

Unmanned systems will also have a new domestic prominence and importance for the United States as they are increasingly adopted for homeland and law enforcement missions, for private commercial use and by individuals (pg.2).

It is also Brannen’ s opinion, that by the year 2025, the most technological advances will be realized in autonomy, software/integration of existing systems, better sensors of all types and solutions applicable to congestion and electromagnetic spectrum (para. 3, pg. 5).

He further explained that autonomy will be enabled by continued progress in efficiency and miniaturization of computer processing and power sources, most significantly in the realm of machine learning or AI (also referred to as artificial Intelligence) (para. 5, pg.5).

As history has shown over the past 100+ years, technology of any sort that appears foreign or unrealistic to a society evolves to meet the society’s concerns and doubts for the need of the technology.  It was only over the past two decades that home computers and mobile phones have found their way into nearly every home and pocket around the globe.

Unmanned systems, whether they are marine, ground or air will find their niche in society the same way, if not sooner.

References

Brannen, S. J. (2014). Sustaining the U.S. lead in Unmanned Systems, Military and Homeland Considerations through 2025, Retrieved from https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140227_Brannen_UnmannedSystems_Web.pdf

Mirot, A. (2013). The Future of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Pilot Qualification, JAAER Vol. 22 Number 3 Article 7, Retrieved from http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=jaaer

8.4 - Research Blog 5: Unmanned System Implementation Strategy

This week’s research blog assignment was to develop a basic strategy to ensure the successful implementation of any unmanned system within known boundaries.  But the blog had to address issues regarding privacy, ethics, safety and lost/link loss of system control.

In order to develop a strategy to address these issues, as they might apply to any given unmanned system, those issues must first be defined.  The Microsoft Word based Encarta dictionary defines privacy, ethics, and safety in different context, but only those significant to this discussion are provided in the following manner:

Privacy- (noun):

·       seclusion-the state of being apart from other people and not seen, heard, or disturbed by them

·       freedom from attention of others- freedom from the observation, intrusion, or attention of others

·       hidden condition- the state of being kept secret

Ethics (noun):

·       study of morality’s effect on conduct- the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct (takes a singular verb)

·       code of morality- a system of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct for a person or group (takes a plural verb)

Safety (noun):

·       freedom from danger- protection from, or not being exposed to, the risk of harm or injury

·       lack of danger- inability to cause or result in harm, injury, or damage

Lost/link is a generally accepted term associated with radio frequency (RF) based communication between a remote control station and an unmanned system (US) that has been inhibited to such a degree that operational control or situational awareness of the US is lost.

A post in Non-Military & Commercial UAS, Regulatory Matters (2016) defined lost/link in the following way:

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are unique as they are operated through commands sent via line of sight, relayed by satellite relay, or by responding to pre-set programming in the on-board computer. (UAS, para. 2).

There are two components to lost link: one is the up-link that transmits command and control (C2) instructions to the aircraft; the second is the down-link which relays the operation/status of onboard systems within the aircraft to the ground control station. If either link is disabled or malfunctions, the result is defined as “lost link (UAS, para. 3).

This definition can be aptly applied to any unmanned system type whether it is ground, marine or aircraft.  Regardless of how these issues are defined, some distinctions must be made in order to gain an understanding of how to develop a strategy to insure these issues are addressed for the successful implementation of any given unmanned system.

      Privacy, ethics and safety are terms that can be best described as state of mind. They are not based on a given failure but on how an individual applies the term to their own state of well-being, moral compass or security.

On the other hand, Lost/link is quantifiable, where the end result is loss of human in/on-the-loop control and situational awareness of the unmanned system.  Lost/link cannot be defined in different terms, on a case-by case basis, or differently from one person to the next, it is what it is.

So, given any further analysis of these issues, how does one develop a basic strategy to ensure the successful implementation of any unmanned system within known boundaries?  Those issues that are a state of mind can be resolved thru continued education and regulation over a period of time, probably best described as assimilation and adaption or as the Federal Aviation Administration has aptly titled their basic strategy for implementation of UAS: Integration.

