Slashdot Mirror


$10M For Unmanned Aircraft That Can Perch Like a Bird

coondoggie writes "Unmanned aircraft maker AeroVironment got an additional $5.4 million to further develop a diminutive aircraft that can fly into tight spaces undetected, perch and send live surveillance information to its handlers. Last Fall, AeroVironment, got $4.6 million initial funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the Stealthy, Persistent, Perch and Stare Air Vehicle System (SP2S), which is being built on the company's one-pound, 29-inch wingspan battery-powered Wasp unmanned system."

176 comments

  1. How many dupes today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow there have been a lot of many month old dupes today.

  2. I can see it now.. by illumastorm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Deploy: Lazorbeak. Mission: Scout Terrorists.

    1. Re:I can see it now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Laserbeak"

    2. Re:I can see it now.. by illumastorm · · Score: 1

      Well, that was how I remember spelling it. Technically, we are both correct. So, meh.

    3. Re:I can see it now.. by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:I can see it now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deploy: Lazorbeak. Mission: Poop on Terrorists.

  3. what else? by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 0

    does its tail pipe pucker like a birds?

  4. More than meets the eye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""Unmanned aircraft maker AeroVironment got an additional $5.4 million to further develop a diminutive aircraft that can fly into tight spaces undetected, perch and send live surveillance information to its handlers."

    I'm reminded of the Transformer's "Lazerbeak".

    1. Re:More than meets the eye. by mikael · · Score: 1

      I thought of the short sci-fi story "The Giant Killers" which was about a small team of soldiers trying to capture the AI unit of an automated tank. They had a Heimdall system (backpack optical/radar system with speech recognition/ability) to help protect them against night-time missile/biological attacks. There were spybirds which could perch on tree branches and also circle at an altitude looking for targets, then they would inform the other systems and launch an attack themselves.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  5. Transformers did it first by Haoie · · Score: 5, Funny

    And their robot bird could turn into a cassette tape too. For easy playback, no less.

    How awesome was that?

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    1. Re:Transformers did it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but where is the Army going to get a Cassette Player these days?

    2. Re:Transformers did it first by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

      That might be one way to keep your expensive playback device from being stolen. I mean, who would want one these days?

    3. Re:Transformers did it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Lazerbeak was the first thing that popped into my head before I even finished reading the summary!

    4. Re:Transformers did it first by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they should start a campaign - "Home taping is killing terrorists" or something to get regular people interested in cassette players again.

    5. Re:Transformers did it first by Xest · · Score: 1

      Nowadays you'd need a separate transformer to be able to turn into a cassette player to play it back, good luck finding one elsewhere!

      Something does amuse me about the fact an ultra-high tech. robot of the future would turn into a cassette of all things though.

      Might as well have optimus prime turn into a horse and cart.

    6. Re:Transformers did it first by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      And their robot bird could turn into a cassette tape too. For easy playback, no less.

      That project would go much beyond the planned $10M.

      An entire tape? at $650.000 per song in IP rights?

    7. Re:Transformers did it first by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Nowadays you'd need a separate transformer to be able to turn into a cassette player to play it back, good luck finding one elsewhere!

      Hold on now. When one has to transform to interface with the other, it's just adaptation. When both have to transform to interface in some unusual way, it's called a kink.

    8. Re:Transformers did it first by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Nowadays you'd need a separate transformer to be able to turn into a cassette player to play it back

      Soundwave. Yeah, they had that covered.

    9. Re:Transformers did it first by peragrin · · Score: 1

      you missed the steam punk transformers series then. congratulations.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    10. Re:Transformers did it first by edittard · · Score: 1

      eBay?

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    11. Re:Transformers did it first by jareth780 · · Score: 1

      How about:

      "Do you like our owl?"
      "It's artificial?"
      "Of course it is."
      "...Must be expensive."
      "Very."

    12. Re:Transformers did it first by misterooga · · Score: 1

      Awesome! Homeland security only need to go to eBay every now and then and check who is bidding for the player. Bidder 1: I won the bid! Bidder 2: Hi, could I buy your cassette player for double the price? Bidder 1: Oh okay. Bidder 2: Make sure to put the return address properly. We don't want this antique going amiss.

    13. Re:Transformers did it first by erko · · Score: 1

      If you act now and pay just $10 million more, you'll also get this giant tape player for free!

    14. Re:Transformers did it first by drkoemans · · Score: 1

      i thought GI Joe had a jet powered wing but I couldn't find it. Doesn't matter, this nut has nearly been cracked by Jet Man. Give that guy the 10m. http://media.techeblog.com/images/swissman_6.jpg

    15. Re:Transformers did it first by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Might as well have optimus prime turn into a horse and cart.

      No, he'd just turn into a horse. When going back to robot mode, the cart would disappear into the background until he needed to go back into beast-- er... vehicle mode.

      The holographic human he uses to whip himself into running is just disturbing.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    16. Re:Transformers did it first by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Something does amuse me about the fact an ultra-high tech. robot of the future would turn into a cassette of all things though.

      Noob. All the transformers have their 20th century vehicle (or other) shapes because they were trying to blend in. I believe their respective ships sent out probes to analyze the environment and configure the bots appropriately. At any rate, their Cybertron forms were more ultra-high tech.

