U.S. Passport Card Online Application Now Available

Washington, DC (MMD Newswire) January 23, 2012 -- On January 24, the Department of State's Office of Passport Services will launch a 90-day pilot program allowing adult U.S. citizens living in the United States and Canada to apply for a passport card online. By applying online, customers will not be required to mail in their current passport book and necessary forms, saving them time and money.

To participate in this program, applicants must currently possess a valid 10-year U.S. passport book, upload an acceptable digital photograph and make an online payment in U.S. dollars via Pay.gov. Applications accepted through the program will be subject to the same strict adjudication standards as in-person or mail-in applications.

This pilot program is the Department's signature initiative under Presidential Executive Order 13571 to simplify customer service interactions and streamline related processes, making them more efficient.

The Department of State began producing the passport card in 2008 in response to travel document requirements imposed by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Since then, more than 4.5 million cards have been issued. The wallet-sized passport card is a low-cost alternative to the passport book. The U.S. passport card costs $30 for current passport book holders, and is valid for land and sea travel to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. It is not valid for international air travel.

To apply for the passport card using the online application, visit travel.state.gov.

Panetta: U.S. Military is the Best, But Threats Remain

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md., Jan. 20, 2012 - The U.S. military is the world's best and it's on the right path to face the challenges ahead, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said here today.

Speaking to a crowd of service members, civilians and local leaders at a town hall meeting, Panetta said the military "has to be able to make that turn as we head into the future."

"We're at a point, as you know, where the Iraq mission was brought to an end, and it's now clearly up to the Iraqi people, to the Iraqi leaders to make sure they stay on the right track," he said. "That was the whole point of the mission, was to make Iraq be able to govern and secure itself."

The defense secretary also cited U.S., coalition and Afghan progress made in Afghanistan and NATO's success in helping to topple a dictator in Libya.

"In Afghanistan, we are making good progress there in transitioning to Afghan control and security, and we remain committed to making sure that happens," Panetta said. "In Libya, we had a successful NATO mission that helped bring down Gadhafi and return Libya to the Libyan people."

Panetta noted the U.S. military has "significantly impacted" al-Qaida operations. Al-Qaida chieftain Osama bin Laden was killed in May 2011 in Pakistan by U.S. troops.

"Its leadership is decimated," Panetta said of al-Qaida. "It doesn't have the ability to put command and control together to make the kind of plans for the kind of attacks we saw on 9/11.

"We have successfully gone after their leadership, and it's not just bin Laden, but a number of leaders," he continued. "But we need to continue that pressure.

"We need to keep going after them wherever they go, whether it's Yemen or Somalia or North Africa," he added. "We need to continue the pressure on them. But we are working to significantly weaken their capability. We've been good at it."

The defense secretary noted that "we're moving in the right direction" by virtue of the men and women in uniform doing "everything we've asked them to do."

Panetta also said the current drawdown isn't like previous drawdowns following World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War or the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"This isn't like drawdowns in the past ... when the potential enemy or the enemy that we were confronting, you know, was disabled and in some way rendered ineffective," he said. "We're still confronting a number of threats in the world."

"We're still fighting a war in Afghanistan," Panetta said. "We're facing threats from North Korea. We're facing threats from Iran. We continue to face threats from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction."

The defense secretary also noted threats from "rising powers" in Asia, continuing turmoil in the Middle East, and in the cyber world where "the battlefields of the future could very well be in cyber."

"So at a time when we're at that turning point, at a time when we're facing the budget challenges that we're facing, we still have to be strong to confront the threats that we face in the world," Panetta said. "And so that's been the challenge."

After Congress mandated a reduction of $487 billion in the defense budget over the next 10 years, Panetta said he saw it as an "opportunity to shape the defense system we need for the future."

"Number one, we are and have to remain, the strongest military in the world," he said. "We are not going to back off from our position of being the strongest military. If we're going to confront those threats, if we're going to be a world leader, we have got to maintain our military power."

Panetta was also adamant about not hollowing out the force which, he said, is a mistake "we've made in the past."

