Camera drones without mirrors or lenses to monitor future battlefields, you

As the military industrial complex surges forward, so do advances in technology for the public sector. At least that's how the cold-war wisdom goes. Case in point: QinetiQ is developing a lens-less, mirror-less, battlefield imaging system with some help from your DARPA's deep pockets. The LACOSTE project (Large Area Coverage Optical Search while Track and Engage) aims to set aloft high-altitude (about 20km) drones and air-ships fitted with a special, thousand-strong microscopic sensor array (a "first of their kind," according to QinetiQ), a "mask," and image processor to decode the scene and extract an image of the quickly changing conditions on the battlefield or, you guessed it, city streets. The resulting lightweight and highly-durable system should feature a "super resolution" mode with the ability to "detect and simultaneously track large numbers of moving vehicles in dense urban areas with a high degree of accuracy, 24-hours a day." And here you thought CCTV was intrusive.

[Via BBC]

[DiGiC @ Aug 12th 2008 7:35AM]

Isn't that the lacoste aligator on the balloon thing? Foget the battle field this is after fashon crimes!

[216 @ Aug 12th 2008 7:44AM]

Win simply because of the Lacoste Gator

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Aug 12th 2008 8:40PM]

Coming next the US military announces the P-unit special tactics division...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0

[Dave Chappelle @ Aug 12th 2008 7:55AM]

Option 2.
use your Satellites.?

whats the point of this thing unless you can like direct it into the inside of a building... now that would be cool.

this will be another failure resource waste, on the bright side, it will propably be in the next battlefield...... game thats is.. BF4.

[Vammo @ Aug 12th 2008 9:04AM]

Ummm...maybe a little less costly to deploy, repair, and re-route than a satellite?

But in your favor...it would also be easier to shoot down, too.

[Jack C @ Aug 12th 2008 11:06AM]

That's exactly what I thought: didn't they invent Satellites a "few" years ago? and I think they can have the same high-resolution to track cars (and even people)

And that blimp will be like target practice for the enemy... arrows could take it down.

One technology I like more for battle, is the use of wireless sensors as mentioned in this article: http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=526&doc_id=156444&f_src=flffour , every soldier has one and it can measure temperature, air quality, pollution, chemical weapons, etc. Or measure blood pressure, pulse, etc and Tx it to a base station.

[d840 @ Aug 13th 2008 3:43AM]

"And that blimp will be like target practice for the enemy... arrows could take it down."

That'd be one hell of an arrow to make it "about 20km" (or 12.4 miles) and be able to hit a small drone.

Furthermore, I believe they've hit a sort of wall with satellite imagery, on account of how light bends as it goes through areas of differing densities. This would cause a loss of clarity out in space.

The other thing to consider is that light acts both as a particle and as a wave. Because waves bend around corners, extremely high resolution satellite imagery would not be as sharp as as an equivalent image taken at a lower altitude.

Then of course, there's the issue of price....

[Patrick @ Aug 12th 2008 8:08AM]

Weapons, we just got a call from Falcon Ops. Who's closer to kill box one alpha?

Send the Hogs sir.

Alright, send the Hogs over to kill box one alpha. It's a danger close fire mission.

[wodheila @ Aug 12th 2008 8:10AM]

If you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to worry about.

[Dave @ Aug 12th 2008 9:21AM]

When my sister and I were kids, our parents asked us to write letters to our grandparents in Cuba. I was warned by my parents that our letters might be read and that we should "watch what we say". Even at age 9, I knew it was wrong--and, believe it or not, I had nothing to hide.

Too bad most Americans today don't have the sense of a 9-year-old.

[ronzo @ Aug 12th 2008 11:15AM]

wrong...

[Bob @ Aug 12th 2008 8:37AM]

Who cares if the government monitors us with cameras? Only the ones with something to hide. If you got something to hide, go somewhere else cause we don't want you here anyway if you are doing something illegal. If this goes to the lengths of actually spying on me inside my house, then I would be upset, but only cause I don't want them to see me or my family naked.

[Dave @ Aug 12th 2008 9:20AM]

Or maybe you should just go live in Cuba or China?