  6. Quoth the SP2S by physburn · · Score: 5, Funny
    Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter, In there stepped a stealthy spy plane of the sci-fi days of yore. Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he; But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door - Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door - Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

    Quoth the SP2S, "nevermore" and nothing more.

    1. Re:Quoth the SP2S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Know where you are going, but you could have ran with the RQ-11 raven uav :)

  7. Ummm... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    at what point does the US military stop looking like a human defense force and start looking looking like alien invaders from a robot planet?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      at what point does the US military stop looking like a... defense force and start looking looking like... invaders... ?

      Surely they still teach history in schools.

    2. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at that point, over there.

    3. Re:Ummm... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the statistics in terms of the number of unmanned airplanes and ground vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. There are, literally, thousands of them. Right now, they are remotely piloted, but you can't tell that when one is driving around or flying over your house. And pretty soon, they won't be remotely piloted.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    4. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely.

      - Native Americans
      - California
      - Guantanamo
      - Most Central-America
      - Afghanistan and Irak

    5. Re:Ummm... by Abreu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      at what point does the US military stop looking like a human defense force and start looking looking like alien invaderst?

      Around the 1840s

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

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    6. Re:Ummm... by maxume · · Score: 1

      The best glib answer is when they changed the "Department of War" to the "Department of Defense".

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Ummm... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      We'll really be screwed when they change it to the 'Ministry of Peace'.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    8. Re:Ummm... by maxume · · Score: 1

      That don't mean I gotta learn me any.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Ummm... by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      at what point does the US military stop looking like a human defense force and start looking looking like alien invaders from a robot planet?

      Robot wars mean less human casualties. It's an important part of the path away from our animal instincts to fight each other.

    10. Re:Ummm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Ummm... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Robot wars mean less human casualties. It's an important part of the path away from our animal instincts to fight each other.

      Less human casualties as measured by who? The winners?

      currently, Robotic Warfare(TM) is an attempt to address asymmetrical conflicts. By reducing the human capital required to prevail, it reduces the cost/benefit equation to an actuarial risk rather than an intractiable socio-political-financial risk.

      In conflicts where all the combat units are robotic, how do wars conclude? At first blood? I doubt very seriously that the prevailing army is going to stop at, "Check! Mate in 3!"

      If anything, the amount of collateral damage will increase, and can be blamed on "equipment failure" with a dramatic shrug from the chain of command.

    12. Re:Ummm... by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      In conflicts where all the combat units are robotic, how do wars conclude? At first blood? I doubt very seriously that the prevailing army is going to stop at, "Check! Mate in 3!" If anything, the amount of collateral damage will increase, and can be blamed on "equipment failure" with a dramatic shrug from the chain of command.

      Well, hopefully they go better then the cold war. During the cold war we all lived in fear and then eventually increased the planet's background radiation. The problem with the cold war was that eventually the bombs got too big!

      As long as our enemy is a civilized nation; then the intelligent people on both sides know that the "military" is just a distraction for those who are less enlightened.

    13. Re:Ummm... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between moving pieces on the board to generate threat actually and, you know,.... actually taking trades.

      MAD was a concept that generated strategic, political pressure, and capital investment in WMD without any actually being fired in anger. The moron with the deepest pockets wins.

      Robotic weapon systems don't have that same constraint. Utilizing robotic systems that are based on conventional warfare tactics, takes the yellow ribbons in the homeland out of the equation. National will to engage in war becomes a purely economic consideration on the home front, ie. cost of equipment and delivery. And the Pentagon gets to sell franchises to Reality TV for Robot-to-Robot combat..... just edit out the squishy casualties before delivery.

      This would seem to make waging a war easier, in the socio-political sense, as native sons and daughters are far less likely to be casualties, even in asymmetric conflicts. Afghanistan and Iraq seem to show that if the dominant aggressor can keep the media from publishing "horrors of war" and keep native casualties low, the wars can go on indefinitely.

      It is well established that just obliterating the opponent's equipment, installations, supplies, and manufacturing base is not sufficient to declare victory... Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq demonstrate clearly that the end game is policing.... and that is a very expensive(well beyond economic) and bloody mission for the dominant combatant to engage in.

      A key assumption here is that these robotic systems eventually are capable of performing all the roles a typical soldier is trained for in todays militaries. I see no technical reason that a anime style mobile suit has to have the meat-puppet in situ... to be effective. The soldier can be sitting in a since comfy office complex in Kansas to perform combat duties, and go home to his wife and kids at night.

      It might make some support roles a little more dangerous... Such systems are still going to need field support, and that is more difficult to perform via teleoperation, but even that might be possible.

    14. Re:Ummm... by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      The soldier can be sitting in a since comfy office complex in Kansas to perform combat duties, and go home to his wife and kids at night.

      We're already there, but it's Nevada instead of Kansas. The air-force controls its un-manned drones from Nevada. (I think.) Anyway, it was on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWG_mzTTzMc

    15. Re:Ummm... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      This is going to create all new forms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorders. :(

      Remote control sociopaths maybe?

    16. Re:Ummm... by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      This is going to create all new forms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorders. :( Remote control sociopaths maybe?

      Doubtful, it's too much like video games.

    17. Re:Ummm... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Sorry I don't buy that. Unfortunately you get modded up for being cheeky.