For issues that are quantifiable and result in unacceptable outcomes, mitigation's must be established and tested to ensure the resulting failure has been remedied to an acceptable level of risk, a risk that presents itself as another state of mind and ultimately found acceptable to a given society thru conditioned or integrated norms.

References

UAS Vision (2016). FAA Ads UAS to Lost Link Procedures Retrieved from http://www.uasvision.com/2016/10/18/faa-ads-uas-to-lost-link-procedures/

5.4 Unmanned Systems Space-Based Applications

Advancements in technology have provided mankind with the ability to travel farther and over longer periods of time than ever before, all without risk to human life.  In support of unmanned vs. manned explorations in space I offer the following blog with an article that supports my view.

From the pre-historic trek of humans across the land bridge over the Bering Strait some 12,000 years ago to the mid-20th century deep sea voyages of Jacques-Yves Cousteau (Patenaude, 2015, para. 1), mankind has explored the unknown since the beginning of time.  Much to their peril, humans have ventured out on expeditions beyond mountainous terrains, expansive deserts, endless ocean scapes and the vastness of the universe.

Mankind has always wondered about the marvels of space; the moon, distant planets, our sun and those of distant galaxies far, far, away.  But mankind didn’t jump on the first rocket in an effort to visit the outer boundaries of the Earth’s atmosphere.  First came Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite.  Launched by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957 it marked the start of the space age (Garber, 2007, para. 1).  Then on November 3, Russia launched Sputnik II, with a payload that included a dog named Laika.  The successful missions that followed and the data collected led to the knowledge that man could survive in space, beyond the protective blanket of Earth’s atmosphere.  But these missions don’t come without cost, a cost both in technology and in loss of human life.

While manned missions can result in the injury or death of humans, they also offer a unique perspective on exploration. However, robotic missions can go places humans cannot and often for far less money (Chavis, 2015, para. 1).  With increased pressure to mitigate the costs associated with manned space operations, technological advancements have introduced unmanned systems capable of traveling long distances, over decades of time, searching for answers to life itself all while collecting valuable scientific data in hopes of supporting colonization beyond that of Earth and its dwindling resources.

An article written by Jason Chavis, Disadvantages to Manned Missions to Space (2015) introduced the benefits of robotic spaceflight versus that of manned operations by presenting concerns of Safety, Health, Time and Costs. The following are excerpts from each of these concerns:

Safety Concerns

Safety is a major issue of manned and remote space missions. Both government agencies and the public regard the deaths or injuries of astronauts or cosmonauts a major failure. Conversely, robotic spaceflights have virtually no risk to humans outside of ground accidents. In total, five percent of all people who have attempted to fly into space have died (para. 2).

Health Risks

When astronauts or cosmonauts fly into space, they can experience a number of illnesses including immune deficiency, collapse of bone and muscle tissue, decompression sickness and radiation poisoning.  Robotic spaceflights have no issues in regards to health.  Since there are no humans present, very little affects the spacecraft.  Robots are able to achieve their missions with almost no threat to human life (para. 3).

Time Frame

Manned missions are definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to time. Human crews are required to train for months to years in order to pilot spacecraft. Robotic spacecraft, on the other hand, are built to conduct their mission immediately. However, there is a disadvantage to construction because of the fact that it takes years to build an unmanned craft.

In addition, there are limitations to what manned space flight can accomplish in regards to the time it takes to get to destinations. Humans are limited on lifespan, which causes the timespan of a flight to become an important factor. Meanwhile, robotic spacecraft have no such factors impacting their lifespan. This becomes highly important since no medical emergencies can be handled from the ground crew short of advice to the astronauts (para. 4).

Costs

The overall cost of human spaceflight versus robotic missions is a significant factor in the decision to continue missions. According to NASA, each space shuttle mission costs $420 million on average, but increased drastically after the Columbia disaster. These missions generally only last one to two weeks. Robotic missions cost significantly less money considering the tasks can take place over the course of years. For example, the Cassini-Huygens and Voyager missions have lasted years. In many ways, robotic missions are preferred over what many people may consider a traditional manned mission to space (para. 5).

