Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
There are 2 short segments in the video showing the actual performance and thus far it is a complete [1] failure [2].

The guy has a talent, and he put together a nice prototype based on OpenRocket [3], but with all due respect, this is not a rocket, and you are not going to win any war with this toy, even if all your enemy has are rocks thrown at you from pretty much similar distance.

The remix of computer games / Ukraine / Martin Luther King / Vietnam / David Koresh just adding more to the amateur spirit and confusion.

[1] https://youtu.be/DDO2EvXyncE [2] https://youtu.be/DDO2EvXyncE?t=280 [3] https://openrocket.info/

I'm surprised nobody else has pointed this out. The entire YouTube video has only two short clips of the actual rocket being fired, and in both cases the clips are very short and only show the rocket being fired and then following an erratic flight path, and then get cut before showing the rocket hitting anything.

For all the technical info given in the video, there is a curious lack of any data regarding the actual accuracy of the system. What percentage of rockets tested managed to hit anything and at what range?

I suspect a major problem is the quality and consistency of the propellant and getting a symmetric burn.
The video references "future tracking systems," so I don't think it aims at all yet.
> curious lack of any data regarding the actual accuracy of the system

No lack of entrackment data generated by [edit] d̶i̶g̶i̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶w̶i̶n̶ github repo of "the system".

"digital twin"?

Is there a simulation that has been documented to have the identical behavior and flight characteristics as the real thing? Does not seem like it.

If there is a difference, it is not a twin.

Thanks for the correction.
Yes, I don't think this project is a serious threat as a weapon, it's more interesting if viewed as a politically provocative stunt, to get people thinking about the relationship between technology and war.
I always wonder why rockets are millions of dollars each, that seems insane to me.
Part of it is the sophistication. Take the Tomahawk: assumed range of ~1000 miles , estimated accuracy of 30 feet. Can launch from above or below water. Etc.

The other part is the limited production runs. Until last month, the DoD was generally purchasing ~100 of these annually. There's no scale economy in making these, so those 100 missiles need to support the entire production & R&D of the product.

loading story #47388919
I imagine part of it is also zero acceptance for failed launches. It needs to always work
loading story #47388886
Check out Joe Barnard's youtube channel BPS.Space where he's documenting his development of "high power" (hobby) rockets. Those are relatively small rockets still but nonetheless he's getting into performance regimes where the engineering starts to be tricky and the details really matter. The more extreme your rocket gets, the difficulty really ramps up quick.
It’s not a complete explanation, but I was awed by the precision of the shower screens used in modern rocket engines. In the 60s it might have sufficed to just spray fuel into the combustion chamber using some nozzles, but now we have highly precise matrices of micro-perforations that maximize combustion.

Also if you want to harden the rocket against EMP attacks you need an inertial guidance system, and those things also demand extreme precision.

loading story #47388965
Fireworks rocket do not cost as much. But if you want high precision and high speed, that simply is expensive. Also the area is of course restricted making it more expensive as most states do not want DIY rockets everywhere.
loading story #47389173
Something far more interesting, you can find in this channel: https://m.youtube.com/@LafayetteSystems
loading story #47390460
You don't need to win any wars with it if you can use them to sow confusion, obscure the firing of more serious rockets, and/or trigger a sufficiently more expensive response.

It clearly needs more work, but if an amateur can get this far at this low cost, odds are you'll see attempts at overwhelming attackers or defense systems by sheer volume with cheap decoys like this long before they become an actual threat in and of themselves.

Get the rocket a bit more stable, and force an attack to try to take out dozens of these because one of them might be a real threat, and you'll have created a problem.

With a 3D printer and some 'ordinary household chemicals' to quote a certain movie you can do pretty scary stuff.
loading story #47389743
McGuyver pouring sap on a pinecone

Hiya! (Grenade)

Exactly. Consider the current conflict in Iran. They have thousands of drones that cost $50k each. The US’s only real defense against one of these drones is to fire a million dollar missile at it. That assymmetry can win or lose a war.
loading story #47389256
"and you are not going to win any war with this toy, even if all your enemy has are rocks thrown at you"

I don't want to use it for war. I think it would be a pretty cool technical project (if it works).

This design is pretty clearly optimized for weaponry. Eg the foldable fins - necessary if you want to keep a magazine of these things stored compactly before firing. Totally unnecessary for funsies.

What nonviolent application are you imagining for a gps-guided rocket that is launched by pulling a gun trigger on a hand held mount?

loading story #47389882
Ukraine needs more cheap weapons.
Regardless, he made a prototype rocket enclosure and he seems to have the software down… I think the propulsion system will be the easy part. Hardest part will be tuning the PID so that the rocket goes where he wants it to. Then incorporating his tracking system will be another challenge of itself but that’s because of the form factor. As long as his calculus and linear algebra is good I see than being successful. Either way I’d hire simply to be a prototype engineer. Either Anduril or CIA would hire him in a heartbeat for prototyping.
loading story #47389213
Taking a quick look at the BOM, it lacks the correct sensor selection.
Even if the correct sensor could be chosen (whatever it is), unlikely is attainable by consumers and the technology would definitely be export controlled in the US.
You'd be AMAZED what you can find on eBay.

