Japanese Military Invents Tumbling, Flying Sphere 156
thebchuckster writes "A Japanese developer has released a cool, new sphere that is billed as being able to go where humans can't. The sphere is 17-inches, features eight movable rudders, and can hover in the air for at least eight minutes. While reaching speeds of up to 37 miles per hour, the sphere deftly moves through the air without much effort. It doesn't take much to get it up in the air and moving, and it will be adept at going into tight areas."
And for "Medical" Uses... (Score:5, Funny)
And if you stick a really nasty looking syringe on it, it makes a great Deathstar interrogation system.
Re: (Score:1)
My thoughts exactly! http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/dr-ball-md.html
Re:And for "Medical" Uses... (Score:4, Funny)
Soon we will have nothing to fear but sphere itself.
wow, nice. (Score:1)
When will the US make one and attach a missile to it?
Re: (Score:2)
more like a bottle rocket. the whole rig only weighs 12 ounces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A grenade you can control the flight path of from outside the building your target is hiding in? sounds pretty damn useful to me, even with an 8 minute battery!
Doesn't seem so easy to militarize (Score:1)
Have you seen the controls of this thing ? Throwing is probably easier and more accurate. It has no camera and no sensors, so you'll need eyes on the target and eyes on the ball for the duration of the throw.
Good luck staying alive while you guide that thing in.
(besides, it's so big and slow that it makes an easy target for shooting. UAV's are so very good because of their stealth. You can't seriously hope to see a 1m plane 20 meters somewhere above your head so any action by that plane comes as a complete
Re: (Score:1)
Watch the video, it *does* have a camera. One of the potential uses is searching damaged buildings for survivors, it wouldn't be much good for that without a camera.
Re: (Score:2)
A grenade you can control the flight path of from outside the building your target is hiding in? sounds pretty damn useful to me, even with an 8 minute battery!
Battery lasts long enough, EVAs have 5 mins and look what they can do.
Re: (Score:2)
and with only 8 minutes of hover time you would have to be pretty quick to fire it
Oh, and I suppose you want accuracy too? This never bothered the CIA, before.
One man, consumer parts (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA sounds like this is one guy working with consumer parts. I wonder what an American military subcontractor would want to develop this.
Re: (Score:3)
TFA sounds like this is one guy working with consumer parts. I wonder what an American military subcontractor would want to develop this.
And the article cites a price for the prototype of $1,390.
Re: (Score:2)
He waaaayyy over spent. I could build that easily for less than $500-$600.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're willing to pay reasonable labor rates I'm sure we can work something out.
As for the others trolling, you can build basically this, which requires far more motors and speed controllers for a fraction of the cost, and that even includes GPS, an autopilot, and mission management. Even with all that, its still way fucking cheaper than his prototype.
Re: (Score:1)
110,000 yen is about one week's wages for the average public servant. How much do you make per week, and how would that change the price of your prototype (which you haven't built yet)? Would it still be "way fucking cheaper" than his?
It would be very reasonable to assume that this researcher spent a week on fine-tuning and construction, no?
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention that whenever I try to prototype something the first time, it ends up costing 2-3 times what my final version costs. Trial and error is expensive and you can't always reuse the parts. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh. Extremely ignorant and unintelligent comment. Its doubtful he added his own wages to the cost. Meaning, only an absolute fucking moron adds their day job labor rates when they calculate the cost of a DIY project.
On the other hand, it was asked of me to make one for someone else. Accordingly, by world standard, it is extremely reasonable for me to ask for compensation since it is now a work for hire. Its literally disgusting I have so explain such basic concepts here on slashdot these days.
What do y
Re: (Score:2)
People are "trolling" because comments like "pssh easy I could do it for half the cost" are pure flamebait. All we'd say is build it for that much and get back to us.
Re: (Score:2)
No, stupid and ignorant comments who claim people who actually know what they are talking about are trolling. Your posts are classic examples of stupid, ignorant, trolling because someone who wasn't trolling, stupid, and ignorant, would have simply asked for elaboration. But did that happen - not, stupidity and ignorance prevailed in posting a troll which led to this flame.
