Blogs

3D Robotics

Researcher: Future of UAVs includes personal flying droids

Posted by Chris Anderson on May 10, 2010 at 9:00am
Some interesting thinking in this week's Robots Podcast, on the past 50 years and next 50 years of robotics. One of those interviewed is Jean-Christophe Zufferey, who focuses on UAVs. Along with discussing the past two decades' advances in UAVs very well, he speculates on what's next, including the idea of "personal UAVs", like flying assistant droids, which could give you an aerial view of your surroundings or do communications relay.

He also discusses the possibility of "3D elevators" or transportation UAVs, that would allow commuter aircraft without the danger and complexity of having to drive. You'd just get in, give it a destination, and get out when you got there.
E-mail me when people leave their comments –
Follow

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Kevin Breen May 12, 2010 at 2:59am
    FedEx had also considered a "semi-UAV approach". Since most countries still require a human pilot in the cockpit the thought was to have one on board but largely control the plane remotely, much as the Predators are operated now. The onboard human pilot would do the takeoff and landing but otherwise pass control to the autopilot and a remote operator. The "remote" pilot in Memphis would monitor the flight progress and alert the on board pilot it there was a problem. Since the remote operator could probably handle monitoring for several flights it would save manpower (and money!). Fine for freight but on a passenger flight I'd prefer 2 fulltime pilots in the cockpit (onboard). If there was a serious problem in flight I think onboard pilots would be much more motivated to solve it than a remote operator (since they'll be the first to see the approaching ground!).
  • Moderator
    Brian May 11, 2010 at 10:26pm
    There were flying personal droids in Flash Gordon... 76 years ago Alex Raymond was influenced by other writers of the time, but most of the gadgets were pure fantacy (and many said nothing but fantacy, impossible) but are now actuality. Some of our speculation now is really a glimps at our future.

    Good Nite... :)
  • 3D Robotics
    Chris Anderson May 11, 2010 at 10:06pm
    BTW, my FedEx comment was not speculation. It was based on my interview with FedEx CEO Fred Smith, which I reported on here.
  • DrJeseuss May 11, 2010 at 5:39pm
    I know we've gotten off subject, but I agree with Brian here. Apples to Oranges... both deciduous trees with green eliptical leaves, roughly 30 feet tall at maturity, producing blossoms which result in a seeded fruit having a protective skin and an edible inside containing sugars and other various nutrients. Sound very much alike to me. Though I must also agree they are certainly not the same. I could go either way here. Back on subject, I'm thinking FedEx would LOVE this idea. Maybe the FAA will grant a special flight level for UAVs to transport freight to specially equiped UAV-ports. You've got my vote! Well, gotta go tune up my UATV (Unmanned Aerial Transport Vehicle) for the commute tomorrow. ;)
  • Lew Payne May 11, 2010 at 2:05pm
    @Brian - It's how I generally am... abrupt and to the point... the male version of Temperence Brennan on the show Bones. I can't help that; it's the outcome of having been raised in a highly competitive environment. I do realize it may be irritating, but please don't take it personally. I'm just typically factual and straightforward when dealing with certain things. As to having said "Good Morning Sunshine" - you more than said it; you practically sang it (see... I can exhibit a bit of humor).
  • Moderator
    Brian May 11, 2010 at 1:23pm
    Well forgive me I I'm not allowed to come off as pointed and abrupt as you... I was merely pointing out to you that apparently oranges are sometime apples in disguise. So maybe my comment regarding your persuit was a little over the top, but hey I said Good Morning...
  • DrJeseuss May 11, 2010 at 12:13pm
    I agree, discussion is paramount. Without such discussion, DIYdrones likely wouldn't exist, nor space travel, possibly even the wheel. As such, in the name of evolution and progress, I agree to disagree.
  • Lew Payne May 11, 2010 at 11:46am
    @DrJeseuss - Thank you for your reasoned reply. As a technology innovator myself (professionally - as my job), I think it's important to examine all sides of an issue... not only the technical, but the social and political as well. In order to do so, one must be brave and question unfounded assertions... digging for flaws. Doing so can yield, in the end, a more realistic view of the problem and thus a better strategy for accomplishing said goals. I can see where thinking this way might tend to make some people uncomfortable, especially if they're not accustomed to analytical process.

    Unfortunately, I find that a few individuals here don't care for discussion... they only care for agreement. It's my understanding that "discussion" includes looking at an issue from all sides, and identifying the chink in the armor. It's easy to gloss over the obvious problems with a theory or prediction, and live in hopeful fantasy. It's just that I simply choose to not do so. I do "prediction" for a living... it's my source of income, so I take it a bit more seriously than others might.

    Note how Brian responds by telling me that the "PodCast is all about discussion and speculation..." yet at the same time, he doesn't seem to appreciate true free discussion (which includes opposing views). It seems to me that this thread is really about agreement, not discussion (aka reasoned discourse).

    Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. It typically leads to studying the problem in-depth, postulating on a solution, and working to see if it solves the problem. It's about discovery - mostly of what won't work, in an effort to find what will work. It implies an understanding of the limitations and obstacles. It's a shame that some folks in this thread are opposed to my bringing up those limitations and obstacles.
  • DrJeseuss May 11, 2010 at 11:07am
    @Lew - I seeyour point... somewhat. However, you strike me as the guy who said cars are a dumb idea and we should stick to our horses (assuming there was such a guy). After all, had they done the statistics back then and realized what congestion cars would bring to the "horse trails" it would have seemed a bad idea indeed. In fact, I imagine we've well passed "congestion" and yet that trouble has allowed us to evolve the design to be more compatable with the system. Turn signals and stop lights for safer intersections and so on. I believe there was another guy that said flight was just for birds, bugs, and bats, yet look around now at what we've done. Necessity is the mother of all invention. As the technology evolves, we will continue to find necessity, which in turn will reveal issues requiring further evolution and so on. I'm with Chris, UAV transit is as much a thing of Sci-Fi as going to the moon. Once, that too made no sense, wasn't possible, was dangerous, was too far... and yet we went there long ago in terms of technology. I'm surprised as much we've advanced since then, I didn't ride my UAV to work today. Maybe tomorrow... ;)
  • Moderator
    Brian May 11, 2010 at 5:30am
    @Lew - Trains going both directions share tracks all of the time. That's why switching stations are needed and yes sometimes the automated systems and manual procatuions fail and trains crash... So in your persuit of truth.... here's one more fact.

    The Pod cast is all about discussion and speculation...

    PS - Good morning Sun Shine!
This reply was deleted.