Invisible Unmanned Aircraft

MattSparkes writes, "A Minnesota company, VeraTech, has applied for a patent on an unmanned drone that is nearly invisible to the naked eye. The Phantom Sentinel takes advantage of the phenomenon where fast moving objects appear as only a blur, so it fades out of view once it speeds up. This is achieved by rotating the entire craft. The center of gravity is in open air between two of the blade-like wings. There are some videos of a prototype in action on the VeraTech site." The company says you could get usable video of the terrain by processing the images from a spinning camera. One version of the drone is small enough to launch by throwing it like a boomerang. And it folds for travel.

Comments

Videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly would we not see there?

Re:Videos?

[Ant P.]

At this point in time I'd say it's the videos themselves.

Re:Videos?

[iluvcapra]

Don't worry, all the videos are in the "asp.asx" format that my computer neither recognizes nor plays. Maybe we can defeat the terrorists by giving them all Macs ;)

Re:Videos?

[ichigo 2.0]

For some reason they refuse to work on my computer as well, and I'm running XP. I even tried with iexplore and no luck. Maybe it requires Linux? :P

Re:Videos?

[McGiraf]

The video is an mpeg file pointed to by an asx file, talk about stupid. They're tring to make their video invisible too.

Re:Videos?

[dch24]

Having worked with numerous UAV programs, the small- and micro-UAV research areas have several clear advantages:

1. Hand launchable and backpackable.
2. One man operation
3. Quiet. Obviously some care must be taken to select the propeller, but think about your quiet PC fans; it's the same idea. Also remember that the UAV doesn't need to get closer than 100 feet.
4. Now, invisibility. This is a significant advancement if it pans out. Previous UAVs would rely on camouflage but mainly on being too quiet to hear. A small, fast-moving object would be very difficult to spot, and small UAV's are primarily for surveillance.

So it may be difficult to get camera images without motion blur from the constant rotation, but that's really a very small problem. This has real potential.

What every small UAV really, really needs though is a highly reliable, low power radio link to the ground station. Even if it's just one man on the ground and the UAV operates on its own, the UAV is essentially useless until it can radio back imagery. Often, it's the live images that are the most valuable. That also means the radio link must be high bandwidth. This is the achilles' heel of small UAV's.

Re:Videos?

[WowTIP]

Download the .asx file

Open .asx file with text editor

Copy the URLs starting with http and ending with .mpg

(.asx is a (microsoft?) wrapper format...)

Re:Videos?

[Pentavirate]

The biggest problems of small and micro-UAVs are:

1. Requires line-of-sight to control them. This requires that a man often has to be in enemy territory in order for it to be useful.

2. Too small for larger payloads. This restricts their use to low-end optical cameras.

3. Fly close to the ground. This increases the likelyhood of them being seen by the enemy though being invisible would help in this case.

4. As mentioned above, getting a real-time feed of the cameras.

While it's a lot easier and cheaper for smaller companies to get into the micro-uav industry, it's the large UAVs that are the most practical. They can be controlled by sat links from anywhere in the world. They can broadcast the imagery over the same links to anywhere in the world from a small groundstation or the President's desk. They can carry large payloads allowing multi-spectrum cameras with super high resolution or Synthetic Aperature Radars (SAR) or even hell-fire missiles. They also can fly for 24 hours at a time from heights of 30,000 feet which essentially make them every bit as invisible as this micro-uav. In the end, it's the large UAVs like the Predator that are making the biggest difference in military actions as well as law enforcement and border control.

Re:Videos?

[shmlco]

This isn't new. Black helicopters have been using this trick for years now. That's why you can't see them!

Re:Videos?

[flyingsquid]

This isn't new. Black helicopters have been using this trick for years now. That's why you can't see them!

Wait- if you can't see them, how do you know they're actually black?

Re:Videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Requires line-of-sight to control them.

Wait a minute, the invisible aircraft requires line-of-sight? Am I the only one seeing a problem here?

Re:Videos?

[harp2812]

It's more of a question of the best tool for the job, IMO... The micro UAV's actually work quite well for Special Warfare teams, where the problems are more portability, quick launch, and short recon runs. You're absolutely right that the Predator drones are better for conventional warfare, but I think this was created to address a different set of requirements, and should do rather well from what I've seen (or not seen, as the case may be).

Re:Videos?

[ehrichweiss]

do you really consider that to be "invisible" though? I know they had mostly close-ups but one might guess that anything that remotely resembled a helicopter's rotors, which is exactly what it looked like to me, might be prone to being shot(a shotgun would do the job quite well) anyway in a hostile situation, and since that's about the only place these would be used, those chances are high.

Re:Videos?

[d_54321]

Here are the urls for the video files:
http://www.veratech.aero/mpg/Phantom%20First%20Fli ght.mpg
http://www.veratech.aero/mpg/Phantom%20Model%20Fli ght.mpg
http://www.veratech.aero/mpg/Phantom%207-19-2006.m pg

Re:Videos?

[stunt_penguin]

What I've often thought was a good idea, especially in the last few years with the situation in Iraq is the possibility of a squad-launchable UAV that could be fired/launched from a rack on the back of a hummer the minute a convoy (or whatever) came under small arms fire. The drone would circle the immediate area and send out video pictures.

The idea would be the ususal role for the squad leader to be able to see an aerial view of the immediate area (or, given the nature of a firefight, for an observer back at base to be able to give him verbal instructions on where the enemy are so he can concentrate on keeping his ass alive) and gain greater tactical awareness, thereby hopefully saving lives.

There's also the possiblity of making one that is capable of targeting ordinance (like a drone will do for a hellfire) or even flying towards and detonating near an enemy combatant (owie!), but that kind of thing is less practical. Cool though, if you like that sort of thing :0'

Cost would (as always) be an issue, so the drone would need to be recoverable (assuming it hasn't been off playing guided missile), but anything's cheaper than a soldier's life (unless you ask certain politicians, or a tobacco company ^^ ).

Re:Videos?

[tftp]

if you can't see them, how do you know they're actually black?

- A helicopter painted black would be invisible [at night]
- It's night outside, and I don't see any helicopters
Conclusion: Those helicopters are indeed black.

(Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise)

Re:Videos?

[Randolpho]

Maybe; nobody else can see anything.

I think that may be the point. :D

Re:Videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

blah

Headed for YOUR neighborhood!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

To protect us all from members of the House!

Seriously - there's enough info here to craft your own.

Re:Headed for YOUR neighborhood!

[*weasel]

That's kinda the point of patents.

Re:Headed for YOUR neighborhood!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

In Iran?!

Invisible spinning boomerang planes

[Anonymous Coward]

'Catch!'

'Ouch'

Re:Invisible spinning boomerang planes

[russ1337]

have you seen the photo in TFA? ...

Private Jones: So what's the boomerang doing now? What can you see?

Private Smith: Its heading straight toward some dumb looking shmuck wearing those gay VR goggles.... hey what the..?!!

Re:Invisible spinning boomerang planes

[Rob T Firefly]

Allright, who's the wiseguy that gave Nerf a defense contract?

Re:Invisible spinning boomerang planes

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like the "privates" are about 14 years old.

Re:Invisible spinning boomerang planes

[lowrydr310]

Privates Jones and Smith? It's more like Nerdy Engineers Jones and Smith dressed up in cool-looking camo to make their product look legitimate and to make the photo look appealing to their intended customer.

Re:Invisible spinning boomerang planes

[mgemmons]

If that that powered aerobie is invisible, then I have an old Sit-And-Spin that I will attempt to get an invisbility patent for, too. The only thing invisible about it is when they unfocus the video camera to make it look like it has disappeared.

Invisible

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Is that really invisible? It looked like they just changed the focus of the camera. Plus, I really wouldn't want to be the pilot. Holy bed spins. Er, just kidding, but it really didn't look too invisible.

Re:Invisible

[Daniel_Staal]

This looks designed to be robotic, so don't worry about the pilot.

