Robotic Bird Drones – Robo-Hummer – The First Bird-Bot

12 December 2013

Robo-Hummer - “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”)

On 17 February 2011, DARPA announced the development of the first fully functional robotic bird.  The “Nano Hummingbird” or, as it is also less imaginatively called, the “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”), was the successful result of a project started in 2006 by AeroVironment, Inc. under the direction of DARPA.  Robots, by definition, must “do work.”  And the Nano-Hummer was the first fully functional bird-drone designed and able to perform surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

This robotic hummingbird can remain aloft for 11 minutes and attain a speed of 11 mph.   With a skeleton of hollow carbon-fiber rods wrapped in fiber mesh, coated in a polyvinyl fluoride film, [1] and carrying “batteries, motors, and communications systems; as well as the video camera payload,” the robo-hummer weighs just .67 ounces.

Designed to be deployed in urban environments or on battlefields, this drone is can “perch on windowsills or power lines” and even “enter buildings to observe its surroundings” while relaying a continuous video back to its “pilot."

 Tiny Spying Nano Humming bird revealed by Pentagon.flv

In terms of appearance, the Nano-Hummer was, and is, quite like an actual hummingbird.  Although larger than the typical hummingbird, Nano-Hummer, is well within the size range of the species and is, actually, smaller than the largest of real hummingbirds.  With a facade both shaped and colored to resemble the real bird, the Nano-Hummer presents the viewer with a remarkable likeness of a hummingbird.

The Nano-Hummer isn’t stealth in the sense of evading radar.  Nor is it “cryptic,” that type of camouflage that blends, or disappears, into the surrounding terrain.  Rather, with the appearance of a hummingbird, the designers used a type of camouflage called “mimesis,” also termed “masquerade,” as concealment.  A camouflaged object is said to be “masqueraded” when the object “can be clearly seen, but looks like something else, which is of no special interest to the observer.”  And such camouflage is important to a mini-drone with the primary purpose of surveillance and reconnaissance.

Designing this drone on the “hummingbird model,” however, was not done only for the purpose of camouflage.  The project’s objective included biomimicry, that is, biologically inspired engineering. [2] With the hummingbird, its amazingly diverse flight maneuvers were the object of imitation.  However, UAV’s head researcher, Matt Keennon, admits that a perfect replica of what “nature has done” was too daunting. [3] For example, the Nano-Hummer only beats its wings 20 times a second, which is slow motion compared to the real hummingbird’s 80 beats per second. [video] [4]

Whatever the technical shortfalls, this bird-bot replicates much of the real hummingbird’s flight performance. [5] Not only can it do rolls and back-flips [video] but, most important of all, it can hover like the real thing. [video] [6] Hovering allows the video camera to select and observe stationary targets.

However, this robot’s ability to hover was not developed just for the purpose of reconnaissance and surveillance.   The “hover” of both hummingbirds and bees attracts so much attention from developers of drone technology because it assures success in the most difficult flight maneuver of all — landing.  In fact, landing is the most complex part of flight, and the maneuver most likely to result in accident or disaster.

When landing, a flying object must attain the slowest speed possible before touching down.  Hovering resolves the problem neatly by assuring that the robot can stop in midair and, therefore, touch the ground or perch as zero speed.  Observe the relatively compact helicopter landing port in contrast to the long landing strip required by an airplane which must maintain forward motion when airborne.

This drone has a remarkable range of movement in flight much like the real hummingbird.   Nano-Hummer “can climb and descend vertically; fly sideways left and right; forward and backward; rotate clockwise and counter-clockwise; and hover in mid-air.”  Both propulsion and altitude control are entirely provided by the drone’s flapping wings. [video]

This remote controlled mini-drone can be maneuvered by the “pilot” without direct visual observation using the video stream alone.  With its small camera, this drone can relay back video images of its location.  The camera angle is defined by the drone’s pitch.  In forward motion, the camera provides a continuous view of the ground.  Hovering provides the best camera angle for surveying rooms. [video] [7]