"Every one of those drawdowns I talked about, there were cuts across the board," he said. "They took big numbers, cut everything across the board, weakened everything across the board ... we are not going to do that."

The defense secretary noted he'd looked at every budget area where savings, efficiencies and balance can be achieved.

Despite current fiscal belt-tightening, the nation ""cannot break faith with those that have served, men and women who've deployed time and time and time again to the war zone, who've been promised and committed to certain benefits," Panetta said.

"We have got to maintain faith with them," he added, "at the same time that, obviously, we've got to deal with growing costs in the future."

The nation's national defense strategy, Panetta added, always depends upon the quality of its service members.

"And thank God we have the very best fighting men and women in the world," he said. "And thank God we have the American people that are supportive of making sure that we do everything possible to reach that American dream of giving our kids a better life."

Australia joins the fight against space junk

Australia (MMD Newswire) January 19, 2012 -- Australia is backing a proposal to minimise the amount of 'space junk' circling the planet.

The plan has been put forward by the EU, and calls for an international code of conduct for outer space activities.

The code will aim to prevent both accidental and deliberate damage to satellites and other space objects, which creates long-lived debris and poses risks for crucial space-based infrastructure.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said Australia, like all nations, depends more and more on space-based infrastructure for its security, prosperity and lifestyle.

"Everything from aircraft and ship navigation, to electronic commerce, communications, climate monitoring and disaster management, not to mention many of our defence systems, all rely on satellites," said Mr Rudd.

"But all that's being put at risk by the growing possibility of collisions with satellites and space vehicles."

The situation is made more urgent by the fact that several countries are developing weapons systems designed to destroy satellites.

While there is still work to be done, the Australian government believes a code of conduct is the best approach to tackle this complex issue, and so has given the proposal in-principle support and will actively engage in negotiations to finalise a deal.

Current estimates suggest there are around 500,000 pieces of long-lived orbiting space debris large enough to seriously damage or destroy satellites or human space flights.

Panetta Lifts F-35 Fighter Variant Probation

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md., Jan. 20, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced today he's lifted probation from the Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing variant of the fifth generation F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter which is absolutely vital to maintaining air superiority.

Speaking during a town hall-style meeting here, the defense secretary discussed the latest development in the progress of the joint strike fighter program as service members, politicians and the civilian workforce listened.

"Early in 2011 DOD was compelled to put [the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing] ... on probation," he said.

"Over the course of last year, you here at Pax River helped make an incredible difference by completing tremendous amounts of STOVL testing," Panetta noted. "You demonstrated that we've made real progress towards fixing some of the known problems that we had with STOVL."

Panetta lauded the joint strike fighter's workforce at NAS Patuxent River for their efforts to bring the STOVL variant up to the standards of the two other existing versions of the F-35, the Conventional Takeoff and Landing and Carrier Variant.

"We now believe that because of your work, that the STOVL variant is demonstrating the kind of performance and maturity that is in line with the other two variants of the JSF," Panetta said.

"As a result of your hard work and the hard work of JSF's government and industry team ... the STOVL variant has made, I believe and all of us believe, sufficient progress so that as of today, I am lifting the STOVL probation," he announced.

Panetta commended the crowd for their hard work, but cautioned that the JSF program still has more work to do. "We've got a long way to go with the JSF testing, and it's obviously not out of the woods yet," he said.

"But I am confident that if we continue to do the hard work necessary ... that both the Carrier and the STOVL Variant are going to be ready for operations and are going to be ready for doing the work that they have to do, which is to help protect this country," Panetta said.

"I want you all to know that as secretary of defense, my department is committed to the development of the F-35," he said. "It's absolutely critical ... that we get it right. And that's why you're here. The developmental testing that's going on here will ensure that we get this right."

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos called Panetta's decision to lift the probation of the F-35B "hard-earned."

"Secretary Panetta's decision to take the F-35B Lightning II Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing variant off probation was a hard-earned and rewarding announcement for the entire DOD/industry team that worked very hard last year," he said.

