If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Answer: Catapults, cannons and submarines. Question: Name some of things used to smuggle drugs across the border   (popsci.com) divider line 25
    More: Interesting, cannons  
•       •       •

1781 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Apr 2013 at 11:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-19 11:43:14 AM  
How many kilos of coke can you put in a old soviet sub?
 
2013-04-19 11:43:55 AM  
I'll take "Subby's Rectum" for $1000.
 
2013-04-19 11:45:26 AM  
You forgot Uranus....
 
2013-04-19 11:45:40 AM  
It would be funnier if the cartels funded by such operations hadn't killed thousands.
 
2013-04-19 11:46:19 AM  
No one has yet, to my knowledge, used autonomous vehicles, though I've been talking about the concept on Fark for years.

Large model aircraft have crossed the Atlantic autonomously, and autonomous underwater vehicles with ranges in the hundreds miles have been built.  It's only a matter of time, as a something like that can't squeal when it gets caught.
 
2013-04-19 11:47:33 AM  
i hear drugs are big business
 
2013-04-19 11:48:15 AM  
 
2013-04-19 11:48:22 AM  
ditty...

with your background you should know what the large cartels are up to...
 
2013-04-19 11:56:08 AM  
put a bung
in your hole
its a bunghole
make the bung
out of drugs
its a drugbung
spit on a biatch
 
2013-04-19 12:01:03 PM  

dittybopper: No one has yet, to my knowledge, used autonomous vehicles, though I've been talking about the concept on Fark for years.

Large model aircraft have crossed the Atlantic autonomously, and autonomous underwater vehicles with ranges in the hundreds miles have been built.  It's only a matter of time, as a something like that can't squeal when it gets caught.


It's pretty easy and cheap to construct a large remote controlled aircraft that can fly waypoints based on GPS coordinates.  You could have the receiving party take control once it's within range.  I could do it for <$2,000.00.
 
2013-04-19 12:06:38 PM  
They should use trebuchets instead. They're more efficient.

...What?
 
2013-04-19 12:08:53 PM  
Your mom
 
2013-04-19 12:14:45 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-19 12:58:14 PM  
Meth rocket deployable from a mobile launch platform:

www.didntyouhear.com
 
2013-04-19 01:05:57 PM  

Ned Stark: It would be funnier if the cartels funded by such operations hadn't killed thousands.


It would be funnier if drugs were legalized and regulated.

Pot cannon would be a fun game!
 
2013-04-19 01:25:50 PM  

dopekitty74: Ned Stark: It would be funnier if the cartels funded by such operations hadn't killed thousands.

It would be funnier if drugs were legalized and regulated.

Pot cannon would be a fun game!


Catch it and you keep it!
 
2013-04-19 01:32:38 PM  

studebaker hoch: Meth rocket deployable from a mobile launch platform:

[www.didntyouhear.com image 519x187]


Does the meth power the rocket?
 
2013-04-19 02:13:37 PM  

Goatspunk: dittybopper: No one has yet, to my knowledge, used autonomous vehicles, though I've been talking about the concept on Fark for years.

Large model aircraft have crossed the Atlantic autonomously, and autonomous underwater vehicles with ranges in the hundreds miles have been built.  It's only a matter of time, as a something like that can't squeal when it gets caught.

It's pretty easy and cheap to construct a large remote controlled aircraft that can fly waypoints based on GPS coordinates.  You could have the receiving party take control once it's within range.  I could do it for <$2,000.00.


Yep.  And because they fly low and slow, on radar they'd look like a seabird.  Probably, because the flight speed of something like that would be around 40 MPH, it would get filtered out.

The other thing to consider, given current events, that you could put a bomb on something like that, launch it from a few hundred miles away, and have it detonate over a crowded event like the Boston Marathon.  Our current air defense posture would be largely ineffective against model airplanes.

Just back-of-the-enveloping it here, if you cut the fuel capacity down to 1/3rd of what they used to cross the Atlantic, and reserved that for some sort of anti-personnel payload, you'd have something like (whips out slide rule)...
roughly 4 lbs of payload capacity, enough for something like an improvised flying claymore built with metal pipe, smokeless powder, and ball-bearings or other projectiles.

That would still leave a range of over 600 miles, which means you can launch it from a very rural area with essentially zero chance of being caught on video or still cameras.

I also means you could program in a "dog-leg" to make it appear that it came from a different direction.

In essence, you could make a poor-man's buzz bomb.
 
2013-04-19 02:53:55 PM  

dittybopper: Goatspunk: dittybopper: No one has yet, to my knowledge, used autonomous vehicles, though I've been talking about the concept on Fark for years.

Large model aircraft have crossed the Atlantic autonomously, and autonomous underwater vehicles with ranges in the hundreds miles have been built.  It's only a matter of time, as a something like that can't squeal when it gets caught.

It's pretty easy and cheap to construct a large remote controlled aircraft that can fly waypoints based on GPS coordinates.  You could have the receiving party take control once it's within range.  I could do it for <$2,000.00.

Yep.  And because they fly low and slow, on radar they'd look like a seabird.  Probably, because the flight speed of something like that would be around 40 MPH, it would get filtered out.

The other thing to consider, given current events, that you could put a bomb on something like that, launch it from a few hundred miles away, and have it detonate over a crowded event like the Boston Marathon.  Our current air defense posture would be largely ineffective against model airplanes.

