The Army's $10M Spy Bat Still Too Big 199
Lucas123 writes "The University of Michigan's Center for Objective Microelectronics and Biomimetic Advanced Technology (COM-BAT) is working on building a robot bat that would perform long-range reconnaissance for the U.S. Army, but U.Mich is currently struggling with miniaturizing components in order to make the bat small enough to be stealthy. 'The focus is to shrink down many electronics that while currently available would only be good if the US Army wanted, say, a 12-foot spy-bat.' Some components need to be 1,000 times smaller than they currently are. The Army's $10 million grant proposal calls for the bat to be six inches in length, weigh four ounces and use just one watt of power. The bat is supposed to be powered by a lithium-ion battery, charged by solar and wind energy, as well as simple vibrations."
Vampire? (Score:5, Funny)
It could feed on blood...and thus hurt the enemy, and generate power for long missions. It would be cool too, in that it would only come out at night, and could only be killed with a wooden stake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vampire? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vampire? (Score:5, Funny)
Then it was quiet again. My attorney had taken his shirt off and was pouring beer on his chest, to facilitate the tanning process. "What the hell are you yelling about," he muttered, staring up at the sun with his eyes closed and covered with wraparound Spanish sunglasses. "Never mind," I said. "It's your turn to drive." I hit the brakes and aimed the Great Red Shark toward the shoulder of the highway. No point mentioning those bats, I thought. The poor bastard will see them soon enough.
---Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-Hunter S. Thompson
Hmm...perhaps this belonged on the article about Addiction to video games.....
Re: (Score:2)
In other news (Score:4, Funny)
The state department is said to be considering adding various other carnivorous birds to the list as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confident that this Army contract has similar ideas in play.
In other news- (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like a comic book prop (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously, why go with an ornithopter design? There's that excellent quote about AI's, "The question of whether a computer thinks like a person is as relevant as whether a submarine swims like a fish."
Would not a conventional ultralight drone with battery-operated propeller work more effectively than flappy wings?
Re:Sounds like a comic book prop (Score:5, Insightful)
Stealth. It needs to act (at least somewhat) like a real bat or it will be detected. Real bats are ornithopters. Ergo, the spy craft must be an ornithopter.
Re: (Score:2)
Disadvantage is that they may be captured and eaten.
Another catch is the animal rights activists that will have their say in it too when you implant your electrodes into the pigeon's brain.
For greater payload you may want to use a falcon or an albatross.
There is an advantage with flexible wings, but it's also a lot more complex which means that a fixed-
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, this will be a challenging problem for enemy combatants to solve. I can see it now:
BBC News January 2013: "U.S. begins use of COM-BAT robotic bat-like surveilance device."
BBC News January, 2014: "Scientists report inexplicable collapse of local bird and bat populations over the last year."
Re: (Score:2)
Pigeons next (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, they want something that'll look like a bird, fly like a bird, and would be able to engage in surveillance without anyone noticing. The next logical step would be to make a pigeon-like creature, that would be unnoticeable in an urban environment. A few thousand of those in a large city could make enforcing "free speech zones" much easier.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pigeons next (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So the fact that someone is intelligent and systems-minded means that they are also moral and wise?
I cite chemical weapons, communist speech censorship tools, and since this is Slashdot, Microsoft Windows as counter-examples.
"Smart" != "trustworthy."
Smart not related to ethical (Score:2)
I disagree. Smart helps you decide "how should I accomplish what I want to do?" Ethical helps you decide "should I put my interests ahead of somebody else's?"
These two questions are not related. Being smart may lead you to be selfish in more subtle ways, but it doesn't automatically make you a nicer person.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make them bombers then like the real birds, they crappa all over da place.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean enforcing government sponsored thought control and censorship much easier?
Re: (Score:2)
You think I'm joking? Paul MacCready tried it [answers.com]. (Scroll down to the last section, regarding Concern for the Environment.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The additional benefit of a bat-like design (as opposed to a pigeon) is that they are nocturnal - so a spy-bat flying around at night would be more difficult to discern from a real bat as opposed to a spy-pigeon from a real pigeon. Bats are also nearly ubiquitous in the earth's ecology, making them ideal for spying anywhere.
Another plus involves the behavior of a bat. A bat sitting still in a tree or a cave wouldn't be considered "abnormal" by a casual observer- and most people are honestly too afraid o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's that excellent quote about AI's, "The question of whether a computer thinks like a person is as relevant as whether a submarine swims like a fish."
Not sure exactly what you are getting at with that comment, but IIRC, there were some significant advancements made when submarine designers started studying fish. Early subs were designed as surface boats, but in the 50s, with the advent of the nuclear power plant, subs were redesigned with lessons learned from marine animals, resulting in much more efficient performance underwater.
Re: (Score:2)
There's that excellent quote about AI's, "The question of whether a computer thinks like a person is as relevant as whether a submarine swims like a fish."
