‘BOTS: The Insectothopter – The First Miniature Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

4 September 2014

The Insectothopter

THE RUMOR

            There is rumor about a flying robot.  At recent political events in Washington D.C. and New York, several people said they saw something that they described as a cross between a slightly over-sized dragonfly and a miniature helicopter.  Maybe these reporters mistook real insects for robots . . . or maybe not.  [1]

            There are no insect-sized UAV’s.  The smallest is a bird-sized 'bot -- the Nano Hummingbird.  Formally named, the “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”), this bird 'bot was developed, in 2011, by AeroVironment, Inc. under the direction of DARPA

"Nano Air Vehicle" or Robo-Hummingerbird

THE PROBLEM IS FLIGHT

            So, if you want an insect-sized robot, why not just shrink Robo-Hummer down to the size of an insect? 

            The problem is flight.

            With robotic insects, flight itself is the biggest challenge.  While bird-sized flying drones are now being developed 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.  [2] Unlike bird wings, insect-sized wings must move with amazing precision. 

            Replicating these precise wing movements is a major engineering challenge.  In fact, scientists only recently came to understand how insects fly at all.  Compounding the problem, these precision wing movements require yet larger supplies of portable power.  [3]

SOME HISTORY

            While robotic insect flight, in reality, has yet to be mastered by modern technologists, in science fiction, the technology was mastered in 1936 in Raymond Z. Gallun’s The Scarab.  Gallun’s robotic beetle flew like any other insect, but transmitted to its “manipulator” what it heard and saw through its “ear microphones” and “minute vision tubes.”

            Philip K. Dick refers to a commercial robotic fly in his novel, The Simulacra.

            Fast forward to the 1970’s.  America’s CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) had developed an eavesdropping (listening) device, but needed a way to use it.  In other words, the agency needed a way to “deliver” it to a target location.  Needless to say, the delivery had be unnoticed if the device was to serve its purpose.

Insectothopter

THE FIRST MINI UAV

            An insect-sized mini UAV seemed ideal.  And, of course, making the UAV look like an actual insect solved another problem - camouflage.  It wasn't enough to get the listening device to the target.  The target must, also, not know that the device was there.  

            At first, the bumblebee was to be the model for the mini UAV, but this insect was rejected due to its erratic flight.  One project member, reasonably familiar with insects, suggested the dragonfly.  This proved to be the almost perfect solution.

            One has to admire the simple ingenuity that went into the construction of what would become the Insectothopter.  Even with all the grants and theoretical computer models of today, the development of an insect sized drone remains in the future.   Yet, in the 1970’s, a group of project technologists just did it – in rather short order. 

            Today, we are just learning exactly how insects manage to fly.  But the CIA technologists of the 1970’s didn’t bother with the science true insect flight.  Instead, they just designed a set of wings with up and down movements that gave the Insectothopter both lift and thrust.

            Today, the development of a light, yet powerful, propulsion system for small drones remains a daunting task.  But in those far off days of the 1970’s, the CIA technologists simply used a gasoline engine to power the Insectothopter.  Certainly, the engine was loud, but the project members had selected their "model" insect well.  Have you ever heard a dragonfly in flight?  The gasoline engine probably made less noise than the real flying dragonfly. 

            But how could you design a gasoline (or any other kind of) engine that small?  Today, it would require a staggering amount of dollar grants and a consortium of research facilities to design a computer simulated prototype.  But, in the 1970’s, you just found a good watchmaker.  And project did just that. 

            The result was a miniature oscillating engine that would make the wings beat.  A fuel bladder carried the engine's liquid propellant.  Not only did the liquid propellant power the engine, but the excess gas was vented out the rear of the mini UAV, giving the Insectothopter added thrust.  The Insectothopter was directed using a laser beam and, finally, was hand-painted to look like a dragonfly.

