Obviously there's been a ton of buzz lately (and innovation) in the drone space.
What's the big technological driver that's allowed / caused this to happen? I don't know the details of the internals but it seems that the tech has been around for a while (radio controlled planes, servos, helicopters, smallish cameras, etc.).
"What's the big technological driver that's allowed / caused this to happen?"
As with most things, several things had to come together in order for this to happen. A probably incomplete list.
1) Lithium chemistry batteries - unlike Nickel, Cadmium, or Lead chemisty batteries, Lithium batteries are have a lower weight per watt-second than the others.
2) Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems (MEMS) - which is a technique for building a mechanical system (like a balance beam) using the same processes that create integrated circuits. This opened up developing accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers where the sensor and the conditioning circuit were all in the same silicon die. That hugely lowered the cost of such things, and has evolved to the point of providing 9 degree of freedom systems that are on one, or two inexpensive chips.
3 - Cheap 32 bit Micros - Emergence of inexpensive 32 bit microprocessors with DSP like features. The ARM Cortex M series in particular. Even with a cheap inertial sensor you need to process it fast enough and with enough precision to act. DSPs can do this but they are complex, difficult to program, and development tools are expensive. 32 bit ARM processors are easily engaged by high school students using off the shelf free tools.
4 - High performance MOSFETs (low Rds(on) resistance), cheap hall effect sensors - these allowed people to build brushless motors with atonishing power to weight ratios. From CD-ROM spindle motors putting out 1/2 HP for electric planes to 15W motors the size of pager motors which are quite light weight.
Of course that all of this stuff is light weight gets the weight down to the point where you have enough power to lift it, and the integration gets the costs down to where you can build something on a small budget (a few hundred dollars, well within the budgets of active modelers)
> isn't lithium more prone to failure on higher temps?
Has not been my experience that this is the case, a low temperatures its storage capacity is reduced though.
Typical props are ABS plastic or Nylon. I suppose you could make them out of a higher performance plastic but I appreciate that they are cheap (I replaced a number of them learning to fly my quad copter)
The props are made of plastic (I have a similar unit as the person who made the video, I just don't live near a volcano). Coincidentally, I actually ordered a spare set today:
It's still pretty new, but I have really enjoyed it. I have the Phantom 2 (not the Phantom 2 vision which comes with a camera) along with the gimbal and GoPro. The stability is astonishing. I have gotten a good hang of flying it, but haven't yet taken it on a trip so I just have videos of around town (in Florida, so there could be worse places to shoot in the winter).
It's still a little bit wild west in that you can tell the companies are still targeted at selling to RC hobbyists. The Phantom is good in this regard as it's ready to fly, but if you want first person view (FPV) that's still a chore (there are a ton of options and it's pretty much up to searching forums for people who have strong opinions on everything). I'd like to just toss some money at a company that provides a complete FPV solution along with up to date and easy installation instructions... Alas.
It's a great way to go, if for no other reason than it will give you a stronger relationship with your aircraft and thus make you fly more carefully. :)
That said, while assembly and setup is mostly trivial (the hardest parts are basic soldering and dealing with some open source configuration GUIs for some flight controllers), figuring out what to buy and where to source it is pretty challenging, especially for a first build.
The cell phone industry has massively driven down the costs of the gyros and accelerometers needed to easily fly a quadcoptor. You also mentioned tiny cameras, another component that benefitted from the economies of scale of the cell phone manufacturers..
For example, you can buy a quadcoptor that fits int he palm of your hand for less than $40:
By the way, that's the best toy quadcopter I've ever used (sample size of 4), and to say it fits in the palm of your hand is overstating its size. Three or four of them would easily fit in the palm of your hand, or the quadcopter and its tiny controller: http://cdn9.modelairplanenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11...
This is correct. In addition to the plummeting cost of sensors, communities such as DIY Drones and OpenPilot have made enormous contributions to the accessibility of this technology, by developing open-source autopilots that rival the capabilities of very expensive proprietary products.
the day isn't that far off where robots get set off to do work either hazardous, monotonous, or even just require constant precision, with regards to vehicle operation. As I posted before and I got the book idea from another here, Red Mars has a great amount of imaginative use of robotic vehicles and manufacturing.
Just like with this drone, besides eliminating some safety concerns we eventually will eliminate the other costly part, not having enough time to do all we want. With enough drones there won't be much we cannot do for time, just money will come up to the forefront.
I'd say Lithium-ion batteries, cheap and power-efficient controllers, cheap sensors (orientation, acceleration, GPS), and the quad-copter layout.
With them you can build a device which is lightweight enough to fly for tens of minutes, and can easily orient itself. This lets you control it with high-level commands. You can say "fly there, face north, stand still", something you can't usually say to a traditional helicopter.