Not sure exactly what you are getting at with that comment, but IIRC, there were some significant advancements made when submarine designers started studying fish. Early subs were designed as surface boats, but in the 50s, with the advent of the nuclear power plant, subs were redesigned with lessons learned from marine animals, resulting in much more efficient performance underwater.
True, but fish also lack propellers.
Re: (Score:2)
COM-BAT? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Too obscure?
Well, they can't use BAT-COM. (Score:2)
Magic Charge (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't they just ask for Zero Point Energy while they're at it? The "bat" is going to be working against the wind, generating vibrations, and (presumably) flying at night. Which makes all those charge methods about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Why don't they ask for something that follows the KISS principle and just pull the battery pack to charge it?
Re:Magic Charge (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That I am. Because otherwise I don't see the point. Rather than add the weight and complexity of all those charging methods, why not pull the battery pack out and plug it into a charger? If finding a power source is a problem, make the charger plug into the cigarette lighter in the Humvees. (Or whatever other power plug the military might be equipping their vehicles with.) Much simpler, less expensive, and more reliable.
Of course, I've s
Re: (Score:2)
long range spy. i.e., not a "toss 'em up in the air, let him circle around a few times, and then he can come home for dinner" kind of drone. Should we hang a sign around his neck saying: "Excuse me, Mr. Adversary, sir. Would you kindly plug me in to the nearest cigarette lighter? I can't keep spying on you if you don't. Pretty please?"
The goal is to operate for extended duration away from friendly operators. A longer mission time equals a longer stored energy
Re: (Score:2)
Save for the fact that it's an utterly ridiculous goal. We don't even have short range UAVs that meet these specs. Yet the military wants to jump straight to a magical robot that's 6 inches wide and can handle long-range missions? Worse yet, we don't have UAVs that can land and takeoff unattended inside enemy territory. Yet the military thinks that this magical ornithopter is going to manage takeoff and landing unattended? (Which is significantly complicated by its wing design.) On top of that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we don't have UAVs that can land and takeoff unattended inside enemy territory
This isn't a technological issue. We have plenty of designs capable of taking off and landing autonomously wherever it's needed; I don't know whether any are currently deployed, but there's no reason we couldn't.
Yet the military thinks that this magical ornithopter is going to manage takeoff and landing unattended? (Which is significantly complicated by its wing design.)
While this is complicated by its wing design compared to a helicopter, it's actually easier compared to a fixed-wing drone. You don't need an extended runway; hell, those little WowWee dragonfly RC toys can take off from ground in about five feet.
On top of that, the military really expects that these things will lay out in the open (where they can get sunlight) and go completely undetected?
On rooftops, in trees, in forested clearings
Re: (Score:2)
Taking off and landing automatically on runways. Taking off and landing from regular terrain is a lot more difficult. Think about the HUDs we have on modern jet aircraft. They're lining up their approach based on the lighting and radar information the runway and ground control is feeding back to them. Give the ILS an open field and it will choke.
Re: (Score:2)
They can take off almost vertically. They cannot land so easily. Flapping the wings produces forward momentum. Birds are able to slow themselves and make ornithopter landings without a runway for two major reasons:
1. They can warp their wings to change the direction of thrust as well as the amount of thrust applied with a sweep of the wing. This allows
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you've vetted out my point.
Now where's my magic charger? I need it to power my flying car^H^H^H bat!
Solar power? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Six inch bat? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Bat metaphors... but one louder.
Giant bat? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a 12 foot robot bat, man! That'd scare the hell out of me if it came for me in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with such psychological tricks is that they are very short lived. Once your enemy realizes what you're throwing at them, they'll piece together their opponent and develop countermeasures. And when we're talking about a 12 foot flying machine, it wouldn't take long for fear to be replaced by, "target that craft and shoot it out of the sky". At which point its effectiveness would drop substantially.
Even if we ass
Re: (Score:2)
And it sounded so logical, at first!
Giant bat countermeasures (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a 12-foot tall flying Mohamed with laser cannon eyes, and a last-ditch explosive self-destruct mechanism?
Re: (Score:2)
COM-BAT? Really? (Score:2)
Trey: "Hey Lance, what do you think of COM-BAT?"
Lance: "Trey, I think it's FABULOUS!"
Re: (Score:2)
Also.... (Score:2)
Powered by vibrations on a flying object? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Next up, the $10M flying hammer (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Alternative approach... (Score:2)
Those wacky Army guys. Hell the battery and recharging equipment will weigh more that 4 oz -- especially if powering surveillance *and* flight components.
Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to mount the equipment on actual trained bats and let the
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? (Score:2)
Millions of military dollars (Score:2)
It's like the "fly on the wall" spy equipment that get squished before it gathers any actual information...
That's not a weapon.... (Score:2)
"The Army's $10 million grant proposal calls for the bat to be six inches in length, weigh four ounces and use just one watt of power. The bat is supposed to be powered by a lithium-ion battery, charged by solar and wind energy, as well as simple vibrations."
....it's a sex toy!