To DARPA, it was particularly important that this drone demonstrate the ability to hover in a 5 mph side-wind without drift of more than one meter.  The inability to remain stable in side-winds was the primary issue with the CIA’s “insectothopter,” a robotic dragonfly was developed in the 1970’s. [image] [8] This unmanned aerial vehicle “was the size of a dragonfly, and was hand-painted to look like one.” [9] Powered by a small gasoline engine, the insectothopter proved unusable due to its inability to withstand even moderate wind gusts. [video]

The Nano-Hummingbird was named by Time Magazine as one of the 50 best inventions of 2011 [10] and has paved the way for the development of a whole generation of bird inspired ‘bots, including Prioria’s “Maverick,” [image] [video] and, the even more “bird-like,” Robo-Raven, which is still in development by the Army Research Laboratory. [image 1] [video] [video]  Also, the development of this first small bird-bot brought the U.S. Air Force one step closer to one of the goals on its wish list: “flocks of small drones.” [11]

And . . . a flock of small drones sounds really cool – as long as the flock isn’t after me.

About the Author

Rumors of Robotic Bees and Other Insect Robots

17 October 2013

Scientists at Harvard are continuing to work on the development of the first robotic bee.  The goal is a robot that can pollinate flowers and crops just like a honeybee.  However, the goal is far away. [1]

Harvard’s “Micro Air Vehicles Project” is using titanium and plastic to fashion a robot that duplicates the functions, if not the appearance, of the familiar honeybee.  The robo-bee pops up, complete with wings, from a quarter-sized metal disk.  One day, it is hoped, these “bees” will be engineered to fly in swarms, live in artificial hives, and locate sources of honey. [2]

In the 1950’s, futurists predicted that we would all be operating flying automobiles by 1970.  Similarly, the prediction of working robotic honeybees may be an optimistic fantasy.  But if the goal is never reached, it will be for no lack of effort on the part of the Harvard scientists.  But there are many hurdles, challenges, and obstacles.

To hear some tell it, a robotic bee is perfected and almost poised to replace its natural counterpart in a brave new world full of disconcerting, mechanical replicas of the familiar and comfortable wildlife around us.  However, that future is definitely . . . in the future.

In order to create a robot that does what a honeybee does, the ‘bot must be the same size as a honeybee.  But that same, small size is the source of a number of problems.  Currently, no lightweight, portable power source exists with both the small size and large capacity needed by the robobee.  But even with a suitable power source, the ‘bot must also be equipped with a portable guidance system.  And there is no guidance system small enough, and lightweight enough, to do the job. [3]

After five years of work, researchers are only now figuring out how to guide the robobee in flight.  Until recently, these robots would just take off, fly in any direction, and . . . crash.  However, with the latest guidance breakthrough, the robobee can now be made “to pitch and roll in a predetermined direction.”  Progress has and will be made through a series of small advances over a long period of time.  So, the rumored release of a swarm of robotic bees to replace our honeybees is far, far away.  [4]

With robotic insects, flight itself is the biggest challenge.  While bird-sized flying drones are being perfected with relative success, flying insect ‘bots present a special aerodynamic problem.  It’s the size.  If you shrink a bird-sized drone down to the size of an insect — it won’t fly.  A roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley, Ronald Fearing, told the Washington Post that “the rules of aerodynamics change” with an object as small as an insect. [5] Unlike bird wings, insect-sized wings must move with amazing precision.

Replicating these precise wing movements is a formidable engineering challenge.  In fact, scientists only recently came to understand how insects fly at all.  Compounding the problems, these precision wing movements require yet larger supplies of portable power. [6]

So, the rumors that robobee will be shoving honeybees out of the way any day now — are only rumors.  Sort of like the persistent rumors suggesting that the U.S. Government secretly developed and used insect drones decades ago.  Given the substantial problems with the current development of controllable, insect-sized flying robots, it’s fair to assume that a robotic insect would have been impossible as far back as the 1970’s.  However, our assumption would be wrong.  These rumors are true.

