Bats Inspiring Future Micro Unmanned Aircraft 76
coondoggie writes "It's not the first time researchers have tried to emulate flapping as a way to fly aircraft, but US Air Force-funded researchers are now looking at how bats move to help them develop future micro-aircraft. According to these researchers, birds, bats, and insects have some highly varied mechanical properties that researchers have so far not utilized in engineering flight vehicles. The idea is to reproduce bat mechanics and develop technology could lead to small, remote controlled aircraft able to move in places where fixed-wing aircraft have a hard time — like the interiors of buildings, caves, or tunnels."
Not to knock bats... (Score:3, Interesting)
But bats have always appeared to me to be very ungraceful in their flight.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but their motion has always seem sort of chaotic.
I suppose that's also what makes them so nimble.
anti-UAV tech (Score:5, Interesting)
The next advancement in military tech will probably be anti-UAV technology. Since they're so lightweight and small, there's no real chance for them to survive electromagnetic weapons (hardening costs weight). I suspect miniturization and economizing of EMP delivery systems will become a priority for many militaries in the next decade. Counter-surveillance will also become a priority for many groups, both domestically and abroad.
The technology is already being abused to spy on large public gatherings where there is no evidence of illegal activity. Eventually, people are going to start fighting back, and the government can piss off on that because one shotgun blast (cost: $1) will blow a several thousand dollar UAV out of the sky without too much trouble. A baseball bat and a can of gasoline later, and it's a total loss. Unlike most counter-technology, I'm betting anti-UAV tech will spring from civilian interests.
It'll be like those HARM systems... That got defeated by people who'd stick a fork into a microwave's door interlock and then turn it on and point it up. $280,000 missile blows up $15 microwave. Very economical!
Re:anti-UAV tech (Score:4, Interesting)
so you propose the government is risking its newest, most expensive and top secret spy technology to spy on public gatherings?
Of course they could just send some guys with a camcorder without raising any suspicion whatsoever, since every other attender at any gathering will be taking photos anyway. or they could simply get the photos from flicker later.
Any evidence for this claim?
Re:Not a new model (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the "Bat Bomb" was a striking success.
The "bomb" was essentially a large casing, filled with a stack of "honeycombs". Inside each cell of the honeycomb was a Mexican Freetailed Bat carrying an incendiary device.
The bats were chilled to induce torpor, then fitted with the device. While still chilled, they were loaded into the honeycombs and the devices were armed by pulling the string through the top of each cell. The combs were then strung together and loaded into a casing.
The casing would be dropped over a city, and once it reached 4000 feet, a chute would deploy and the case would fall off. The honeycombs would then fall like an accordion, stretching out. Each bat would then be shaken out of their cells and onto the top of the bottom cell. The device is now armed.
This was actually deliberate, as it gave the bats time to warm up, get their bearings and fly off for shelter.
The intent was that the bats would fly toward homes and buildings, seeking shelter from the daylight. After 20 minutes, the incendiary device would ignite. And since most Japanese homes of the time were made from washi paper, wood and bamboo, the resulting fires would be catastrophic.
The concept worked perfectly, as the Army found out quite by accident. Here's a video. Advance to 6:25 for the "successful test" [poetv.com]
Unfortunately for a few million Japanese, but fortunately for the bats, the program was canceled in lieu of the A-Bomb.
Dumb idea (Score:2, Interesting)
It's been shown on a number of occasions that creating airborne surveillance devices which look like animals simply invites predators to catch and destroy them.
http://gizmodo.com/359417/hawks-agree-wowwees-dragonfly-tastes-delicious [gizmodo.com]
Re:anti-UAV tech (Score:4, Interesting)
so you propose the government is risking its newest, most expensive and top secret spy technology to spy on public gatherings?
No, just the last-gen stuff that's mass produced and ready to go into the field. The newest, cutting-edge stuff is 10 to 20 years from the light of day.
Of course they could just send some guys with a camcorder without raising any suspicion whatsoever, since every other attender at any gathering will be taking photos anyway. or they could simply get the photos from flicker later.
Or they may want to see how their new high-tech works in a real-life, low-stakes situation.
Any evidence for this claim?
Washington Post: Robotic Insects Spy on Protestors? [dailykos.com]
Re:Not a new model (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I think that we don't do enough biomimetic design, especially for production systems. Look around you. What was built using biological principles? The answer's probably "not much".
The problem seems to be engineers' blindness to "solved problems". Once somebody comes up with a workable solution, everybody just iterates upon it rather than stopping and rethinking the problem entirely. Take the "bat-craft" example. UAV design has consistently been a process of taking classic aircraft design, and then shrinking it. The problems are well understood, but you're never going to get any revolutionary features.
A couple of years ago, I was part of a competition for AUV design (autonomous submarines). Every single entry, except for ours, used the same principles that we've been using on submarines for forever. Pressure hull, with tandem thrusters for turning and propulsion. We tried to go with a more "natural" design, copying fish (flooded hull, the whole body was a control surface).
Talking to the big defense contractors that build these things for the military, all of their designs lacked any biomimetic features. Current AUV design consists of taking classic submarine designs, making them smaller, and whacking out the crew compartment. A lot of them are pretty cool, but they're certainly not borrowing anything from nature.
The same situation exists with UAV design. Look at the designs for the Int'l Aerial Robotics Competition [angel-strike.com]. These are the engineering students that get recruited to design and build "the real thing" for Northrup Grumman and General Atomics. Smart guys, but they're (generally) not looking to nature.