      The solder will know full well that what they are doing. When they level up to taking on humans. I think that is going to be when they have serious problems.

      OTOH: If they pull an Ender's Game on the soldiers.... then there is going to be a horrible backlash when the soldiers find out....

  8. 10 million? Cheap by MobyTurbo · · Score: 0

    Ten million is not expensive for an aerospace contractor, there are some missiles parked under planes costing over 20 times 10 million that in the air force that are worth more than that each - and they are *disposable*.

    1. Re:10 million? Cheap by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative

      Twenty times 10 million is 200 million. A new F22 is 137 million. I don't think there are any $200 million missiles, unless they are nuclear.

    2. Re:10 million? Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup B2s cost just under 1 Billion a pop, and a Nimitz class costs 4.5 Billion

    3. Re:10 million? Cheap by tychver · · Score: 1

      The AGM-129, the most advanced nuclear equipped cruise missile the USA operates, has a unit cost of 4 million. Were you talking about development costs?

    4. Re:10 million? Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nucular.

    5. Re:10 million? Cheap by MobyTurbo · · Score: 1

      I was refering to planes, and then to the missles under them, my message was written very unclearly.

    6. Re:10 million? Cheap by MobyTurbo · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the price of an airplane (20 times) and the price of a missile (close to the same). Sigh.

    7. Re:10 million? Cheap by MobyTurbo · · Score: 1

      Finally someone understood my message!

    8. Re:10 million? Cheap by Nyvhek · · Score: 0

      While grandparent is probably exaggerating about missiles being worth $200 million, he does have a point. Keep in mind that $10 million is the entire development cost of the program to date. From the F-22 wikipedia article, $28 billion has been spent on its development so far.

    9. Re:10 million? Cheap by Rei · · Score: 1

      AeroVironment makes some pretty neat stuff. They also make extremely high power electric vehicle chargers -- as much as 250kW.

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
    10. Re:10 million? Cheap by sdBlue · · Score: 1

      It was bound to happen eventually...

  9. How lifelike by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will it drop bird poop on your surveillance target? I mean how suspicious would a bird be if it didn't do that?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:How lifelike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! yes it will!

      Only it wont be so easy to clean up!

      As this bird craps out small incendiary or high explosive grenades!

      90 shot 9mm cannon optional.

    2. Re:How lifelike by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      When I worked at Google, saw those birds flying over the campus all the time. They discourage the non-geeks from gawking at the uber-cool babes.

    3. Re:How lifelike by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That actually has the potential to be a rather awkward issue, in the mid to long term, with small drones of this and similar flavors.

      Sooner or later, we'll want these things to do more than watch and report. Trouble is, ordinary kinetic weapons don't scale down all that well to applications where size and weight are at a real premium(gun small enough to fit in your pocket, sure, gun small enough to fit in a one pound aircraft with reasonable endurance, not so much). The only mechanisms that do scale down are toxins and pathogens, which are what pretty much all dangerous animals of that scale and smaller use.

      This is, of course, a problem; because chemical and biological weapons are almost certainly not a road we want to go down(even if you don't see using them as a problem, not disturbing the general norm of not using them is likely a good idea if only for your own sake); but they'll be the only thing that fits onboard, so it'll be that or nothing. I'm not overly confident that we'll choose wisely.

    4. Re:How lifelike by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      A few CCs of silicone would make a handy lethal weapon if delivered appropriately.

    5. Re:How lifelike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble is, ordinary kinetic weapons don't scale down all that well to applications where size and weight are at a real premium

      Actually they do. Here's a 105mm rifle mounted on a Jeep. Ordinarily weapons of that caliber involve more weight than a (classic US military) jeep can handle. Even lighter is the RPG; no carriage or combustion pressure. Just a lightweight aiming tube. More the point arming small UAVs has already been done, at least in prototype.

    6. Re:How lifelike by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will it drop bird poop on your surveillance target? I mean how suspicious would a bird be if it didn't do that?

      Yes, it'll leak battery acid, just like my @#*!& Dell laptop.
             

    7. Re:How lifelike by Molochi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To expand on this, recoiless weapons like the jeep mounted ones scale down even further. A gyrojet round would work very well on a lightweight stealthbot and give it the lethal force of an infantryman with a rifle.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    8. Re:How lifelike by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 1

      To expand on this, recoiless weapons like the jeep mounted ones scale down even further. A gyrojet round would work very well on a lightweight stealthbot and give it the lethal force of an infantryman with a rifle.

      But after it fires a round, it wouldn't be a "stealth" bot anymore - IIRC, Gyrojet rounds are even louder than conventional firearms.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    9. Re:How lifelike by Molochi · · Score: 1

      No they aren't anywhere near as loud as even a service pistol. In addtion the unavoidable crack of the projectile breaking the speed of sound occurs downrange.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    10. Re:How lifelike by Xest · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope it shits napalm, just for the coolness factor.

    11. Re:How lifelike by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      White phosphorus powder mixed into some inert aqueous gel would make delayed action incediary bird turds. I can't think of anything awesomer.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:How lifelike by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      The bird in question perching in a tree right above your car? :o

      Nah, man... I think it's a pretty awesome idea too. Provided you were able to create an appropriately resistant chamber within the bird to contain it.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    13. Re:How lifelike by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      Electronic Firing and Metal Storm should make things a bit easier. I would think that since the drone would already have a good battery, at the least electronic firing lowers the weight from even small firearms, along with ammo weight due to being caseless ammo...