The CIA’s simple dragonfly snooper was operational in the 1970’s.  The relatively unsophisticated “insectothopter” was the product of the CIA’s Office of Research and Development and rolled off the assembly line almost 40 years ago.  Its tiny gasoline engine was used to make its four wings flap.  However, the insectothopter was scraped because of its inability to fly in a crosswind.  So, with the shelving of the insectothopter, the development of robotic insects ended — only reappearing with the modern resurgence of robotic research.  Or did the U.S. Government secretly continue to develop insect drones?  Again, there are rumors. [7]

Is it possible that some agency has developed a secret, advanced version of the insectothopter?  Sources at the CIA have declined to comment.  When questioned about the possibility of the secret development of flying drone insects, an “expert in unmanned aerial vehicles,” retired Colonel Tom Ehrhard, simply said, “America can be pretty sneaky.”  [8]

On that less than comforting note, we can reconsider another rumor — the rumor of the dragonfly robots.  At recent political events in Washington D.C. and New York, several persons have reported sighting something that they described as a cross between a slightly oversized dragonfly and a miniature helicopter.

Perhaps, these witnesses have mistaken real insects for robots . . . or perhaps not. [9]

There are also rumors about a robotic fly.   But, first, why would anyone want to develop a robotic fly?  Bees are more than useful.  They are also one of the more “popular” insects.  No one can completely dislike a bug that produces honey.  But the fly?  It’s one of the most hated insects of all time.  But the robofly mystery may be more a question of nomenclature.  In other words, a robot’s name may depend, not on how it’s built or what it looks like, as much as what it does.

The only thing mysterious about robofly is the confusion caused by giving the same robotic insect two different names.  Robofly is the same machine as robobee.  [10]

So, what’s with the two names?  Although scientists were attempting to create a flying insect sized ‘bot that would do what a bee does, they actually used the fly as the basis for the design of the wings and flight movement. [11] But, again, what’s with the two names?  When is it called a bee, and when is it called a fly?

Again, the choice of name may depend on what the ‘bot does.  Look at it this way. Robobee is being developed to pollinate crops – a wholesome and useful activity.  The same robot, under the name robofly is being developed as a spy drone — to secretly watch and, perhaps, eavesdrop on some unsuspecting victims.  Surveillance is useful but, today, has developed an ugly reputation.  In other words, when a flying drone spies on “the enemy,” it’s  good.  When it spies on your neighbor, it’s a subject for public debate.  When it spies on you . . . it’s outright evil.

So, this robot is a cheerful “bee” when it’s pollinating.  But, when the same robot starts looking over your shoulder, it’s an unpleasant “fly.”  Just imagine what they would have called this same ‘bot if it had been adapted, not just to listen, but to attack?

They called it Robo-Mosquito.  Well, at least, that was the rumor.

Rumors spread that a new insect drone had been developed called the robo-mosquito.  The proof?  There were pictures.  Pictures of a ‘bot that looked a lot like robobee/fly except it had a sharp syringe-like protuberance, apparently, intended to suck something out of, or inject something into, a victim.  Then, another photo surfaced.  But the robo-mosquito in the new photo looked a bit more like a metallic version of an actual mosquito.  [12]

In fact, the first photo turned out to be robobee.  The photo was slightly retouched to add a syringe-like protuberance.  The second photo was of an actual mosquito retouched, with more than a little artistry, to create the effect of a metallic, mechanical-looking mosquito.  [13]

So, robo-mosquito was only a rumor that turned out to be a hoax.  But, again, the name seemed to follow the function.  At least one photo showed a ‘bot that looked little different than robobee.  So why the new name — mosquito — one of the most hated insects in history?  Perhaps because of what the drone was supposed to do: inject unsuspecting victims with deadly poison.  So, if the robotic insect is designed to do anything bad —  from the unfriendly, like eavesdropping, to the evil and deadly, like injecting poison, it’ll be named after an unfriendly, evil or deadly insect.  Ironically, robo-mosquito’s evil function, injecting unsuspecting victims with poison, has little to do with what a mosquito actually does, but a lot to do with what the “friendly” honeybee does when it stings.