And, while not completely invisible, it has a much lower visual signature than anything else of comperable size. I'm just not quite sure what the use is: it probably has a higher radar cross-section, so it's fairly useless as a spy-plane. The only thing you are really hiding from are people. Or civilians. Might be usefull as a close-rage spybot on a battlefield, but anybody with smart weapons can see and hit it quickly.

Re:Invisible

[MrSquishy]

but it really didn't look too invisible.

Where does something need to be in the non-visible spectrum to achieve adequate invisibility?

And the one you are looking at could be the decoy. The other 7 floating around you are the real spy drones.

Re:Invisible

[Dan Slotman]

What was the last war the USA fought against anyone with smart weapons? My guess is that this is being marketed toward the needs of warfar against low-tech enemies using guerilla techniques. I could also anticipate use as a "look over this next hill" tool where you only need 30 seconds of flight. If a smart missile is only 30 seconds out I think you may have bigger problems.

Re:Invisible

[Daniel_Staal]

True, that's probably the best use. But in all honesty, this thing is still going to be more detectable than just poking your head over the rise. It might be useful, but I doubt it overall.

Re:Invisible

[Scrameustache]

it probably has a higher radar cross-section, so it's fairly useless as a spy-plane. The only thing you are really hiding from are people. Or civilians. Might be usefull as a close-rage spybot on a battlefield, but anybody with smart weapons can see and hit it quickly.

So...
Usefull against an insurgency.
Not usefull if invading the swiss.

I wonder if anyone concerned with insurgencies has got some kind of large military budget... they might want a few of these.

Re:Invisible

[kthejoker]

"Invisible Unmanned Aircraft."

Seriously - you didn't even RTFT.

Re:Invisible

[ichigo 2.0]

They're also useful against American citizens.

Re:Invisible

[slimjim8094]

Because governments need flying cameras that civilians can't see...

Re:Invisible

[Pollardito]

And, while not completely invisible, it has a much lower visual signature than anything else of comperable size. I'm just not quite sure what the use is

the use is to sneak close enough to the bad guys to engage your magic lasso and force them to admit to their crime

Re:Invisible

[ethanrider]

It's a shame our "magic lasso" is a waterboard.

You can get people to admit to almost anything to get off one of those.

Re:Invisible

[ndrw]

In other words, it's perfect for the asymmetric battlefield that the US and other technologically advanced societies are on today, where the "enemy" and "civilians" are indistinguishable, and you need to watch them without being discovered. This will save lives.

Re:Invisible

[ColoradoAuthor]

So...
Usefull against an insurgency.
Not usefull if invading the swiss.

Such a gadget might actually be pretty useful against the Swiss and others with very accurate weapons. Weapon goes straight for the center of mass...and passes right through!

Re:Invisible

[Scrameustache]

might actually be pretty useful against the Swiss

Oh I don't think so.

Chuck one of those at the thing and it's sure to go down.

Re:Invisible

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Despite the fact that onlookers can't see the UAV doesn't mean that the pilot won't be able to fly the thing with its onboard camera. How else do you think that the folks get intelligence?

The camera is probably dropped through the center part and gyro-stabilized with a ring-laser gyro. Therefore, it wouldn't spin as much, if at all.

Re:Invisible

[tftp]

As things stand, it's easier to find 100 UAVs to look over the hill than to find one soldier to do the same. Not even mentioning that the ground between here and there may be mined.

Re:Invisible

[Daniel_Staal]

If you are going to send one, it's probably better to send a more standard one, where you can reduce the radar and sonic profile. If it's night, paint it black. If it's day, put white lights on the bottom. It'll be far stealthier overall. It won't be hand-carry-able, but while this plane itself is hand-launch-able, you have to have quite a bit of equipment to run it. Might as well put that back at base, and run your UAVs from there.

Before the Inevitable Slashdotting...

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Story with pictures here, and videos here. Looks pretty neat, but I'm not too sure how practical it will be to use.

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

did you see that??

See what?

Re:Hmm

[thewils]

No no no, what you're seeing is the craft edited into the video in the first place. You can't see it normally 'cos it's invisible.

Re:Hmm

[Lord_Dweomer]

At least you saw something...anybody else unable to get the videos to play?

Hmm

[Crazy Man on Fire]

I see three poor quality videos that have been edited to make the craft blur out.

who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

unmanned aircraft are mostly used for air surveillance/reconaissance. protecting them against naked eyes are not of much value since who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

Re:who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

This guy, Al something. Al Queda, thats it. Anyway, the site implies its more of a short range, troop level thing. Anyone behind that ridge? Where's that sniper shooting from? Real impressive if it works.

Re:who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The main goal is to use this as a drone in urban warfare and other short distance scenarios which are probably not going to be protected by radar.

Still, it looks like this baby could be quite easy to tke out with a shotgun :-).

Re:who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, it looks like this baby could be quite easy to tke out with a shotgun :-).

Most babies are.

Re:who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

easy to take out with a shotgun ... or a rock.

Re:who does air defense with naked eyes anyway?

[Sigg3.net]

Better yet, just shoot the guys throwing them.

Yes, but...

[turgid]

Does it have a reactionless microwave relativity drive? Or does it create memory in water molecules?

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously, it uses a series of tubes...

less visible more radar

[KDN]

Hm, this system could make the visual identification harder, but the dual positive and negative doppler shift on a radar would be a dead giveaway to its presence. So is that SAM on the ground radar or optical? To paraphrase Client Eastwood as Dirty Harry: do you feel lucky?

Re:less visible more radar

[Hijacked Public]

The site has a photo of two kids in flea market knockoff BDUs. One is wearing set of, probably broken, VR goggles and the other has $7.99 Tasco folding binoculars around his neck.

Somehow I get the feeling these people are not going to impress anyone in US military procurement enough to get much more than laughed at.

Re:less visible more radar

[Anonymous Coward]

This obviously has applications in civilian monitoring, as opposed to monitoring of the more technologically superior military installations. And, whatever sound it makes might not be noticeable in large cities.

Besides, something as small as a boomerang might not be picked up by radar, or would be considered little more than a glitch. Think mounting a camera on an insect and controlling the insect remotely. That'd be what most radar systems will perceive it as.

Re:less visible more radar

[maximusind]

Not only that, but all (3) of the demo videos look like they take place at the high-school track or in the developer's front yard. In addition, this thing will have to fly pretty high to not be heard by the targets, meaning it'll be all over radar.

Re:less visible more radar

[Shihar]

The use this would have would be on a purely troop level sort of thing. You might throw one to see what is on the other side of some trees or a hill. You would hide it so that the enemy doesn't instantly spot where it is coming from and infer that soldiers are also there. Being harder to see, it is also resistant against being shot down by visual means. Does this thing show up like a big blip on radar? Probably, but what would the enemy do in response? Shoot a multi-thousand dollar SAM at a 100 dollar toy? If an enemy wants to give away its AAA defense locations shooting at cheap drones, more power to them.

All of that said, I doubt this thing will be much of a hit. You can make smaller drones with more payloads that are probably quieter using cheaper more conventional techniques. If I were a soldier, I would much rather have a drone that can move to a location faster and get a GPS coordinate on a target for a mortar/air/artillery strike. A little extra visual 'stealth' that is probably lost in increased noise isn't a big concern. If a skill shot manages to knock out a drone with a visually aimed weapon... well, if there is something the US army doesn't lack, it is more toys then the enemy has bullets.

Re:less visible more radar

[Dan Slotman]

It is larger than a boomerang. The videos are of a prototype. The website lists dimensions of "two to ten feet in length" and "two to six inches in height".

Re:less visible more radar

[KDN]

Ok, I didn't go to the site, I assumed by drone they were talking about a predator size drone, not something hand held. For hand helds I'd go with the AeroEnviorment micro air vehicles. All you would need to do is add a laser range finder. Find the target with the video, lase to get range and bearing, calc gps differential and send a GBU after those coordinates. Or for a mobile target, chase the target with the MAV and have the GBU follow the MAV all the way in.

Re:less visible more radar

[SnowZero]

For radar cross-section, foam and plastic parts basically don't count. So, it's more of a question of how small they can get the engines, electronics, and camera assembly. A lot of the overall dimensions should be taken up by the wing, which could be made of materials that radar will pass through.