Great answer(s)! (To you and other repliers -- thanks everyone.)
Makes sense. Not one single big thing (i.e. AWS for web companies), but a really great example of one industry benefitting and emerging because of cost improvements and advances in a different industry.
I, for one, continue to be excited about our drone overlords.
The multi-rotor drones are basically uncontrollable without computers; you need a reasonably powerful processor, which in turn means a fairly high-capacity battery. I think a lot of the innovation has come from mobile phone tech; there's now a lot more demand for small, light, high-performance processors, batteries and cameras, and so while much of the tech is not really new it's a lot more available to hobbyists than it was a few years ago.
The set of (say) 4 motors consumes much more power than the on-board computers. Brushless controllers these days handle 20 amps at around 5 volts for a total wattage of 400W(!) . The on-board computer power doesn't even count.
Of course, you're right that powerful computers are needed. But it's more about miniaturization for weight purposes.
I think it's a combination of prices coming down for the quad-copters, cheap GoPro's providing HD video of the flights, and YouTube being available as a marketing platform to convince others to buy their own.
The Phantom 2 are pretty great drones ... but they're also prone to "fly away" where they decide to take-off on their own - ignoring your commands. There's a bunch of videos on YouTube showing people's Phantoms flying away. Like this one:
Watching an uncontrolled drone strafe an overpass at street level and split power lines for a commuter train, really increases my sympathy toward those who want to regulate these.
Pigeons usually do not have fast-spinning blades attached to them. I am not really for regulation, but these things can actually hurt people [1]. RC Helicopters (with one large, main rotor) have actually killed people [2].
Hobbyists must take great care to operate their drones safely, and companies should assume some liability for runaway situations like this if they ever result in injuries.
So can people with knives or swords, or baseballs propelled by a bat. Anyway, I suspect that all of those quadcopter injuries occurred while the owner was setting up the quadcopter. Every story I've read (mostly from my frequent visits to RC hobby forums) is from people attempting to test functionality on a bench with the propellers on, or perhaps a few people who attempt to take off with their aircraft right at their feet. The RC helicopter death is a valid point, but that's the only RC aircraft related death I know of, and helis like his pretty much self-regulate because they're expensive, require mechanical knowledge to setup and maintain, and will mostly likely never get off the ground if flown by someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
That was rather spectacular. I couldn't help but think that someone else controlled it, it was so many times close to run into power lines.
Are there any believable theories as to why that happens?
I backed their Kickstarter, and have also met the guys and seen those airframes in person at their "Game of Drones: Flight Club" meetups in SF [0]. You're right that they still use normal propellers, and that those will be the weak spot when ramming into things. But the point is simply that the airframe itself is sturdy and nearly indestructible. They're designed to battle in the air against one another, which inevitably causes lots of falls and prop replacements. They're not meant to be "reliable" in the sense that they could fly autonomous missions repeatedly or serve other commercial purposes. They're meant to be beaters.
CF props are quite common for multirotors, but I don't think they'd be good for battling simply because they're significantly more expensive than plastic props, and for battling you're not really concerned with efficiency or prop deflection.
I've had a Phantom for a while, and more recently the Phantom 2. Have never had any issues whatsoever. I don't discount that these happen, but as with most things, there's a pretty big sample bias in complaints.
Also of note, winds aloft are often not the same as winds on the ground. Given top speed on these guys is around ~20mph, any wind above that and you've got a fly-away. Again, definitely doesn't account for all fly-aways, but I would venture that it does explain some.
Is the controller link digital or analog? If it's digital why don't they checksum and/or sign packets to avoid continuous interference doing anything but triggering failsafe mode?
Footage got better by turning the sound off. I wonder if editors in general have poor taste in music or are simply trying to convey their excitement thru dub step background music.
Yes seriously, this was my first thought. The funny thing is that it isn't even dubstep. It is some kind of subgenre that seems to have been the trend for 2013/2014. It sounds like a microsoft surface commercial.
I coined the term "clubstep" for it. Looks like someone beat me to it [1].
I've also noted an alarming trend in latest sci-fi movies with this awful music being portrayed still being the hottest thing in clubs decades from now (Total Recall 2).
In all I would propose fire as a viable way to kill it with.
Does it really matter if it's dubstep or not? I happen to quite like whatever that was, but generally dislike most dubstep i've come across.
Maybe it would have been better without sound, but calling something "awful" or of "poor taste" just because you don't like it is a bit much, especially for something as subjective and personal as musical taste.
A valid observation. I actually like the music, independent of the video & I liked the video as well. Just felt that the music overwhelmed what was an otherwise great video to watch. The visual experience literally got better for me once I turned the sound off.