All of these insect-inspired robots are being developed to perform a variety of practical functions.  However, as development continues, our insect robots seem to be gaining the names, if not the functions, of more and more unpopular and unwelcome insect pests.  Why can’t we do something aesthetically pleasing with robots instead of modeling them after ugly insects?  Well, all insects aren’t ugly, and neither are all insect-inspired robots.

A robot is a machine that “does work.”  By that definition, ChouChou the robotic butterfly is not really a robot but, rather, an animatronic device.  That is, a machine that is designed to look and move like a animal.  ChouChou behaves, and even flies, like a butterfly.  The manufacturers, aware of the too- short lifespan of these beautiful insects, promotes ChouChou as the butterfly that lives forever.  But don’t think that no one else is working on robotic butter-bots. [14]

At Johns Hopkins Department of Mechanical Engineering, the research of a student, Tiras Lin, is aimed at mimicking the movements of the Painted Lady Butterfly. [15] And Japanese researchers have developed the “ornithopter” — a flying ‘bot that mimics the flight pattern of a swallowtail butterfly. [16] The swallowtail is unique among butterflies because it remains airborne and propels itself forward only by flapping its wings.  So, is that unusual?

Well, in flight, the movement of the typical insect’s wings is extremely complex and difficult to duplicate.  In contrast, the swallowtail flapping is just that.  There’s nothing subtle or complex about it.  Not only could imitating this movement in a robot prove a much simpler engineering task, but the swallow tail may open the door (or rather the sky) to aircraft with moving wings — a thing most clearly imagined by Leonardo da Vinci’s in his drawings and experiments of five centuries ago.  [17]

About the Author

Festo’s Giant Robot Ant!

02 April 2015

 Festo's Bionic Ant

            A German engineering company, Festo, has created a new robot.  These robots are giant android ants.  You can, apparently, print these giant insects with the 3D printer. 

            Of course, I know from browsing the web, that everyone has a 3D printer.  I don’t, but I always thought everyone else did.  I didn’t buy one because I thought I couldn’t afford it.  But, now, I know a second reason to avoid getting a 3D printer.  I don’t want it printing giant ant robots that will wander through my home when I’m not around messing with my stuff. 

            But, like it or not, giant robotic android ants are here and are probably here to stay.  People who go on giant picnics are no longer safe.  

           These amazing robots are about the size of a human hand.  They have impressive capabilities including stereo camera “eyes” that would allow them to visually estimate distance along with wireless networking to communicate with each other.  This networking would allow them to work together as a group, spontaneously, “in the field,” without the need for specific instructions from a central network.  So, like “Skynet” of the Terminator series, they could devise and execute a plan to take over the world without our even knowing it.
  

           In spite of their bad picnic reputation, ants were chosen as a model because, working together, they can do so many impressive things.  Festo will be presenting these “bionic” ants as their latest development later this month, April 13-17, at the biggest industrial trade show in the world, Hannover Messe.  

           The robot ants follow Festo’s earlier presentations, a robotic kangaroo and robotic penguin.  I'm not sure I even want to see what those two robotic creatures look like.  What am I saying?  Yes, I do!

This is Festo’s Kangaroo Robot:

 

This is Festo’s “Air” Penguin.  I wasn’t expecting the “air” part.

 

 

 

About the Author

Colony Mars: A Robot Snake and A Bumblebee On Mars?

24 October 2013

A colony on Mars?  Applications are now being accepted from would-be volunteers.  From these, four colonists will be chosen for a one way trip to the red planet.  No, this isn’t a NASA Project.  The project belongs to a Dutch company, “Mars One.”  So, when are the colonists scheduled to leave? About 20 years from now.

When you consider that the estimated cost will be 6 billion dollars, you wonder how “Mars One” is planning to finance the project.   With a reality TV show.  But there’s yet another twist to the financing.  The 6 billion dollars will be raised by selling sponsorship/advertising for a reality TV show. The show will be televised from Mars and star the four “lucky” colonists who “won” their one-way ticket to the red planet.

