I think one takeaway is what engineers can now do in their garages because of the enormous increase in the performance/price ratio of components. Only it's no longer primitive PC architectures, but gyroscope-equipped, vision sensor-equipped, flying robots that come out the other end of the creative process.
Cool video. The gadget is relatively inexpensive. Do you know if that was designed to solve a specific problem? What are some of the applications this might be used for? Military drone. Spy device? I know the Japanese military is fairly limited. Was this designed for use by other armed forces -- such as the United States?
Neat to see a solution like this where the answer isn't what you expect. Rathe than the typical design that we would all expect. Someone says why not design it in this shape.
I agree that taking a look at the solution without the typical constraints or idea of the soluition before the work has begun can result in some neat solutions that might just revolutionize the industry.
Apropos of this, check out the German "e-volo." Not a robot -- it's an electric helicopter (ok, multicopter). But it's the same basic idea in that there's incremental improvements to existing technology coupled with macro-level questions about utility. Here's the link: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1362&doc_id=235367
Per ..."there's no reason a small, higher-performing camera couldn't be mounted on-board."
Yes there is a reason, several reasons in fact.
Better camera.. means much higher bandwidth for the radio link. OLD standard video requires ~3.5mhz bandwidth.. HD quality requires a compression and additional bandwidth. Which means much higher power requirements...Not so easy on a product where weight is critical.
And for a product viewing from high in the air.. HD with advanced optics and stabilization (to get the most from the platform) makes the job even harder.
assuming a reasonable flight time is still required... (30-60minutes?)
It will happen.. but it isn't so easy or cheap at this time.
I agree, it is an incremental improvement over current micro UAV technology at best. But some of the best functionality comes because of simple improvements to current designs.
Making this prototype mil-spec and productized could easily add 10s of thousands to the unit cost. The test and qualification program, that would have to be amatorized or contracted separately, would cost over $100K. Add another $100K to $200K if it is weaponized or used in targeting. This, of course, assumes no requirement changes well into development propting a major redesign. The long DoD acquisition cycle leaves plenty of time for requirements creep. Most outside the defense industry have difficultly understanding the economics of working in the government monopsony.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.