"Successful F-35B performance ashore and at sea has very positively advanced the state of demonstrated capability in 2011," Amos said. "The positive momentum generated during 2011 will continue as testing proceeds, production aircraft are delivered, and fleet training begins in 2012."

Panetta said it is important that the U.S. military maintains its technological edge into the future.
"That's where we have to be," he said. "We're going to have a strong defense; we have got to be there."

Panetta praised the capabilities of Patuxent's workforce.

"Because of you, because of the very unique testing and capabilities that are offered here, we are able to maintain that technological edge," Panetta said. "And I want to thank you again for your dedication, for your commitment, for your great skills."

Panetta lauded the Patuxent River installation calling it "a very unique facility" and "a national treasure" that is important to maintain.

"These are world-class facilities ... that [are] important to our military, important to our men and women in uniform who have to put their lives on the line, and it's important to our national security," Panetta said.

"Please accept my deepest thanks for your work and dedication," he said. "I couldn't do it without you."

Congressman Ron Paul: The NDAA Repeals More Rights

Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.

The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.

The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?

Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.

The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.

Taking Executive Orders Too Far

These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president’s desire to "do something" in spite of his severely weakened mandate.

Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can’t be agreed upon constitutionally- which is to say legally- such laws or actions should be rejected.

The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government.

But the Obama administration, like so many administrations in the 20th century, chooses to ignore the Constitution entirely. The increasingly broad use and scope of the Executive Orders is a prime example. Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation. It has become increasingly common for them to be misused in ways that are contradictory to congressional intent, or to bypass Congress altogether in enacting political agendas. The current administration has unabashedly stated that Congress's unwillingness to pass the president's jobs bill means that the president will act unilaterally to enact provisions of it piecemeal through Executive Order. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship.

Of course, the most dangerous and costly overstepping of executive authority is going to war without a congressional declaration. Congress has been sadly complicit in this usurpation by ceding much of its war-making authority to the executive because it wants to avoid taking responsibility for major war decisions, but that is part of our job in Congress! If the President cannot present to Congress and the people a convincingly strong case for going to war, then perhaps we should keep the nation at peace, rather than risk our men and women's lives for ill-defined reasons!

This administration certainly was not the first to behave in ways that have defied the Constitution to overstep its bounds. Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon. It is time for Congress to reassert itself and its constitutional role so that future administrations cannot continue on this dangerous path.

From: Congressman Ron Paul

National Voice Gazette

Iran: New EU sanctions target sources of finance for nuclear programme

Brussels (MMD Newswire) January 23, 2012 -- Given the EU's serious and deepening concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme, the Council today broadened the EU's restrictive measures against that country. Today's decisions target the sources of finance for the nuclear programme, complementing already existing sanctions.

The Council banned imports of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products. The prohibition concerns import, purchase and transport of such products as well as related finance and insurance. Already concluded contracts can still be executed until 1 July 2012. A review of the measures relating to oil and petroleum products will take place before 1 May 2012.

In addition, the Council outlawed imports of petrochemical products from Iran into the EU as well as the export of key equipment and technology for this sector to Iran. New investment in petrochemical companies in Iran as well as joint ventures with such enterprises are also no more allowed.

The Council also froze the assets of the Iranian central bank within the EU, while ensuring that legitimate trade can continue under strict conditions.

Trade in gold, precious metals and diamonds with Iranian public bodies and the central bank will no more be permitted, nor will the delivery of Iranian-denominated banknotes and coinage to the Iranian central bank. A number of additional sensitive dual-use goods may no more be sold to Iran.

Finally, the Council subjected three more persons to an asset freeze and a visa ban. It also froze the assets of eight further entities.

Today's decisions, together with the list of additional designations, will be published in the Official Journal of 24 January 2012.

Source: COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

United States Welcomes Additional European Union Sanctions on Iran

The following is the text of a joint statement by U.S. Department of State Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Iran sanctions.

We welcome today's decision by the European Union to ban imports of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products, freeze the assets of the Iranian central bank, and take additional action against Iran's energy, financial, and transport sectors.