    14. Re:How lifelike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it sounds like this company just made the world a shittier place so having it crap would be appropriate.

    15. Re:How lifelike by dasunt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sooner or later, we'll want these things to do more than watch and report. Trouble is, ordinary kinetic weapons don't scale down all that well to applications where size and weight are at a real premium(gun small enough to fit in your pocket, sure, gun small enough to fit in a one pound aircraft with reasonable endurance, not so much). The only mechanisms that do scale down are toxins and pathogens, which are what pretty much all dangerous animals of that scale and smaller use.

      These things fly, right?

      While taking out multiple people may be a problem, taking out one person should not be. Fly the drone to the top of its flight ceiling, then transform its potential energy into kinetic energy. Maybe have lightweight wings that break off, increasing its terminal velocity, and put the control surfaces in the tail, so it still has guidance control as it falls.

      If you want to take out more people, design the components to break apart into shrapnel with a small explosive charge. The kinetic energy will still be from the PE->KE transformation, the only explosive charge needed will be the charge to seperate the shrapnal. The target area size can be varied by changing the height above the target the charge is detonated at.

    16. Re:How lifelike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just use a poisoned dart fired with compressed gas. Very light, and quiet

    17. Re:How lifelike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they don't. It's a simple matter of energy. All kinetic weapons come down to how much energy they can deliver on target.

      Make a rifle that is one inch long and can fire a lethal round through a two inch steel plate, in under an ounce (including the magazine) and maybe you'll replace the full size version.

      But he's thinking along the wrong lines. When you start scaling very small, you won't be able to do much to target humans directly. But there are plenty of other things that can be targetted, like electronics systems for example.

      The article you linked to is not talking about small UAV's it's talking about UAV's that are smaller than the manned version, and is heavy on sensationalism and completely lacking in any real info, and does not provide any source for their statements. When we talk about small UAV's we're talking about something the size of an RC car or one of those 5 pound helicopters. THAT is a small UAV.

    18. Re:How lifelike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of much better applications for our tiny robot aircraft than shooting poisoned darts.

      Can you imagine if we could learn to navigate these ultra-small craft back and forth across the battlefield? You could send encrypted messages back and forth between divisions of soldiers. We could defend hundreds of miles of trenches with no radio chatter. With no radio signals to intercept, you'd deprive the enemy completely of signal intelligence.

      You just need a few dozen bird-sized drones to relay the messages.

    19. Re:How lifelike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the legality of using poison and effective range?

    20. Re:How lifelike by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Kinetic energy weapons do not scale down but cutting and drilling weapons do. Equip the bird with a drill lance and a chain saw.

      Of course, that works in the opposite direction also. If the bird is small enough, throwing it will not damage it but spraying it with honey or glue would be incapacitating.

  10. Much more impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a "one-pound, 29-inch wingspan battery-powered Wasp MANNED system"

    Now that would be amazing!

  11. Slippery slope... by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

    to perching sharks >= )?!

    1. Re:Slippery slope... by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      to perching sharks >= )?!

      ..with lasers.

  12. 2100 by aereinha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One day unmanned aircraft will deliver pizza's to our door. Replacing delivery drivers that keep getting lost.

    1. Re:2100 by slodan · · Score: 1

      These damn robots are taking away my job! My name is Hiro Protagonist, and I'm against robot labor.

  13. [verb] like a [animal] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Upon reading the title, my first reaction was that there was a meeting that went something like

    • ... just send our spy planes to perch somewhere nearby and watch the terrorists.
    • Uh, sir, spy planes don't "perch".
    • Oh? Well, why not? I expect my spy planes to be able to perch. Like a bird. Somebody get on that.
    • Err... yes, sir!

    In the future I expect robots that can

    • slither like a snake
    • prowl like a lion
    • fly like an eagle
    1. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by M0b1u5 · · Score: 0

      --> Slither like snake: already done.

      --> Prowl like lion: coming soon.

      --> Fly like Eagle: been around for a century.

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    2. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait, I know of plenty of machines that fly, but not by flapping wings/riding air currents.

    3. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as being able to ride updrafts and what not we've had RC ornithopters for a while, about as long as RC anything. My favorite was the Smithsonian's Pterosaur. I guess that would be a Pterosopter. Now you can buy RC controlled dragonfly toys

    4. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      They've got "flying like a dodo" down, it's only a few steps more to eagle level!

    5. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the future I expect robots that can

      • slither like a snake
      • prowl like a lion
      • fly like an eagle

      and dance like a hampster ?

    6. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I know of plenty of machines that fly, but not by flapping wings/riding air currents.

      Didn't Air France test a prototype recently ?

    7. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by snerdy · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the future I expect robots that can

      • fly like an eagle

      They would fly like an eagle, to the sea, fly like an eagle and let their spirits carry them?

    8. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by Nichole_knc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And sting like a bee....