Who would want to go on a one-way trip to Mars — 20 years from now?  Surprisingly, a lot of people — about 100,000 applicants, to date, have paid the $38 dollar application fee – each hoping (1) to pass the fitness screening required to be eligible to make the trip and (2) to win the final selection lottery and be one of the four “lucky” colonists.  I’d like to call this “a plan,” but I’m not holding my breath.  It would take something more before I’d take a Martian colonial adventure seriously. [1]

But, then, “something more” happened.   Bumble bees and Wheeko, a robotic snake, volunteered for a mission to Mars.  This was a game-changer.  I knew these were real contenders for a successful colonial mission.

Of course, it didn’t hurt that Bumbles and Robo-snake were being seriously considered by NASA and the ESA, respectively, rather than “Mars One.”  It also didn’t hurt that both Bumbles and Robo-snake are uniquely fitted to be Martian colonists.

In fact, a study published in Gravitational and Space Biology has demonstrated that bumblebees have “the right stuff.” [image] These, rather rotund, wild bees forage for food in the same wild grass and brush in which they build their nests.  I’m sure that, at first, no one saw them as particularly obvious candidates for a trip to Mars.  But, then, NASA identified an atmospheric pressure of 52 kilopascals (kPa) as “the ideal” for extraterrestrial facilities.  That’s a rather low pressure compared to earth’s normal sea level pressure of 101 kPa.  The search was on for fit space travelers and Martian colonists. And “Bumbles” made the cut, and then some. [2]

While the bumble bee’s cousin, the familiar hive-dwelling honeybee, not only stopped working, but completely lost the ability to fly at an atmospheric pressure of 66.5 kPa, the bumble bee not only thrived at the lower 52 kPa atmospheric pressure, but continued its work, pollinating plants and collecting honey, at its usual pace.

When the pressure was dropped below 50 kPa, “Bumbles” continued to work, but at a slower pace. Then, when the pressure was dropped to 30 kPa, the bumble bees lost their ability to fly but, with an amazing display of mettle, these bees kept on working — foraging, pollinating, and gathering honey, more or less, on foot – crawling from bloom to bloom.  I think this the kind of bee we need to conquer the Final Frontier. [3]

Robo-Snake, on the other hand, has the obvious advantage of being a robot.  [image] So, those conditions necessary for the survival of a biological organism are of little importance to this candidate.  However, Robo-Snake is an odd contender, because he is being considered . . . before he exists.

Although the ESA (European Space Agency) is, more or less, including Robo-Snake as a crew member on an upcoming mission to Mars, this particular robotic crew member has not been developed yet.  It’s a little strange.  But, on second thought, is recruiting a nonexistent crew member to go on a real mission to Mars any stranger than "Mars One" recruiting real crew members to go on a nonexistent mission to Mars? [4]

No matter, Robo-Snake’s older brother is standing-in for his sibling in futuro during the evaluation process. Big brother (named "Wheeko") is a robotic snake that looks and moves surprisingly like a real snake.  It’s modus operandi is beyond a brief and simple description, but one video is worth a 1,000 words. [video]

Wheeko, is composed of ten round metal balls, on the balls are rows of what appear to be smaller balls that roll with motive power and make Wheeko move.  With a camera on its “head,” (which is the lead ball), it makes the familiar serpentine movement of its namesake as it travels on the ground.

Wheeko is the subject of a current feasibility study by researchers at the SINTEF Research Institute in Norway and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.  Until now, the primary purpose of the development of a robotic snake was as a tool to be used on search and rescue missions. As one of the project members, Aksel Transeth, explained, real snakes “can climb rocks and slide through small holes.”  It is hoped that a robot with these skills could be used “to find people in a fallen buildings.”

If Wheeko passes all the tests, what will its little brother, the future Martian colonist, be like? Actually, little brother will be different if for no other reason than he has a sidekick.  Or, more accurately, he will be a sidekick.  But, instead of playing sidekick to his fellow bumblebee colonists, Robo-Snake will play sidekick to the more familiar Mars Rover.  These vehicles are designed for off-roading in the rough Martian terrain.  Yet, however carefully they are directed, they do have a tendency to get stuck.