The measures agreed to today by the EU Foreign Affairs Council are another strong step in the international effort to dramatically increase the pressure on Iran. They are consistent with steps the U.S. previously has taken and with new U.S. sanctions on Iran that the President signed into law on December 31. These new U.S. sanctions intensify the ongoing pressure on Iran and strengthen the impact of existing measures by targeting transactions with the Central Bank of Iran and by providing strong incentives to reduce Iran's ability to earn revenue from its oil exports. Taken in combination with the many other sanctions on Iran that continue to be implemented by the United States and the international community, this new, concerted pressure will sharpen the choice for Iran's leaders and increase their cost of defiance of basic international obligations.

The United States and our international partners are committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That is why we have pursued a dual-track policy that puts pressure on Iran to engage seriously in discussions with the international community on its nuclear program. To date, Iran has failed to take advantage of the offer of engagement described in EU High Representative Ashton's October 2011 letter. Instead, Iran has refused to address the international community's serious and well-founded concerns about its nuclear program. These concerns have only been heightened by Iran's inability to explain how its nuclear program is, as it claims, exclusively peaceful in nature or to provide any credible response to the IAEA's November 2011 report that detailed the potential military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program.

Panetta Says Nuclear-Armed Iran ‘Unacceptable’

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20, 2011 – A nuclear-armed Iran is “unacceptable” to the United States and no option to prevent that from happening is off the table, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told CBS News.

Panetta told 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley that if Iranian leaders decided to go full bore on their nuclear program, then they could have nuclear weapons within a year. It could be quicker if the Iranians have a hidden facility enriching fuel, the secretary said during the Dec. 17 interview.

The secretary, speaking aboard his aircraft on the way back from a visit to the Middle East, Central Asia and Libya, pointed out that Israel and the United States share a common concern about Iran developing nukes.

“That’s a red line for us,” he said. “And it’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it, we will do it.”

If the Iranians proceed with the development of nuclear weapons, Panetta said, “Then we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it.” This would include military options, the secretary said.

Inspectors from the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency are well-placed in Iran to observe nuclear activities, said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman.

The secretary believes the U.N. inspectors would know if Iranian leaders make the decision to produce nuclear weapons.

“They have not done so yet,” Kirby said.

Today in religion

Court Orders Removal Of Cross Memorials

Sometimes no decision is the worst decision of all. As you may have heard, the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to intervene at a defining moment for religious freedom in America. The Court chose to leave six states completely defenseless in the face of an aggressive campaign by atheists to sterilize the public square of any expression of faith. For 13 years, Utah's fallen highway patrolmen have been honored with roadside crosses as a way to honor the troopers' sacrifice and comfort their families. American Atheists, Inc. took the state to court for allowing a private association to memorialize the officers with its own dollars.

The Court's refusal to hear the case has severe implications. Every state in the 10th Circuit's jurisdiction -- and that includes Utah, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming -- is officially on notice. None of their crosses on public property will be tolerated either. This decision could have future implications for Arlington National Cemetery and other landmarks across the country. Of course, the irony is that these roadside crosses are not only constitutional, but they also represent the very values that our Constitution celebrates.

On Thursday, our Values Voter Bus rolled into Murray, Utah to take our stand with the Utah state troopers. There we announced a national petition urging the courts, Congress, and state legislatures to stand with us in solidarity for national monuments and memorials across the nation.

The fact that America has even arrived at this point in this case points to how far our understanding of the Establishment Clause has fallen from its original meaning. The Founding Fathers erected several monuments of this nature -- and they obviously didn't see their Bill of Rights as a barrier to them! Please join us by adding your name to the more than 26,000 who recognize that the U.S. Constitution celebrates religious liberty -- not censors it!

Got Jesus?

Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Get Right With God!

Satan invented the theory of evolution, you'll be shocked by the end of the video

Why do atheists care about religion? a legitimate complaint

Checkmate, Atheists!

Ten absolute, irrefutable, God-approved proofs that Christians are right and atheists are dumb and deluded!

Scientific proof that God does exist?

