The Army's $10M Spy Bat Still Too Big
Lucas123 writes "The University of Michigan's Center for Objective Microelectronics and Biomimetic Advanced Technology (COM-BAT) is working on building a robot bat that would perform long-range reconnaissance for the U.S. Army, but U.Mich is currently struggling with miniaturizing components in order to make the bat small enough to be stealthy. 'The focus is to shrink down many electronics that while currently available would only be good if the US Army wanted, say, a 12-foot spy-bat.' Some components need to be 1,000 times smaller than they currently are. The Army's $10 million grant proposal calls for the bat to be six inches in length, weigh four ounces and use just one watt of power. The bat is supposed to be powered by a lithium-ion battery, charged by solar and wind energy, as well as simple vibrations."
It could feed on blood...and thus hurt the enemy, and generate power for long missions. It would be cool too, in that it would only come out at night, and could only be killed with a wooden stake.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Quick, Robin! Hand me the bat-bat!
But seriously, why go with an ornithopter design? There's that excellent quote about AI's, "The question of whether a computer thinks like a person is as relevant as whether a submarine swims like a fish."
Would not a conventional ultralight drone with battery-operated propeller work more effectively than flappy wings?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Okay, this is taking military acronyms way too far..
I've always thought that bats are nocturnal.......
The idea of a bat-like creature is probably a concern because fixed wing designs will attract more attention.
Basically, they want something that'll look like a bird, fly like a bird, and would be able to engage in surveillance without anyone noticing. The next logical step would be to make a pigeon-like creature, that would be unnoticeable in an urban environment. A few thousand of those in a large city could make enforcing "free speech zones" much easier.
You know, a 12 foot robot bat might be a bit big for spy missions, but maybe it could be repurposed to scaring the hell out of and possibly murdering people.
It's a 12 foot robot bat, man! That'd scare the hell out of me if it came for me in the dark.
Since the article says it's supposed to be long-range, my guess is that the mission profile would be to sit somewhere out of the way and charge during the day, then do its recon at night. All of those methods are very useful, because it means the drone could stay in an area and continue to operate without human intervention nearly indefinitely.
Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
There are several things that this project needs RIGHT NOW in order to be successful.
First, a whizkid plucked out from high school, who will be separated from his mommy for the first time ever.
Second, a crazy roommate who doesn't care about authority figures
Third, a mysterious man who lives in their closet
Fourth, an annoying dude who tries to suck up to his professor
Fifth, a charming young lady, interested in the whizkid, who just happens to be hyperactive
Sixth, an ambitious and immoral professor who's tricking the innocent to UNKNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTE to a MILITARY PROJECT
Seventh, said professor's inordinate hatred for popcorn -- oh wait...
So is the cure for cancer. And given the choice, I know where I'd want my taxes to be spent.
You present a false dichotomy.
I'm generally in favor of reduced defense spending, but research into new capabilities is something I think is worthwhile. I wholeheartedly agree that a cure for cancer would be better than this, but we don't have that choice available. Even if we did, it's likely that a few $M taken from a robotic bat project wouldn't even be close to enough.
We can spend money on both. Whether spending tax money on this is a good idea is mostly unrelated to whether spending tax money on medical research is a good idea. Obviously the two are connected through tax rates and thus the total government funding available, but as long as the projects are small relative to the total fund, they should each be evaluated against the alternative of reducing taxes (or increasing them, depending on your preferred viewpoint), rather than against each other.
We're all (well, mostly) smart people here, capable of evaluating complex choices. Let's at least look at the correct set of choices, rather than a rhetoric-filled politically motivated set of options that don't actually exist.
So you're saying it would be assassins, ninjas, and pirates vs Giant Robot Bat?