I only mentioned it since I've recently seen a few wonderful videos ruined by the "wrong" type of music. I understand music is subjective, but if you've got a magnificent piece of video, it's just a shame to edit in a sound track to try to communicate how cool it is. Case and point, fast 80's music background music, which generally tells me the editors really miss the 80's. This particular video IMHO would have been much better with a more muted background noise level or at least a background where the peaks coordinate with the video (yes, being an video editor in my past life I know how time consuming that is).
I would frankly like to hear the sounds of a spewing, gushing, burning volcano, even if it's underneath the (also very fun to listen to) sound of the drone itself and all the wind noise. It doesn't seem like a huge leap in intuition to realize that this would be exciting to hear even if the environment is noisy.
yeah I wouldn't say _Every_ but a very large majority most certainly are. I used to delight in ruining people's enjoyment of nature documentaries by pointing out that anything walking on snow is the sound of custard powder being crunched and twisted in a rubber glove! Yeah: I'm a bastard ;)
I like the growl that is administered to every video cat larger than a fat tabby. IF I ever hear that sound IRL, I won't be thinking cougar or bobcat, rather how to deter the jaguar from crushing my skull.
There is a soundbite used to dub over the top of replays in Premiership football as broadcast on terrestrial TV here in the UK. Once you notice it's exactly the same sound every time it's something you can never not notice and it's infuriating! There are a few whoops and screams in it that get me every time and make me cringe.
In this vein there's an amazing line from Man on The Moon when Kaufman refuses to let canned laughter be dubbed over his show: "That's dead people laughing! You know all those people they recorded are dead by now, right!?"
I would prefer that people uploaded their videos with no music, for two reasons.
First, music is a very personal and subjective thing. There's a vanishingly small chance of a video having a song that causes me to discover a new artist that I enjoy, and a large chance I will be annoyed and immediately mute the video.
Second, and more importantly, using copyrighted music makes the video much more likely to be inaccessible on YouTube on mobile devices and tablets.
For drone videos in particular, of which I watch a lot, I vastly prefer just using the audio straight from the camera. Personally, I cut 12 decibels or so, to avoid rupturing the eardrums of viewers with headphones.
I know I am not them but since you seem to want some data^H^H^H^H opinions.
I would exclude any songs with words. Probably something slower like Moonlight Sonata but I could see something like 1812 Overture being good (cannon shots and volcanoes).
I get that techno is supposed to make you feel pumped and all but it distracted me way too much. Now had it been say Firestarter or something at least mildly related maybe but I like that song already. I don't mind it when I'm watching something like a compilation of stunts or whatever.
Actually, I happen to like glitch mob, not for all occasions though. I wasn't referring to this video in particular but a string of armature videos (UAV ones as a matter of fact) that either featured techno/dub step/other high tempo music which overwhelmed the visual experience.
This video was quite amazing to me. Hence I assumed the accompanying track to be in poor taste given the visual experience. I apologize if I have offended sensibilities by comparing glitch mob to dub step or techno, I shall promptly report to the closest rave to get back in touch (I think I feel something... Not).
FYI, your argument is ad hominem and hardly detracts or adds to my original observation (Wikipedia and HN discussion guidelines should help enlighten you on ad hominem argumentation if you happen to be out of touch with what that may mean)
To be fair your response to OP was worthless to begin with. Nobody cares if you don't like the creator's taste in music. I can assure that the audio from a drone mounted gopro is worse than any music added in post production.
That's actually not bad. The amounts of energy required for powered flight are stupendous. It won't even be near that if it weren't for Li-Ion batteries.
How are the images collected? Is it streaming while the drone flies, or do you have to get the drone back "alive" to retrieve the data from it?
How do you control the drone, that is, do you get a first person view of the drone while you control it, or do you have to go with looking at it in the distance?
It is likely that the drone operator was flying by FPV (first-person view), using an onboard camera and transmitter to stream video back to a monitor or goggles.
An operator will usually have two cameras, one that records high-quality video to an onboard SD card, and another camera for streaming FPV.
Edit: Ninja'd by dronehire. Please refer to his answer.
Educated guess here, but the article says it's a GoPro camera, so they probably have to get the drone back alive and download the video from the GoPro.
On the other hand, wireless HD video streaming isn't that hard to do, especially in remote areas like volcanoes where the 2.4GHz band is pretty much all yours. To do better out of line-of-sight it makes sense to use both a fast 2.4GHz radio and a more reliable but slower 433/900 radio and buffer the video on the drone if the 2.4GHz radio drops.
But that isn't going to be as cheap as just strapping a GoPro on one of these Phantoms.
400MHz/900MHz are not "slower", it's just that the band plans only allow less bandwidth usage. Because the 2.4GHz band is so high frequency, an individual channel can be bigger. For 802.11B, it's 22MHz channels.
