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."
Deploy: Lazorbeak. Mission: Scout Terrorists.
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.
Quoth the SP2S, "nevermore" and nothing more.
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.
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
One day unmanned aircraft will deliver pizza's to our door. Replacing delivery drivers that keep getting lost.
Upon reading the title, my first reaction was that there was a meeting that went something like
In the future I expect robots that can
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!"
Didn't the Stainless Steel Rat already use one?
rewriting history since 2109
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".
Could perch on a power line and recharge its batteries for round the clock operations. Scary.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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