Enter Robo-Snake. [image]

Not a lone player on the Martian surface, Robo-Snake would be a deployable snake robot or an actual arm attached to the Mars Rover.  The Rover vehicle could detach Robo-Snake to investigate the nooks and crannies of the terrain while allowing the Rover to maintain a safe distance from areas in which the Rover might get stuck.  And if the Rover gets stuck, one proposed design would turn Robo-Snake into something like the Rover’s tentacle arm.  Such an amazingly versatile arm would be able to both push and pull to extricate the Rover if caught in too tight a spot.

So, together, the bumble bees and the Robo-Snake may be the first Martian colonists.  Of course, they won’t be traveling together.  NASA is interested in “Bumbles” and the ESA is interested in Robo-Snake.   But even if they don’t share the same flight to the red planet, they’ll probably meet when they get there.  Right now, Mars isn’t that crowded.  

About the Author

(H H H H H    H H H H H    H H H H H  Q Q Q Q)

Robo-Raven’s Masquerade

19 September 2013

            Robo-Raven is a new reconnaissance and surveillance drone developed by the Army Research Laboratory. [image] Detectible to radar, this drone isn’t stealth.   But it adds some new twists to what we normally associate with camouflage.  As a surveillance and reconnaissance drone, the small Robo-Raven is designed to gather information while flying over a stationary or mobile target. 

            These basic functions, alone, would make Robo-Raven little different from any other military drone. However, reconnaissance and surveillance aren‘t it‘s only functions.  This drone also designed to accomplish its mission while being observed, but not identified.  In other words, Robo-Raven is designed not just to look like a bird, but to be reliably mistaken for a bird. [video]

            Making a military combat or reconnaissance device look like something else is nothing new.  It’s camouflage.

            During World War II, airplanes were painted a particular color and outfitted with carefully positioned lights, which made them blend into the sky.  This delayed identification by ground spotters and allowed an addition measure of surprise.

            Military vehicles are painted with an irregular green, gray, brown, and black pattern to blend into surrounding foliage.  Now used in fashion clothing, that particular color pattern retains the name “camouflage.”

            These examples use paint and lights (counter illumination) to achieve visual crypsis.  Crypsis is a type of camouflage in which an object is designed to blend into a certain type of background, making the object difficult to see or detect.

            However, Robo-Raven adds something new to drone technology as, perhaps, one of the most advanced and innovative examples of the use of mimesis.  Mimesis is particular form of camouflage less mysteriously called masquerade: the camouflaged object looks like something else, which is of no special interest to the observer.

            Robo-Raven is designed not only to look like a bird, but also to move like a bird.  The drone’s wings are designed to move independently and make its bodily movements more naturally match those of a bird.  But that’s not all.  This drone’s pattern of flight is characteristic of a bird.

            So, to improve its masquerade, Robo-Raven is equipped with a substantial set of animatronic movements replicating a bird’s kinesics (body language) and manner of flight.  Borrowed from Hollywood, animatronics is the art and technology of designing mechanical models of animals that move like the real thing.  These models are, generally, used to create the illusion of real animals for film audiences.  In Hollywood, animatronics is about entertainment.  But, with Robo-Raven, animatronics is about concealment.

            So, Robo-Raven isn’t just a camouflaged object that moves.  This drone’s animatronic movements are part of its camouflage — part of its masquerade.  But Robo-Raven’s masquerade doesn’t end with its appearance and movement.  It has something more.  Something that takes it deeply into the world of biorobotics

            The term biorobotics refers to a special subfield of robotics: the study of how to make robots emulate or simulate living biological organisms.  For example, when students of animal behavior observed that the leader of a school of fish beat, or swished, its tail with greater frequency than the followers in the rest of the school, they formulated the question: Does a particular tail movement make a particular fish the leader of a school?