Re:less visible more radar

[Froboz23]

Shoot a multi-thousand dollar SAM at a 100 dollar toy?

If the US military ever built one of these to military spec under a military contract, you can bet these "toys" would end up costing $100,000 each.

Re:less visible more radar

[Dun Malg]

The site has a photo of two kids in flea market knockoff BDUs. One is wearing set of, probably broken, VR goggles and the other has $7.99 Tasco folding binoculars around his neck.

Not to mention the kneeling kid is wearing BLACK combat boots with his (10 years out of current issue) chocolate chip desert camo... And neither of them is wearing an appropriate BDU shirt, they're just standing around in their brown undershirts... Nor are they wearing headgear of any sort... Nor do they have anything resembling military gear of any kind at all.
It's obvious that they wanted to create a "simulated use" shot but don't even have access to proper uniforms and equipment beyond what they use to play paintball with their friends.

Somehow I get the feeling these people are not going to impress anyone in US military procurement enough to get much more than laughed at.

Indeed, when I could put together a reasonable facsimile of a current issue uniform with full TA-50 gear in less than a week for under $200, it says a lot about their level of sophistication. They seriously would have been better off not trying to look like soldiers, but just wearing decent "outdoorsman" style clothes. Likewise, their web site screaming "THIS PAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO VERATECH AERO" really hammers home their amateur status. What sort of information are they talking about? Is it patented? Copyrighted? Trade secret? Reminds me of one guy who has this (actually very smart) idea for modularizing military gear, housing, supplies, and equipment using standard ISO shipping containers, but all over his web site he calls them BATTLEBOXES(TM). He's neither manufacturing nor selling these things, yet he thinks protecting the NAME he came up with is worthwhile? People have a really poor understanding of intellectual property law. Another one is two german dudes who keep insisting that the design for a Commodre 64-to-PC interface cable they came up with is copyrighted under the GPL and that anyone selling a cable functioning on the same principles is required to include their names in the literature. That right, they're claiming COPYRIGHT on a particular way of wiring a 6-pin DIN connector to a DB-25!

Re:less visible more radar

[a55clown]

actually, a payload (camera) designed for high-speed capture and post-processing would probably hit the million-dollar mark quite easily.

Re:less visible more radar

[gumbi west]

A search of the trademark database shows that not only did he fail to actually file the trademark, but it was also already taken by a toy manufacturer. But I don't know if it's possible for a toy manufacturer and a DOD contractor to have the same TM.

Early prototypes of this were deployed in WWII

[Anonymous Coward]

The Polish airforce actually deployed several manned versions of this concept in the beginning of WWII. Unfortunately a mission to bomb Berlin ended in complete failure when the entire fleet crashed after the pilots got very very dizzy. At that time the concept of an air sickness bag did not yet exist.

Re:Early prototypes of this were deployed in WWII

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod this racist shit down. Replace "Polish" with any other social group, and you'll see what I mean.

...and silent?

[Roger W Moore]

It might be invivsible but, since they liken it to a helicopter, I bet I'd notice even an invisible helicopter flying overhead simply from the noise and downdraft (if it was low enough)!

No it isn't invisible

[EmbeddedJanitor]

but it is close.... Yet another misleading /. subject header.

The basic idea is that the plane flies by rotating and, just as a fan blade or propeller becomes close to invisible when spinning, this aircraft might too.

Of course visibility to the naked eye is only a very small part of invisibility. This thing probably sticks out like dogs balls on radar.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[russ1337]

>> "This thing probably sticks out like dogs balls on radar."

Excuse my asking, but how well do Dog-balls stand out on Radar?

Re:No it isn't invisible

[Dausha]

"Of course visibility to the naked eye is only a very small part of invisibility. This thing probably sticks out like dogs balls on radar."

Hmm. Terrorists hiding in caves probably rely on eyes on target, not radar on dog balls. And, the scale of these is pretty small. So, I'm thinking that "dog balls" aren't that visible on radar.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[onkelonkel]

Removing the dog balls from the B-2 bomber reduced its radar return by 42%.

Really.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[KDR_11k]

All anti-air weapons come with radars these days, you're not going to hit a UAV with an AK-47 no matter how good of a shot you are.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[DragonWriter]

All anti-air weapons come with radars these days,

Actually, no, I think most man-portable SAMs still use the Mark I eyeball for target acquisition and IR for tracking.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[c6gunner]

At that size? It'd generate the same size radar return as a friggin seagull.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[mfrank]

Some of them use radar. Of course, that's what HARM missiles are for, to kill the people stupid enough to use those anti-aircraft weapons.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[Maxo-Texas]

And then is it chihuahua or irish setter dog balls we are talking about?

Re:No it isn't invisible

[megaditto]

Most of the time SAM launcher radars are off until after the planes are within range... at which point they are going to get guaranteed kills no matter what happens to the (replacable) radar afterwards.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[Dun Malg]

All anti-air weapons come with radars these days, you're not going to hit a UAV with an AK-47 no matter how good of a shot you are.

Incorrect. As my sibling poster noted, man-portable SAMs are strictly eyeball acquisition, passive IR seek*. Engage you brain for a moment and consider how much electricity a regular old microwave oven needs-- 700 watts, at least. Well, a search radar system would require more electrical power than that, not to mention it would also be larger and quite a bit heavier. The SA-8 Gecko is about the smallest radar guided SAM system you'll find, and it weighs 9000kg, has six wheels, and moves about by means of a diesel engine. I guarantee "terrorists in caves" aren't hiding a single one of these or anything like it.

* The SA-16 GIMLET uses a combined "two color" IR and UV seeker, but is little more than a minor evolutionary dead end designed to overcome flares. Higher definition image-based IR techniques have proven more effective.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[WilliamSChips]

I thought HARM missiles were supposed to HARM you...

Re:No it isn't invisible

[smellsofbikes]

I've read a fair bit about reducing visibility since it's something some friends work on. Your comment is funny but a big underestimate. Some of the first attempts to make stealth planes ran into horrible difficulties because the hardware they used to hold the plane model in place had 1000 times the radar signature of the plane itself, and in one case a fastener that was sticking out a very small distance from the surface of the plane made its radar visiblity increase 10x. Invisibility is difficult.

(Steven Wright: "I went out to buy some camo pants, but I couldn't find any...")

Re:No it isn't invisible

[Anonymous Coward]

First, how would you know when a quiet, nearly invisible aircraft is in the range of your missile battery without turning the radar on? Also, if you're a terrorist/freedom-fighter/guerilla organization, the radar is probably *NOT* easily replacable...

Re:No it isn't invisible

[megaditto]

AWACS and Early Warning Radar stations are used to detect the approaching aircraft. EWRs have a range of over 300 nmi, AWACS' are mobile, and both notify SAM batteries of when the targets are within range.

SAM battery radars are mounted on a separate platform and positioned remotely exactly because they are expected to be destroyed or abandoned during the shoot-and-scoot

If done properly, SAM radars will come online within seconds of a kill, and the enemy will not know what hit them or have sufficient time to respond.

Re:No it isn't invisible

[gameforge]

So, I'm thinking that "dog balls" aren't that visible on radar.

He said it would stick out like dog balls. Sure, this could be interpreted to mean that the drone had the same radar signature as a pair of dog balls. But that doesn't make any sense because, as you mention, dog balls are small and probably have no radar signature on that scale. So I took his comment to mean that it drew the radar operator's attention as if the screen had rendered a picture of dog balls right where the drone was. Clearly, this would be very noticeable. If you didn't notice that, you shouldn't be a radar operator.

I'm sure terrorists are not the ONLY thing these would be used for. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if terrorists actually started using technology like this. It's small, manageable, and already designed.

Even if they do have a strong radar signature, so what? Send hundreds of them in at the same time. Depending on their formation it would be very difficult to prevent ALL of them from gaining access to the target; but even if they pick off every last one of them, though possibly expensive, they didn't get a single human... meanwhile, we get dozens of images and/or video, hopefully some of the intended target(s).

