Unmanned Aerial Systems: The Wave of the Future, for Better or Worse

Development of unmanned systems is progressing forward at a rapid pace. The market is exploding with new models in the air, ground, and maritime domains. Flying drones, both commercial and hobby, are becoming cheaper and more available; ground drones are being used as delivery systems; and maritime drones are entering military service in both combat and search-and-rescue roles. However, although drone technology is exploding in all domains, it is the unmanned aerial systems, or UASs, that will be the dominant drones of the future. And they will be dominant because of two key words: versatility and range. 

UASs are the most versatile of all the drone types on the market. For example, one look at the H Robotics website (http://www.hrobotics.co.uk/index.html) shows that they offer their drone in nine different configurations, including broadcasting, surveying, and gas leak monitoring. Professional photographers use drones to take images that would be either prohibitively expensive or outright impossible without UAVs (Bernstein, 2015). Search and rescue units are using drones to locate missing persons (Hodapp, 2015). The list goes on. Unmanned ground systems (UGSs) and unmanned maritime systems (UMSs) can also be used in a variety of roles, but none are as encompassing as the UAVs. 

UAVs also have the biggest range, by far. UGVs are limited to operating on the ground and UMVs are limited to operating in water. However, UAVs can affect all three domains. UAVs can be used for search and rescue operations over water as much as over land; they can be used for deliveries to ground locations; and they can go farther and faster than either of the other two types of unmanned systems. 

I think UAVs will have the greatest impact on society over the next two decades. UAVs are the most popular, most common, and most well-known drones on the market. They can be seen in every toy store, and more and more companies are using them for commercial purposes. I think they will be most commonly used in a photography/videography/surveillance role, since we as a society love taking and sharing images.

What impact will this have? I believe it will have a similar impact to that of smartphones. The smartphone was (and is) a world-changing device, because it gives users the ability to take high-quality images and videos and share them instantly with the rest of the world. This has eroded privacy, but it has also uncovered injustice and led to the exposure of serious issues that would otherwise never come to light. I believe UAVs will do the same thing. The ability of these drones to take high-resolution pictures from virtually any angle will lead to more and more people living their lives in a sort of fishbowl, constantly mindful of the fact that someone is watching. This is bad for privacy but good for justice and law enforcement. It’s a double-edged sword.

Ultimately, I think UAVs will be the most impactful because they most closely align with human nature. For whatever reason, people love to take pictures and observe each other. UAVs make that possible more than any other unmanned system, which is why they will be the most impactful drone in the future.

References

Bernstein, B. (2015). Top 3 best drones for drone photography and 4K video. Retrieved from

    

     http://heavy.com/tech/2015/07/top-best-drones-to-buy-for-drone-photography-4k-video-

     

     surveillance/

Hodapp, P. (2015). Search and rescue teams aim to save lives with off-the-shelf drones.

     Retrieved from https://makezine.com/2015/12/15/search-and-rescue-teams-aim-to-save-lives-

     off-the-shelf-drones/

Studying Orcas with the Wave Glider SV3

            Orcas, more commonly known as killer whales, are some of the most intelligent and mysterious creatures in the ocean. Orcas are a very culture-oriented species, with different pods developing different preferences for food, different migratory patterns, and even different dialects (Stiffler, 2011). In fact, when it comes to language, orcas may be as sophisticated as humans (Crawford, 2013). Some scientists have devoted their entire lives to cracking the code of the orca language and learning how to speak to these animals, but to no avail. Where humans have failed, however, drones may succeed, especially one drone in particular: the Wave Glider SV3 by liquid robotics.

The Wave Glider is a fully autonomous surface unmanned maritime vehicle (UMV) that has achieved record-breaking feats of autonomous sailing (Coxworth, 2012). Highly modular, it can be fitted with a variety of devices for observation and research. It can also be fitted with recording devices capable of recording the sounds made by killer whales when they communicate. This data, gathered over long periods of time, may give researchers the key they need to finally understand what orcas are saying to each other.

