Slashdot Mirror


5-Pound UAV Flies For 50 Minutes, Streams HD From Over 3 Miles

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like those guys from Aeryon Labs are at it again. Today they announced the SkyRanger a bigger brother to their Scout drone (the one that the Libyan rebels used back in 2011). This one claims flight time of close to an hour, streaming 1080p30 HD video, a range of over 3 miles and a camera that can shoot 15 Megapixel stills and thermal video simultaneously. Not only that but it pops out of a backpack and is ready to fly instantly. It ain't cheap, but it can fly at 40 mph!"

23 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bad guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm surprised they don't already. It's much easier to build UAVs if you're not encumbered by stupid legal complications like intellectual property laws.

    It's sort of like with gun control. Making it harder to get guns will only make it harder to legally get guns.

  2. It ain't cheap? by Sla$hPot · · Score: 4, Funny

    5 Pounds is incredible cheap i would say

  3. Re:Bad guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe drugs will finally be legalized, saving billions of $ and millions of families

  4. Re:Bad guys by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The drug cartels have submarines, railroad tunnels, aircraft, and an army of expendable humans to move drugs. Why would they bother with a little drone with a small payload and a range of only 3 miles?

    We should worry more about other bad guys, like oppressive governments, whose goals are less "move stuff somewhere" and more "control people everywhere".

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. Contradiction by Ginger_Chris · · Score: 5, Funny

    5 pounds is dirt cheap. Not even enough to buy a pint in central London.

    1. Re:Contradiction by ryanmt · · Score: 2

      If you are going to go "symantics" on him... you should probably declare "The pound is a unit of force or mass"

  6. Re: Specs are overrated by dougmc · · Score: 2

    Arg cought by the summary.
    My point is that the absolute maximum flighttime for electric UAVs is less than one hour, in a lab, draining the battery to death(literary)

    Um, no.

    First, UAV is a mighty broad brush. An inexpensive electric glider with a motor on it and big battery can fly for literally hours -- without even using thermals or other lift, and they can increase it further -- and the battery will be just fine when you land, just recharge it.

    Now, this is a multicopter -- far less efficient. Still, with good batteries, keeping the weight down as much as possible, and just sitting there (using as little power as possible) -- 50 minutes doesn't surprise me at all. And the battery will be ready to fly again after recharging it. (Though it's possible that they used non-rechargable batteries to last even longer for that specific test.)

    In practice electric UAVs have a flight time of 12-25 minutes depending on payload. Saying it will fly 50 minutes is just wrong.

    Most of the hobbyist multicopter models have flight times like that, yes -- we want something that's lively and fun to fly, and don't just want to hover there. But we could make something that lasts 50 minutes if we wanted to and didn't mind spending some money.

  7. Re:Bad guys by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    The drone is extremely compact — the company says that it weighs about three pounds and fits into a backpack — and its operator does not need any knowledge of flight.

    That's good, because most people fail horribly at throwing themselves at the ground and missing. Not even high bridges seem to help.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  8. An ad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is this an ad? There's no story to go with it, just links to their website...

    And even then, says it's expensive, but doesn't give a price. WTF slashdot? How much did they pay for this?

  9. Just another $1000 hammer by DeathGrippe · · Score: 2

    Quad copters with these capabilities and better can be purchased by ordinary people for a few hundred $$ from several hobby vendors. There is no excuse for charging as much as these guys do, other than they are selling to military and gov't agencies who don't care what they spend.

    1. Re:Just another $1000 hammer by s2jcpete · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stabilized video gimbals with thermal capabilities are not a few hundred dollars.

    2. Re:Just another $1000 hammer by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      I always love people who do not understand the difference between a toy and a piece of equipment that one's life may rely on. A toy can break down and one loses a bit of fun. A vital piece of equipment breaks down on the battlefield and people can die.

      Here are some things that increase prices of military gear.
      1. Higher specifications. They must operate in much greater temperature and weather ranges. This causes the components to need to be much more rugged.
      2. Higher damage resistance needed. If you toy breaks you go buy another one at the store. If it breaks on the battlefield there are no replacements.
      3. Lower quantities. Consumer products are run off in batches of thousands and economy of scale makes a big difference.
      4. Higher capabilities. This quad copter uses GPS plotting to fly. The operator sets the altitude and position on the plot and the copter goes there. This is not an RC toy where the operator directly flies the drone. High resolution IR cameras are expensive. The gimbals you cited are only tilt and not pan. Most transmitters do not have a 3 mile range with such high bandwidth.
      5. More testing to ensure it can survive the battlefield.

      If you think it is expensive try comparing apples to apples. If you can find a quad copter with the same capabilities at this one for a lower price I would applaud but I doubt very much you can.

      I agree that there have been many stupid military procurement but the knee jerk reaction that every expensive project is overpriced is not valid.

  10. Re:Bad guys by MadMartigan2001 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe he was referring to the so called "war on drugs" which has made criminals of countless thousands of individuals who choose to use recreational drugs such as pot but pose no threat to society.

  11. Re:Bad guys by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know about you, but pot has made our family get-togethers murder-free at last! It's certainly a pleasant change from the whiskey massacre of Christmas '02.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  12. Re:Weapons? by MadMartigan2001 · · Score: 2

    Why would islamic fundamentalists want these? They prefer suicide bombers and standard weapons of warfare. The real people we need to worry about are the governments who will use this technology to "keep us safe".

  13. Re:Bad guys by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

    And pretty easily trackable if they're broadcasting with enough power to send HD signals 3 miles.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. Re:Bad guys by JackDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm, seems to me that an oppressive government would probably start by legalising drugs. How better to control the population than by limiting their desire and ability to rise up in revolt? The best sort of slavery is voluntary. Why imprison the people, when you can get them to imprison themselves?

    As an evil dictator, your first move should be to legalise as many drugs as you can get away with. This will win you a lot of popular support in the short term, and in the long term, the people who might have become well-educated and clever opposition leaders might instead end up as poorly-educated drug users with severe mental health problems. You may commence your evil laughter now.

    --
    You're an immobile computer, remember?
  15. Re:Bad guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people would just use marijuana, a safer alternative to alcohol. Your scenario sounds like the ravings of a drug warrior.

  16. Re:Bad guys by JackDW · · Score: 2

    Not mutually exclusive. As an evil dictator, you can do both. Take away real liberties and real rights for "security", and simultaneously grant the freedom to take drugs. It will be easy to fool the people into thinking that they are getting a good deal here.

    --
    You're an immobile computer, remember?
  17. Re:Bad guys by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

    > Ya, my family was positivily saved by crack and MDMA. What drugs saved your family?

    Dude, even think-of-the-children central - Oprah is has been talking about the theraputic uses of MDMA.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  18. How do you know it ain't cheap? by felipou · · Score: 2

    Where can we see the price?

    (forgive my incompetence if it is easily found)

  19. Re:Weapons? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stuff that islamic fighters like :
    - satellite phones
    - GPS, laptops with Google Earth or something
    - cell phones - dirt cheap remote detonators, but can be used to communicate too
    - social networks such as facefuck and twatter
    - editing videos on a computer
    - spherical geometry and basic astronomy to know when they have to pray and what direction to face
    - building rockets in the yard

  20. Re:Bad guys by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    Not to mention all the killings and violence that goes along with drugland warfare. Then there are the crime cartels created by the incredible profits.