Wow!

[RAMMS EIN]

I opened the video in Kaffeine, and all I saw was a huge black square! Wow! These things are _really_ invisible!

Prior art -- and are boomerangs invisible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you've just patented the boomerang. Sharpen the edges and you've copied the killer boomerang from the "Mad Max" movie.

From the video, it's not invisible at all. Maybe you can sneak up on Kangaroos or other animals with no stereo vision.

Re:Prior art -- and are boomerangs invisible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, it is very visible looking on the film.

I'd think for something as small as this, you might consider making the body of it out of a transparent plastic. The guts (motors, electronics, etc) would still be very visible, but you'd probably decrease the visible cross-section by half.

Re:Prior art -- and are boomerangs invisible?

[a55clown]

keep in mind the frame rate of the video camera. of course you're going to see it on film. run it through a high-speed and then extrapolate down to actual human-visible frame rates, and you'll see what i mean.

just like you can always see individual blades of a helicopter in flight in the movies, or that automobile commercial technique where the wheels appear to be spinning backwards.

invisible video too

[Anonymous Coward]

A little slashdotting and now the video file is invisible! I'll bet the web servers will be invisible in 3...2...1...

Image Resolutions

[TeachingMachines]

It would take another incredible invention to get usable photos from this thing, photos with any decent resolution. Seems like a fun toy, but how could a camera composite the images?

Re:Image Resolutions

[MBCook]

Well, if you put the camera in the center of the thing and actually rotated the CAMERA the oposite direction, you could get the camera relativly stationary. Combine that with a fast shutter speed (daylight use only, probably) and you could get some pretty good picutes out of it.

Re:Image Resolutions

[nelsonal]

Um if the camera is in the middle doesn't that effectivly negate the whole premise for why the thing is not visible to the naked eye?

Re:Image Resolutions

[zippthorne]

It doesn't matter where the camera is as long as it's counter-rotated. The vibration from translation of an offset camera would be most noticeable in the near-field, and even that could be mitigated by timing the shutter to coincide with a specific point in the rotation. If the rotation is fast enough, two shutters per rotation could be pretty a effective stereoscopic camara.

Of course, you'd have to get the shutter speed fast enough to avoid blurring in-frame, so low-light operations would be limited.. then again, there's not much need for a naked-eye only invisibility under low-light conditions anyway.

Re:Image Resolutions

[MBCook]

On the shutter speed issue, it depends on just how fast the thing rotates, but this is also the government. If the CIA buys a bunch of these things, there is no reason they couldn't put in their new Camera 2,000,000 that only needs 1/1000th the light of a traditional digital camera (or whatever other cool camera gizmos they have that we don't know about).

Re:Image Resolutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is a good platform for a line scan camera (aka parts out of a flatbed scanner). You could get panoramic video of the entire countryside and have a ground-based computer system provide a more limited field of view to the display if need be. Depending on field of view and resolution, you might not need any moving parts in the camera system then.

Re:Image Resolutions

[Mr2cents]

Or you could take a line scanner and the rotation will generate a 360 degree image. It will require some processing to align subsequent passes.

Two Words...

[penguinwhoflew]

Nude. Beaches.

There's your prior art

[multisync]

One version of the drone is small enough to launch by throwing it like a boomerang.

Re:There's your prior art

[KDR_11k]

Where did you get a remote controlled boomerang with built-in camera from?

Re:There's your prior art

[multisync]

So you consider adding a remote control and built-in camera to a boomerang to be novel and non-obvious?

Re:There's your prior art

[KDR_11k]

Adding them, no. Making them work, yes.

Re:There's your prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't patent "making them work"

Re:There's your prior art

[KDR_11k]

No but you can patent the way you made them work. Patents aren'T about the abstract concept (or idea), they're about the implementation.

Re:There's your prior art

[multisync]

Adding them, no.

Well, I'm glad you don't think simply grafting a camera on to anything might qualify as novel or non-obvious, as just about everything comes with a camera built-in to it these days. And if you are going to put a camera on something that moves, like a boomerang for example, it just makes sense that you would want to control it "remotely," doesn't it?

Making them work, yes.

As for getting it all to work, so your image isn't just a blur, that would require some signal processing. Probably some piece of clever software that re-orders the frames to correspond with the position of the camera at a given instant. I don't know, didn't read much of the article. But it seems to me that we're back to the issue of software patents. If you are in favour of those, I suppose you could argue this qualifies, provided there is no prior art. This could be prior art, could it not? I found this looking for something my nephew had years ago, a small device with LEDs on it that you spun around on a string. You would see the message in the blur.

Not exactly the same thing, I know. The whole point of the boomerang-camera is that it is difficult to see because it's spinning quickly. Even that idea seems vaguely familiar.

Re:There's your prior art

[KDR_11k]

This wouldn't be a software patent since the algorithm would run on a very specific device and be pretty much inseparable from it. Since adding a camera to a boomerang in a meaningful way isn't as easy as duck-taping it the whole assembly could be patented, including whatever software runs on it (since the software could just as well be a chip that's hard-wired to perform that algorithm).

Problem/Solution

[hypnagogue]

Problem: new drone design rotates so quick the human eye can't see it.
Solution: strobing LCD glasses.

Once again a $50M defense project defeated by $30 worth of hardware.

Re:Problem/Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternately, you can just spread your fingers and wiggle your hand in front of your face.

Re:Problem/Solution

[zippthorne]

Yeah that works.. if you know where to look. How does that help you if you don't know they're coming?

If the insurgents are wearing stroby glasses all the time or constantly look around shaking their hands in front of their faces, they're going to be pretty easy to identify.

Re:Problem/Solution

[mnmn]

How do you know the hardware exists?

Hey I have some magic too that you cant see, that will kill the terrorists. $1 million a pop. And I have the sole patents (pending).

Re:Problem/Solution

[Plutonite]

I'm a hippie and I find your comment mildly offensive. If you added long hair to that description I would have you reported to the blog's moderators.

Re:Problem/Solution

[RealGrouchy]

Meh. Just get them to think that looking for planes is somebody else's problem.

- RG>

Re:Problem/Solution

[aywwts4]

Yeah, from the look on their website this deffinately looks like a 50 million dollar defence project.

*does the eye rolling thing*

Re:Problem/Solution

[DulcetTone]

Sit in front of a monitor set to 60 Hz for 20 minutes and tell me you're going to be on strobe glasses watch.

tone

Re:Problem/Solution

[russotto]

Seems to me you'll see the thing as soon as you blink.

Re:Problem/Solution

[evilviper]

If the insurgents are wearing stroby glasses all the time or constantly look around shaking their hands in front of their faces, they're going to be pretty easy to identify.

I can see it now:

"Sgt. Smith, why did you shoot that unarmed man?"

"He blinked. A common insurgent tactic."

Homeworld Probe?

[silentbozo]

Is it just me, or does the patent drawing for this device look suspiciously like the probe from homeworld?

sounds like snake oil...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fast moving objects don't disappear. The human eye has a limit to how fast it responds. When you look at a propeller, it spins so fast that your eye sees the average, so you see what looks like a disk.

If this object was rotating fast enough, you'll see the average, probably some kind of cone.

Not that great

[Zebra_X]

Have a look at the site. The first two demo videos blur the craft out towards the end of the clip to give the impression of being invisible. I reality, the craft is not that invisible - it certainly has a center of rotation that is clearly visible, and in many ways it looks like a very large boomerang.

On of the largest drawbacks I can see is that the drone does spin around, and around and around. It will be very difficult to fit a useful payload on a craft like this. It's design is such that the cargo room for anything but the operational parts is severly limited. I might add, how does one determine the direction of travel when one's compass is constantly spinning around?

Also the amount of post processing needed to create a useful video feed from such a craft makes it almost impractical for use. Not to mention that other detection systems (IR comes to mind) would be largely incompatible with the operation of this machine.

Finally, the web site has clearly been created by the guy in the videos. It's also clear that he's completely infatuated with intellectual property. I think his craft is interesting, but in a novelty sort of way.