    9. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      - Hump like a bonobo!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Do you know there are still people who say they couldn't fly? I tell you, the sky was once filled with them!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    11. Re:[verb] like a [animal] by jafac · · Score: 1

      With friggin lasers on their heads.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  14. Not man-rated? by M0b1u5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    A 450 gram, 29-inch wing span, battery powered vehicle ISN'T MANNED???? WTF?

    Sweet babby Jebus!

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    1. Re:Not man-rated? by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      I said, Get In, *click*

    2. Re:Not man-rated? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      How is babby Jesus formed?

      How virgin get pragnent?

    3. Re:Not man-rated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She wasn't really a virgin, that's just what she told Joseph to get him to marry her.

  15. Took twitter a bit too seriously by Myrcutio · · Score: 0

    I know twitter has been getting popular lately, but i think a $10m spyplane that perches is taking things a bit too literally.

    1. Re:Took twitter a bit too seriously by Hailth · · Score: 0

      @CIA the target is watching TV, looks like an old Price is Right.

      @CIA we saw a cat jump out of a box, LOL!

      @CIA his life is boring right now, appears to be twittering about it.

    2. Re:Took twitter a bit too seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He didn't say he wanted a spyplane that "perches", he said he wanted to "purchase" a spyplane!
      Once the junior gets the order though, the big-pocketed war machinery lumbers into motion...

  16. Re:i just got off the toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just shows you're a bigger asshole than he is.

  17. Stainless by JustOK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Didn't the Stainless Steel Rat already use one?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:Stainless by smchris · · Score: 1

      You could be right. But I'd really prefer an owl. (Bladerunner)

  18. Please don't exaggerate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was just going to ignore this but then I noticed people modding you up. Sure missiles are expensive but not THAT expensive. I remember reading that a Tomahawk cost about $1M, and it is a very sophisticated missile with inertial and GPS guidance, long distance jet engine, variable geometry airframe and rocket booster. I seriously doubt some missiles cost "over 20 times 10 million". Not even nukes (although they *might* be in the tens of millions).

    If you're talking development costs, sure that could be very expensive. But then development costs are not "disposable".

    1. Re:Please don't exaggerate by MobyTurbo · · Score: 1

      The *planes* are 20 times 10 million, the missles as much as the heli. My message wasn't written very clearly. :-(

  19. Power lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Could perch on a power line and recharge its batteries for round the clock operations. Scary.

    1. Re:Power lines? by Aereus · · Score: 1

      Assuming it wouldn't get fried out by the voltage in the line before the transformer? I doubt it could balance on something as thin as a power line though, anyways.

    2. Re:Power lines? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      It's not voltage that kills things, it's current. How you do you suppose non-cybernetic birds survive the experience?

      You could probably leech some power from high-voltage AC lines with an induction loop, a rectifier, and a big-assed resistor.

    3. Re:Power lines? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not voltage that kills things, it's current. How you do you suppose non-cybernetic birds survive the experience?

      Uh, by not carrying the current at all? Touch one powerline while not grounded or connected to any potential place for the charge on it to flow and nothing will happen, touch one while grounded and you're dead. Birds don't experience any current because there's no place for the current to flow.

      You're right that it's the current that kills, but in this case the birds experience neither current nor voltage, so it's an irrelevant answer.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    4. Re:Power lines? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      It's not voltage that kills things, it's current.

      Or more correctly, it's the difference in voltage that kills things. It doesn't matter if you touch a piece of wire at 3kv (relative to the ground), as long as the rest of you isn't touching the ground at the time. That's why birds can sit happily on a high voltage power line without problems (cancer causing radiation aside :). If there are two birds sitting on different wires, and the wires are at different voltages (eg different phases in a 3 phase circuit) and they touch wings (or even come close to touching for high enough voltages), then they both fry.

    5. Re:Power lines? by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      Old news.

      Small UAVs May Recharge on Power Lines
      http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158240,00.html

    6. Re:Power lines? by Aereus · · Score: 1

      I meant if it tried to charge off of the power line. I don't know what the actual voltage is on residential lines, but I would imagine considerably more than the 240/440 that runs up to your house from the transformer.

    7. Re:Power lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more correctly, it's the difference in voltage that kills things.

      Or more correctly, voltage IS a measure of potential difference.

  20. js107 by js107 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Really liked your article.. I'm so glad you enjoyed it. Sujja ------ FTP Client

  21. $10M up in smoke by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Dad! You won't believe what I just caught with my BB-gun!"

    1. Re:$10M up in smoke by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      funny, I was thinking the same thing. I could take it out with a .22 cal. and set the Fed back 10million? Sign me up!

      -Oz

    2. Re:$10M up in smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably they'll make more than one, and the cost of parts will not be the cost of R&D.

  22. Just wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until they combine this technology with camouflage technology.

  23. African Swallow by rhinokitty · · Score: 1

    And it can post its surveillance reports to the Internet in under 140 characters. This bird will tweet!

  24. Shades of Vulcan's Hammer by Criceratops · · Score: 1


    I just got done reading Philip Dick's Vulcan's Hammer, where a rogue AI starts manufacturing little flying spy robots. That perch.

    Can I not read ONE sci-fi novel without someone trying to make it a hideous reality?

    Maybe that's why Hollywood is pumping out the PKD films like there's no tomorrow... to prepare us for the pink mind-control lasers. And the flapples. I still don't know what an effing flapple is, and I have gobs of PKD novels and short stories sitting around my conapt.

