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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] nlh|12 years ago|reply
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.).
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] doctoboggan|12 years ago|reply
For example, you can buy a quadcoptor that fits int he palm of your hand for less than $40:
http://www.amazon.com/Estes-4606-Proto-Quadcopter-Black/dp/B...
[+] [-] nine_k|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lmm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordfnordfnord|12 years ago|reply
Batteries with high energy:weight.
MEMS sensors (thanks, nuclear weapon stewardship programs) http://mems.sandia.gov/
Cheap, open-ish, powerful SoC microprocessors, and the community of hackers (lots of help, and easy tools that lowered the learning curve).
Development of better "linear" circuits like advanced brushless motor controllers and chargers.
Growing robust hobbyist electronics tinkerer marketplace.
Maybe cheap 3D printing too, making prototyping easier/faster/better/more fun.
[+] [-] uptown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptown|12 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkQ9eB7M7iQ
This video purports to help prevent that from happening, though it's not guaranteed to prevent your $1000 drone from making a break for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bxjL7wFyb8
[+] [-] mikeyouse|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrBuddyCasino|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillysaurus3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digz|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Killah911|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easy_rider|12 years ago|reply
In all I would propose fire as a viable way to kill it with.
[1] http://nl.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clubstep
[+] [-] anonymoushn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillysaurus3|12 years ago|reply
EDIT: Assume only a visual feed was available, no audio.
[+] [-] wallawe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mberning|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kiro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] will_brown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duiker101|12 years ago|reply
On a side not, damn $900 and it can fly 22 minutes. That sounds very little, I hope this things will improve soon they sound amazingly fun!
[+] [-] dmd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikster|12 years ago|reply
As for $900 - it survived getting way too close to an active volcano... this is good stuff.
[+] [-] jccooper|12 years ago|reply
Actually, the Phantom 2 is said to go 25-30 minutes, but perhaps that's without payload.
This fellow went all-out to get 97 minutes: http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/my-97minute-06second...
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aardwolf|12 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] dronehire|12 years ago|reply
An operator will usually have two cameras, one that records high-quality video to an onboard SD card, and another camera for streaming FPV.
[+] [-] sounds|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sopooneo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clarry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prewett|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsoldiac|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dronehire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trevoragilbert|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stratoscope|12 years ago|reply
If you want a technical term, I think it's called "sample bias".
[+] [-] tvirelli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TheLoneWolfling|12 years ago|reply
Teleimmersion gear + a drone like this = ?
[+] [-] bstew|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afhsfsfdsss88|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MiguelHudnandez|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NKCSS|12 years ago|reply