Re:Not that great

[Hijacked Public]

My favorite page on the site is http://veratech.aero/digital.html. Essentially:

Digital High-Speed Camera VeraTech Aero's revolutionary High speed, rotating camera and image correcting circuitry. Our ultra-High speed shutter system can capture an image anywhere on the horizon. This camera can actually view a 360 spherical radius

Followed by a large graphic stating the page contains proprietary information.

A 360 spherical radius, these people are dealing with some serious technology for sure.

Re:Not that great

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be very difficult to fit a useful payload on a craft like this. It's design is such that the cargo room for anything but the operational parts is severly limited. I might add, how does one determine the direction of travel when one's compass is constantly spinning around?

1) Its clearly stated purpose is for surveillance, what payload does it need? 2) Gyroscopes and/or GPS Looks like they're trying to suggest it as a portable, readily deployable, invisible, short range surveillance device (for infantry use). This is a totally different role than something like a predator drone.

Re:Not that great

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also the amount of post processing needed to create a useful video feed from such a craft makes it almost impractical for use"

Or, you could fit it with a stick and bearing so the camera stays still while everything else moves.

Re:Not that great

[bendodge]

Anybody remember those wide plastic tops/UFO's that spin with a strip of LED's going from the center to the side that display messages? You can (or could) get one at Wal-Mart and they have an electronic compass.

Try putting a magnet near one if you don't believe me. It even lights up if you have the disk still and spin a magnet around it.

So a coil of wire makes an electronic compass that will work fine on a spinning disk.

Re:Not that great

[955301]

Wireless airborne radar? Alright, so I'm half kidding.

I might add, how does one determine the direction of travel when one's compass is constantly spinning around

gyroscopes.

Re:Not that great

[mnmn]

I fail to understand the utility of the aircraft.

First, the title is like 'invisible unmanned aircraft'. I thought wait isnt a bullet exactly that only better?

Now if movement blurrs vision and makes it disappear, isnt it better to have more linear movement i.e. speed rather than spin the thing? Cruise missles are slow but still too fast for anyone to 'see' it and do anything about it.

This aircraft is a good demonstration of a theory, but I wouldnt recommend he patent it soon.

Re:Not that great

[maeka]

how does one determine the direction of travel when one's compass is constantly spinning around?

Take two time-separated GPS positions.

Re:Not that great

[Zebra_X]

Wireless airborne radar? Alright, so I'm half kidding.

You actually have a point here. One that I didn't really bother to argue. The fact that it spins could be adventageous for radar mapping of terrain or some such task. There are issues though, such as compensating for turbulence, speed of rotation (not constant), accurately determining direction and movement. And spining of the entire plane as opposed to just the radar unit has debateable merits.

gyroscopes.

No not really. Gyroscopes work for a while - but they drift. Enough to make them unsuitable for long term navigation. There are "special" gyros such as the laser ring gyro used in missle systems and military aircraft. They are not typically available to the general public and they are relativly (the craft being the reference point) large and expensive. Not to mention that a typical gyro usually spins - no doubt doubly spinning it will alter the performance to a greater or lesser degree.

Re:Not that great

[Zebra_X]

Yeah, no. Relying on a single wireless data source such as GPS for navigation is unwise.

Traditional means would include compass and gyro. Both have issues given the mechanics of the craft.

Re:Not that great

[MatthewAnderson]

The blur you're seeing is not an [insanely foolish] attempt to embellish the performance of the drone. You can see the sun blur out along with the drone.

The blur is the camera having a hard time finding something to focus on, which is a nice problem to have on your demonstration videos, if you think about it.

And yeah, I agree with you, the creator is trying to make a lot more than really exists here.

Re:Not that great

[Anonymous Coward]

Showing the damn thing in a demonstration video might not be the best idea if you claim that it's invisible. This device is like the "invisible stealth plane" jokes, without the funny.

Re:Not that great

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a frickin drone, not a passanger aircraft.

Re:Not that great

[SpeedBump0619]

Also the amount of post processing needed to create a useful video feed from such a craft makes it almost impractical for use.

Really it isn't that bad. In fact, depending on how fast the thing spins you could just have it trigger at the same point in each revolution, or place three cameras in a concentric ring (one on each armature) and do the same thing for all three cameras. It almost has to spin faster than 10 revolutions per second which would yeild 30 frames/second. And there's no reason that you really need full motion video, just enough frames to be able to identify elements in the terrain.

And this doesn't even get into the esoteric sensing systems. Strap an IR laser emitter and paint a stripe/grid on the ground, and make sure your cameras can pick up IR. Voila, instant paralax for high precision terrain mapping (+/- 2-3 inches). Use the IR portions to sense heat (like say, engines and people).

Depending on how quiet it is (hopefully reasonably quiet, or at least filterable), mount speakers and record sound in 3 point stereo, which should give you pretty high accuracy triangulation.

Speaking of triangulation, what happens when every platoon has one of these. Toss it in the air, and have it act as a (highly encrypted) broadcast relay. Automatic in field floating mesh network that relays in field video, terrain, communications, troop locations back to the big processing computers which integrate and process all that data (and feed it into IVIS or whatever the next new thing is).

I might add, how does one determine the direction of travel when one's compass is constantly spinning around?

While I can't provide any specific suggestions I'm guessing that a combination of gyroscopic/intertial navigation with corrections based on video processing of that terrain data. Why, exactly did you think they sponsored the Grand Challenge?

Everything I've mentioned so far could be designed into one electronics package weighing maybe 3 pounds (3 high speed, visible and IR sensitive CCDs, single chip accellerometers, enough memory, processor and network bandwidth to pass the data). Now you just need a power source (which I'm guessing they already have) and you are ready to go.

Waste of money...

[ltwally]

Military drones fly at extremely high altitudes. Thus, they don't have to worry about being spotted by the naked eye. They're also very small, so they have a little tiney-tiny radar cross-section, too -- making them look like a bird on most radar screens.

Basically, this sounds overly-complicated and expensive to implement and is utterly unneeded. So... the military may well go for it! But it's still completely retarded.

Re:Waste of money...

[Scrameustache]

Military drones fly at extremely high altitudes.

completely retarded.

Re:Waste of money...

[bmajik]

Your response is both factually incorrect and unimaginative.

There are a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles in the US armed forces that serve a variety of missions. Surely you've heard of the UAV launched from Iowa class battleships as a targeting / BDA unit, that an Iraqi tried to surrender to ? (IIRC, this one was a "Predator").

In any case, there is probably a role for a unit-deployable, short range, low altatitude, small form factor, long "hang time" (ability to stay airborne in a localized area for extended time) UAV. The scenrio here is that a small company of men and one or two armored vehicles needs to enter a town with an unknown enemy force deployment. On the outskirts of town, they unpack their suit-case sized UAV, start its engines, and hand-launch it into the sky. The trained operator (for now) watches the real time video feed on their laptop. The UAV gives the troops an aerial view of the town - they can map out block or unblocked streets/alleys.. they can spot rooftop snipers.. they can get early warnings of people spilling out of buildings in other parts of the town.

The key here is distributed, localized intelligence gathering that is deployed and consumed by field units.. it is more pertinent and easier (and faster!) to act on then something more full size where intel goes back to an Air conditioned trailer hundreds of miles away from the theater of operation, and intel goes up and down the chain of command.

small-unit sized deployable semi-autonomous robots are a cutting edge application of commodity hardware and software. You need something cheap, field proof, and easy for lower level enlisted men to launch, operate, and recover. The smarter the software, the less of a burden it is on the operator(s), and the more value it provides. Given the changing nature of combat (trained army goes through town hoping to not get ambushed), small-scale UAVs are absolutely worth persuing.

Never mind that they're dirt cheap (as military hardware goes) - some prototypes are little more than the RC model aircraft you see at hobbyist stores with some cameras, radio control equipment, and a small embedded device.

Re:Waste of money...