[EngadgetPhanboy @ Aug 12th 2008 9:47AM]

Hey I got a great little toilet reading for you...it's called the CONSTITUTION.

[Matthew C @ Aug 12th 2008 11:13AM]

Ok - so you dot want them in you house - sure there not doing that now, but each invasion of privacy just brings them one step closer, so maybe in 20 years, they'll just slip in , and nobody would make a big deal.

Seriously... this is scary

[BluesK1d @ Aug 12th 2008 12:19PM]

@EngadgetPhanboy
Wow do you have the unabridged version of the constitution? My lame version doesn't have the part about restricting the government from monitoring public areas =(

[Justin @ Aug 12th 2008 1:31PM]

@BluesK1d:

Is your version of the constitution missing the 4th and 10th amendments?

[jroc @ Aug 12th 2008 8:12PM]

Wow, I can't believe how far we have fallen. America is dead.

As John Adams said: "Liberty once lost is lost forever"

Ben Franklin said: "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither and lose both"

and moronic Bob of engadget says: "1984 here we come, I hate freedom and want to live in a tyrannical society where I am spied on because I'm so good. I love my government."

And yeah the 4th and 10th admendement, that document is incredible, too bad we don't follow it anymore because of a bob-like public that hate liberty and freedom.

[Bob @ Aug 12th 2008 10:56PM]

Yes, I absolutely hate freedom. I have no need for it. Just the thought of freedom makes my ass twitch. I want my American government to tell me when to eat and when to sleep. I even want them to tell me WHAT I can eat. Freedom is for losers! Long live communism! Long live tin foil hats!

[ds @ Aug 18th 2008 2:10PM]

No, Bob you still don't get it. Your love of freedom is not being questioned/ridiculed; it is your amazing ignorance. The repliers assume you love freedom as much as every other person with a low IQ and a complete lack of knowledge about history. They are pointing out that your specific brand of ignorance was expected to be the downfall of this country hundreds of years ago. It is entertaining watching it happen. The shame is the people causing it are too stupid to see it, and the people watching it are powerless to stop it because these intelligent people try too hard to use things like facts when talking to your kind.

I especially like arguing with stupid conservatives using things like quotes from the people who founded this country, or the Constitution that our country is supposedly based on. They place no value on these things, but still call themselves conservative primarily because our 'melting pot' now has a bit too much melting into it.

[ShadowKain @ Aug 12th 2008 9:05AM]

I hate when people complain about being monitored in certain things. If you arn't a spy or doing something you shouldn't* be doing, then why be so cautious or angry at the goverment? I hate to break to you, but are not the only gov. who does this. Would you rather they not* care and let havoc go unchecked? I would not.

[donaldj001 @ Aug 12th 2008 9:43AM]

ShadowKain, it's called Privacy, and it's a right we're supposed to have.

By your same logic, you should let the police into your home without a warrant because you're not doing anything wrong. You should let the FBI wiretap you because you're being lawful.

Some people actually enjoy their privacy, and seek to ensure their rights to it. This is called Responsibility. Others hope for a nanny state that watches over us and puts pacifiers in our mouths if we cry too much.

[HunterXI @ Aug 13th 2008 6:57PM]

You people fail to comprehend the idea of privacy.

Privacy (noun)
1. The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.

I see nothing in there about intent or reasons; just the want to not have "peeping toms" looking in at you. The idea that one would only want privacy if they have something to hide is utterly infantile.

[conway98 @ Aug 12th 2008 9:41AM]

Bob and wodheila, consider this well written essay by Daniel J. Solove of the George Washington University Law School:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

[JAY JAY @ Aug 12th 2008 10:00AM]

What's been up with dirigibles lately? To me it makes no sense for military use. Also, aren't airships also supposed to be fragile? Just shoot a missile at the thing and *poof*... No more monitoring.