Go pull your head out of your ass and find a website called DIYDones. That's just one of several such projects. Literally, a MOTHERFUCKI
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He waaaayyy over spent. I could build that easily for less than $500-$600.
If the US military were to build one, it would be the death star. Remember, an elephant is a mouse built to government specs.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless the guy that invented it works for free the true cost is surely much higher than $1390. This IEEE article [ieee.org] from a month ago says it took him a year and a half to develop so I'd include the guy's salary, lab equipment, CAD tool licenses, etc. unless he worked on it in his free time with all free open source software...
Re: (Score:2)
Amortize that year and a half of development over 1,000 balls, figure it takes a day or two to put one together once you know how, and it's still under $2,000 per copy to produce 1,000. How much does the American Department of "Homeland Security" pay for one day's theatre at LAX?
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. The question was how much an American military subcontractor would want to develop this and the GP answered himself saying it cost $1390. I was merely trying to point out that development cost and the cost of the materials and labor to build one are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One man, consumer parts (Score:5, Insightful)
When one failed, you could roll out the next. Or you could triple the price to better the specs.
$1,390 is less than the cost of taking a congresscrook to "dinner" to show them your proposal for a $100 million version of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps you've been lulled into blissful slumber by a cost-plus contract, and are interested in straw-man arguments about NASA? There are lots of uses, even military uses, for a product like this where you don't need to worry about a high-rad field. How many lives could be saved if the portion of the military budget that pays for "military-grade" lobbying and products were diverted, say, to American fire and police departments? How many lives could be saved if it were diverted to food distribution and
Re: (Score:2)
American emergency responders use near military grade equipment. The near point means it might fail, high rad but still function after being run over.
They need extremely durable goods as well. While a fire truck won't stop bullets the equipment does deal with high pressure high volume chemicals.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet US Military troops used civilian GPS devices in the gulf, and those emergency devices are NOT mil-spec tested, or if they are, it's because they happen to also sell to the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why would electronics fail in a high-rad environment ? Humans, sure, but electronics ? Why ?
At the very worst you'd need some extra cooling, and parts of the electronics that shouldn't heat up will heat up, but other than that ?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Given it was built by a guy in the Japanese Military of Defence, you can bet they'll be weaponising it as we speak.
Re: (Score:2)
the first 20000 would go away for the lawyers writing the contracts in a way that each part is produced in another company of some defense contractor, so that if this things costs too much money, then every representative from every region would have to agree on spending more because 4 people producing some part for it somewhere would be unemployed.
After having gotten out 20000000 dollar, spent 10 years and not have a working prototype you can retire.
I saw this thing and immediately thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And a pair of dark shades, a shotgun and some frustration from lack of bubble gum will make it a good practice target.
Looks like (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
except this one can roll around when it lands.. aerial and ground recon on one package.
and @1300 bucks - expendable.
Quiditch anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Now we just need flying broomsticks.
Quidditch (Score:2, Funny)
No. 2 will be seeing you (Score:1)
Perhaps they should touch base with these guys - http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/19914.html [university...fornia.edu]
As B as B gets (Score:3)
Wait a minute, I've seen these movies already! [wikipedia.org]
Sounds strangely familiar... (Score:2)
Does it have flappy ears and say `haro' a lot?
Copseyes! (Score:1)
Develop further to ... (Score:1)
What is with Reuters video? (Score:2)
I get short clips that jump ahead after a few seconds. I tried to grab one using Download Helper but you have to be fast to grab the right one. Anybody here understand how this works well enough to suggest a solution?
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind. Pause works amazingly well.
hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
so there are lots of quad-copters around that have roughly similar specs. this one is a uni-copter with 8 thrust-vectoring flaps, which is, I guess somewhat novel. not sure why 8 is the right number, and seems like a fairly large number, given that each requires a servo and fairly big piece of material. but since the flaps are independent, they can provide both direction and rotational control (which is why a quad-copter needs 4 fans - and why a helicopter needs a tail fan.) the spherical cage (and uni-fan) makes it seem compact and tidy, but I'm not sure the layout is actually better than a quad-copter.