    --
    crappy triceratops
    1. Re:Shades of Vulcan's Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything in science fiction with ev

  25. Unmanned SP2S by Hanyin · · Score: 1

    A 450 gram, 29-inch wing span, battery powered vehicle ISN'T MANNED???? WTF?

    Sweet babby Jebus!

    In order to maintain airspeed velocity, a manned SP2S would need to beat its wings 43 times every second, am I right?

    In related news AeroVironment has announced that they will be dividing their SP2S project into two branches, one to follow more stationary targets and the other to track people traveling over large distances. The more stationary version will be known as the African Stealthy, Persistent, Perch and Stare Air Vehicle System (ASP2S) and its migratory cousin with be known as the European SP2S or ESP2S.

    1. Re:Unmanned SP2S by that+IT+girl · · Score: 2, Funny

      In order to maintain airspeed velocity, a manned SP2S would need to beat its wings 43 times every second, am I right?

      Maybe. Is it carrying a coconut?

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    2. Re:Unmanned SP2S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tropical or subsaharan coconut?

    3. Re:Unmanned SP2S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to maintain airspeed velocity, a manned SP2S would need to beat its wings 43 times every second, am I right?

      Maybe. Is it carrying a coconut?

      Is the sp2s African or European?

  26. Helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ten million is not expensive for an aerospace contractor

    ...and just WTF is wrong with a helicopter?

    You're not going to get near the speed/agility of a bird for $10M.
    Far better to put grasping feet on a helo and be done with it.

    1. Re:Helicopter by Xest · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've seen some RC airplanes do some pretty amazing stunts, being able to flip back to face upwards and hover on their propeller for long periods. There's some videos on YouTube of that sort of thing. There's no reason fairly cheap kit couldn't be made to land using a similar technique.

      $10million is quite a bit to make it land properly on it's tail, to add surveillance to it and make it a bit more stealthy.

      It's not going to be anything super long range, or anything, but at $10mill I'm betting they're not expecting anything with the surveillance features and range of a Predator/Reaper or whatever.

    2. Re:Helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all about your power to weight ratio. If you build a foam plane with 1lb of thrust, but have a 1/2 pound body you can do whatever stunt you want without any problems.

  27. Cloaking technology by bagsta · · Score: 1

    I believe it's not far away the day that such aircrafts would be undetected not only by radars but also by sight(like the cloaking technology of Romulans in Star Trek).

    --
    Until the skies turn blue...
    Until the air of freedom strikes us...
    1. Re:Cloaking technology by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Already here. I worked with a professor who was into this stuff. He had UAVs which could change the color of the lower panels to whatever color the sky above them was. They were *really* hard to see.

  28. key words = "perch and grip technology"? by idigitallDotCom · · Score: 1

    Are the keywords here "Perch and grip" ? Don't we already have unmanned airborne spy hover vehicles? heck I'm sure I could build a mini-hot-air-balloon-with-steering-fans-type drone that transmits surveillance for under $1M. From what I saw on National Geographic channel, it'd be very easy to build a hot-air-balloon with "perch and grip" technology if we just emulate birds...

    --
    blog.idigitall.com
  29. Why not a real bird? by wlowe84 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why can't they just train real birds to perch and randomly attach cameras or whatever to things. Swallows come to mind, I'd have to check. I don't remember if African or European would be best.

    1. Re:Why not a real bird? by 3waygeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      And maybe they could carry this camera.

    2. Re:Why not a real bird? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cameras would have to be disguised as coconuts so they could be gripped by the husk.

    3. Re:Why not a real bird? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe they could carry this camera.

      Good idea. they could hide their camera in a coconut.

  30. Re:Frost Piss?! by fractoid · · Score: 1

    Manned flying dinosaurs are SO much cooler. Vote for sky riders today! :D

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  31. Military robots by Max_W · · Score: 1

    The robot war machines will be the next generation of weapons of mass destruction.

    Soon we will see swarms of poisonous digital mosquitoes, mechanical snakes with nuclear warheads, which can enter the land unnoticed, robot-fish, which enters a lake via a small river and poisons the whole lake, and so on and so forth.

    Let us note now how it all started.

  32. War robots 2 by Max_W · · Score: 1

    I would suggest to ban by an international law all military robots. While there are not so many of them yet. It would be more difficult and expensive when there are armies of millions military robots.

    The definition is simple: no military equipment without a responsible human physically attached to it.

    In the 50s it would have been much easier to ban nuclear weapons while there were only few of them around, not hundreds of thousand as it is now.

    1. Re:War robots 2 by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are thousands already out there, so this horse has left the barn. See, for example, the Raven or Packbot. Note the numbers already shipped (>8000 and >2000). No, they are not autonomous, but they definitely don't have a human physically attached. And they are getting more autonomous all the time.

      While it might be a good idea, I don't think that the main proponent / user of the technology (U.S.) would agree to get rid of them. Too damn useful. And you are right that there will come the day that the US might regret its decision. On the other hand, there is a huge difference between nuclear weapons and military robots, in terms of the necessary parts. The parts for a robot just are not that complicated, and in 20 years I'm guessing that it will be trivial to piece together a sophisticated military robot from stuff you can get at local stores. It will still be hard to get nuclear grade material.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    2. Re:War robots 2 by maxume · · Score: 1

      Once I have my military robot, obtaining nuclear grade material will be quite a bit easier.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  33. Hawk's Fighter did it best by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, Lazerbeak was the first thing that popped into my head before I even finished reading the summary!