The Divine Creation Theory

a simple scientific experiment to prove the existence of God

If you met Jesus on the street today

religion

Make National Voice Your Home Page

National Voice Gazette
www.nationalvoicesite.com

Remember the Troops

Support the Mission

Air Force Leaders Say Strategy Calls for F-22, F-35 Capabilities

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2012 - Fifth-generation fighter aircraft are key to America maintaining domain dominance in the years ahead, Air Force officials said here today.

Lt. Gen. Christopher D. Miller, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs, and Maj. Gen. Noel T. "Tom" Jones, the service's director for operation capability requirements, said the technology exemplified in the F-22 and F-35 assumes greater importance in combating growing anti-access, area-denial capabilities.

The generals spoke during a media roundtable in the Pentagon.

Fifth-generation aircraft are particularly valuable as part of the new defense strategy guidance that President Barack Obama unveiled here earlier this month, they said. That strategy explicitly affirms that the United States military must be able to defeat ant-access, area-denial threats.

"This is not a new thing," Miller said. "Militaries have operated in ant-access environments probably since the beginning of time. But what is different, and why fifth-generation aircraft is relevant to that, is that operating in anti-access environments continues to become more complex and challenging."

There is a continuing competition between nations developing anti-access capabilities and others devising ways to defeat that, the general said. "Fifth-generation aircraft are a key ability that the Air Force is bringing to the nation's ability to operate in those environments," he added.

The Air Force has flown against anti-access environments since it was founded. American fighters countered this capability in the skies over Korea and Vietnam. Airmen faced off against surface-to-air missiles ringing Hanoi. In the Persian Gulf War, airmen defeated the ground-to-air threat over Iraq, and most recently, they knocked out the anti-access capabilities around Tripoli.

But missile technology has become more complex and more difficult to counter. Command-and-control capabilities have grown. This will require a new set of capabilities flying against them, Jones told reporters. "The fifth-generation capabilities that the F-22 and F-35 possess will allow us to deal with that environment," he said.

F-22s and F-35s bring maneuverability, survivability, advanced avionics and stealth technology to the fight. Both planes are multi-role capable, able to fight air-to-air and air-to-ground.

"These capabilities give our leaders the ability to hold any target at risk, anywhere in the globe, at any time," Jones said. "I think it is important for any adversary to understand we possess those capabilities and intend to continue the development."

Another aspect of the strategy includes the ability to operate against adversaries across the spectrum of conflict. F-22s and F-35s are particularly relevant at the top of the spectrum, "where we can't always set the conditions for our operations as easily as we have in the last couple of decades of military conflict," Miller said.

This is an extremely valuable capability that must be nurtured, the generals said.

Americans have become used to having domain dominance, Miller said, expecting U.S. service members to be able to operate on land, at sea, in the air with a fair degree of autonomy as they pursue national objectives.

"This is not a birthright," Miller said. "That is something we have had to work very hard in the past to gain, ... and we can't take for granted that we are going to be able to support the joint team in future environments unless we maintain a high-end capability to target an adversary's air forces, their surface-to-air forces and basically be able to seize control of parts of the air space and other domains the joint commander needs.

"It's an Air Force capability," he added, "but it's a key Air Force contribution to the joint warfighting capability of the nation."

MIT researchers find critical speed above which birds — and drones — are sure to crash.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- The northern goshawk is one of nature’s diehard thrill-seekers. The formidable raptor preys on birds and small mammals, speeding through tree canopies and underbrush to catch its quarry. With reflexes that rival a fighter pilot’s, the goshawk zips through a forest at high speeds, constantly adjusting its flight path to keep from colliding with trees and other obstacles.

While speed is a goshawk’s greatest asset, researchers at MIT say the bird must observe a theoretical speed limit if it wants to avoid a crash. The researchers found that, given a certain density of obstacles, there exists a speed below which a bird — and any other flying object — has a fair chance of flying collision-free. Any faster, and a bird or aircraft is sure to smack into something, no matter how much information it has about its environment. A paper detailing the results has been accepted to the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation.