            To answer this question, researchers at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University used a basic form of biorobotics.  They designed a “bio-inspired” robotic fish, which mimics the tail movements of a swimming fish.  This robotic fish’s tail could be set to beat at different speeds by remote control.  When researchers placed their robotic fish in a water tunnel with a school of golden shiner fish, the robotic fish was ignored.  But when its tail speed was set on high, it became the leader.

            The robotic fish was more than just a robot with animatronic movements designed to entertain or even fool human beings.  Its movements were designed to fool other fish.  And Robo-Raven can do the same with other birds.

            John Gerdes, mechanical engineer with the Aberdeen Proving Ground has reported that Robo-Raven “already attracts the attention” of birds in its area.  “[S]eagulls, crows, and songbirds have flown around the Raven in formation,” and the drone has been attacked (unsuccessfully) by “hawks and falcons.” [video] So, Robo-Raven’s animatronic movements not only fool humans, they also fool other birds.

            Of course, Robo-Raven is designed to fool human observers into believing that it’s a bird.  But this drone’s ability to fool real birds is not just an interesting sidelight — it was one of the design objectives.  Fooling other birds is yet another level of Robo-Raven’s masquerade.

            The designers understood that this drone’s “social interaction” with other birds would also be observed by humans.  When Robo-Raven is seen flying with a flock of real birds or being attacked by real birds, human observers will be all the more certain that Robo-Raven is “just a bird” — not a reconnaissance and surveillance drone.

            So, Robo-Raven’s masquerade is composed of its appearance, its movements and, even, its interactive behavior.  In other words, this drone has the appearance and movements of a bird plus something more.  Robo-Raven has the behavior of a bird among birds.

            Robo-Raven is a substantial step forward in both drone technology and biorobotics: a robot that, outwardly, so closely resembles a bird that it becomes more difficult for people or animals to distinguish between the real and the robotic.  In the future, we may all be eying the birds around us — wondering whether they’re really birds. This technology certainly turns the table on birdwatchers.  Who’s watching who?

About the Author

Robot Bees, Mini Surveillance UAV’s & Genetically Engineered Super Bees

25 July 2013

Scientists at Harvard are working on the development the first robotic bee. They hope that their robo-bee will, someday, be able to pollinate flowers and crops just like the organic original: the honeybee.

Beginning in 2009, Harvard’s “Micro Air Vehicles Project” has used titanium and plastic to replicate the functions, if not the appearance, of the familiar honeybee. The robo-bee pops up, complete with wings, from a quarter-sized metal disk. The the creators hope that, one day, “robo-bees” will be engineered to fly in swarms, live in artificial hives, and coordinate both their target locations and pollination methodologies.

In fact, the researcher’s vision of the future “robo-bee” is so striking that one writer expressed the wish that the project’s spokesperson add the phrase “for the good of all mankind” to each progress report. Without it, readers might be reminded of all the movies “about technology that eventually destroys mankind.” In fact, the robo-bee may help save us or, at least, save our food supply.

Bees have been dropping like (the proverbial) flies for over 7 years now. The current bee depopulation was termed a “disappearance,” then, a “die-off” and, now, is formally referred to as “Colony Collapse Disorder.” The decline in bee populations continues at an alarming rate. However, bee die-offs are not just a part of modern life. There have been a number of die-offs in that last couple of centuries. The original European honeybee disappeared from Europe long ago. Its successor, our modern honeybee, was imported from Turkey into Europe and, then, into the United States.

Bees get a lot of scientific attention because they are vital to American agriculture, which is vital to the American economy. Without bees, production of some of our most profitable crops would be impossible. Every few weeks, a news article announces the discovery of “the cause” of the threatened bee “extinction.” Blaming pesticides is almost fashionable. However, these sensational claims do little more than draw attention to particular studies, and the involved researchers. In fact, there probably isn’t a single cause. The current die-off seems to be the result of several factors working together. Sadly, our familiar honeybee may be gone long before the exact combination of factors can be found.