But, it's easier to make a radio using lower frequencies. In the 70 cm band (400~MHz), you can get some ground-wave propagation. But the overall channel size is smaller. With 2.4, its Line of Sight only.
In all honesty, the ideal setup is a low frequency (144MHz or lower) for command and control, with a higher frequency video transmitter. No sense in sending every bit of data down the same pipe.
> 400MHz/900MHz are not "slower", it's just that the band plans only allow less bandwidth usage.
Yes, but bandwidth = speed, so all else equal, a wider allowed bandwidth produces greater speed.
> In all honesty, the ideal setup is a low frequency (144MHz or lower) for command and control ...
Maybe in a perfect world without anyone else competing for the frequencies. But even without competing uses, higher frequencies have reduced noise problems -- as you go up in frequency, thermal noise declines, so smaller transmitter powers become acceptable (or the same power produces more reliable communications).
But then there's the line-of sight problem, which gets worse at higher frequencies.
Note about radio control that, over decades of time, the command & control frequencies have been going up. There's a good reason -- the original 27 MHz scheme was unworkable for multiple reasons, but one of them was limited bandwidth.
> Yes, but bandwidth = speed, so all else equal, a wider allowed bandwidth produces greater speed.
That's not quite true. It's Bandwidth + encoding = speed . And there's tons of digital encoding schemes: ASK APSK CPM FSK MFSK MSK OOK PPM PSK QAM SC-FDE TCM for starters. And those would allow you to pick up and decode using any old computer running a HDTV usb capture card that can go into raw mode.
> Maybe in a perfect world without anyone else competing for the frequencies.
Nobody would bat an eye if I was to start doing UAV control over 145.50-145.80 with a 20KHz bandwidth . I'd just hop on the local repeater and announce that is what I was doing, and have a radio listening in priority mode to it. If I heard of any anomalies, I'd shut it down and investigate what's going on.
And I have no LoS issues and 2M usually has a nice noise floor. Obviously that doesn't quite apply at night, but just stay vigilant in not harming others.
> Note about radio control that, over decades of time, the command & control frequencies have been going up. There's a good reason -- the original 27 MHz scheme was unworkable for multiple reasons, but one of them was limited bandwidth.
Tubes and early silicon made access to the lower frequencies tenable. Of course the lower frequencies will fill up first. So, it does make great sense, for higher bandwidth using services, to use high frequencies. That's why I said the video could be on the 2.4 GHz spectrum, whereas the command can be on 144MHz.
I'd also consider going lower, making AM more usable. For command frequencies, NOT having capture* is a great deal. That's why control towers mainly use AM and digital modes/CSMA variant.
*Capture is an FM phenomenon, where the strongest FM signal that hits a receiver is the only signal the receiver can hear. The receiver is literally captured to that station. AM does not have that, and what you hear is the jumble of every station in range. Just tune at night on AM and you can hear this.
Range with this setup and a Phantom isn't much more than 10 meters, from experience. The wifi module on the GoPro runs a web server where segments for HLS are published, so every packet and frame must be acked by the the phone and segments downloaded fully, which might not be the best when you want a bit range on the thing.
I'm a Phantom owner and I'm skeptical about those flying time numbers. I get 15-18 minutes on the drone by itself, but if you add the weight of the gimbal and camera (~0.5lb) the flight time goes down at least 4 mins, AND the gimbal needs power from the drone's battery too. I've heard the Phantom's flying time with the working gimbal is more like 6-8 mins. But if you know what kinda shot you want, that could be more than enough, just get lots of extra batteries (and those have dipped in price, you can grab one for $12).
I get muuuuuch more than 6-8 minutes with my phantom 2 and gimbal. I don't like to push it, so my longest flights are usually ~15 minutes, but I always have at least ~30% battery remaining. In addition to providing power to the gimbal, the phantom 2 is also giving some juice to the gopro, and to a fpv transmitter.
Do you own a Phantom or Phantom 2? The latter, which is referred to in the linked article, uses a much higher capacity LiPo battery (5,200mAh vs 2,200mAh) and consequently has double the flight time. However, you are correct in stating that adding a gimbal and camera will reduce flight time.
This is really cool. Though seems a bit risky to have your drone flying around with lava shooting through the air. Any idea on how they avoided ruining their drone?
Probably pushing around $2k if they got an aftermarket transmitter and FPV gear. You can get the whole setup to do this for about $1200 with everything you need but I assume they probably used some pricy extras.
Tangential stupid question:
Obviously there's been a ton of buzz lately (and innovation) in the drone space.
What's the big technological driver that's allowed / caused this to happen? I don't know the details of the internals but it seems that the tech has been around for a while (radio controlled planes, servos, helicopters, smallish cameras, etc.).