But how would such a research plan be implemented? And how would it deal with four key issues of drone use, namely privacy, ethics, safety, and loss of link/loss of system control?

Step one, in my opinion, is to introduce the Wave Glider into waters near the orca pod it is directed to follow. The drone needs to be close enough to the pod to record both video and audio and to allow the whales to become accustomed to its presence, but far enough away to not be considered a threat. This keeping of distance would preserve the whales’ privacy, which is key to keeping the drone operational. If the orcas perceive the Wave Glider as a threat, the drone will literally be dead in the water.

Step two is to follow the designated pod. This would present the most difficult challenge, as killer whales travel much faster than the Wave Glider. The best solution here may be to leave the UMV in the whales’ territory, knowing that they will come back.

Step three is to record and transmit as much audio and video data as possible. Linking visuals to sound is key to interpreting what the whales are saying, and the more data is gathered, the better.

It’s a simple plan, but I think it can work, once the other aspects of drone use are taken into consideration.

We’ve already covered privacy; the Wave Glider needs to respect the privacy of the whales, or risk being upended and torn apart. What about ethics, however? Is it ethical to spy on these animals (which some believe have the intelligence of humans) to try and decipher their language?

I believe the answer is yes, as long as that knowledge is put to ethical use. If we ever gain the ability to communicate with killer whales, we can use that ability to guide them out of potentially dangerous or overfished waters and to a location more suitable for the pod.

Safety plays a big part in this project as well, with the safety of the whales and other marine life being paramount. Again, if the whales regard the Wave Glider as a threat, they may smash into it to damage it and hurt themselves in the process. This is where gradual introduction of the Wave Glider in the orcas’ environment is crucial. I know from experience that orcas will tolerate small boats within a few hundred yards of their location, because I did a kayak whale-watching tour in 2014 and watched them do exactly that. The key: the whales were used to seeing the kayaks, and knew that they weren’t threats.

Loss of link/loss of system control is the final consideration, and an important one. Losing connection to the drone would negate the value of the experiment. Loss of system control may mean the drone wandering out of the whales’ territory, or worse – getting too close to the whales and getting demolished in the process. This can only be mitigated by periodic human monitoring and blind luck. Having a human repair and retrieval team on standby would negate the efficacy and cost savings of the experiment; if a human crew can be in the water watching the drone, it can also be in the water watching the whales themselves. Periodic monitoring, however, would identify problems within a reasonable amount of time and give a response team the chance to go to the drone and correct the issue. Ultimately, though, being problem-free will come down to preparation and luck. Prepare the drone for the mission as best as possible, then trust luck to take it the rest of the way.

Killer whales talk, but no one knows what they’re saying. The Wave Glider SV3 can help change that.

References

Coxworth, B. (2012). Wave Glider aquatic robots set world record. Retrieved from

     

     https://newatlas.com/wave-gliders-set-record/21840/

Crawford, L. (2013). Killer whales are non-human persons. Retrieved from

         

     http://greymattersjournal.com/killer-whales-are-non-human-persons/

Stiffler, L. (2011). Understanding orca culture. Retrieved from

     

     https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/understanding-orca-culture-12494696/

     

Do We Really Need Humans to Explore Space?

Is it worth the time and expense to send humans into space? This question has been debated for a long time, and continues to be asked as robots grow more sophisticated. The central question is this: is there any justifiable reason to sending men and women to other planets, or is exploration best left to the machines?

Robin McKie may have an answer, and that answer is robots. In his 2014 article on the subject, he lists many of the advantages of unmanned space exploration. Some of these include:

Cost. It is far less expensive to send a robot into space than a human, because a machine does not require food, environmental control, or basic safety measures. Robots can travel lighter, which means they can travel farther at a lower cost (McKie, 2014).

Range. McKie (2014) also points out that robots can travel farther and work in far harsher environments than humans. As a result, they have explored environments like Saturn’s moons, where robot probes discovered hydrocarbon lakes.