Insectothopter

            But the insectothopter never made it into the field.  It’s downfall was its inability to withstand cross-drafts.  Real insects can drift a bit with the wind, but the operator of a surveillance drone must be able to direct it to a target if any meaningful surveillance is to take place.  Only a five mile per hour crosswind would throw the insectothopter off course.

            Today, the smallest operational UAV is AeroVironment’s “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”).  With the story of the Insectothopter in mind, it’s easier to understand why DARPA’s project specifications for that project required that the “Nano Air Vehicle” demonstrate the ability to hover in a 5 mph side-wind without drift of more than one meter.

"Nano Air Vehicle" or Robo-Hummingerbird

THE END?

            So, with the retirement of the Insectothopter, the development of robotic insects ended -- only reappearing with the modern resurgence of robotic research. 

            But remember those recent political events in Washington D.C. and New York, at which several persons said they saw something that they described as a cross between a slightly over-sized dragonfly and a miniature helicopter.  Maybe these reporters mistook real insects for robots . . . or maybe not.

            Is it possible that the CIA secretly continued to develop insect drones?

            Has some U.S. Government agency 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.”  [4]

About the Author

 

'BOTS: Robo-Roach? Just What We Need?!

12 June 2014

            A robotic cockroach?

            Okay.

            What is this ‘bot going to do that is so bad that it earned the name “cockroach?”

            There are other robotic insects in the research and development phase.  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 still 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]

            But a “Robo-Bee” just has to be a “nice” robot.  After all, who doesn’t like honeybees?  Even though bees are insects, they’re some of the hardest workers in a major human industry – agriculture.   Not only do bees work in agriculture, but agriculture would be pretty much impossible without them.  Bees pollinate crops.  And who can really dislike a bug that makes honey?

            But cockroaches are really unpopular.  Consider another robot named after a “less than popular” insect.

            There’s a robot in the works called “Robo-Fly.”  But this brings up a question.  Why would anyone want to develop a robotic fly?  Bees are more than useful, and who can forget the honey-making.  But the fly?  It’s one of the most hated insects of all time.  But the mystery of “why robo-fly?” is actually a question of semantics – it’s about “names.”

            In fact, Robo-Fly is exactly the same robotic insect that is being developed as Robo-Bee.  Why give the same small robot two different names?  And, why give it a nice name “bee” and, then, a not-so-nice name “fly?”

            Well, it’s about market positioning.  The names “bee” and “fly” are more about what these little robots are sold to do.  Does that mean the Robo-Fly will do what flies do -- land on food at outdoor gatherings and irritate dogs on hot summer days?  No, it’s even stranger than that.

            When perfected, the “Micro Air Vehicle” will be marketed as Robo-Bee when it is to be used to do what bees do – pollinate crops.  But this same insect-sized robot will also be marketed as a mini surveillance drone.  The surveillance drone gets the not-so-nice name: Robo-Fly.

            Look at it this way.  When the robot is intended to secretly watch and, perhaps, eavesdrop on some unsuspecting victims, it gets a less flattering name like “fly.”   Surveillance is useful but, today, has developed an ugly reputation.  Don’t get me wrong, when a flying drone spies on “the enemy,” it’s okay.  When it spies on my neighbor, it’s a subject for public debate.  But, when it spies on me . . . it’s downright evil!

            So the Micro Air Vehicle is a lovable Robo-Bee when it’s hard at work pollinating crops in our fields.  But it is an unwelcome “Robo-Fly” when it’s looking over our shoulders and eavesdropping on our private lives.

            So, that brings us back to Robo-Roach.  What is this ‘bot going to do that is so bad that it earned it the name “cockroach?”

            Well, it isn’t actually named “cockroach.”  It’s called “roach,” but that’s only part of its name.  Its full name is VelociRoACH.  The “veloci” means speed, and that’s what it’s got.  It’s fast.  So, the “cockroach” name mystery is solved when you realize that cockroaches are very fast critters.

            So, Robo-Roach isn’t about making an indestructible pest to replace the one humanity spends millions of dollars yearly to eliminate.  It’s about imitating what the cockroach can do: run fast. The concept is biomimetic or what is sometimes called biomimicry.