The puzzle goes like this. A bee (1) has a parasite like varroa mites; (2) is exhausted by transport over long distances; and (3) is exposed to a particular pesticide. Alone, none of these factors would kill a bee. Even all of these put together wouldn’t kill a bee. However, all of these put together might weaken the bee’s immune system. Then, with a compromised immune system, the bee contracts, and dies from, a completely unrelated disease. That disease is the final cause the bee’s death. However, the underlying cause is an immune system compromised, not by one factor, but by a particular combination of several factors. For now, that combination remains a mystery.

While science fiction films have portrayed the replacement of human beings with robots, films have never explored the possibly sinister side of robo-bee. Imagine a robotic “Stepford Bee” hiding quietly in the wings waiting for death of the last honeybee. And, then, a “brave new” technological world–without any bees at all!

There is something a bit creepy about human-engineered bees pollinating crops grown from human-engineered seeds. One writer described the disturbing vision as “swarms of tiny robot bees . . . pollinating those vast dystopian fields of GMO cash crops.”

By the way, one developer of those “GMO cash crops,” Monsanto, sponsored a recent “Bee Health Summit” in Saint Louis, Missouri. A company spokesperson acknowledged that the beekeepers might have heard some “scary stuff” about Monsanto. The summit is the company’s effort to “introduce itself to the beekeeping industry” and “raise their comfort level.”  And there was some discomfort with one beekeeping guest commenting, “I can’t believe I’m at Monsanto.”

On the comforting side, Monsanto is after one of the oldest and most clearly identified factors in declining bee health, the parasitic varroa mite, which spreads a variety of viruses to honeybees. Researchers with Beeologics, one of Monsanto’s recent acquisitions, are planning to use RNA, a genetic regulator that determines how a plant or insect “works.” The RNA would be fed to the bee and, then, would be ingested by the mites. Once in the mite’s system, the RNA would “turn off” the mite’s virus transmitting gene.

With this RNA intervention, and other technologies, our honeybees may yet be saved from relative extinction.  Then, their robotic replacements would have to remain on the shelf.  But hold on. Genetically engineering the mite is only one step closer to genetically engineering the honey bee. So, we may be saved from robotic bees by . . . GMO bees?

Well, as our GMO bees pollinate our GMO crops, we can only feel a pang of sorrow for our robo-bee languishing in the shadows. With a revived, genetically engineered super-honeybee, where could a robotic bee go? What would it do?

No problem.  Harvard’s Micro Air Vehicles Project had that covered from the beginning.  The project’s published reports also suggest potential military uses. So, robo-bee, with some market repositioning, becomes the world’s smallest drone.

Well, if Monsanto “saves” the honeybee, who will be interested in our newly re-branded and repositioned mini-drones? Again, possibly Monsanto, which, at least once in the past, retained a private security contractor “to protect its GMO crops.”   The “protection” was less exciting than it sounds.  It was limited to the simple monitoring of public information. 

Still, what security company couldn’t use swarms of surveillance mini-drones?  So, if Monsanto needs security in the future, robo-bee might play a part in the security provider’s services.

Finally, we end up with yet another, unexpected vision of our future.  Just picture it.  We stand watching the setting sun as swarms of genetically engineered super-bees pollinate “dystopian fields of GMO cash crops,” while we, ourselves, are closely surveilled by swarms of robo-bees or, rather, “mini-drones.”

Why does everything just keep getting weirder?

The End?

[Author’s Note: Actually, Robo-Bee is a long, long way from rolling off the assembly line and into the fields.  Even farther away are the technologies and knowledge necessary to genetically engineer anything as complicated as an insect.]

About the Author

 Selected Source Links:

Harvard scientists unleash the robot bees

Robotic Bees to Pollinate Monsanto Crops, 04/08/13, Russ McSpadden http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/robotic-bees-to-pollinate-monsanto-crops/

Monsanto hopes to win over beekeepers with cure, 06/14/13, Georgina Gustinhttp://www.stltoday.com/business/local/monsanto-hopes-to-win-over-beekeepers-with-cure/article_19e82066-0e5f-5a57-bcfd-9232d81db401.html