[twotommylong]

AirForce and Navy (and CIA) Drones fly at high altitudes for theatre support. They are great for loitering in a large battle field or tailing a enemy force (or mobile command unit). However, they are expensive and require some level of complex ground support. Marine and Army drones deployed at the platoon/company level are considered necessary to take the 'high ground' for reconnoitering a similarly sized agressor force in close quarters. Being able to pack in a drone with the unit, launch it relatively quietly in a small space, control it remotely, and be able look down from a couple hundred feet to get precise locations of individuals/squads in your team or your enemy within a couple minutes is better than engaging a force and waiting 15-30 minutes under fire for 'big drone' to be positioned to your coordinates. I've seen other videos of what are basically balsa wood model airplanes with your basic model airplane motors (the demo showed the unit launched slingshot style with a long elastic cord), GPS, and miniturized look down and look ahead cameras that communicate to a laptop for both flight control and image capture. Obviously the 'buzz' of the engine, the slow speed, along with the static form make it pretty easy to take out with handheld weapons. Using motion blurring to make it harder to aim at (ever try to aim at a moving deer in a scope... now add fore/background brush to 'blur it'... you get the picture) Keeping the thing 'alive' for a couple more minutes in a combat situation maybe all that is needed to get aggressor locations and form up tactical orders.

Re:Waste of money...

[Pollardito]

that all sounds great, but how can Iraqi's surrender to something they can't even see? (cue the French jokes)

Re:Waste of money...

[dwbryson]

(cue the French jokes)

I'll start!

It isn't a real war until the French surrender!

Re:Waste of money...

[bmajik]

the Iraqi surrender story was to point out that not only are some of the current drones visible, but they are visible enough and fly missions low enough that an Iraq tried to surrender to one.. he either thought it was a munitious capable aircraft or knew that somebody was watching video of what it was recorded.. either way he didn't want to get bombed.

Re:Waste of money...

[ScentCone]

try to aim at a moving deer in a scope... now add fore/background brush to 'blur it'... you get the picture

Better yet, launch three or four of them in a flock. If you've ever tried to hit a particular bird in an explosively rising covey of quail, you'll know what I mean. Thrumming gray/brown wings, semi-random-seeming movement, motion catching your eye in three places... natural selection has finely honed such critters and their defenses from accurate, fast predators (like hawks). Insurgent squads are going to have to start including a guy with a goose gun who's had some time on blue-gray clay pigeon boomerangs.

Re:Waste of money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Radar Operator: Sir, I've got a blip up at 5000 m. traveling at Mach 0.8.

Supervisor: Yea, but look at that weak signal. Must be a bird.

Re:Waste of money...

[Anonymous Coward]

To go further, you see an aircraft because it's darker than the sky. To make it effectively invisible, you put lights on it to match the sky's brightness. Check out the WW2 Project Yehudi- that's what _they_ did.

Move on people...

[rizole]

...nothing to see here.

A quick and 100% off-topic rant

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is up with the irritating garish flash ads for moronic content and its associated spyware showing up on slashdot? The fact that they annoy us notwithstanding, are the marketers really that stupid that they believe one single member of this site's audience, of all the sites they could choose to advertise on, is dumb enough to click one of their ads?

There's a reason that /.'s advertising is acceptable to a relatively hostile geek audience, and these banners are simply taking the piss.

Re:A quick and 100% off-topic rant

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason that /.'s advertising is acceptable to a relatively hostile geek audience

And that reason is called "adblock".

Re:A quick and 100% off-topic rant

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What the hell is up with the irritating garish flash ads for moronic content and its associated spyware showing up on slashdot?

I know! It's almost as irritating as people who reply to the top post to get more attention!

Not blue, Pink!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Making the plane sky blue, or largely transparent, should help conceal it further, Dammar claims.

I was told once by an aircraft engineer that the best color to be invisible to a human against a blue sky is pink. He said it was never used because no fight jock will ever fly a pink plane.

I have yet to find anything to back up that statement, but I figured now's the time to mention it here on /. to see if any of you heard this.

Re:Not blue, Pink!!

[Kredal]

It's from one of the books in the Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy, I think... they said that by painting a mountain pink, you would make it disappear. Nobody would be able to process the image of a pink mountain, therefore it would cease to exist for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_elses_proble m_field for more information.

Re:Not blue, Pink!!

[GrievousMistake]

It's true, you know. Everybody's talking about the black helicopters, but that's just because no-one ever sees the pink ones.
Actually, I hear that some Spitfires in World War 2 were light pink to blend in with cloud covers. Never heard anything about it being particularly good against blue sky. Pink is also great for hiding in the desert.

Wonder Woman is back!

[krell]

Of course it is invisible, and there is not a man in it.

The Videos

[TubeSteak]

Not linkified on purpose
The vids are already slowing down

http://www.veratech.aero/mpg/Phantom First Flight.mpg
http://www.veratech.aero/mpg/Phantom 7-19-2006.mpg
http://www.veratech.aero/mpg/Phantom Model Flight.mpg

Coralizing the links didn't seem to work

Alt. Pics & materials

[MrSquishy]

Pictures here.
Also, materials and blueprints.

Article Picture

[drpimp]

Is it me, or do the boys in the article in fatigues look like they are like 13? Made for the Army, but cool enough for teens? Hmm, interesting!

Re:Article Picture

[edwardpickman]

Is it me, or do the boys in the article in fatigues look like they are like 13? Made for the Army, but cool enough for teens? Hmm, interesting!

It's part of Bush's new plan to increase the number of recruits. They upped the age to 42 and dropped it to 13. If they don't make next year's quota the plan is to increase it to 65 and drop it to 10. The defense department is facing new problems. An example is dentistry. Military dentists are now faced with large numbers of new recruits needing braces and dentures.

Re:Article Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

see the guy that gonna throw it? nice boner.

Respond, Unman, respond!

[Sigg3.net]

When there's no guy inside to pick up the phone and give directions, how on Earth are they going to find it when they crash it? 'Cause they will. Heard of birdstrike? How are the birds supposed to avoid a plane they can't see?
Unless they start paying the birds some decent wages, this invention is a fluke.

Did anyone first think...

[Bushwuly]

... Macross?

I mean, come on; VeraTech?

Images of transforming fighter jets were dancing in my head... (sigh)

Obligitory

[Anonymous Coward]

The other day up in the air
I saw a plane that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish it would go away

Like a car's wheel

[Gruneun]

Once it gets up to a certain speed, will the optical illusion cause it to appear to be spinning very slowly in the opposite direction? It might be easy to identify then.

Re:Like a car's wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to get out of the basement and look at reality with your own eyes, instead of only through your mom's TV. Well, make sure it's when the sun is up and things aren't lit exclusively by flourescent light.

Re:Like a car's wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't you RTFA for your own post?

Idiot troll.

And the point is.... ?

[Ancient_Hacker]

And the point of making it invisible is.....?

Somehow I don't see any super up-side to this feature. Most people keep their eyes near the ground anyway, and don't have eyes in the back of their heads, so just keeping the surveillance camera between the sun and the target is going to be beacoup camo anyway.

I've got one

[ArcherB]

Invisible Plane?

I build one of these things years ago. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it since its first test flight.

Re:I've got one

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait for a rainy day and look on the ground for a dry spot shaped like a plane crash.

Re:I've got one

[iggymanz]

I saw it, or rather, Wonder Woman had hijacked it and I saw her zoom by overhead in seated position. She really shouldn't wear that miniskirt and thong when piloting a craft like that, ran my car into a ditch.

Re:I've got one

[rjstanford]

Oh, yes she should. Not that she ever wore a skirt but, hey, who's counting?

Prior Art

[El_Smack]

Man, will they be pissed when they see this.

The Ravenous Bugblatter Drone

[maiden_taiwan]

If it can't see you, you can't see it!

Phantom Products

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if VeraTech is working on the Phantom gaming console and DNF. Some products were designed to be invisible, and some just end up that way.

Here is the video of this aircraft:

[roman_mir]

Below you can see the video of the 'aircraft':

        X

Re:Here is the video of this aircraft:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a video would be more...

(-> -> eyes go in this direction -> ->)

x + x + x + x +

VeraTech vs Veritech (Robotech)

[Zantetsuken]

Did anybody else think of the similarity between VeraTech and Veritech of the Robotech anime? The article summary even says "...it folds..." - a transformation just like the Veritech Fighter to humanoid form!