Sophistication. McKie (2014) also states that exploration robots have become very sophisticated, evolving far beyond their primitive ancestors of two decades ago. These days, a robot can execute just about all the science experiments that in years past could only have been done by humans.

From a practical perspective, I believe that robots are the better choice. I think that exploration should be an exclusive domain of machines. My biggest reason for saying this is the fact that supporters of manned exploration seem to rely more on poetry than data.

Noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said this of manned spaceflight: “humans are endowed with the ability to make serendipitous discoveries that arise from a lifetime of experience” (Tyson, 2012). Those are beautiful words, but they don’t hold much weight when justifying manned spaceflight. Human beings can make “serendipitous discoveries” just as easily by sifting through the data sent back by the explorer machines.

Cosmologist Stephen Hawking echoed those statements: according to him, robotic missions “may provide more scientific information, but they don’t catch the public’s imagination in the same way…” (McKie, 2014). Again, we have the appeal to heart, without much hard data to back it up.

This pattern repeats itself often when the manned vs. unmanned debate pops up. Proponents of unmanned flight say that robots provide much more information than human astronauts, and at a fraction of the cost. Supporters of human flight point out that putting a man on Mars instead of just another robot would serve as an inspiration to all people.

Both camps make great points. The images of Neil Armstrong on the moon inspired untold numbers of young men and women to pursue science as a career. And landing a man (or woman) on Mars would, in my opinion, have a similar effect.

If push comes to shove, however, then I fall squarely into the robots-only camp. Robots are growing more sophisticated by the day, and computing power continues to accelerate. Decades ago, it would have made more sense to send people into space, due to the limits in computer power and robot design at the time. Now, however, putting human beings on Mars (and beyond) feels like a vanity project. It would be great to see human footprints on Mars one day, but not while those footprints come with a hundred billion-dollar price tag (Wall, 2012). There is no way to justify spending that kind of money when a robot can do the same mission at a fraction of the cost.

In my heart, I’m for manned space exploration. In my head, however, I know that manned exploration no longer makes sense. Space exploration is best left to the machines. Manned flight has lots of poetic and philosophical support, but unmanned exploration has numbers. And, in this case, the numbers win.

References

McKie, R. (2014). Astronauts lift our spirits. But can we afford to send humans into space?

     

     Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/07/can-we-afford-to-send-

     

     humans-into-space

Tyson, N.D. (2012). Neil deGrasse Tyson: only humans can truly explore space. Retrieved from

     

     http://nationalpost.com/opinion/neil-degrasse-tyson-only-humans-can-truly-explore-space

Wall, M. (2012). Should NASA ditch manned missions to Mars? Retrieved from

     

     https://www.space.com/16918-nasa-mars-human-spaceflight-goals.html

Airborne Drones: Tools, Not Toys

            When it comes to commercial airborne drones, the world seems to be pointing in one direction: delivery. Amazon wants to use flying drones to deliver packages (Manjoo, 2016). A company called TacoCopter is trying to live up to its name by using quad-rotor drones to deliver tacos (Mediati, 2012). Even Google is getting in on the action, testing their own delivery drone system (Barr & Bensinger, 2014). The big companies seem to think that delivery drones are the wave of the future.

            Dr. Pippa Malmgren sees the market differently. An economist and best-selling author, Dr. Malmgren firmly believes that delivering food and parcels isn’t where the drone market is heading. Instead, she believes that the true future of the drone is as a data-collecting tool (Malmgren, 2017). I want to focus on her arguments, because she has literally put her money where her mouth is: Dr. Malmgren is one of the founders of H Robotics (website link: http://hrobotics.co.uk/), which develops and sells drones aimed at the commercial market. Here is what the base H Robotics drone looks like:

                                          Image source: Malmgren, 2016

In her 2016 article, Dr. Malmgren makes the following statement: “…just as you would not confuse a Chevy and a Ferrari, you should know that drones are very different from each other”. This is a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree. As we have already seen in both this blog and others, multiple companies are developing ground and sea-based drones for all types of commercial purposes; it’s not surprising to the see the same kind of development with commercial quad-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