[Ian @ Aug 12th 2008 3:11PM]

yea if these ever get implemented i might go start a modle rocket hobby with small explosives in them.. screw being watched 24/7 beuasuse NO ONE IS PERFECT. so if you got nothing to hide then that means you never speed, never looked up porn when you weren't supposed to, never stole ANYTHING, never crossed the street when you weren't supposed to, never made an illegal u turn. i could keep going but i think you get the idea

[Das Boot @ Aug 12th 2008 10:01AM]

I for one welcome this. I mean sure i'll have to somehow hide my 4.5 acre marijuana farm here in downtown L.A. but i will feel safer with this drone flying overhead. Thank god they just invented that invisibility cloak thing so i can hide my farm. Technology, gotta love it. Now i am just waiting for a robotic wife who will cook clean and do what i say without nagging.

[M.Samba @ Aug 12th 2008 10:31AM]

But this isn't 1984....

[ds @ Aug 12th 2008 10:54AM]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Ben Franklin

Our country is a joke.

[ds @ Aug 12th 2008 11:12AM]

It would take quite a bit of strength to shoot an arrow 20km straight into the sky.

[ds @ Aug 12th 2008 11:17AM]

@Jack C

Thanks engadget.

[Patrick @ Aug 12th 2008 11:23AM]

maybe if you attached that arrow to a missile. but wait... wouldn't that defeat the purpose..... hmm... back to the drawing board..

[ds @ Aug 12th 2008 11:25AM]

Yeah I agree. Maybe they are thinking about non-combat uses like floating surveillance 12+ miles in the sky. I mean.. these things are going to be at least twice as high as commercial jets. They will be basically invisible to you and me.

[ds @ Aug 12th 2008 11:28AM]

Replies arent working well for me on this article. Fix it engadget.. please.

[Pherret @ Aug 12th 2008 12:21PM]

To those who keep bringing privacy and the Constitution into the dialogue: Bravo! And a special bravo to ds for the Benjamin Franklin quote, which is what I was planning on posting if no one else had already. Looks like you beat me to it, and I am not upset one iota over it. ;-)

[BluesK1d @ Aug 12th 2008 12:26PM]

Cool. Where should we forward your mail?

[TheBadDancer @ Aug 12th 2008 12:26PM]

Also, to conway98: thank you so much for posting that link. Hopefully the advocates of "if you have nothing to hide..." will read that and actually learn something.

[TheBadDancer @ Aug 12th 2008 12:32PM]

Opps! I forgot I already had a posting account here. Pherret is me as I am he and we are all together. Goo goo gejoob!

[Hung @ Aug 13th 2008 3:34AM]

Is anyone else reminded of the Colossus from SC2?

[neofolklore @ Aug 13th 2008 8:08AM]

in b4 Georgia

[dan @ Aug 13th 2008 12:49PM]

OOOH... Something new to shoot at. I wonder if a .357 SIG round has the power to reach it. If not, time for the HE rounds in the .50cal... :D Also, I'd be willing to bet you could jam one up with a laser or three, because filtering that much light out of an image is tough when you hit your target. Give me a tripod-mounted green laser and I'll be happy.

[Mikey @ Aug 13th 2008 2:41PM]

No, it won't. Nor will the .50 cal, or any firearm this side of a howitzer. Its 12 MILES UP! chances are you wouldn't know it was there, and a regular laser would scatter significantly at that distance. Its well out of the reach of any insurgent weaponry, A missile with the energy to hit this would be a medium to long range SAM, which would be a threat to any aircraft. A military airship would have multiple gas cells, so simply piercing it wouldn't be enough anyway. Militarily speaking, It would be a cheap, stable weapons platform with a fantastic loiter ability and heavy payload. Missiles launched a that height would have much extended range, giving a large engagement envelope, which compensates somewhat for the low speed. Anyhow, I think its more likely to have 'google' on the side than USAF or FBI.

[Tre @ Aug 14th 2008 7:48PM]

Thanks Mikey for pointing out the fact that no bullet fired from any gun will not reach 12 miles up. And lets run with the idea that you could by some leap of the imagination that you could fire a bullet 12 miles up. There is still the problem of finding and aiming at the object your trying to hit. And has been pointed out a few times already this is some scary stuff here, someone was saying they don't mind this becuase hey they can't see into my house. Well they already can already see into buildings using heat sensors, how long until they get to the point where they can look righ thru a building. You couple that with this thing and yea you can see Big Brother on the horizon