Just back-of-the-enveloping it here..... (snip)


Hmm... what's that knocking at your door ditty? :)
 
2013-04-19 03:28:06 PM  

dittybopper: No one has yet, to my knowledge, used autonomous vehicles, though I've been talking about the concept on Fark for years.

Large model aircraft have crossed the Atlantic autonomously, and autonomous underwater vehicles with ranges in the hundreds miles have been built.  It's only a matter of time, as a something like that can't squeal when it gets caught.


The payloads are light and there simply hasn't been the need.

dittybopper: The other thing to consider, given current events, that you could put a bomb on something like that, launch it from a few hundred miles away, and have it detonate over a crowded event like the Boston Marathon. Our current air defense posture would be largely ineffective against model airplanes.

Just back-of-the-enveloping it here, if you cut the fuel capacity down to 1/3rd of what they used to cross the Atlantic, and reserved that for some sort of anti-personnel payload, you'd have something like (whips out slide rule)...
roughly 4 lbs of payload capacity, enough for something like an improvised flying claymore built with metal pipe, smokeless powder, and ball-bearings or other projectiles.

That would still leave a range of over 600 miles, which means you can launch it from a very rural area with essentially zero chance of being caught on video or still cameras.

I also means you could program in a "dog-leg" to make it appear that it came from a different direction.


I disagree.  I don't think you would get the necessary tracking accuracy.  It's good enough to get it within eyeball range of the guy on the other end but it's not good enough to ensure the bomb drops on the runners and isn't just wasted on a rooftop nearby.
 
2013-04-19 04:09:15 PM  

Loren: I disagree.  I don't think you would get the necessary tracking accuracy.  It's good enough to get it within eyeball range of the guy on the other end but it's not good enough to ensure the bomb drops on the runners and isn't just wasted on a rooftop nearby.


How accurate is a GPS these days?  Can you get a fix of 20 feet accuracy?  That's certainly good enough.

You're flying above, and the device would be pointing downwards, and as the reference to a claymore implies, it would shoot projectiles over a relatively large area.

Again, back-of-enveloping here:  A .32 caliber round lead ball (basically, a 00 buck projectile) has a weight of 49 grains, meaning you can get (7000/49) = 142 of them per pound.  Figure pipe and powder add up to a pound or a pound and a half, and you've got enough left over capacity for just a bit over 200 balls.  If you can get a spread of 20 degrees, and the plane is at 200 feet at detonation, the area covered will have a radius of 35 feet from "ground zero".  That means the diameter of the affected circle will be 70 feet and area of the affected circle will be 3,848 square feet, and if the pattern of balls is even, that's one projectile every 18 square feet, which is a square just a bit over 4 feet by 4 feet.

(I partially cribbed this calculation from one I did a while back about mass volleys by English archers against an area target)

Even if you have a GPS positional error of 20 or 30 feet, that's still going to put you in the ballpark.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part.  Oddly enough, while I have the analytical skills to think of stuff like this, I don't have the technical skills to implement it, and most especially I don't have any intent on ever doing something heinous.

Such speculation is useful, however, in trying to think of ways to guard against such attacks.
 
2013-04-19 04:10:18 PM  

ObscureNameHere: Hmm... what's that knocking at your door ditty? :)


That would be the neighbor kid coming over to play Minecraft with the littlebopper.  Why?
 
2013-04-19 04:38:20 PM  
JohnnyRebel88

studebaker hoch: Meth rocket deployable from a mobile launch platform:

Does the meth power the rocket?


Yes, the same way nuclear missiles are nuclear powered.
 
2013-04-19 07:02:03 PM  
dittybopper: Loren: I disagree.  I don't think you would get the necessary tracking accuracy.  It's good enough to get it within eyeball range of the guy on the other end but it's not good enough to ensure the bomb drops on the runners and isn't just wasted on a rooftop nearby.

How accurate is a GPS these days?  Can you get a fix of 20 feet accuracy?  That's certainly good enough.

You're flying above, and the device would be pointing downwards, and as the reference to a claymore implies, it would shoot projectiles over a relatively large area.

Again, back-of-enveloping here:  A .32 caliber round lead ball (basically, a 00 buck projectile) has a weight of 49 grains, meaning you can get (7000/49) = 142 of them per pound.  Figure pipe and powder add up to a pound or a pound and a half, and you've got enough left over capacity for just a bit over 200 balls.  If you can get a spread of 20 degrees, and the plane is at 200 feet at detonation, the area covered will have a radius of 35 feet from "ground zero".  That means the diameter of the affected circle will be 70 feet and area of the affected circle will be 3,848 square feet, and if the pattern of balls is even, that's one projectile every 18 square feet, which is a square just a bit over 4 feet by 4 feet.

(I partially cribbed this calculation from one I did a while back about mass volleys by English archers against an area target)

Even if you have a GPS positional error of 20 or 30 feet, that's still going to put you in the ballpark.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part.  Oddly enough, while I have the analytical skills to think of stuff like this, I don't have the technical skills to implement it, and most especially I don't have any intent on ever doing something heinous.

Such speculation is useful, however, in trying to think of ways to guard against such attacks.


welcome to the FBI watch list for even thinking of such a thing....
 
2013-04-20 08:27:35 AM  

Oldiron_79: welcome to the FBI watch list for even thinking of such a thing....


Heh.  I've probably already been on it for years.

/One of my ham buddies is an FBI agent.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report