References

Chavis, J.C. (2015) Disadvantages to Manned Missions to Space Retrieved from http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/72499.aspx

Graber, S. (2007). Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Retrieved from https://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/

Patenaude, M. (2015). What drives humans to explore the unknown? Retrieved from http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/journeys-into-the-unknown-91212/

4.4 The future of UAS in either the military or civilian sectors

In support of my continued graduate studies in Unmanned Systems, this week’s Blog assignment was to comment on a recent article centered on the future of unmanned aerial systems in either the military or civilian sectors.

Ironically, this morning I found an article under the subtitle of Future Technology, on the front page of my locally delivered newspaper, THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE. The article, SoCal’s Changing Urban Landscape-How driverless cars, drones and other tech will change the urban landscape of Southern California, was written by Neil Nisperos June 18^th, 2017.

With the influx of 21^st century technologies, Nisperos offered a future consisting of driverless cars, drones and virtual reality (para. 2).  Big yellow-taxis will be replaced with driverless vehicles, drones will deliver packages to a specific location at your residence and virtual reality applications will be enhanced by faster internet speeds, perpetuating and enhancing a work from home environment, thereby significantly reducing traffic congestion at peak commuter time frames.

This vision of the future is all well and good, but in case you just crawled out from under a rock, the article is already old news.  Internet speeds are already supporting work from home and working hub environments, with real-time video conference applications such as MeetingBurner, Meetin.gs, GoToMeeting, Yugma, WebEx, and 321Meet (Fance, n.d.) to name a few, all of which enable the teleworker to be virtually present in business meetings and all-hands office discussions both globally and internationally.

Hardly considered futuristic, at the pace in which technology is proving these systems out, driverless cars are only 2-3 years away from full scale production and will be capable of providing level 4 autonomy to the market.  A list of these autonomous cars and their manufacturers can be found at this link.

Where the futures of drones or UAS are concerned, one only needs to see how the technology is already proliferating into our daily lives.

Technology/Operations

Nisperos wrote in his article:

The future is now- Much of the changes hinted at are already under way. New apartment projects, including a yet-to-be named 570-unit rental project to be built just north of the Citizens Business Bank Arena in Ontario, will incorporate design concepts for people to better work from home and areas to accept packages from Amazon and other online retailers (The future is now section, para. 1).

Amazon, thru its proposed airborne delivery system, Prime Air, is actively working with the FAA thru one of many pathfinder programs to develop the sensory capabilities and show regulatory compliance, where package delivery relates to UAS operations beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS), sense/detect and avoid (SAA/DAA), and operations over people (OOP).

A description of how the service is provided and when it will become a reality can be found on the Prime Air website:

·       Amazon Prime Air is a service that will deliver packages up to five pounds in 30 minutes or less using small drones.

·       Safety is our top priority. Our vehicles will be built with multiple redundancies, as well as sophisticated “sense and avoid” technology. Additionally, through our private trial in the UK, we will gather data to continue improving the safety and reliability of our systems and operations.

·       We will deploy when and where we have the regulatory support needed to safely realize our vision. We’re excited about this technology and one day using it to deliver packages to customers around the world in 30 minutes or less.

·       We are testing many different vehicle designs and delivery mechanisms to discover how best to deliver packages in a variety of operating environments. The look and characteristics of the vehicles will continue to evolve over time.

·       We have Prime Air development centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Austria, France and Israel. We are testing the vehicles in multiple international locations.

·       We believe the airspace is safest when small drones are separated from most manned aircraft traffic, and where airspace access is determined by capabilities.

·       We are currently permitted to operate during daylight hours when there are low winds and good visibility, but not in rain, snow or icy conditions. Once we’ve gathered data to improve the safety and reliability of our systems and operations, we will expand the envelope. (FAQs, 2017).

·       We are working with regulators and policymakers in various countries in order to make Prime Air a reality for our customers around the world, and expect to continue to do so.

By employing the resources of one of their many geographically located distribution facilities, the likelihood of Amazon Prime Air package delivery is on the horizon and not as far out in the future as one would imagine.