Re: (Score:2)
The sphere design is so that if it bumps into a wall it can keep going. If it falls to the ground it just rolls away.
Better batteries make it work? (Score:2)
The little quadrotors have been around for about 15 years now. The first time I saw one, it was made mostly of Styrofoam and could barely get off the ground. Now they go zooming around, due to better motors and much better batteries. But they still can't carry much load.
This thing looks like a nice tradeoff. There's more structure to carry around, and you only get 8 minutes of flight time, but it's not as fragile as most quadrotors. Those things are going to be popular with soldiers and cops.
Re: (Score:2)
you only get 8 minutes of flight time
use a methanol fuel cell and you should be okay for a couple of hours
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's see... A quadrotor requires four motors to fly.. The chances failure of any one of them is far higher, and will ruin your whole day. The props are exposed. That's obviously a problem. On the other hand, with this you can lose a few, or even most of the rudder servos and keep on going. All the works, especially the props are protectively caged from foreign objects. The center of gravity makes it more stable, A sphere is nice, but a cube would work well also. Either way, this design looks to be th
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have to see how the power-to-weight ratio works out for this vs. the quad copter. The ability to strike the wall without having bits of rotor fly everywhere is the obvious advantage. It's brilliant because you smack yourself on the head wondering why this design isn't already more prevalant at this stage in the game.
Research, not Rescue! (Score:1)
I'd want one if I had to invade a building (Score:2)
Anyone think of ITV's "The Prisoner"? (Score:2, Redundant)
Just from the description, I was thinking of the large, white ball that bounds along the beach, catching anyone who tries to escape.
Re: (Score:2)
First thing that came to mind when I read the description as well.
Nice as an OS project (Score:1)
This doesn't look that difficult to copy. The rudder system is pretty rudimentary. The RC and UAV groups open source arduino board, firmware and sensors, from the ongoing quad projects can already handle most of it's functions. Hmmm. I'd sure like one.
pretty cool gadget BUT (Score:2)
Sounds like... (Score:1)
Kino (Score:2)
I think I saw this in Harry Potter (Score:1)
What was the name of that game? :)
Mars? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lower gravity, but the atmosphere is pretty thin. Plus, 8 minutes of flight time isn't very much even here on Earth. ;)
Meanwhile, on Venus, these would be destroyed by the environment before you could even pop the hatch
Might be useful for poking around in some caves though if you can get the flight time up a bit.
Re: (Score:1)
reuters slow to the party? (Score:2)
it was already covered...a bit over a month ago on engadget and wired
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/10/japanese-ball-drone-knows-how-to-make-an-entrance-video/ [engadget.com]
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/10/japan-drone [wired.co.uk]
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2011/06/09/jsdf-spherical-drone-we-bought-most-of-the-parts-in-akiba/ [sankakucomplex.com]
Although the original video that Wired and Engadget used is gone...there are others on youtube such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQa4K-tstTg [youtube.com]
or just use this search:
http://www.youtube.com/res [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Reuters might have been slow to the party as a mainstream news source, but then what does that say about Slashdot these days?
What a Waste of Time and Money (Score:1)
With the various problems Japan and its government has, the time and money it's spending developing this thing is a waste that it cannot afford. Japan has the US to cover its military risks, so it can spend its time and money on other things Japanese people actually need.
Sure, Japan's security is largely a source of wasteful US military spending, and the US is in even more trouble in these ways than Japan is. But that doesn't justify Japan digging its hole in a race with the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, I RTFA and I was bitching like a fool in that comment. This is exactly the kind of legitimate protective device Japan needs, given its actual threats.
Re: (Score:2)
Phantasm (Score:2)
Flying silver sphere scene [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Note puddle between feet of the corpse after the kill.
I didn't notice that touch when I saw it in the theater when it came out so long ago. :)
This is great! (Score:3)
Now all I need is a light saber and a blindfold, and I can complete my Jedi training.