    This definitely sounds like Lazerbeak, with the reporting to its handlers and all. BUT, in terms of cool ships that perch, there can be only one: Hawk's fighter, from Buck Rogers. That series had easily some of the coolest space tech ever, rivalling White Stars in B5 and BSG's Mk I Vipers (which were designed by the same guy). I loved that series, and BSG and all too, but Hawk's fighter (and that whole Hawk character concept) just blew me away as a kid.

    I'm really surprised how hard it is to find example of his ship online. I'm sure the entire episodes are available somewhere, but this is the best page I can find:

    http://www.tvacres.com/aliens_hawk.htm

    http://www.tvacres.com/images/spacecraft_hawk_fighter4.jpg

  34. Suspect we have a Robert Sheckley fan... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Suspect we have a Robert Sheckley fan... by tb3 · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks! That's the one I was thinking of, especially the huge flock of them at the end.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  35. Keep perching! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it...*eyeball*... Hold still.. *squeeze*... Hold still... *squeeze*... Keep perching... *breathe out*... *squeeze* *POP*... Gotcha!

  36. I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iraqi 1- Hey man, have you noticed that bird just sitting there staring at us for the past hour?? I don't think it's even made a sound!

     

    Iraqi 2- Yeah.. I've also been googleing to see when the last time a California Condor was even remotely close to here...

  37. Well now that they know... by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't information/technology like this be much more helpful if it was kept quiet? If enemies know what to look for, it makes it harder to go undetected... Before news like this broke, nobody would pay any attention to a bird fluttering around, but now people are going to be armed with bird hunting rifles all around sensitive areas. Ha.

    As a sidenote, this is a general beef I have with things like this, not just the perching (but unmanned, who'da thought?) surveillance aircraft. I'm torn between my geeky desire to know about these things, and the thought that it'd probably be much more effective if it was kept under wraps.

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
    1. Re:Well now that they know... by maxume · · Score: 1

      If your opponent has any organization and communication, any at all, keeping it under wraps only matters until they notice the first one.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  38. Bad idea by georgenh16 · · Score: 1

    Perch, and get shot.

    Keep flying, not as much of an easy target.

    1. Re:Bad idea by cenc · · Score: 1

      That is the point. You will then know for sure you found the enemy.

    2. Re:Bad idea by georgenh16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about you, but if I see some robotic thingy land on my roof, I'm going to shoot it whether it's from my own government or a foreign one.

    3. Re:Bad idea by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well the 'bird' is for surveillance, and that means being inconspicuous. If they know where the robot is to shoot at it, then for the purposes of many missions it's already failed. A motionless bird, even one with a 29" wingspan, is much harder to spot when sitting still on a branch than when flying around.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Bad idea by georgenh16 · · Score: 1

      I agree.
      But still, this only works if it looks enough like a bird to be inconspicuous, AND no one sees it land in the first place.

      If someone sees it come in, it has two choices - fly zig-zag or random pattern to take a couple pics and get away (and fly another mission), or land and make itself a sitting duck.

    5. Re:Bad idea by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But still, this only works if it looks enough like a bird to be inconspicuous, AND no one sees it land in the first place.

      Well my point was that once its perched then no it doesn't really need to look convincingly like a bird because nobody is going to see it. If you're looking for actual birds they can be pretty hard to find if they aren't moving; motion is typically how you spot them. You probably walk past birds this size in trees without ever knowing they are there all the time. So as long as they make it drab instead of shiny, the best strategy for not being seen is to find a tree limb with a view and sit still.

      If someone sees it come in, it has two choices - fly zig-zag or random pattern to take a couple pics and get away (and fly another mission), or land and make itself a sitting duck.

      I don't think they're designing the perching feature for missions that have failed before they've even begun. Since the ability to fly is already part of the specs, adding the ability to perch in order to conduct prolonged surveillance is in no way a bad idea.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Bad idea by georgenh16 · · Score: 1

      Great answer. I concede on all points.
      "drab instead of shiny" was what I was thinking of, imagining some metallic, odd sounding robot-bird.

    7. Re:Bad idea by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well you're certainly right that it'll be vulnerable to discovery when it first arrives... I imagine (in the purest sense) that they'll send it to its destination at night and have it just camp out for as long as need be.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Bad idea by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Well my point was that once its perched then no it doesn't really need to look convincingly like a bird because nobody is going to see it.

      This is true, in theory. However if a security detail has a rough idea of the shape, size, and tactics of a potential threat, then they are going to optimize their patrol methods to find instances of the threat.

      They are going to alter the environment around a sensitive installation to make it as difficult as possible for such a threat to successfully infiltrate.

      For a 29" wingspan bird-like surveillance drone. I would expect that trees, utility poles, lamp-posts, and other high vantage points are going to get removed... and those that cant be moved are going to get modified such that it would be impossible for such a drone to land.

      It's more likely that such drones are going to be used for urban surveillance. If they look like crows, small hawks, or seagulls it might work for a while, but not for long.
       