            Dr. Malmgren also states, in both her 2017 and 2016 articles, that she doesn’t think the idea of drones as delivery vehicles will take off (pun intended) because they are dangerous. A thirty-plus-pound drone, flying over a residential neighborhood, presents all kinds of hazards; children and dogs will be drawn to it, and if it falls, it will leave serious damage in its wake. To make her point, she posts a video of a camera drone almost crushing slalom skier Marcel Hirscher. It is a very convincing video, so I am linking it here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeviAWB0i4Y

Given how many drones would have to fly on a daily basis to meet Amazon’s delivery demands, it is inevitable that some would crash and cause injury, especially since so many of them would have to fly over heavily populated areas. I find myself agreeing with Dr. Malmgren here as well; delivery may well be left to the ground-based drones. At the very least, aerial drone delivery sounds as if it will be far more complex to pull off than we even think today.

            What then is the future of the quad-rotor drone? As I stated earlier in this blog, Dr. Malmgren thinks that the answer is data collection. She envisions her drones being used for broadcasting, mine valuation, search and rescue, and insurance analysis (Malmgren, 2016), to name just a few functions. The desired end state is a highly modular and customizable drone that can be used for anything the user can imagine. Her goal appears to be to make the H Robotics drone a quad-copter Swiss Army knife of sorts.

            This is where I think aerial drones are headed as well. The H Robotics drone is highly customizable and modular, which I think is the key to all these platforms. The most successful drones will be the ones who allow the customer to use them for whatever they envision, rather than dictate to the customer how they should use the system. Drones that allow for user creativity will be the ones that thrive; human imagination is limitless, and drones can be that imagination’s next tool.

References

Barr, A. & Bensinger, G. (2014). Google is testing delivery drone system. Retrieved from

     https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-reveals-delivery-drone-project-1409274480

Malmgren, P. (2016). Drones and the coming 4D world. Retrieved from

     https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/drones-coming-4d-world-pippa-

     malmgren?articleId=7552070594417338614

Malmgren, P. (2017). Commercial drones: the smallest and most profitable part of the drone

     market by the founder of @H_Robotics. Retrieved from

     https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/commercial-drones-smallest-most-profitable-part-drone-

     pippa-malmgren?trk=mp-reader-card

Manjoo, F. (2016). Think Amazon’s drone delivery idea is a gimmick? Think again. Retrieved

     from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/technology/think-amazons-drone-delivery-idea-

     is-a-gimmick-think-again.html

Mediati, N. (2012). TacoCopter deliverys tacos by quadrocopter: is this for real? [updated].

     Retrieved from https://www.pcworld.com/article/252412/tacocopter_delivers_tacos_by_

     quadrocopter_is_this_for_real_.html

      

Airborne drones dominate the headlines and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) take what’s left of the media’s and the public’s attention. However, there is a third class of drone that, while receiving almost no media attention, fields roles that are just as important as its air and ground counterparts. This drone operates in the world’s biggest continuous environment and has many applications in both commercial and military applications. This is the unmanned maritime vehicle (UMV), a robot designed to operate in the world’s seas, lakes and oceans, and the US Navy is determined to be the world leader in UMV development and fielding.

The Navy is currently testing prototype UMVs across a wide spectrum of mission profiles, from minesweeping to search and rescue (Eckstein, 2017). Three of the craft listed by Eeckstein (2017) are the Knifefish minesweeper, the CUSV multi-purpose surface vehicle, and the Snakehead unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV). Let’s look at each one, and see if it really is a step forward in the water. 

The Knifefish

The Knifefish is a torpedo-shaped UUV that is designed to do one of the most dangerous jobs in contested waters: sweeping for mines (Reed, 2012). Reed (2012) states that the UUV is twenty feet long, weighs three thousand pounds, and uses highly sensitive sonar to maneuver around underwater debris and find mines.