References

Amazon (2017). Prime Air, Frequently asked Questions, Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?node=8037720011

Fance, C. (n.d.) Online Meeting and Web Conferencing Tools-Best Of, Retrieved from http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/online-meeting-tools/

Nisperos, N (2017). SoCal’s Changing Urban Landscape, How driverless cars, drones and other tech will alter the look and development of cities, Future Technology, The Press Enterprise, Retrieved from http://www.pe.com/2017/06/18/how-driverless-cars-drones-and-other-tech-will-change-the-urban-landscape-of-southern-california-4-2/

3.4 - Research Blog 2: Unmanned Maritime Systems

  Per this week’s assignment the class was required to comment on an article that centered on the future of Unmanned Marine Systems (UMS) in either the military or civilian sector. The article was required to discuss both the technical and operational uses and must be no more than 12 months old.

This week’s blog is focused on an article written by Abhijit Singh Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicles and future Maritime Operations in Littoral Asia (July 2016).

As Unmanned Aircraft Systems were significantly enhanced to support wartime efforts in the Asia Pacific theater, so too are efforts to enhance the technological and operational capabilities of Unmanned Marine Systems to provide additional support for the Indian Navy.

Supporting this transition, Singh wrote:

While the more substantive developments in unmanned technology have involved aerial drones, the more interesting possibilities are in the field of underwater vehicles. Indeed, despite the institutional and policy attention enjoyed by aerial platforms, it is unmanned and autonomous undersea vehicles that have been the subject of strategic debate and discussion in Indian maritime circles (para. 15).

Singh presented the significant operational roles this technology plays in supporting the world’s leading navies as; high-tech submersibles for mine countermeasure (MCM) operations, naval intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) roles, and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions (para. 16).

He further categorized Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) as those that are autonomous undersea vehicles (AUVs) and remotely operated undersea vehicles (ROVs). By clarifying, “an AUV differs from an ROV by maintaining a degree of autonomy from human control. The AUV’s chief attribute is that it can undertake ASW tasks typically carried out by nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), freeing the latter to perform more critical functions” (Singh, para. 16).

Singh also presented two distinguishing operational characteristics of AUVs in that they;
• Possess onboard intelligence and an inherent ability to self-program and execute missions. Unlike ships and submarines that are commanded solely by humans, autonomous undersea vessels exercise their innate judgment in performing operational tasks, and adversely
• They are inherently risky due to their inability to avoid risky maneuvers, leading to untoward incidents or collateral damage in combat situations (para. 18).

Aside from untimely incidents AUVs are also plagued with a moral dilemma as to whether the engagement of an enemy is deemed a legitimate act, minus due authorization from a human in the loop command.

The Indian navy, in consideration of these and other ethical considerations has taken a pro-active approach in the development of numerous UUV platforms from hand-held slow-speed ones, to military-class platforms, with the capability to assist in the entire gamut of maritime security (Singh, para. 19).

Current attention is given to that of the Defense Research and Development Organizations (DRPO) prototype capable of speeds up to seven km per hour at depths of up to 300 meters.  The system is reportedly being reworked to include passive sonar and electro-optical sensors for anti-mining missions (Singh, para. 20).

Where these prototype systems are designed and tested to meet the operational requirements of the user, they still must overcome three major technical constraints inherent to UUVs, 1) energy storage 2) communication link and 3) autonomous control.

Essentially all state-of-the-art UUVs today are battery-powered, and battery capacity remains the most fundamental limitation on range and endurance (Whitman, n.d.).  Despite improvements to electrochemical and conventional fuel cell technology no significant breakthroughs in energy technology have been made to permit relatively small UUVs to perform theater-scale missions or long-duration trailing tasks (Whitman, n.d.).

R. Turner noted in his article, The Unmanned Underwater Future (2014) that;

UUVs come with a disclaimer; the technology is in its infancy and lags behind unmanned land and air equivalents.  Communication with submerged platforms is highly challenging and that problem is compounded when you remove the human from the platform. Additional issues with propulsion, energy use and payload capacity add to the complexity of developing UUVs for naval operations (para. 8).

Ultimately, as technical improvements to AUVs continue and operational capabilities are realized, the world’s navies will struggle with the ethical challenges and decisions associated with operations played out forward of the manned fleet.

