17-Year-Old Student Builds 3D-printed Drone In Garage, Interests DoD and MIT (yahoo.com) 45
"Cooper Taylor is only 17 years old, but he's already trying to revolutionize the drone industry," writes Business Insider:
His design makes the drone more efficient, customizable, and less expensive to construct, he says. He's built six prototypes, 3D printing every piece of hardware, programming the software, and even soldering the control circuit board. He says building his drone cost one-fifth of the price of buying a comparable machine, which sells for several thousand dollars. Taylor told Business Insider he hopes that "if you're a first responder or a researcher or an everyday problem solver, you can have access to this type of drone."
His innovation won him an $8,000 scholarship in April at the Junior Science and Humanities Symposium, funded by the Defense Department. Then, on May 16, he received an even bigger scholarship of $15,000 from the US Navy, which he won after presenting his research at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair...
It all started when Taylor's little sister got a drone, and he was disappointed to see that it could fly for only about 30 minutes before running out of power. He did some research and found that a vertical take-off and landing, or VTOL, drone would last longer. This type of drone combines the multi-rotor helicopter style with the fixed wings of an airplane, making it extremely versatile. It lifts off as a helicopter, then transitions into plane mode. That way, it can fly farther than rotors alone could take it, which was the drawback to Taylor's sister's drone. Unlike a plane-style drone, though, it doesn't need a runway, and it can hover with its helicopter rotors.
Taylor designed a motor "that could start out helicopter-style for liftoff, then tilt back to become an airplane-style motor," according to the article.
And now this summer he'll be "working on a different drone project through a program with the Reliable Autonomous Systems Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Thanks to Slashdot reader Agnapot for sharing the news.
His innovation won him an $8,000 scholarship in April at the Junior Science and Humanities Symposium, funded by the Defense Department. Then, on May 16, he received an even bigger scholarship of $15,000 from the US Navy, which he won after presenting his research at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair...
It all started when Taylor's little sister got a drone, and he was disappointed to see that it could fly for only about 30 minutes before running out of power. He did some research and found that a vertical take-off and landing, or VTOL, drone would last longer. This type of drone combines the multi-rotor helicopter style with the fixed wings of an airplane, making it extremely versatile. It lifts off as a helicopter, then transitions into plane mode. That way, it can fly farther than rotors alone could take it, which was the drawback to Taylor's sister's drone. Unlike a plane-style drone, though, it doesn't need a runway, and it can hover with its helicopter rotors.
Taylor designed a motor "that could start out helicopter-style for liftoff, then tilt back to become an airplane-style motor," according to the article.
And now this summer he'll be "working on a different drone project through a program with the Reliable Autonomous Systems Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Thanks to Slashdot reader Agnapot for sharing the news.
Really Cool, But... (Score:3)
This is actually really cool. It's a highly commendable achievement for a teenager.
But, I fail to see why MIT or the DOD would be interested in what is basically a RC model of a tilt rotor like the V22 Osprey.
Re:Really Cool, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are more likely interested in the talent, not the specific thing he created. The money prizes listed are not that big when you look at the big picture of fostering and acquiring top talent.
Re: Really Cool, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
But, I fail to see why MIT or the DOD would be interested in what is basically a RC model of a tilt rotor like the V22 Osprey.
They aren't. Try reading the TFS. Does it look like MIT or the DOD paid him money for the drone?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't appear to be a tilt rotor, rather the entire drone tilts so the wings go from vertical to horizontal.
I don't know how useful this could be for anything that carries people but it could prove useful for developing more efficient, and therefore longer range, VTOL drones.
The article was not specific on what he developed so it is difficult to tell just what is unique.
Re: (Score:1)
Oops, the video shows it is in fact a tilt rotor. Slashdot should allow for edits and deletes of posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot should allow for edits and deletes of posts.
No, it shouldn't. Hell, that's a large percentage of the fun.
Make sure you're right the first time around. If not, we get to guffaw when people make mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
They're probably not. The US Navy sponsored the science fairs he entered. They do that kind of thing to encourage talented kids to turn into talented adults who might want to work on weapons programs. It says right in the summary the MIT program is working on a different drone project.
Re:If he tangos with the DoD (Score:5, Informative)
Why would anyone say that?
First, recruitment for the military is high right now so he's joining when things are looking good.
Second, the views of the DoD change with time (usually by which political party controls the White House) so if people look to their present than the association at the time of the awards then it's not likely to be a lifetime "shame" to bear.
