Live data from Hacker News

New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

thedrive.com

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if portions of it were bought within the US, or if it was largely made from off-the-shelf components legally imported and then assembled. Unless there were capabilities demonstrated that haven't been made public (Like some new low-power high-intensity jamming) this doesn't seem too far off from the capabilities of a non-state actor. The main reason I think this is a state actor is because of t…

The first most obvious state actor would actually be the USA itself. Some sort of red team test to demonstrate our own vulnerabilities and to secure that funding. It probably wouldn't be necessary for someone like China to actually stage a demonstration, since its easier for China to just have some high up diplomat get themselves drunk and boast to or around a known CIA operative that they have hundreds of drones rea…

So a lot of people are posting something about a red team test or some defense contractor. But is that really something a defense contractor would do? This thing violated federal and most likely state regulations in a bunch of different ways, there are serious consequences to this. I mean this isn't the days of MKUltra, are there any contemporary or recent examples of defense contractors blatantly violating regulations like this without consequence?

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first most obvious state actor would actually be the USA itself. Some sort of red team test to demonstrate our own vulnerabilities and to secure that funding. It probably wouldn't be necessary for someone like China to actually stage a demonstration, since its easier for China to just have some high up diplomat get themselves drunk and boast to or around a known CIA operative that they have hundreds of drones rea…

So a lot of people are posting something about a red team test or some defense contractor. But is that really something a defense contractor would do? This thing violated federal and most likely state regulations in a bunch of different ways, there are serious consequences to this. I mean this isn't the days of MKUltra, are there any contemporary or recent examples of defense contractors blatantly violating regulatio…

It would need to be something like being authorized by a joint task force between the Pentagon and the FBI, not just a defense contractor gone rogue.

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#123
Sunset in Tucson at Feb 9 was at 18:04 [0]. The incident occurred at 22:30, so it was pretty dark. I could not find any weather reports for that day, but since it disappeared in the undercast it must have been cloudy. Because it had been dark for some time for some time, the air must have cooled of, and it is not unreasonable to assume that there were also some smaller clouds below 14,000 feet.

It reportedly had a green flashing light, and because of the darkness it seems unlikely that they could could really see other details. The object could not be observed with night vision goggles which seems surprising since they are supposed to be more sensitive than the human eye.

When you look at a bright colored light source you will experience afterimages [1]. When you are looking at a point source you will see these as tracks (with a complementary color) around the source. These tracks are caused by your eye movements. Under low-light circumstances your vision mainly depends on rods[2]. A green light with a wave length of 523 nm is pretty close to the optimal rod sensitivity that lies at 498 nm so your rods are pretty sensitive for this wavelength. Because the outputs of rods are interpreted as light vs dark, the afterimages of the rods will be interpreted as dark.

> While this makes rods more sensitive to smaller amounts of light,

> it also means that their ability to sense temporal changes, such as quickly changing images, is less accurate than that of cones.[2]

This also implies that afterimages from rods last longer than those of cones. Afterimages follow the movement of your eyes. So if you focus on a new point, the afterimage will follow to the new point, so it can appear to move at a tremendous speed.

In principle rods can detect a single photon[2]. Night vision goggles generally have optimal sensitivity in the near infra-red spectrum [3] so it is not very surprising that they failed to detect green light.

The central part of our eyes contains few rods [2]. The effect of this is that when you try to focus on a faint light source it will seem to disappear. This is why you should always try to focus on a point close to a star but not on the star itself. If you forget to do this, you will observe that the light seems to flicker even when it is not.

Humans are not very good at estimating the size of objects in the sky. The reason is pretty simple, if you do not know the distance between you and the object you cannot say anything about its size. In the air it is difficult to estimate the distances because there are no real points of reference. Also remember that it was dark.

It's pretty simple to buy a green laser pointer [4]. If you point it at some cloud it will appear as a green object on that cloud. Due to afterimages, it will appear to be a dark object with a green light on it. When you point at a different cloud, it will look like the object moved from its first position to its second position. If you believe that both positions are far apart then you will also believe that the object moved at a very high speed. It is also very simple to make the object disappear by turning of your pointer.

This seems to be a much simpler explanation than speculating about extremely powerful drones (or aliens).

[0] https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/tucson?month=2

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Night_vision

[4] please use your favorite search engine or supplier

P.S. I am a bit disappointed in most of the HN responses that assumed it was some kind of physical object without considering other possible causes.

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#124
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the one detail of the story that leads me to believe it may have been some rich idiot that didn't know the legality of what they were doing. Also entirely possible they used some stock parts and just didn't realize the LED was there.

> Also entirely possible they used some stock parts and just didn't realize the LED was there. I only think an amateur would make that kind of mistake. If it was from a hostile power with any kind of competence, I think they would have extensively tested it in simulated operational conditions. If they didn't notice the light when they initially built it, they would have probably noticed it during testing.

You overestimate the human ability to account for all conditions. For example, perhaps they did all of their testing in the middle of bright sunlight and simply did not see it?

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#125
post #3
post #2

Any chance it was bat related?

According to the description “The quad copter was described as approximately 5 feet long by about 3 feet wide, with a single green flashing LED light.”

It was night, it seems pretty unlikely that anyone could make any good observations of the size or shape. When someone points a green laser at some clouds you will observe an object with a green light.

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeking friends with a budget for nuclear submarines, and hypersonic missiles. I personally got $5 on it.

You joke, but for a high enough price, I’m sure you can find someone willing to sell. ISIS didn’t manufacture their own missiles or guns.

They also didn't have nuclear submarines with hypersonic missiles.

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#127

There are a few inconsistencies that lead me to not believe the numbers. >>It was last seen climbing through 14,000’ and into the undercast, where it disappeared. >>Department's helicopter was unable to observe the drone when looking through night vision goggles. If this was heading up to 14k while being chased by helicopters, it wasn't a battery-powered quad. A medium sized drone would have to be powered by IC to pe…

The border patrol helo is an Airbus AS350 with cruising speed around 152 mph and do not exceed at 178 mph

120 knots is normal cruise, 140 knots is fast cruise but that's at sea level. This drops off by 3 knots per 1,000' of density altitude. Airfield elevation at Tuscon is ~2400' and it was 58⁰F at 10 p.m. on Feb 9. Which puts density altitude at ground level around 2900', so the cruise speed drops around 9 knots, to 111 kias and 131 kias.

I agree this UAS would need to be IC-powered due to the range and altitude the UAS supposedly reached, but I don't think the speed was as fast as many folks have been thinking.

Re: New Details Emerge on the “Highly Modified Drone” That Outran Police Helicopters

#128
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the description “The quad copter was described as approximately 5 feet long by about 3 feet wide, with a single green flashing LED light.”

It was night, it seems pretty unlikely that anyone could make any good observations of the size or shape. When someone points a green laser at some clouds you will observe an object with a green light.

I didn’t understand the comment I replied to and was trying to say “that’s a big bat.” Pop culture references go over my head more than they likely should.
Post reply on HN