I saw this pop up alongside its video thumbnail and nearly shit myself watching it and going "damn, that looks exactly like what's on those RU/UA drones going at each other"... https://www.ebay.com/itm/197224214645

"HS AI Vision Cube For Ultra-long-range Target Recognition tracking & Thermal" for as low as $175. I am feeling the potential ITAR violations straight through my screen.

The funny thing is, at least as I understand it, ITAR only applies to things produced in the United States. As example, you can't buy very good FLIR IR cameras in the United States without a lot of paperwork, but you can trivially buy much better (higher resolution, faster frame rate) and cheaper IR cameras that are produced in China.
> I am feeling the potential ITAR violations straight through my screen

And possibly landing on all kinds of watch lists.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the sellers there are just honeypots.

A name like “Ultra-long-range Target Recognition tracking” just screams “Hey, FBI, please come visit me and ask what I am building in the basement”

Are items made, located in, and sold from China covered by ITAR?
I think MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers used in consumer drones should be just about good enough to measure orientation and acceleration, and those are cheap and easy to get.

You could integrate acceleration to get speed - the flight is short enough to make compounding errors easy to ignore.

I think thanks to drones and RC hobbyists, there's a generally nice body of knowledge on how to get good enough data from consumer hardware to keep things flying.

> You could integrate acceleration to get speed - the flight is short enough to make compounding errors easy to ignore.

‘Easy to ignore’ is not a term I would use here, especially given the motion environment of a rocket. It seems like it might be beginning to be borderline possible.

> You could integrate acceleration to get speed - the flight is short enough to make compounding errors easy to ignore.

False, given how noisy MEMS IMUs are, and the accuracy required. Even Ring Laser Gyros drift quickly.

Get connected with DARPA ASAP, just to let the overlords know you are on "the right side of the fence" - - before Homeland pays you a "very uncomfortable" visit
And that’s ok if it’s failing to do the job as intended, learning is acquired, and it looks fun to build, I am in the field and I find it great homemade concept.

Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually let alone with AI, you might have some workarounds, but never a real counter.

> Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually let alone with AI, you might have some workarounds, but never a real counter.

Weaponized drones (say D_A) can be countered by other weaponized drones (say D_B), equally cheap or cheaper than D_A because the D_A is usually targeting something larger (so more payload) and typically has a longer range. D_B only needs to wreck D_A at a shorter defensive range. That's what Ukraine is doing.

You can also use drone swarms with coordinated action so that each drone in the swarm is only targeting one other drone, and automatic re-targeting if one node misses. [1]

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

> equally cheap or cheaper

I doubt it, as D_A's target is stationary (and could be reduced to GPS coords) while D_B's target is moving.

> I doubt it, as D_A's target is stationary (and could be reduced to GPS coords) while D_B's target is moving.

It's a good point, though I should point out that GPS denial is assumed in those sort of contexts as a first countermeasure so D_A likely has alternative targeting, and that smaller drones can move faster with less energy storage, which itself requires less weight, compounding the benefits of being smaller.

And also the attacker can send 100 drones without any real targeting at all and 10 proper expensive drones and you need to send up 110 defenders which need to be able to track flying drones. Being the attacker will always be easier.
The good old "The Bomber always gets through" debate from 1932.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_thr...

However, D_A is moving, while D_B can be stationary.
How is a stationary defense drone going to defend from a incoming attacking drone?
Couldn’t post earlier seems HN is rate limited :/

hardest issue as I mentioned in another comment is detection. Now on using other drones to counter a drone, there are other issues, as I built and tested some before, assuming you got the detection part done. The first one is guidance and correction mid-air, flying manually won’t really be practical due to the need for an extraordinary flying skills, which can’t be relied on in the field, the second part is the speed, you need to ALWAYS make sure the interceptor is faster to catch it up, third is the weight, I disagree about the payload part you mentioned, I have seen videos of light weight drones failing to wreck bigger ones, if you are relying on collision alone. Additionally, the telemetry/video/C&C for the interceptor, if jamming is already in place, your counter won’t work either.

The swarm will require a low latency comms link, centralized or decentralized, if the area is jammed, it won’t work. i have built a self-healing decentralized system using cellular in each drone, but that’s useless if the network is down to start with.

So they might work in a very specific use case, but not an ultimate solution to counter them.

While it [1] doesn't talk about swarms, it has some details - $1k - $2.5k price, 170mph speed, backpackable, thermal imaging, radar, ai, manual control (fiber-optic I think, based on other sources and battlefield pictures).