  39. UAV pizza delivery? Airborne pizza? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  40. Re:Frost Piss?! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    But what if they are "true perching birds" instead?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/1970031768/in/set-72157603091357751/

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  41. Love letters by g00ey · · Score: 1

    I think I'm gonna get one!!! I'll paint it pink and use it for sending love letters.

  42. Oh please by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the sort of thing that Wyat Cenack (sp?), senior military analyst on The Daily Show, described as RFC projects. "Really F***ing Cool."

    Yes, this is all cool and impressive and all, but hang on a second. Why does the US still put so much faith in technology to fix all the world's problems?

    I remember reading an article in The Economist years ago about an American-developed mine clearing system. It was a huge, expensively developed, bulldozer. Er, yes, a bulldozer. It had a few bells and whistles and looked like something dropped out of an Imperial Star Destroyer, but trust me, it was just a bulldozer. Well they found that it was less effective than the tried and tested British method of a trained guy with a metal detector and a big stick poking into the ground. I'll let you guess which was cheaper and more effective.

    If the British had adopted in Northern Ireland the same tactics that the USA is adopting now in different parts of the world, the troubles in Northern Ireland would still be going strong, we'd have gone as far as full on civil war, and the Brits would be looking to the UN for support because they'd have pissed off so many Irish Republicans that bomb alerts in London would be a daily occurrence.

    Air strikes in residential areas? Sending in troops to act as policemen when they can't even speak the local language? What the hell are they thinking? Do they seriously think that the battle for the hearts and minds of muslims is going to be won by UAVs, robotic birds, satellites, tanks, and legions of soldiers occupying other peoples' countries as if their sovereignty counts for nothing? Do they think the reaction will be any different than their own reaction would be if Iranian troops were occupying San Diego, bursting into peoples' homes in search of militants, and calling in air strikes to wedding receptions?

    They need to learn a few lessons from the British. An insurgency and a poisonous militant mindset is not defeated by a standing army. It's defeated behind the scenes by the intelligence services, by infiltration, away from the prying eyes of the media and it's done for the purpose of getting the job done, not in public for the purpose of winning votes. The only thing done in public is consistent repudiation of violence as a means of achieving political aims, education about the futility of violence and how it achieves nothing but heartbreak for all involved (viewer discretion advised), and providing a peaceful political alternative to the physical force method. It's less glamorous and the boys don't get to play with their toys, but it's a lot more effective.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Oh please by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is all cool and impressive and all, but hang on a second. Why does the US still put so much faith in technology to fix all the world's problems?

      Because at some point a lot of us have to go back to living in grass huts (not all bad, mind you) or we have to believe that the only way out is through.

      I remember reading an article in The Economist years ago about an American-developed mine clearing system.

      You should have read about this one instead. I don't know if this is the same project, but there is one with a spider robot that has bamboo legs. It steps on the mines from a distance, and loses a leg, which can be replaced.

      Air strikes in residential areas? Sending in troops to act as policemen when they can't even speak the local language? What the hell are they thinking?

      They're thinking about paring down the population and setting the stage to make a lot of money. Who's "rebuilding" Iraq, again?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Oh please by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      They're thinking about paring down the population and setting the stage to make a lot of money. Who's "rebuilding" Iraq, again?

      Apologies for reading this days later, but: I remember an episode of "Over There" (short-lived "docu-drama" on US soldiers in Iraq), in which the soldiers' mission was to break into some Iraqi's house. Turns out there was a lot of money hidden in a wall. They took it. The Iraqi came home, started shooting at the thieves, and was killed.

      That episode (which was maybe ... 4 years ago?) completely jaded my view of news stories from them on. If we blew up a "terrorist house" and "oops killed a few civilians as well", my new understanding is that we took out some political opposition, or someone with money who could have done something to fight the occupation and "51st state" mentality.

      Although, I'm sure we'd never make it a state; I mean, look at Puerto Rico, Guam, etc... Taxation without representation is so much more profitable, if you're on the "taxing" side.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  43. Nobody likes a robotic bird by liquiddark · · Score: 1

    So the leet-speak phonetic translation of that codename is "spazzes", yes?

  44. Why Re-invent the Wheel? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    We have an abundant supply of birds pre-configured with BOTH perching AND the ability to fit into small places!

    Just rig some mind control device to them and presto! An added side effect is camouflage as a freakin' bird!

    Downside would be peta freaks.

    Alternatively Birds with Freakin' Lasers attached to their heads! Muahahaha!

    Would that count as biological warfare?

  45. Extended range version by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Self-refueling. Finds earthworms and seeds, converts to ethanol.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  46. Retrofit a damn bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just train a squadron of real birds with cameras on 'em.

    Heck, connect probes to their brains so you can guide them.

    Fuel? No problem, let 'em eat stuff.

  47. Sharks ! by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Trouble is, ordinary kinetic weapons don't scale down all that well to applications where size and weight are at a real premium {...}. The only mechanisms that do scale down are toxins and pathogens, which are what pretty much all dangerous animals of that scale and smaller use.

    Biologic weapons ? Come on ! This is /. !
    You completely missed the opportunity to speculate on mounting weaponized *LASERs* on these beasts.
    (And paint shark motifs on the sides of the drone)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]