Re:VeraTech vs Veritech (Robotech)

[Anonymous Coward]

no but i thought of these http://www.reallycooltoys.com/toys/i7info.html

they are like a beefed up version of the x-ufo by silverlit

And now, thanks to slashdot...

[Etherwalk]

A third of the intelligence agencies in the world are trying to develop the same idea...

It's a bird-of-prey

[BamZyth]

They finally figured out how the cloaking device works on the Romulan ship they hide in area 51.

Re:It's a bird-of-prey

[WilliamSChips]

They don't hide Romulan ships in area 51. Goa'uld ships, on the other hand...

Re:It's a bird-of-prey

[roseblood]

They don't hide Romulan ships in area 51. Goa'uld ships, on the other hand...

Nope, listen, the name of the company here is VERATTECH. Think VERITECH. They have ZENTRADI ships in area 51.

And I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

welcom our invisible, unmanned, aircraft controlling overlords.

Did you see that?
Didn't think so...

Mmm a bit complicated for tactical use

[Colin Smith]

What about a transparent pillow shaped balloon tethered with fishing line, payload being a webcam sized video camera. Very simple, very small, stationary, very cheap. Could be hosted in a shoebox sized enclosure, dropped off at strategic locations.

With this posted on /.

[StarfishOne]

I'm getting the feeling that their server is the thing that is really getting closer to becoming invisible, rather than their UAV.

Has it's Ups & Downs

[maggard]

First off its pretty clear this is an RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicle), so no need to worry about anyone yakking up dizzy in the cockpit. Next it wont be invisible, itll be blurry to the eye. Thats still a good thing, itll make it harder to track, shoot, and be sure of what it has been up to.

What it wont be is unobtrusive. Its gonna be noisy, have a RADAR/LIDAR signature, and be putting out a fair bit of heat. So unless it is pretty high up folks will be aware it is around, unaided have a general sense of where, and with equipment (including IR goggles) probably be able pinpoint it fairly quickly.

As for images, yeah, crazy-spinning-photo-pans will probably be able to be reconstructed into something recognizable, but thatll require some significent processing power & are as likely to miss points of interest as they are to pan over them a few times.

However there are other missions where other sensors would be useful, ones not dependant on a specific field of view. Audio mapping. Radio mapping. Radiation sensing. Specific chemical tracing (mmm... smells like high explosives by that warehouse!)

Also dropping off small payloads could solve much of the in-motion issues, and if the craft is hard to see itll also be hard to figure out exactly where it has dropped off a suitable minituraized payload. Imagine what dropping your cellphone transmitting live audio & video into the middle of an armed camp would tell you. Next imagine if it was a device built to just do that, resembles a rock, and nobody is sure just where the drone was... Could it be found? Sure, eventually, after much disruption.

The device may be being heavily hyped, but it is a clever hack nonetheless and could have some real applications. And the next time I hear the annoying musquito-on-steroids whine of a model helicopter nearby I wont be so confident if I cant see it/it cant see me.

Aside from all the jokes...

[zappepcs]

The video doesn't seem to verify in any way that this vehicle is any more controllable than those $20 plastic UFO things you can buy in the mall... the only control is up or down... ?? Its going to take some seasoned software/hardware to control the flight since the entire vehicle rotates. I'm guessing > $2500 in hardware just to get an attempt at controlled flights. That's just a guess, but there is a persistent problem with things that rotate... orientation. I'm thinking it will be difficult to even judge the angular velocity of the wing part? There is a huge amount of math to solve before it becomes useful.

Wake me up when...

[MadAhab]

Wake me up when these things are good and cheap enough for "hobbyists" to spy into bedroom, bathroom, and lockerroom windows not normally accessible to the "naked" eye. It's just a matter of time.

high altitude blimps

[mugnyte]

  I'd be more impressed by high-altitude drone blimps that could move silently and take high-resolution videos in a variety of frequencies. Given that air currents would carry them far and away, perhaps they eventually collapse/drop their balloon sections and fly/glide home (or dive bomb). More interesting to me. There no end to the silly ways we can combine technology.

Interesting

[mgabrys_sf]

I heard that Wonder Woman was supposed to be an early adopter of this tech. She's buying 12 of these last I heard.

It was an odd sales meeting as golden lassos were used on a number of the staff. Pictures of course have been sold to various porn sites and have generated enough revenue to make the down payments on the aforementioned aircraft.

We've had invisible unmanned aircraft since 1940's

[catmistake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Plane

pic

Macs Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Macintosh computers were once known for their multimedia edge. Then came the internet. These days they can't even play the simplest freaking web clips embedded a web page. What a miserable disgrace.

http://veratech.aero/phantom.html

DOES STEVE JOBS KNOW people have to play most video clips on their PCs because Apples CHOKE on almost every CODEC? We've got 5 different iterations of Mac OS X but NO fucking codecs.

Re:Macs Suck

[javaDragon]

Why are there so many codecs in the first place ?

For the record...

[captain_cthulhu]

for the record, Wonder Woman's plane is also Un-manned.

Check your version dependencies

[ajohn505]

I tried playing my Beta tape in my VHS player and all I saw was NOTHING. It's not the media's fault that your l33t player can't play it. Recompile your kernels, check your version dependencies, make some postings about how *ix is ready for the desktop, then try playing this common-format media file again.

Re:Check your version dependencies

[RAMMS EIN]

Dude, it's not that Kaffeine can't play the file (it can), but that it takes forever and a day to download it.

Re:Check your version dependencies

[Narishma]

As someone said above, open the asx file with a text editor, copy the url of the mpeg file and download it manually.

You can't see it, but you can hear it

[javaDragon]

remember : you hear mosquitoes buzzing before you even see them. Unless these guys design a totally silent drone, it will be quickly found and got rid of.

Re:You can't see it, but you can hear it

[Jonathunder]

Have you ever tried to get rid of a mosquito you could hear but not see: in a dark room, for example? Not so easy. And hey, since this thing is a Minnesota invention, maybe "mosquito" is a good name for it, being our state bird.

Re:You can't see it, but you can hear it

[anubi]

Consider having several directional microphones mounted on a movable platform, upon which also a powerful chemical laser is mounted.

Point your microphone array in the vicinity of where the hoise is coming from, and sample their outputs - and perform cross-correlation on each microphone's output to find the time of maximal correlation to the others.

This gives you more precise aiming info.

Continue your iterative aim correction until your aim is precise, with all microphones now precisely equidistant from the noise source.

Your chemical laser, fully charged, is now aimed directly at the noisy bugger.

Ohh Mommy!

[Private.Tucker]

It's 2008's hottest toy for Christmas! Sales figures look to be double because parents will be forced to buy twice as many since their kids keep saying they're disappearing!

this would have been more relevant 10 years ago

[Yonder Way]

But today it's an idea way behind its time. Current US military drones have optics that allow the big visible noisy planes to fly up so high that you cannot hear them or see them as they circle over you and relay high resolution video back home.

Yes, there are limited situations in which something like this would be preferred (like for example, highly overcast weather conditions with low cloud cover). It's really a niche product though.

Re:this would have been more relevant 10 years ago

[a55clown]

it runs off dc motors, which are incredibly quiet. if you heard anything within 75 feet of it, it might be the large wing slicing through the air.

and uavs in theater still fly at altitudes one wouldn't be crazy in attempting to shoot at. such aircraft include the rq-7b shadow, which you can hear long before you can see it.

The blurb says

[Flying pig]

" The ability of U.S. ground troops to safely navigate the gauntlet of the urban battlefield " and I really would like to know why US ground troops are walking around inside heavy leather or metal gloves inside towns. And which piece of military hardware was used to gratuitously split that infinitive. Ouch.

When you say that this company is all about drones, obviously the marketing department is intended.

This thing is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly invisible my ass. It looks like a boomerang. If you don't see that thing flying toward you then you're an idiot. I love how they had the super cool camera tricks on their video to make it look blurry.

I can't help but think...