Third, he won some awards for demonstrating technical skill in making drones. He wasn't making weapons, though it could be turned into a weapon. The drone could also be used to transport much needed medical supplies for when the military responds to large natural disasters. The DoD hands out lots of money for technology that ends up being used for peaceful and lifesaving purposes. Computers and the internet are technologies that came from DoD funding, at least in part, and you are using them right now.
Fourth, this is a pretty "light" association. He has as much association with MIT as DoD over this as MIT invited him to participate in a summer program there because of his drone demonstrations. Also, there were other people showing interest in the technology, they just didn't give him money or a scholarship for a kind of summer school.
I could think up more reasons to question this being a lifetime of shame by his association with the DoD now or in the future. It all depends on what he and the DoD end up doing with the technology, and how people in general view the DoD.
Re: If he tangos with the DoD (Score:1)
Have you heard of nonviolent noncooperation, which requires no military?
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, veterans are a 'protected class' and discriminating against them while hiring is against the law.
(In the US... I can't speak for other countries.)
This law was in place when I was still regularly hiring people. I assume that it's still true with perhaps even stronger protections. In fact, if they left your company to serve in the military, you're supposed to rehire them if they return. That law is more recent, but still quite old. I forget the details, but that changed in the 1990s.
Re: If he tangos with the DoD (Score:1)
Did you just explain why the next President should go double-DOGE on the military?
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for your service!
Re: (Score:2)
If you use that descendant of the ARPANET, so will you.
Re: ORLY? (Score:1)
Has he shown us how criminally inefficient current capitalist-produced drones are?
Would we all actually be a lot better off if Jobs never met Woz and the Homebrew Club had continued innovating free computers?
Re: ORLY? (Score:2)
Has he shown us how criminally inefficient current capitalist-produced drones are?
I don't know about that, but I do know that those expensive capitalist made drones they sell to first responders and the armed forces come with something a DIY model doesn't: a guarantee. Are they overpriced? Yes, of course they are, but let's not make dishonest comparisons between bare-bones hobbyist models and the tricked-out gear that professionals can actually rely on.
Again, fair play to the kid, but I honestly don't see what's newsworthy here. At his age I was making model Stirling engines from empty t
Re: ORLY? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It appears the distinction is the use of 3D printed parts than using machined aluminum.
Is that a distinction without a difference? Perhaps. Either way the DoD wants to encourage this young man to continue his work, and that encouragement came in the form of some money and an "attaboy". Maybe there will be more encouragement from the DoD later, perhaps an invite to attend a military academy, or some funds to study STEM at university.
Maybe the DoD wants to encourage young men and women to get a start in st
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you fired up the steel mill for the pie pan when you baked an apple pie from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
clickbait implies the journalists or website editors knew the difference.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How many of you made a working drone at 17? Think about what he could come up with in the future? Always look for future talent everyone, you never know where you could find it. Also, Lockheed Martin has entered the chat.
Jealous? No. Rather - sad. Sad that these opportunities are only afforded to those from affluent families. Rather than funding such innovations nationwide through public education to many bright and young individuals, the United States government has instead chosen to gut such funding for decades now with the more recent times being especially egregious.
Re: (Score:1)
If we are to have public education then we need schools to compete for students and educators. And the public schools should have to compete with private education of varied kinds, such as religious schools and home schooling.
Oh, and have parents that opt out of public schools get a government stipend to assist in paying for the private education.
Or just be rid of public schools entirely as they have proven to be terrible at education, and often pose a threat to the health and safety of children. An examp
Re: (Score:2)
"How many of you made a working drone at 17?"
We were making fly by wire RC planes as pre-teens in the 80s.
rc plane (Score:3)
Interesting that he fabricated some parts etc, but all RC model planes these days are electric and can take to the air in a few feet. Here's one for $120 including batteries and controller;
https://www.horizonhobby.com/p... [horizonhobby.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A few feet is not straight up from the user's hand, so doesn't work for the kind of problems this drone is intended to solve. And that plane has a flight time of seven minutes, which is vastly shorter than the drone he's building.
The problem is that you can't go buy something that will launch straight up, with good control to avoid foliage canopies or broken buildings, yet manage to stay in the air for over 100 minutes. That's what he's built.
Re: (Score:2)
>> manage to stay in the air for over 100 minutes. That's what he's built.
Not so fast. "He's flown it for up to 15 minutes at a time, but he has calculated that at the rate it uses power, it should last for 105 minutes cruising at 45 mph."
Sorry but I'm skeptical. And his "latest prototype weighs about 6 pounds" which is a lot. That thing has to carry a heavy battery to fly 15 minutes. The plane I linked weighs 2.5oz with battery.
