Flapping NAV Performs Controlled Hovering Flight 128
An anonymous reader writes "AeroVironment, Inc. was awarded a Phase II contract extension in April from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to design and build a flying prototype for the Nano Air Vehicle (NAV) program. As part of this program AV has accomplished a technical milestone never before achieved: the controlled hovering flight of an air vehicle system with two flapping wings (video) that carries its own energy source and uses only the flapping wings for propulsion and control. Two wings for propulsion and control, nothing else."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Funny)
Well, if everyone in slashdot was like me, we all wanted to see if it flaps like a vulture or like a hummingbird before posting...
European vulture, or African?
Re: (Score:2)
Turkey vulture [google.com] -- so somewhat Asian and somewhat European.
But definitely unladen.
Perhaps this will clarify (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
0 comments and it's already slashdotted.
What the hell is this? Who are all the noobs who went off to RTFA?!? Has /. been trolled? [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Has /. been trolled? [xkcd.com]
OMG I Love This Place Its
So Edgy Being Anonymous
Re: (Score:2)
The link to TFA works fine. It's the link to the video that's slashdotted.
But what does all this mean?
Apparently... (Score:4, Funny)
They can make flapping wing flying robots, but can't make a slashdot proof webserver, meh.
Slashdotted!! (Score:4, Informative)
Ornithopter (Score:5, Informative)
Shouldn't this sort of thing be called an Ornithopter [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
US.mil: "Those terrorists will cower before our hornicopters.. orniopters.. morningchoppers. Goddamit. Private Geek, say that word at the end of my sentences from now on."
Nah, won't work.
Rename something = funding (Score:2)
The first rule of getting funding: Create a new name for something
It's not a border 'fence', it's a 'migration denial system' :P Fences cost nickels and dimes, but 'migration denial systems' cost -billions-.
We have the same problem in the AI industry. 'AI' is always something in the future, something unobtainable, and actual intelligence systems in use end up being called something else entirely. People used to say if you could make a system that beats humans in chess that would be 'AI', but we have that an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. As you can see, the wings flap horizontally, which means it is a completely different concept, from what birds do.
Re: (Score:1)
Birds that can hover flap their wing pretty much the same way. Find some videos of hummingbirds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJf-AQhDTz4&feature=channel [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Nope. As you can see, the wings flap horizontally, which means it is a completely different concept, from what birds do."
You obviously have never taken a really close look at a slow motion video of a hummingbird doing the stationkeeping thing.
The NAV is mimicking a simplification of the hummingbird's vertical stationkeeping fight mode.
Head, Tail and back are in a vertical orientation, (like a person standing) wings flapping in a 'sculling' motion to direct thrust downward. The wing shape
Re: (Score:2)
If you tread water, while swimming using arm-sculling, your arms are doing a slow motion version of roughly the same motions, with corrections, and for the same reasons, to maintain balance and position.
I can't tread water, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:1)
I can't tread water, you insensitive clod!
You must be Bob.
Why the hell would you do that? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People can't drive cars so now we give the same people flying cars...
Flying cars? It's a nano flying vehicle, not a nanny flying vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a Nanu flying vehicle, which would be large and egg-shapped, and capable of interplanetary flight (at least one-way from the planet Ork). Last I heard there were issues with the landing sequence, though. Not sure if there's a RC, or if they're working on another public beta.
I could have misread, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't a car. It's a tiny robot. The whole thing weighs less than 10 grams.
Methinks... (Score:2)
Youtube (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laserbeak? (Score:2)
When can I buy a ridable griffon/dragon? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, yes, but anyone capable of engineering the one could likely engineer the other.
Or maybe the GP meant griffon/dragon hybrid, which would be even more badass, you must admit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, dragons are much more difficult from an engineering standpoint. They are larger, live longer, have armored skin and usually a breath weapon.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, obviously for the most badass model. But a Komodo with wings capable of lifting a human would be just as much a dragon as a full-fledged Smaug. And a flying Komodo would be just the same engineering challenge as a griffon - putting wings on an existing ferocious animal and taming it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When can I buy a ridable griffon/dragon? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rideable griffins do exist -- Woz used to have one [wikipedia.org].
Clocks (Score:3, Funny)
This just in, Prototype lost to clock with bacteria digester system.
PETA responded with applause.
Re: (Score:2)
Which then exploded after ingesting the high-density Lithium batteries...
I thought . . . (Score:4, Funny)
it was pretty cool.
There will be hummingbird looking things flying in and out of your nearest neighborhood crime syndicate office monitoring their activities.
Who needs wiretapping now?
Oh, and I think hummingbirds have prior art.
