No modern UAV has hardware capable of running an entire Windows installation. Think of arduino boards; those things can control huge robotics systems and they are very simple (and thus simple to debug). If you're designing a robot from the ground-up, why would you scale all the way to Windows? No one is going to be playing minesweeper inside the plane
No modern UAV has hardware capable of running an entire Windows installation.
I highly, highly doubt that you're right about this. If you happen to be right, you won't be for long. It might be that nobody wants to run Windows, but there is clear motivation, as well as hardware and software technology, to have a full-scale OS on an advanced UAV.
The google car is an exception where there is a lot of sophisticated software. UAV's like Boeing's and even the ones you buy online (with the open source software) are running on boards, not full-scale PC's with the ability to play a DVD.
UAVs are very complicated in terms of technology and engineering, but the hardware is simple because it's basically just running control loops on some board.
spoilers: Microsoft has a significant enterprise support organization, which the military is probably already dealing with, and Windows scales farther down than you'd think.
For the only reasons such stupid thing happens: the clueless manager wants the machine to run a modern OS and thinks Windows is the most modern OS out there.
post-downvote edit: I am saying nothing about viruses like Stuxnet, designed as weapons tailored to infect specific systems, for which no OS would be safe, but how brain-dead is it to design critical systems that control airborne weapon systems around an OS that's vulnerable to each and every piece of malware known to man?
Now I am curious. Why would Windows end up in such a system? I would expect an RTOS like QNX (which is not that hard to program).
I agree I am more familiar with corporate IT disasters where some pointy-haired boss decided Windows was the way to go instead of what would be the optimal choice, but I always expected flight-control software to be built with a great amount of attention to every detail.
I would think about this for a second; the DoD doesn't manufacture, produce, or design these systems. They contract that out. Considering that General Atomics Aeronautical is a smaller defense company (relative to other ones), I'm sure they could make their own decision about what OS to run on the planes and on the ground. That's all I can say...
The level of performance needed in the GCS is even less than you might think, too -- for most of the UAVs, you don't have direct flight controls -- it's more like a naval ship, where you instruct it to go to certain altitude and fly a flight path you plot on a map. Some of them have more stick/rudder style controls, mainly for landings, which are often controlled by another operator physically at the launch/recovery site (and who might be a contractor vs. soldier/airman).
It's tempting to say this to avoid getting your hopes up, but there has been solid concrete progress in fusion technology over the last decade. Getting net positive fusion to occur on Earth is an _incredibly_ difficult technical challenge. It's like climbing a scientific mountain, and right now we are a few hundred meters from the top with a few more obstacles to go. So saying you won't believe it until we reach the summit discredits all the progress we have made to date.
This technology is not a matter of 'is it possible?' but 'is it technically feasible?' And the scientific community has been chipping away at the latter for a long time.
The Sun is not like a nuclear bomb going off. It's just a big radiating compost heap. Its huge energy output is due to its large size, and not the intensity of its reaction. (If the Sun's reaction were like a nuclear bomb, the solar system would be destroyed in a supernova-like explosion.)
In other words, nuclear fusion at the Sun's scale isn't very intense a reaction. Why do we expect it's a good idea for a power plant? Do we expect to get significantly hotter than a star? Significantly more dense? It makes sense how nuclear power works. Fusion power, it's not so clear.
Of course, there are fusion bombs as well, but aren't those set off by nuclear bombs?
The bulk of the energy release from hydrogen bombs is not generated by fusion. The general design of a hydrogen bomb is that a hydrogen "blanket" surrounds a fission "core". When the fission "core" goes supercritical, it releases enough energy to initiate fusion in the "blanket".
What the "blanket" does at this point is exert pressure on the "core", which would be beginning to blow apart in a conventional nuclear device. Keeping the "core" together for just that small bit of time longer allows it to remain supercritical for just that small bit of time longer, with the energy release growing exponentially with a time constant of 10^-7 seconds.
Per fusion event, you get about 14 MeV to the about 200 MeV you get per fission event. It's true that the binding energy per nucleon is higher, but there are many fewer nucleons.
Without going on too much of a philosophical tangent; not about fusion - about everything in general. It allows me to concentrate on now rather than in the future. Now is the only time that is certain. Now is the only time you get to enjoy your life before it's over or your children leave.