These findings may not be news to the avian world, but Emilio Frazzoli, an associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, says knowing how fast to fly can help engineers program unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to fly at high speeds through cluttered environments such as forests and urban canyons.

Frazzoli is part of an interdisciplinary team that includes biologists at Harvard University, who are observing flying behaviors in goshawks and other birds, and roboticists at MIT, who are engineering birdlike UAVs. With Frazzoli’s mathematical contributions, the team hopes to build fast, agile UAVs that can move through cluttered environments — much like a goshawk streaking through the forest.

Speedy intuition

Most UAVs today fly at relatively slow speeds, particularly if navigating around obstacles. That’s mainly by design: Engineers program a drone to fly just fast enough to be able to stop within the field of view of its sensors.

“If I can only see up to five meters, I can only go up to a speed that allows me to stop within five meters,” Frazzoli says. “Which is not very fast.”

If the northern goshawk flew at speeds purely based on what it could immediately see, Frazzoli conjectures that the bird would not fly as fast. Instead, the goshawk likely gauges the density of trees, and speeds past obstacles, knowing intuitively that, given a certain forest density, it can always find an opening through the trees.

Frazzoli points out that a similar intuition exists in downhill skiing.

“When you go skiing off the path, you don’t ski in a way that you can always stop before the first tree you see,” Frazzoli says. “You ski and you see an opening, and then you trust that once you go there, you’ll be able to see another opening and keep going.”

Frazzoli says that in a way, robots may be programmed with this same speedy intuition. Given some general information about the density of obstacles in a given environment, a robot could conceivably determine the maximum speed below at it can safely fly.

Forever flying

Toward this end, Frazzoli and PhD student Sertac Karaman developed mathematical models of various forest densities, calculating the maximum speed possible in each obstacle-filled environment.

The researchers first drew up a differential equation to represent the position of a bird in a given location at a given speed. They then worked out what’s called an ergodic model representing a statistical distribution of trees in the forest — similar to those commonly used by ecologists to characterize the density of a forest. In an ergodic forest, while the size, shape and spacing of individual trees may vary, their distribution in any given area is the same as any other area. Such models are thought to be a fair representation of most forests in the world.

Frazzoli and Karaman adjusted the model to represent varying densities of trees, and calculated the probability that a bird would collide with a tree while flying at a certain speed. The team found that, for any given forest density, there exists a critical speed above which there is no “infinite collision-free trajectory.” In other words, the bird is sure to crash. Below this speed, a bird has a good chance of flying without incident.

“If I fly slower than that critical speed, then there is a fair possibility that I will actually be able to fly forever, always avoiding the trees,” Frazzoli says.

The team’s work establishes a theoretical speed limit for any given obstacle-filled environment. For UAVs, this means that no matter how good robots get at sensing and reacting to their environments, there will always be a maximum speed they will need to observe to ensure survival.

The researchers are now seeing if the theory bears out in nature. Frazzoli is collaborating with scientists at Harvard, who are observing how birds fly through cluttered environments — in particular, whether a bird will choose not to fly through an environment that is too dense. The team is comparing the birds’ behavior with what Frazzoli’s model can predict. So far, Frazzoli says preliminary results in pigeons are “very encouraging.”

In the coming months, Frazzoli also wants to see how close humans can come to such theoretical speed limits. He and his students are developing a first-person flying game to test how well people can navigate through a simulated forest at high speeds.

“What we want to do is have people play, and we’ll just collect statistics,” Frazzoli says. “And the question is, how close to the theoretical limit can we get?”

Written by Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office

James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

goto religion, see Devine Creation Theory

Light Enters the World

Go to The Story
birth of Jesus

It's totally free from
opera.com/browser

National Voice Gazette

Since 9/21/2003

Headline News Feed

To stay informed, subscribe to our RSS feed, book mark us, or even better,
Make National Voice Your Home Page

 Subscribe in a reader

This website is supported by advertising, and by our visitors.

Advertisers, contact us by e-mail for our low rates webmasterb@nationalvoicesite.com

or visit our mailroom

Visitors, consider a small donation to help keep us online, no donation is too small or too large!

Thank you for visiting.