[jmetcalf]

That the 12 year old in the picture is about to have a pair of binoculars lodged in his forehead.

Not that insightful

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

The postprocessing needed to get a usefull video is limited to this:
1) Take one pic/rotation.
2) Profit!!!

If you want smoother video I suppose you could take 2 or 4 pics/rotation, and still get away with a bare minimum of postprocessing. It's certainly not more than an embedded CPU can take, unless the thing is spinning insanely fast - but in that case 1 pic/rotation will be enough anyway.

Massive Tactical Intelligence Potential...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is comparing this thing with a spy plane. Think smaller.

Make it just a bit smaller and you could have the perfect mobile surveillance or reconnaissance device. You could probably make a gnat-sized personal spying device with something like this that could hover over crowds, enter buildings, or scout literally any territory on the ground.

Check out the Dragon Eye drone already in use

[Jeff1946]

The USMC developed the Dragon Eye and has been using it in IRAQ. See for example http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/dragoneye s.htm Note for simplicity there are no control surfaces. Control is performed by adjusting the power of the two electric motors. I have seen it fly and it is very quiet, which is the key for not being detected. Often at demos the sponsors were shown a TV screen showing themselves looking at the TV and then they would look up for it. The most useful TV camera is placed looking down and sideways and the GPS controller is programmed to have the Dragon Eye circle the target co-ordinates. This way the camera is always looking at the target of interest from different directions. It can fly a preprogammed pattern or be redirected by the person in charge. It also qualifies as a "model airplace" so you don't have to get the FAA involved in approving your flight plan.

oblig Charlie Drake

[nih]

my boomerang won't come back!

Re:oblig Charlie Drake

[KillerBob]

If you want your boomerang to come back, well first you've got to throw it.

Invisible?

[RapmasterT]

wow, it really is invisible. and all it took was developing a new definition of the word "invisible".

I wonder

[SlashSquatch]

If it's invisible .and. radio controlled, then how do you fly it?

cloaked vehicle article #5?

[Wizzerd911]

there have been a lot of stories posted on slashdot about invisible cloaks and cloaked vehicles and personal cloaks and all that. How many times are we going to hear about invisible vehicles before we start seeing them flying/driving around every day? Oh wait...
well at least this time they claim it actually is built and works

Just a question...

[camperdave]

Is "dog balls" a military slang term for the belly turrets of the bomber?

Re:Just a question...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Americans, in their general degeneration, have taken to sticking enamelled aluminium testicle-shaped "decorations" to their vehicles. http://www.bumpernuts.com/

Hilarious. If you're an american chimp I guess.

camera trick

[brenddie]

The only time it was invisible was when they took the camera out of focus rigth at the end.

What a minute....

[Purity Of Essence]

...RODS!!!!

http://images.google.com/images?q=rods%20ufo&sa=N

And you thought they were just interlaced video artifacts caused by insects buzzing past a camcorder lens. Fools!!!

bravo! funniest. post. ever.

[buback]

nt

What an awesome thing...

[certain death]

However, I think the real invention is the self-healing cables, and control mechnism, they sound far more interesting than the "Invisible" part, which it seems is not really there. I just wonder where one would take one of these to get a friction relign on the flux capacitor?!?

"Drone?" Infernal racket, I bet.

[dpbsmith]

OK, helicopter blades are invisible, but they're far from inaudible.

Before radar, the Brits were having fairly good success using big arrays of horns and microphones to hear aircraft approaching from a considerable distance.

I notice the site doesn't say anything about decibels.

To Defeat. . . .

[jafac]

Two words:

Strobe Light.

Real mirror of videos (temporary)

[SnowZero]

The server is half dead now, so I put up a real mirror of the actual mpg files here. It will not be up permanently, so somebody should post these videos with bittorrent or put it on youtube. You've been warned :)

Floding Drone.....

[NoMorePoints.com]

Ok, it folds up for travel, but will TSA allow it in the carry on baggage? NoMorePoints.com

Ug.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, so basically now, fat kids with no arm strength can unleash the most powerful weapons in the world.

At least in Teddy Roosevelt's day you had to be a man to kill people (regardless of how deserving those people were of death).

Seriously-- look at those guys-- they're skinny little guys with tits.

What the fuck has gone wrong with America?

Appropriately, my CAPTCHA is "formed" as in "maidenformed".

Rotorcraft and Radar

[Inominate]

Rotorcraft(which is basicly what this is) are easy to spot on radar, however they're also difficult to track accurately. The rotating blades wreak havock on doppler based radars, creating false targets at wildly varying speeds. Anyways, for what this thing is apparently intended for, very small man-portable UAVs, radar is simply not an issue.

That said, it's a dumb idea. The predator UAV is already able to operate from well out of sight. There's no reason to believe that any eventual man-portable uav would need anything this radical to do the same.

Invisible...

[Venik]

Went to their Web site and clicked on one of the video links. It says "object not found". Invisible indeed.

In thin air?

[Shadyman]

"an unmanned drone that is nearly invisible to the naked eye"

Back home, we call this 'vaporware'

The Device Works!

[BugsPray]

None of you could spot the life-like robotic boy attached to the device after take-off!

It would be cheaper

[snoggeramus]

It would be cheaper if they just painted the things blue.

Pah! That's Easy!

[coofercat]

I built an invisible flyer years ago, look, here it is:

I even filed a patent for it... Now where did I put that? Never mind, the company I set up for this is doing really well too. It is, really.

True prior art

[XNormal]

The 1954 McCutchen machine is an all-rotating helicopter.

The idea of making it invisible by making the center of gravity a "hole" is not new either. I believe many people came up with this idea independently. I though about it some 20 years ago.

Imagine this...

[TomPP]

Captain, i have something. A new change in sensor readings... American F-22 decloaking on the starboard bow !

TFA is from a wanker..

[l0cust]

Its hard to take a website seriously when it writes things like [Hot-foot computing]:

Foot-twisting can be used for right or left mouse clicks and sliding one foot over the ground can be translated into dragging and dropping. This would allow someone to use a wearable computer while keeping their hands free for other tasks.

Don't know about you but after reading that I could 'see the invisible aircraft' in a new light.

Live vision and captured video are very different

[Anonymous Coward]

Video capture necessarily takes rapid snapshots at fixed rates which introduces strobing. The eye doesn't work that way.

This is why helicopter blades are almost invisible in flight to the human eye, whereas video shows a rotating ghost fan-shape with its outer regions being wider than its inner ones.

The design described in TFA does what it says, even though the videos don't show it properly. And the fact that the center of gravity of the assembly is in free air helps that a lot. Perhaps they *should* doctor the videos to make them closer to what's experienced by the human viewer.

Flawed logic

[nmg196]

I don't see how this is going to work.

The human eye and cognition is MORE sensitive to moving objects than still ones. That's why lights on emergency vehicles are made to flash or rotate rather than just being static - despite the fact that this means you see the lights for less time overall. This boomerang like plane wizzing around in the sky will be far more likely to catch your attention than a conventional plane moving very slowly across your field of view. This is quite apparent from the demo videos.

They are trying to make the plane blur in the sky so you can't see it, but the demo model spins FAR FAR too slowly for this effect to work. To make it truely blur so you can't see it, it would have to spin at several thousand RPM, which would make controlling it and taking pictures from it, totally impossible. It would also use up far too much power if it span this fast to be able to fly for any useful length of time.

A better approach would surely be to make a UAV which can fly higher and thus is smaller and slower in your field of view. Even if you do see it, you might not be able to tell what it is and you will stand little chance of shooting it down without expensive weaponry. Keeping it slow and quiet is probably more important than trying to blur it.

There's already a precedent...

[Channard]

.. for unmanned invisible aircraft. Wonder Woman's had one for ages.

Obligatory Wonder Woman Comment

[Baby Duck]

Next they'll invent a golden lasso that increases the efficacy of a Polygraph test.

oop-ack

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Those things are just a popular as Confederate battle flags, and often appear on the same vehicles.

I'm confused...

[Gruneun]

Were you attempting to tank your own argument with a link? I mean, wow.