            “Biomimetics” is a term used to describe a methodology of approach to technological design: the development of technology designed to imitate and replicate the activities of biological systems and organisms.  Some time ago, the term “bionic” was coined to describe a technology incorporating a “function copied from nature.” When Hollywood got a hold of the term “bionic,” the “Six Million Dollar Man” hit the small screen. Maybe Hollywood’s version of “bionics” was just too interesting to be seriously “scientific.”  Whatever the reason, the term “bionic” fell into scientific oblivion.

            The gap was filled by the term “biomimicry,” which has been widely adopted to describe any technology imitating (copied from) nature.  Sometimes, biomimicry is more of a necessity than a choice. If you want robots that work like a biological organism, you’ll either have to imitate the organism or forget the project altogether.

            The cardboard Robo-Roach or, rather, VelociRoACH was conceived by Duncan Haldane and his colleagues at UC Berkeley’s Biomimtic Millisystems Lab.  This 4 inch-long robot “runs” at about 6 mph.  For its size, it’s the fastest robot in the world.

            Their real-life model?  The American cockroach.

            Why?  That same cockroach is one of the fastest insects in the world.

            But what about the evil, roach-like purpose for which this ‘bot is intended?  Actually, VelociRoACH has no evilpurpose at all.  It’s designed to be a search and rescue ‘bot.

            Okay, but what’s with the “cardboard?”

            Actually, the cardboard is one of this robot’s most important features.  Haldane explained, “The idea is that we can build a huge number of very cheap, bio-inspired robots with remarkable mobility to quickly find people trapped in a disaster site.”

            VelociRoACH is designed to go where human beings can’t in a disaster situation. The ‘bot is intended to assist in the location of the injured and provide information to assure the safety of rescue personnel.   VelociRoACH’s C-shaped legs work like springs, just like those of a cockroach.  With three of its six legs on the ground at all times, when it runs, the ‘bot remains remarkable stable.  But it’s most interesting feat is the way it handles obstacles.  It does just what a real roach does – it runs right into them -- head first.  This throws the VelociRoACH back into an upright position from which it crawls right over the obstruction.  This, by the way, is exactly how the real cockroach deals with obstacles. 

            Well, considering how useful our Robo-Roach will be, I guess we can tolerate at least one robot designed to imitate one of our less than favorite critters.  At least, they didn’t design a Robo-Lizard.

            Oh, wait.  They did. 

            Same team.  Different day.

            “Clash” is a 4 inch, six-legged robot with a tail.  It climbs near-vertical surfaces with the aid of a “gecko-inspired adhesive” on its feet.  Observers agree.  This ‘bot looks like a lizard.

The End?

M Grossmann of Hazelwood, Missouri & Belleville, Illinois

About the Author

Of interest:
 
Cardboard cockroach ranks among world's fastest robots

Robotic cockroach faster than the real thing

VelociRoACH: A tiny robotic cockroach with a need for speed

VelociRoACH: A Tiny, Super-Fast Robot Cockroach Made from Cardboard That Can Save Lives

‘BOTS: Maveric -- The Bird ‘Bot

10 June 2014

            What is DARPA looking for in the mini UAV, an “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle?”  Well, if you go to their website you’ll find (1) that DARPA knows what it wants, and (2) it produces some long lists of “required” or “necessary” project objectives.   

            But let’s take a step back and refocus on the big picture.  DARPA is looking for mini UAV’s with two characteristics.  First, maneuverability – a maneuverability that rivals the most remarkable flying critters -- birds and insects.  The ideal surveillance and reconnaissance mini-drone would be able to “investigate” its environment with the resourceful maneuverability of a flying insect or bird searching for its next meal.

            Second, DARPA wants camouflage.  It’s one thing to develop a mini UAV able to engage in surveillance and reconnaissance activities.  But, the information obtained through surveillance and reconnaissance is most valuable when the "subjects of observation" do not know they have been observed.  To accomplish this, a mini UAV must not be easy to see or, at least, easy to identify.