Re: (Score:1)
Never before achieved? (Score:2, Interesting)
By man or something man-made perhaps. Now if you'll excuse me, my Hummingbird [wikipedia.org] is bored...
wind gusts (Score:2)
Re:wind gusts (argh... formatting) (Score:2)
FTA, emphasis mine:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's about 22 miles per hour, or a little slower than a hummingbird. Which is indeed pretty impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
So this would be competitive with that in terms of speed.
Given that there are natural flapping-wing "designs" that achieve 25 M/s at a weight of 2.5 g (some hummingbirds), there's no reason why we shouldn't set a goal of 10 M/s at 10 g.
Re:wind gusts (argh... formatting)(2x argh...typo) (Score:2)
That should be 15 M/s at a weight of 2.5 g.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Still it's quite impressive what they have today. "Withstand 2.5 m/s wind gusts" does not mean their ornithopter explodes if the wind exceeds that. It just means that above 2.5 m/s it will have to "go with the flow", and thus will lose a part of it's mobility. It can still control it's speed in 3 other directions though.
I have the impression that birds regularly hit this limit. They try to go against the wind, and it proves too much for them. They simply land and try again 5 seconds later, which usually suc
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It depends on what withstand means. I've watched lots of dragonflies (and other insects) fly around in stronger winds than that, gusts too. If they mean stay in the air and mostly on course, it should at least be possible, if they mean stay in one place, probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually compared to the small helicopters that I've tried, being able to fly in 5 mph wind would be quite nice. These things get seriously screwed up with a very slight breeze (I'm guessing well under 5 mph, though I'm not certain). The air coming out of my heater vent near the ceiling nearly crashes it from across the room, where I can't even feel the air anymore.
Advantages vs. traditional rotating wing? (Score:5, Interesting)
To any familiar with this company or this line of research in general:
What are the advantages of the ornithopter design over a traditional helicopter design? Why is DARPA interested?
Yes, I did read the article... and I understand what DARPA is interested in getting out of a small UAV that can hover. What I don't understand is why a normal helicopter design couldn't suit all of these needs better and cheaper.
Regardless of the answer, it's a very cool project. Obviously very worthwhile just from the point-of-view of the scientific and engineering advances.
Re: (Score:1)
Because a helicopter design is not as easily mistaken for a flying insect?
Because helicopter designs are fundamentally flawed at a small scale due to the physics of vortexes? And that eventually they will want the design to be even smaller?
And , most importnntly, because the se
Re:Advantages vs. traditional rotating wing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Helicopters are LOUD
Winged vehicles can glide (among other things) making them far more stealthy in small forms.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I imagine it has to do with potential mechanical problems in feathering or hinging the blades as the scale gets really small. A speck of sand could muck things up quite nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
...or the more ideal, but far less attainable, comparison: a biological helicopter
I'm not one to throw out the word "impossible" very quickly, since people who have used that word have been proven wrong so many times in the past. However, I read an argument back in...Jr. High?...that claimed that a truly rotational structure on a biological organism was at the very least highly improbable. There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to take a good long look at your own shoulders...
No, not really a free-rotating structure, but more than close enough to be re-purposed into driving a rotor or propeller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rotor would have to change shape as it turned to compensate for the effect you describe. Doable, but flapping seems more practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter rotor blades need to be able to change pitch anyways. Easy to adjust pitch to correct this minor issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, 180 degrees at the most. Much easier.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not one to throw out the word "impossible" very quickly, since people who have used that word have been proven wrong so many times in the past. However, I read an argument back in...Jr. High?...that claimed that a truly rotational structure on a biological organism was at the very least highly improbable. There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structure.
How far down the size scale are you looking?
Take a peek at this [asm.org] and see if it's what you're thinking of.
Re: (Score:2)
See the explanation I gave to EvilViper [slashdot.org] for why not. Or, do like I did and simulate a flagellum by attaching a post-it note to a cat-5 cable. Notice what happens to the airflow across the rotor blade as the cat-5 cable "rotates" in your hand. It has to be a truly spinning structure to work, and the flagellum isn't close enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Take a look at the wikipedia article on flagellum, used by bacteria and sperm, among others, for locomotion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum [wikipedia.org]
"The bacterial flagellum is driven by a rotary engine made up of protein (Mot complex), located at the flagellum's anchor point on the inner cell membrane. The engine is powered by proton motive force, i.e., by the flow of protons (hydrogen ions) across the bacterial cell membrane due to a concentration gradient set up by the cell's metabolism (in Vibrio species
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> About the only way I can see to have a biological helicopter would be to have a pair of
> symbiotes -- one being the body of the "helicopter" and the other being the rotor shaft
> and rotor blades.
Clever!
> The two organisms nest together so the rotor organism spins on top of the body organism,
> and the body organism continuously grabs, spins and releases the shaft of the rotor
> organism.
The airframe could drive the rotor with a wavemotor mechanism and feed it predigested nutrients through
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively the rotating part could simply not be alive.