This [2] talks about swarmer software used by Ukraine.

$1k-$2.5k gives a lot of room for tech to avoid jamming - ir or visible light, ultrasound, for in-swarm comms.

And I wonder if the battery itself could be weaponized. We have seen that a very thin layer of the right material can turn phones/pagers very destructive.

[1] https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukrainian-companies-prohib...

[2] https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/ukrainian-drone-swa...

I don’t know if it will work, but here’s a startup that seems to be building an AI-controlled shotgun:

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/9-mothers-corporation

Given the war in Ukraine, wanting to build such things is certainly understandable. But still, this is the stuff of nightmares.

loading story #47389033
"Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually "

Why would lasers not work?

Those cheap drones are made from plastic, if you have a laser powerful enough and a target guidance system (like a camera and a PI) - then you would just need enough of them.

At long distances the small cross section of the drone requires tight focusing (expensive optics) or a high power, preferably pulsed laser (expensive laser) or both.

Not impossible but many times more expensive than the drone

Expensive is fine since it is reusable.
At some point it itself becomes a target. It has to be able to get almost 100% kills, otherwise the enemy can swarm it with cheap drones, destroy the expensive installation, then continue as before.
loading story #47388736
loading story #47388976
At very short distances and with a lot of power, perhaps. Despite what we see in movies laser beams diverge. And then with distance it’s harder to track moving objects precisely to hit the same spot long enough to melt it.

At that point might as well spend the money to use a kinetic weapon with basic tracking and ballistic calculations.

Kinetic weapons pose greater risk to bystanders.
Powerful enough laser and accurate enough targeting system is easy to say, but not easypeasy to do. Dumping thousands of Joules on a tiny moving target is much easier to do with explosives.
Lasers imo don't really have IRL advantages over machine guns and rockets, and their line of sight nature is a huge limitation.
Laser:

- are cheap to shoot - do not fall on someones head if they miss (unlike firing bullets and rockets at a drone that will come down again) - do hit the target immediately if aimed right

Problems with lasers are, cooling, power consumption limiting mobile use - and indeed targeting and fog and clouds.

loading story #47388958
Lasers won’t effectively work, it’s a two part equation, detection and targeting. To neutralize a target using a ground-based laser, you need an enormous power, and still it won’t penetrate a high distance/altitude in the sky, environment factors also to be considered. The detection part is even harder, these small 8in drones are almost impossible to detect unless you can hear it, aka it’s over, because they can fly at 250km/h, too small to be visually detected, acoustic sensors will fail to detect them, and radar will miss it as a false negative since it’s the size of a bird. I have seen some systems trying to combine all that to detect them plus AI for flying pattern detection, but they are far from being reliable in practical applications.
loading story #47388926
Unless you mean it just can't detect objects that small, my guess is we'll see things calibrate toward a lot more birds being cooked in active war zones vs drones with explosives being let through.
Can radar distinguish from the bird since it’s moving 250km/h?
The small weaponized drones do not fly 250 km/h.
loading story #47387599
loading story #47388804
From what I can tell, Ukrainians are having some success with converting guns into automatic turrets that can track and shoot down drones via sensors, and the rifle-equivalent of birdshot.
"let alone with AI" what's falling into the AI category here perhaps is the key question, since microseconds counts, and LLM are very slow!

Even the fastest "real-time" LLM frameworks currently report sub-second latencies around 120ms. This is fine for high-level mission planning (e.g., "fly to the red house") but too slow to prevent a drone from hitting a tree at 50mph (80 KM/h)[1]

Whilst the Shahed-136 kamikaze drone typically flies at a maximum speed of around 185 km/h (roughly 115 mph or 100 knots).

[1] https://arxiv.org/html/2602.19534v1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136

> "let alone with AI" what's falling into the AI category here perhaps is the key question, since microseconds counts, and LLM are very slow!

LLMs (Large Language Models) are far from the only type of AI around. It's a pretty broad field, and there are real-time AI systems, for example, self-driving cars, which have the response times you're thinking of. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mod...

hence: "what's falling into the AI category here perhaps is the key question"

YOLO is a good example for something that can work.

https://docs.ultralytics.com/models/yolov8/

> Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually let alone with AI

What kind of systems are you thinking about? Jet airplanes for sure are completely safe from small drones.

"Jet airplanes for sure are completely safe from small drones."

That feels like a bold and unsupported assertion. Ask a pilot how they'd feel about takeoffs or landings through airspace filled with adversarial drones.

A flock of unlucky geese can knock out a jet turbine, how is this a "for sure" conclusion?
> Jet airplanes for sure are completely safe from small drones.

Until they land then, due to their cost, they become a very juicy target to aim for.

maybe in the air, but I seem to recall the Ukrainians being successful at attacking Russian planes on the ground.