And they're worried about it being too big! Sound like some of the spam I've been getting....
beats the last thing the military tried with bats (Score:2)
sounds like the plot of a bad saturday morning cartoon
What this project needs RIGHT NOW (Score:5, Funny)
First, a whizkid plucked out from high school, who will be separated from his mommy for the first time ever.
Second, a crazy roommate who doesn't care about authority figures
Third, a mysterious man who lives in their closet
Fourth, an annoying dude who tries to suck up to his professor
Fifth, a charming young lady, interested in the whizkid, who just happens to be hyperactive
Sixth, an ambitious and immoral professor who's tricking the innocent to UNKNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTE to a MILITARY PROJECT
Seventh, said professor's inordinate hatred for popcorn -- oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
There are several things that this project needs RIGHT NOW in order to be successful.
First, a whizkid plucked out from high school, who will be separated from his mommy for the first time ever.
Second, a crazy roommate who doesn't care about authority figures
Third, a mysterious man who lives in their closet
Fourth, an annoying dude who tries to suck up to his professor
Fifth, a charming young lady, interested in the whizkid, who just happens to be hyperactive
Sixth, an ambitious and immoral professor who's tricking the innocent to UNKNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTE to a MILITARY PROJECT
Seventh, said professor's inordinate hatred for popcorn -- oh wait...
Hey, I think I've seen that anime.
for the full "bat" effect (Score:2)
Pterodactyl (Score:2)
Brits lead the way? (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/01/72543 [wired.com]
Their $3,000 WASP is a little cheaper than a $10,000,000 BAT
_f
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a use for both, but I can't see the WASP being quite as useful as the BAT - at least from a CONOPS standpoint.
That said, I don't think the BAT will ever g
For a budget of 5 million US Dollars (Score:2)
This Just In... (Score:2)
Solar powered ... bat? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oblig. Psych (Score:2)
It's big Enough (Score:2, Funny)
"Speak softly, and carry a large bat"
Or something to that effect...
Bat Mitzvah (Score:3, Funny)
-b
Michigan's may be too big but ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not just those that happen to agree with your (presumably) pro-military opinions.
In an attempt to get this back on topic...
This "BAT" research is a good thing. Sure, it's intended for the military, but the technology that is being gained from this will find its way into the civilian sector soon enough, and it's all paid for from our military budget. Maybe this will help those that feel guilty that their tax dollars are being spent to kill people and break things. In this case, they are looking to make a zero emissions vehicle that otherwise, might not be being worked on.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd. (Score:5, Insightful)
So is the cure for cancer. And given the choice, I know where I'd want my taxes to be spent.
You present a false dichotomy.
I'm generally in favor of reduced defense spending, but research into new capabilities is something I think is worthwhile. I wholeheartedly agree that a cure for cancer would be better than this, but we don't have that choice available. Even if we did, it's likely that a few $M taken from a robotic bat project wouldn't even be close to enough.
We can spend money on both. Whether spending tax money on this is a good idea is mostly unrelated to whether spending tax money on medical research is a good idea. Obviously the two are connected through tax rates and thus the total government funding available, but as long as the projects are small relative to the total fund, they should each be evaluated against the alternative of reducing taxes (or increasing them, depending on your preferred viewpoint), rather than against each other.
We're all (well, mostly) smart people here, capable of evaluating complex choices. Let's at least look at the correct set of choices, rather than a rhetoric-filled politically motivated set of options that don't actually exist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
US R&D budget for 2007: 0.1 trillion USD (includes health, energy, as well as basic research)
What would be wrong with having these reversed? To put it in some context, the military budget equals to US$ 4,000 per each man, woman, or child in the United States, per year. That's a SHITLOAD of money. Which could buy you flying cars, cold fusion, cure for cancer, teleportation, and 200 year life expectancy off the sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any inherent problem with reversing those numbers, or at least moving in that direction (with the obvious caveat that you couldn't make the change overnight). I wasn't attempting to argue the merits of any specific project, but rather to make a point about the style of argument.
My point was that the parent poster was presenting a false dichotomy: funding this specific project vs a cure for cancer. It's far more reasonable to argue about the appropriate size for major categories, and then to
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one thing....the US would instantly be at war and would probably be taken over if our enemies saw us spending almost nothing on our own defense.
Aside from that tiny detail, there is nothing wrong with reversing those numbers. Unfortunately, the US does have enemies that would -gasp!- use lethal force if given the chance. While I agree we could and should spend less, I do not delude myself into thinking we should spend "a pittance" on defense
Re: (Score:2)
Only the US thinks that all wars can be won by technology. They cannot. If you still want to continue with this belief that your country needs to spend such an obscene amount on weaponry, don't be surprised when your economy is beaten by China and Russia.
Nobody else on earth has tried to 'keep up' with americas military spending for a
Re: (Score:2)
All wars ARE (eventually) won by technology. Economic, military, social, etc. Technology is a force multiplier. And not just in military terms either. Productivity, science, etc all benefit from advances in technology.
My previous post simply suggested that military spending can have a drastic influence on the balance of power. In other words, it's overweighted compared with other aspects of power (economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc). An
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)