            So DARPA wants a UAV that (1) maneuvers like the most acrobatic of birds or flying insects and (2) will not be identified as a UAV by an observer.  Amazingly, these are not conflicting objectives.  In fact, animal-like maneuverability and camouflage dovetail perfectly.

            What DARPA calls “biologically inspired” is, in robotic technology, referred to as “biomimetics” or “biomimickry.”  These terms describe a kind of revolution in the concept and design of robots. 

            In the 1950’s, the sci-fi vision of robotic technology was both exotic and strange.  The technology of the future was envisioned and presented as something completely different and contrary to our natural biological surroundings.  However, when technology confronted reality, we biological organisms seem to have had the last laugh because we could (and still can) do a whole lot of extremely useful things that our most sophisticated technology cannot.

            The jeep took a basic automobile and raised the center of gravity, increased the size and scale of the automotive suspension system and produced spectacular off-road performance for a machine with wheels.  But the wheel, itself, was limited.  Every Rover we’ve sent to Mars ended its life when it got stuck. 

            Human beings aren’t the strongest animal in the forest, but if just two of us were with those Rovers on Mars, we’d have extended their useful lives by getting them “un-stuck” in short order.  Why?  Because we have a repertoire of movements and leverage that we can use to apply force in almost any direction.  The best of those early sci-fi ’bots looked high-tech but, in fact, were functionally stunted.

            When sci-fi was still dominated by those inhuman and unnatural versions of mechanistic technology, a new technological methodology was, quietly, born.  “Biomimetics” was the first term used to describe the development of technology designed to imitate and replicate the activities of biological systems and organisms.  Then, another term, “biomimicry,” was widely adopted to describe any technology imitating (copied from) from nature. 

            But, in some contexts, biomimicry is more of a necessity than a choice.  If you want drones that work in a particular way, and the only known example of such performance is a biological organism, you’ll either have to imitate the organism or forget the project altogether.  So, to get flying ‘bots that maneuver the way flying insects and birds do, the ‘bots must be designed to imitate the actual form and movement of these same creatures.

            But, once you manage to replicate the form and functionality of a flying insect or a bird in a UAV, how do you camouflage it?  That's easy.   Disguise it as . . . a flying insect or a bird!  In modern robotics, biomimckry and camouflage often go hand in hand.

            A little more detail.  This form of camouflage is of a type called “mimesis” or “masquerade.”  The masqueraded object is quite visible to the observer, but is designed to be mistaken for something else.  That “something else” would be of no particular interest to the observer.  So, when the mini UAV flies overhead, those who are being reconnoitered will think, “It’s just a bird.” 

            An early attempt at this combination was the “Insectothopter.”  Everyone “knew” that the techno-savvy needed to build a robotic insect that actually flew like the real thing was not available in the 1970’s.  But the CIA did it anyway.  The laser guided Insectothopter was powered by a small gasoline engine.  Loud?  Maybe, but if you’ve ever heard a real dragon fly as it flies past your ear . . . .  Well, you’d hardly notice the difference. 

            But the Insectothopter never was “deployed” because of a stability issue.  For a mini UAV to be effective in surveillance and reconnaissance, the operator had to be able to direct it to a defined target.  With the Insectothopter, a  five mph cross-wind made such navigation impossible.  

            Only in 2011 was the next bio-inspired mini UAV unveiled.  The “Nano Hummingbird” or, technically, the “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”) was the first fully functional bird-drone designed and able to perform surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

            The “Nano Air Vehicle” project began in 2006 with Aero Vironment, Inc. working under the direction of DARPA.  If you know the history of the Insectothopter, you can appreciate the significance of one of the DARPA project requirements:  the Nano Hummer must demonstrate the ability to hover in a 5 mph side-wind without drift of more than one meter.