References

Singh, A. (2016). Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicles and Future Maritime Operations in Littoral Asia Retrieved from http://www.orfonline.org/research/unmanned-and-autonomous-vehicles-and-future-maritime-operations-in-littoral-asia/

Turner, R. (2014) The Unmanned Underwater Future, the Strategist Retrieved from   https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-unmanned-underwater-future/

Whitman, E. C. (n.d.). Beneath the Wave of the Future Retrieved from   http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_15/wave.html

The Future of Unmanned Ground Vehicles in the civilian sector.

I am a graduate student of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) currently enrolled in UNSY 501 Application of Unmanned Systems.  As presented in the course syllabus:

This nine week course prepares students to understand the application of unmanned systems and their respective elements and technology to the operational domains, including atmospheric, exo-atmospheric, ground, and maritime environments. It includes applications, business cases, selection criteria, limitations and constraints, and ethical, safety, and legal considerations. Students will research, appraise, and recommend unmanned system tasking, environmental operational requirements, and system collaboration opportunities.

In realizing these course objectives students have been tasked with creating a research blog as a means of documenting our research as it relates to certain articles applicable to unmanned systems in both the civilian and military sectors.

My first blog for this week’s assignment is focused on the future of UGVs in the civilian sector and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this technology.

Intel / Strategic Analytics

A recent study and research of autonomous vehicles reported that by the year 2050, driverless vehicles will account for $7 trillion worth of economic activity and new efficiencies.  That activity will include nearly $4 trillion from driverless ride-hailing and nearly $3 trillion from driverless delivery and business logistics (Morris, 2017).

The study also claims that because of the autonomous nature of driverless vehicles and their potential for greater safety, nearly half a million lives could be saved between 2035 and 2045. One can assume the reason that immediate gains from this technology are not achieved until 2035 is due primarily to a cultural hurdle and not a technical one.  Andrew Moore, science dean at Carnegie Mellon recently stated “No one is going to want to realize autonomous driving into the world until there’s proof that it’s much safer, like a factor of 100 safer, than having a human drive” (LaFrance, 2015).

What the study failed to account for was the contradiction of transportation innovation that may complicate the report’s conclusions.  Where newer technology is intended to solve our transportation woes it induces an adverse effect by increasing demand for that technology. A prime example is that of the “induced demand” that often instantly clogs newly-built highways (Morris, para. 5, 2017).

The report also claimed that driverless cars could eventually save 250 million commuting hours as the global trend towards urbanization becomes a significant reality.  An adverse opinion was provided by D. Muoio in her article, Self-driving cars could be terrible for traffic — here's why (2017);

Self-driving cars might make your future commute a lot more pleasant, but they won't eliminate traffic (para. 1).

Lew Fulton, a co-director of the STEPS program at UC Davis' Institute of Transportation Studies (ITP), told Business Insider that autonomous vehicles won't fix congestion woes unless a pricing system is put in place that discourages zero-occupancy vehicles.  "We are especially concerned about zero-occupant vehicles that can happen with automated vehicles, Fulton said.  "That scenario is especially plausible with private ownership of those vehicles and no limits to what we can do with them."

For example, many companies are interested in programming autonomous cars to run errands or pick-up packages, but these efforts could increase traffic by multiplying the number of zero-occupant cars, or "zombie cars," on the road, Fulton said.

Congestion could also worsen as companies like Lucid Motors explore designing self-driving vehicles around comfort, like installing reclining seats (Figure 1).

Figure 1.  Reclining seats in Lucid Motors' autonomous car, the Lucid Air

Where urbanization increases and populations become more centralized the need for personal transportation is no longer an issue.  However, over populated areas become less appealing to some as urbanization leads to lack of jobs, air pollution, negative impact on biodiversity, disease and crime (Reese, 2017).  Not wanting the urban way of life driverless cars could actually encourage some people to live even farther away from workplaces, or to take even more daily trips, because they can spend the time in their car working.

References

LaFrance, A. (2015). Self-Driving Cars Could Save 300,000 Lives Per Decade in America Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/self-driving-cars-could-save-300000-lives-per-decade-in-america/407956/

Morris, D.Z. (2017).  Driverless Cars Will Be Part of a $7 Trillion Market by 2050 Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/06/03/autonomous-vehicles-market/

Reese, J. (2017). 5 Major Problems of Urbanization Retrieved from http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/5-major-problems-urbanization-7031.html