He has built a 2-prop RC plane that can take off vertically and go horizo
Re: (Score:2)
And the plane you linked flies 7 minutes at most. His already flies twice as long. And of course it's heavy; if you want to carry vision systems and sensors you can't use a 1/8 poodle plane.
What he has built is a drone which can change into a plane, and back, at will. It's not a one time change. It can stop and hover (at greater battery cost) at any time. And you're absolutely wrong about this stuff being available off the shelf. The parts aren't, and the electronics most definitely aren't; drone control sy
Re: (Score:2)
You have been able to buy programmable drone controller boards on the internet for years, and they can run open source software that you can modify as needed. https://www.ourpcb.com/drone-b... [ourpcb.com]
I assure you that you can buy model plane parts, or just entire planes cheaply as I have shown, and use those to build a custom plane. Making one with swiveling props doesn't seem like a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
From a pure manoeuvrability point of view you haven't solved the problem. The ability to take off and land in a few feet is not only a few feet more than zero, but it fails to address the situations where you want to stop at a position in the air. A VTOL craft can do that. A helicopter can do that. Your RC plane cannot. Unless your drone is a military kamikaze flying from Ukraine to Russia for the express purpose of flying into something and going boom, or flying really high for recon, the reality is most d
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, but I don't think a VTOL at that scale is a very big jump from a cheap model plane.
Meanwhile.. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
Injection molding is how to make more than toys. 3D printing will always be expensive, inefficient, and non-scalable.
While injection molding has cost and scale advantages, It also has large upfront costs and isn't easy changed to accomplish design improvements. There are also other costs that 3D printing can help limit, such as storage, logistics, etc. It all depends what you want to do. For DOD, the ability to customize as well as print replacements and parts deployed are key advantages; and something they have been working on for years. I remember seeing a laser 3d printer in the earlier 2000's designed to print rep
Captain obvious called... (Score:1)
...and asked what the media is smoking.
OBVIOUSLY his machine costs one fifth of the SELLING price of a commercial unit... Because the commercial unit doesn't cost the selling price to make either.
Why would anyone care? The MIT especially could easily do the same, better probably, and the DoD could as well but the point is the DoD is not in the manufacturing business, is it? And it doesn't want to be and if they had this dude manufacture his drone for them, well, guess what, he'd have to raise the price to f
Re: Captain obvious called... (Score:1)
Did you just intimate that insurance costs 500% while completely ignoring the profit motive and predatory pricing?
Ingenuity+ (Score:1)
Only for drones (Score:2)
From the scant information provided, I surmise that the mechanism employed is running the motor backwards to activate a transition. Not a terrible design but it does mean that it also temporarily halts the rotation of the propeller since it has to go backwards. Obviously, it's not about to appear on human carrying aircraft. I think the part that may have impressed judges more is the simplicity and modularity of the design.
It likely has some reliability issues but it's a neat proof-of-concept.
Re: (Score:2)
The information says the motor tilts to transition. That's all. It would use a servo for that motion. The rotors would never halt, that doesn't make any sense.
Human carrying aircraft already do this. The Osprey is a prime example. It's very complicated and maintenance heavy for that application, but the rules are very different in light weight RC controlled craft. Such a mechanism can be a simple hinge and an off the shelf servo, and still be light and reliable. That's really easy to do. The tricky bit is m
O5 (Score:4, Insightful)
At least the Navy didn't offer to make him a Commander [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
His mother could still attend an expensive dinner. https://www.rollingstone.com/p... [rollingstone.com]
The problem is... (Score:3)
... that the industry supplying the military isn't at all interested in making simple, cheap drones that can be mass-produced for even cheaper. They're interested in making the most complex, expensive drones in small numbers they can still sell.
I mean, hobbyists and small companies have been throwing together lots of impressive and (necessarily) cheap designs for a long time. Lifting flight to extend range while still having hover and vertical take-off capabilities really is easy to do with electric multi-rotors.
Here's a design of an even piloted multi-rotor craft that turns from a (kinda) quadcopter into a (kinda) biplane without any tilting rotors or wings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There's enormous potential coming just from having multiple electric motors you can finely control instead of either lifting flight with one or several forward thrust rotors or helicopters with one highly complex rotor.
This is SO obvious from all the fun toys you can buy now for very little money, but there's absolutely no incentive to turn this into a military advantage. Maybe just for the better...
Re: (Score:1)
Your example uses eight motors while the entire point of this young man's drone getting attention is he got the same outcome with only two motors. Motors are expensive, 3D printed parts are cheap. Well it's likely more like three motors since something had to do the tilting. A quadcopter variant would require twice as many motors, and a system like that shown in the video you linked to may have downsides that aren't obvious to the untrained observer like myself.
Do you believe that military contractors ca