            One of the most interesting aspects of the Knifefish is the way it differentiates between potential mines and non-hazardous material while maneuvering through debris. The craft compares the shapes it encounters with a database of known mine shapes in order to recognize what is safe and what is a potential threat. 
            Anyone who has ever dealt with mines and explosives, whether on land or in the water, knows that it is much safer to send a machine to do the job rather than to risk human life. To that end, I believe the Knifefish is a good concept, as it basically acts as an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) robot under the water; it can clear a path for human-controlled ships, and take the blast if necessary. The Navy would sooner lose a thousand Knifefish than one sailor.

The Knifefish is scheduled to complete initial testing this November, with the Navy conducting formal testing and assessment soon thereafter (Eckstein, 2017).

             

            Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle (CUSV)

            The Knifefish isn’t the only counter-mine vehicle in the Navy’s future inventory. Another vehicle that is close to completion of testing is the CUSV, a multi-role drone which will also be used in counter-mine operations (PR Newswire, 2017). 

           According to PR Newswire (2017), this UMV can carry a variety of payloads, including “side-scan sonar, mine neutralization, non-lethal weapons, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors”. 

 The ultimate goal is for the CUSV to become an integral component of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship concept, a system designed for combat engagement close to shore (Eckstein, 2017). 
Of the three vehicles listed in this article, this is the one with the most potential, in my opinion. It's modular nature is the key to its potential success; it is a surface vehicle that can be modified and adapted to do just about anything, and can serve as a mine deployment device, gunboat, or whatever other creative use the Navy finds. If the CUSV sees wide service, it is quite possible that it may find roles not yet envisioned.  

Snakehead LDUUV

Another integral component of the Littoral Combat Ship concept is the Snakehead Large-Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV). The Snakehead is a large-displacement unmanned submarine, and the Navy is exploring ways to use it in anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and mine integration warfare (MIW) (Owens, 2017).

According to Owens (2017), this UMV is designed for both long range and high endurance operations and can be launched from either the surface or a submarine. Owens (2017) also states that the Navy isn’t sure yet how it wants to integrate the Snakehead in its overall Littoral Combat Ship concept, which is why it aims to get the craft in the water as soon as possible in order to begin testing.

            One of the more interesting components of the Snakehead vehicle concerns energy storage. As a long-range, high-endurance vehicle, energy storage is critical, as the submarine needs to be able to operate for long periods of time without refueling. To that end, the Navy is exploring both silver zinc and lithium ion for energy storage, and is currently leaning towards silver zinc for the first phase of testing (Owens, 2017). 
            Truth be told, I'm not sold on this UMV. It's a big, yellow tub with a vague purpose. As mentioned above, the Navy isn't really sure how it wants to use it just yet; it hopes that testing will reveal the UMV's potential. To me, that sounds like a program with no direction, and lack of direction tends to lead to cost overruns (because there is no clear end state) and cancellation (because the device serves no real purpose). 

            Owens (2017) concludes by stating that the Navy hopes to field a prototype by 2019. 
           

The Future of Maritime Warfare

             

            Drone development is going forward in all environments, from the air, to the ground, to the sea. The US Navy has seen this trend and is pushing to be at the leading edge of this development. The Knifefish, CUSV, and Snakehead UMVs represent the next evolution of sea warfare.I think the Knifefish and the CUSV will have their place in the Navy's arsenal, but the Snakehead may be dead in the water. A decade from now, we'll probably know for sure.

References

Eckstein, M. (2017). Navy racing to test, field unmanned maritime vehicles for future ships.

     Retrieved from https://news.usni.org/2017/09/21/navy-racing-test-field-unmanned-maritime-

     vehicles-future-ships

Owens, K. (2017). New Navy Class III undersea drone to be in the water by 2019. Retrieved

     from https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/04/06/uuv.aspx

PR Newswire. (2017). US Navy awards Textron Systems for two common unmanned surface

     vehicles (CUSV). Retrieved from https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-navy-awards-textron-

     systems-154500698.html

Reed, J. (2012). Meet the Navy’s Knifefish mine-hunting robot. Retrieved from

     https://www.defensetech.org/2012/04/16/meet-the-navys-knifefish-mine-hunting-robot/