            Robo-Hummer was the first successful surveillance and reconnaissance bird ‘bot.  But Robo-Hummer was designed in imitation of the hummingbird -- nature’s version of helicopter.  DARPA also wanted a bird ‘bot that would perform more like a winged aircraft.   The next bird ‘bot would be capable of high-speed flight.  But it would, also, have an appearance close enough to that of a bird to achieve masquerade.  In other words, the viewer would mistake the mini UAV for a bird.

            Florida’s Prioria Robotic responded with a mini UAV -- Maveric.  In terms of its field capabilities, Maveric is an amazing technical achievement.  This UAV can be carried, launched and operated by a by a single person.  The entire bird ‘bot is “bendable” and when not in operation, is carried fully assembled, but folded up, in a 6 inch tube.  The operator simply (1) pulls it out of the tube, (2) powers it up, (3) checks its sensors, and (4) launches it by throwing it into the air.

            In flight, Maveric can reach a speed of 55 knots (63 mph). More amazing is Maveric’s fully autonomous operation from launch to landing.  How does it know its target?  It has a point-and-click feature that allows the operator to find the target on a screen.  Then, point and click on the target.  After launch, what does the operator do next?  Often, nothing.                                                                        

            Maveric is able to operate with full autonomy from launch to landing.  This ‘bot doesn’t require a human pilot to operate it in flight.  The operator need only define the mission – that is -- where to fly and where to land.  How does Maveric do it?  Through the use of a system called Merlin. 

            Merlin is Prioria’s proprietary processing platform.  The Merlin “brain” is carried and contained entirely on board Maveric during flight.  The “brain” processes images and operates vision-based controls – without the assistance or necessity of a human operator.  This makes Maveric the first smart SUAS, “Small Unmanned Aerial System.”   Of course, Maveric can also be flown manually with a joystick while still providing the “pilot” with autopilot assistance.

            Of course, from a distance, Maveric looks like a bird.  And, in many environments, can be expected to be mistaken for bird.  Its smart system also provides a measure of stealth in terms of electronic transmissions.

             Radio signals providing a live audio or video feed to the remote operator are as common in surveillance drones as they are problematic.  The “problem” is radio waves.  These radio transmissions create a detectable signature that can disclose the presence and location of a surveillance drone. 

            With Maveric, the operator can control the timing of transmissions to delay broadcast of the live feed in sensitive locations – locations in which a radio transmission might be detected and recognized.  These transmissions aren’t lost -- only delayed.   Transmission will resume based on the operator’s instructions.

            Of course, some might question the usefulness of this radio stealth.  After all, Maveric’s use of radar and other navigational signals could just as easily disclose its presence.  But Maveric makes only very limited use of any “other signals.”  

            How does it manage that? 

            Merlin has some more magic.  The Merlin “Brain” also engages in on-board image processing with on-board vision based controls.  In other words, Maveric avoids obstacles and finds its target by sight.   This 'bot carries a self-contained vision-based navigation system, which allows it to perform it mission without real time human assistance, while minimizing the use of any electronic navigation systems that produce detectable radio signatures.

            Of course, Maveric doesn’t look exactly like a bird.  It has the silhouette (shape and color) of a bird, but, unlike Robo-Hummer, Maveric doesn’t have the bodily movements of a bird in flight.

            Is that an issue?  Well, DARPA is working with the Army Research Laboratory and the Maryland Robotics Center to produce yet another bird 'bot with the flapping wings and the bodily movements of a real bird.  It’s still in development, but its name is Robo-Raven.

Mark Grossmann of Hazelwood, Missouri & Belleville, Illinois

About the Author

‘BOTS: Robotic Bird Drones – Robo-Hummer – The First Bird-Bot

12 December 2013

[Nano Hummer Video]

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.” [video]

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.

Mark Grossmann of Hazelwood, Missouri & Belleville, Illinois

About the Author



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

‘BOTS: 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

 

'BOTS: 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.  

Mark Grossmann of Hazelwood, Missouri & Belleville, Illinois

14 October 2013

About the Author

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