Manhacks! (Score:2)
Hope nobody attaches a spinning blade to one of these. I'm low on pistol ammo.
So that's where Chris Knight wound up! (Score:2)
But do they still file that under "H," for "Toy?"
Reuters video sucks (Score:2)
BTW Reuters video sucks -- it does not work on Ubunutu.
Re: (Score:1)
Works for me! (Ubuntu 10.10)
Why a sphere, not a gömböc? (Score:2)
If the reason for it being spherical is to allow it to recover being rolled on the ground, why not build the shell as a gömböc [wikimedia.org], so it'll always self-right?
Re:Trojan on linked site (Score:5, Informative)
Updated with a new link, just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Invention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh FFS, so he's supposed to mine for rare earths and smelt his own exotic materials in order to say he INVENTED something?
Look, he DESIGNED and ASSEMBLED something that did not exist before. If you don't consider that inventing, you're just a dumb-ass.
BTW: what have you invented?
I got good money that says fuck all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. - Carl Sagan
Re: (Score:1)
Oh FFS, so he's supposed to mine for rare earths and smelt his own exotic materials in order to say he INVENTED something?
I'd settle for designing (the assembling part wouldn't even be necessary) something that nobody else would know how to make. It's fair to say he designed the thing, and I'm not sure why that's not enough. It's an impressive task, not sure why we need to go we need to say "invent." Incredibly talented people design new microprocessors at intel, but we don't say they invented a microprocessor.
BTW: what have you invented?
I don't go around rating people's awesomeness by using me as a reference. I'm not conceited enough to believe that
Re: (Score:2)
You are now aware that not one but two 'inventors' submitted patent applications within hours of each-other to patent the 'invention' of a telephone. One requirement of patentability is that the 'invention' is not obvious other individuals skilled in the art of whatever field the 'inventor' is working in.
Clearly, the mere fact that we already had electrical lines for the purpose of communication (telegraph), and that we new how to recreate sounds by reproducing their vibrations, and that we use sound vi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Invent just means you found a novel way to do something with existing tech.
Just imagine what inventions would be like if you had to make everything in it from scratch, and didn't already start by knowing how to make fire, dig up minerals and metals (let alone smelt them).
Re: (Score:2)
Only some of the parts were off the shelf.
And even if it was 100% off the shelf components, are you actually suggesting that unless you obtain all the raw materials yourself, (smelt the ore into usable metal, form your own plastic, create your own propeller motor from scratch) you haven't invented anything yourself? That's preposterous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's what everyone says about inventions.
"I could have done that"
But you DIDN'T. Therein lies the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
This may come as a shock to those poor souls who've never actually created something entirely novel, but doing or deriving something new is actually a remarkably difficult process. It only looks easy because we don't show you the prototype or publish the paper until we're done, and then we handhold you through all the hard parts. No shit it would be fairly easy to build more now, the original inventors have already done al
Re: (Score:2)
Can anybody tell me? I was so surprised to find out that Africans haven't actually done anything at all for humanity since they came into existence. Anybody care to prove me wrong, without shouting "Heretic"? (Sorry - "racist"...)
Fine. Invented the calendar and stone buildings: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki35.htm [bibliotecapleyades.net]
I'd find some more, but I think it'll do you good to do so yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I find your definition of 'complex' rather odd. Maybe you should study what it takes to make a rotor tilt, with all its linkages and swashplates and other critical things that can break down very easily. Putting all the moving parts into a protective roll cage is one of the best ideas to come out of this type of vehicle. If you have any doubts, just bump one of those quadrotors into a wall. And also note the center of gravity is below the prop, which makes it a bit more naturally stable.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, and I disagree. It looked like it was under full control the whole time. The descent to and roll on the floor was intentional. Cameras mounted near the edge will have a better view. Also, mounting the internals with springs or whatever will make it even more crash-worthy. This is the first prototype of its kind. You're way off base here. It's like saying the Wright Brothers first flying machine won't amount to anything.
Re:Sphere *bouncing* in the air (Score:1)