That's actually a pretty good idea... :)
Re: (Score:1)
"I'm not one to throw out the word "impossible" very quickly, since people who have used that word have been proven wrong so many times in the past. However, I read an argument back in...Jr. High?...that claimed that a truly rotational structure on a biological organism was at the very least highly improbable. There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structure. "
I beg to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Real original (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be readily apparent that there's a massive difference between a manned aircraft and a 10g robot. It's not about "thinking of it before", DARPA isn't sponsoring a competition to see who can think of an ornithopter first. It's about execution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either you're completely missing the point or you're just trolling. I doubt that Galileo's "toy" was capable of controlled flight, let alone hovering. This isn't about building a toy that you sit on a charger for 15 minutes so that you can fly it around for 5. This is about building a robot that can travel at 10m/s and be controlled from a range of 1km.
The goals of the NAV program -- namely to develop an approximately 10 gram aircraft that can hover for extended periods, can fly at forward speeds up to 10 meters per second, can withstand 2.5 meter per second wind gusts, can operate inside buildings, and have up to a kilometer command and control range -- will stretch our understanding of flight at these small sizes and require novel technology development.
Does that sound like something that Galileo built 500 years ago? Does that sound like a manned aircraft? Note that the requirements don't say anything a
So now all they need is flying brooms (Score:1, Insightful)
and DARPA can play Quidditch.
For those with tinfoil hats... when does it become (Score:1)
Illegal to shoot birds and insects on sight? We have in some cities ordinances stating "DON'T FEED THE BIRDS/PIGEONS" due to trying to control vermin and bird droppings in public venues.
But, suppose building owners or overreacting individuals decide to "malathion" a bird they think is a spy vehicle?
Well, one way to deal with these things is to put sticky glue traps (mean to cat rodents) all over the place. Or, periodically "mist" the air with soap or sticky/bubbly shit to down them. Or, where there may be p
Two wings only? (Score:2)
> Two wings for propulsion and control, nothing else.
(emphasis mine)
Even hummingbirds have tails. A bee might be a better example, but they have four wings, as do butterflies.
Re: (Score:2)
While bees and wasps do, indeed, have four wings, two pair are joined rather inseparably. For all significant purposes that's a single pair of wings with a dual control joint at the body.
Flies, however, do only have a single pair of wings. But the remnants of the other pair have become ... I think they call them halters ... which vibrate while the fly's flying to act as tiny gyroscopes. (I've never investigated the physics, which sounds rather improbable, but that's what I was told.)
This is probably more
Re: (Score:2)
> But the remnants of the other pair have become ... I think they call them halters ...
> which vibrate while the fly's flying to act as tiny gyroscopes. (I've never investigated
> the physics, which sounds rather improbable, but that's what I was told.)
Vibrating rods can serve as gyroscopes of a sort. It's how MEMS gyros work.
Re: (Score:1)
mosquitoes?
WowWee's Bat and Dragon also hover on wings. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is almost as good as WowWee's Bat and Dragon [wowwee.com]. They're little, they fly with moving wings, and they can hover. $39.99. Available wherever toys are sold [amazon.com]. That's the entry-level product; the next step up, the Green Dragonfly [wowwee.com], is an indoor/outdoor R/C ornithopter capable of hovering.
Those models doesn't have any onboard intelligence, but some of the other WowWee flying machines have collision avoidance. WowWee has a whole line of flying and robotic toys, and they deliver impressive technology at prices well under $100. Maybe DARPA should outsource.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! Thanks for posting that. I had no idea this type of toy was available, and so cheap. You solved an upcoming birthday dilemma for me!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a w too much in your link. The site is called "wowee.com". "wowwee.com" is a scam / domain squatter site.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I'm wrong too. Somehow your link took me to a scam site for no reason. Damn, I hope I don't have a man-in-the-middle! That would be very bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I get it. This scam-site is a NetworkSolutions site. Apparently they intercept some sites, and show ads in-between them. There is a link on the scam site, taking me to this "explanation": http://js.kolmic.com/underconstructionnotice.php?d=Wowwee.com [kolmic.com]
I just now got to that site from WowWee's OWN link on its OWN page, linking to THE SAME domain. WTF?
What a bunch of asshats (NetworkSolutions)!
LD (Score:2)
>> Flapping NAV Performs Controlled Hovering Flight
da Vinci... is that you?
Star Wars (Score:1)
Not working like birds, but worse? (Score:2)
I wonder, why the "wings" flap horizontally instead of vertically. Looks like except for the flapping part, it has nothing to do with how birds fly, but instead is just using uplift like traditional plane wings, but moves the wings quickly trough air for an added effect. This thing could not glide for example.
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, seem like someone who would benefit from viewing a hi-speed video of a hummingbird hovering...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3XT6qoNMMQ [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
fap fap fap
That's what singing meat sounds like, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking Louisville Slugger myself.