E/ME 103 Final Report Team Pioneer: Kevin Gu, James Leet, Amit Alon, Manpreet Singh June

7, 2012

Pioneer 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. Executive Summary. p. 3 Research Efforts Behind the Concept.. p. 4 Technical Aspects.... p. 4-6 i. Payload ii. Size and Reynolds number iii. Power Source iv. Communications and Processing Capabilities v. Automation IV. Key Enabling Technological Breakthrough.p. 6 V. Military Applications and Considerationsp. 6-10 i. Surveillance ii. Strike Capability iii. Communications iv. Cultural Change and Learning Curve v. Automation vi. International Market vii. Conclusions and Projections VI. Commercial Applications p. 10-12 i. Scientific Research ii. Disaster Prevention and Management iii. Environmental Protection iv. Communication Missions v. Homeland Security VII. Legal and Political Issues Analysis. p. 12-13 VIII. Commercial, Legal, and Political Projections. p. 13 IX. S-Curve Analysis. p. 13 X. Technology Readiness Level... p. 14-15 XI. Team Analysis. p. 15 XII. Scenariop. 16 XIII. Appendix.. p. 17-23 i. Analysis of Interview Responses ii. Interviews Conducted 1. Dr. Yu-Chong Tai Interview 2. Mr. Stayne Hoff Telephone interview 3. Dr. Matthew Thoss Email correspondence 4. Dr. Larry Matthies Telephone interview 5. Dr. Peter Seiler Interview 6. Dr. Peter Seiler Email correspondence iii. References

Pioneer 2

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The terms UAV and drone strike have entered the home of every American household in recent years due to media reports regarding the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been used to gather intelligence, to provide air support for ground forces, and to surgically eliminate some of the most wanted individuals in the world. This success, along with a desire for additional capabilities, has recently sparked interest the field of micro-UAVs. We examined a number of the different technical aspects that are at the heart of the development of micro-UAVs, and we identified power storage as the greatest limiting factor because micro-UAVs are currently hampered by their very brief performance capabilities. Additionally, we examined issues in payload capacity and communications. In the near future, micro-UAVs will experience the most growth in the defense industry, as their surveillance capabilities will be highly sought after in a world of asymmetric warfare. Furthermore, micro-UAVs will develop the capability to execute lethal force on the battlefield, as infantry and special operations forces develop an acceptance of unmanned technologies. This shift will initially be imperfectly implemented though, as a learning curve exists at the senior leadership level of the military and the Department of Defense. However, the market position of micro-UAVs in the commercial sector is slowly gaining traction. This is due to the wide range of opportunities in search and rescue, firefighting, law enforcement, journalism, and disaster response. Note that the biggest barriers to commercialization are the legal regulations and the political quandaries caused by remote surveillance and unmanned technologies. We conclude that micro-UAVs will experience a fairly rapid period of growth due to the high demand for their capabilities and the wide variety of potential applications, but technical innovation is likely to come at a slower and more incremental pace.

Pioneer 3

II. RESEARCH EFFORTS BEHIND THE CONCEPT Currently, there is micro-UAV research being done throughout all of the major research institutions in the U.S. We have provided a short list of examples within the U.S., but it should be noted that this list is by no means exhaustive. Universities: Caltech, UCLA, MIT, U. Minnesota, Georgia Tech, U. Pennsylvania Government research laboratories: NRL, NASA Government defense contractors: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Aerospace/Technology companies: AeroVironment

The majority of the funding for all of these research institutions comes from the government in some form. There are a sizable number of university research groups involved in basic research of micro-UAVs and related technology, mostly obtaining their funding from DARPA, NSF, NASA, etc. It is difficult to know details of micro-UAV research being done within government labs or defense contractors, as there is little publicly available information due to the classified nature of the projects. For instance, often our contacts were forced to refrain from responding to our questions. However, the overall scale of micro-UAV research is very large as evidenced by the Pentagons recent request for $5 billion for UAVs this year [1]. Outside of the U.S., there are several efforts directed at the development of UAVs and micro-UAVs. As mentioned in our previous HW 7, there are several companies and government efforts in Ukraine and South Africa, as well as in Israel, which has existing contracts to provide micro-UAVs to Australia, Canada, England, and Singapore. III. TECHNICAL ASPECTS i. Payload Payload has been one of the limitations of micro-UAVs when compared with bigger UAVs and other manned aircrafts, due to their size. However, as micro-UAVs are evolving, the need for higher payloads is increasing in order to meet the demands of surveillance missions and surgical strikes by the military. Looking through the data of various UAV operations, the Department of Defense in 2005 presented an equation that relates the payload weight, the range of the UAV, and cost [2]: =0.921 0.6 Projecting the cost of micro-UAVs in the near future, an individual micro-UAV is expected to be around $2000 per unit, with a payload of 15 grams. ii. Size and Reynolds number Micro-UAVs have generally been UAVs which are lighter than 5 kg. Micro-UAVs, like the Dragon Fly, which weighs about 2.25 kg, have been used for military surveillance. Although reducing the size helps on reduction of fuel usage, micro- and nano-UAVs suffer from operating in a low Reynolds number regime. The DoD classifies nano-UAVs as those being less than 7.5 cm in any dimension. The Reynolds number is defined as:

Pioneer 4

= Figure 1 compares the Reynolds numbers of various aircrafts. This yields a Reynolds number of less than 100,000 for MAVs and NAVs, which causes the aircraft instabilities and in turn limits the overall control and maneuverability. Due to physical limitations of the low energy efficiency of smaller motors, this is a considerable problem for extremely small aircrafts.

Figure 0: Comparison of aircraft Reynolds number

iii. Power Source The range and duration of flight have been the most significant problems facing microUAVs both in the past and present. Due to the small size of the aircraft, the amount fuel and battery power that can be carried is currently very limited. Landing micro-UAVs to refuel not only takes them off-station, but it requires skilled manpower and adds the risk of crashing. Researchers have been continuously attempting to find alternative energy sources mainly through the following methods: - Solar energy In the past, solar energy has been employed on UAVs and in December 2010, QinetiQ Zephyr stayed in air for 14 days straight using solar energy and set a new record [3]. The scientists at DARPA are currently researching on micro-UAVs which would make use of solar energy to stay in air for years [4]. Hydrogen fuel cells Hydrogen power has been an inferior fuel to solar energy in terms of range, but in the past micro-UAVs have been employed with this energy source. Pterosoar flew 78 miles in 2007 by making use of 16 grams of hydrogen, setting a record for this energy [5]. Laser energy Researchers have been exploring the use of lasers to transmit energy from a ground station to a photovoltaic receiver at the UAV through a beam director. However, this energy has not been employed yet due to the limited range and low efficiency [6].

iv. Communications and Processing Capabilities Currently, larger UAVs rely on traditional jamming signal codes and encryption codes, but the signal to micro-UAVs is relatively open to interception. Micro-UAVs in the past have suffered from low processing capabilities, and thereby have had limited multi-tasking capabilities. This has been one of the biggest factors that has led to an increased use of bigger UAVs when compared to micro-UAVs. However, with shrinking size of transistors, emerging manufacturing techniques, and continued increase of funding, micro-UAVs in the future will have enough capabilities to stay in competition with the bigger UAVs. v. Automation Unmanned aerial vehicles have not been completely unmanned as the name suggests. Micro-UAVs have a ground control crew that pilots the device. Thus, the market for

Pioneer 5

autonomous control is still fairly immature due to technical challenges. However, research is being carried out on the following areas: - Sensor fusion Synthesizing information from multiple sensors for computation tasks - Communications Handle communications from multiple sources and coordinate information - Path planning - Determining the optimal path for flight and adjusting to hazards or attacks - Cooperative Tactics Allowing UAV swarms to communicate and coordinate activities - Targeting Automated processes for identifying and tracking the target (very important development for commercial applications in future) IV. KEY ENABLING TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH We believe that the key technological breakthrough for micro-UAVs will be the development of a suitable high energy-density power source. Through our secondary research, we found that the single most pressing issue facing micro-UAVs is flight time and range, a conclusion that has been validated by our primary research. However, suffice it to say that we anticipate our technology will become viable for military applications within the next 5-10 years, even without this breakthrough of high energydensity power sources. For instance, as early as 2007, Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies and the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center demonstrated a micro-UAV, called the Pterosoar, with a range of 500 km being powered by hydrogen fuel [7]. Based on the trend of development we observed through our primary research, current technology is expected to mature sufficiently, such that micro-UAVs will become viable for a number applications that require moderate energy density. The development of a high energy density power source will then enable significantly more complex and power-intensive vehicles (such as devices capable of vertical take-off and landing), which will dramatically increase the role of micro-UAVs in both military and commercial applications. Some potential breakthrough technologies include lithium-air batteries and high performance fuel cells. While hydrogen fuel cells have been known and investigated for several decades now, any improvement is likely to be incremental. Perhaps more promising are lithiumair batteries, which have demonstrated an energy density of ~10 kWh/kg, more than an order of magnitude higher than conventional lithium-ion batteries. The technology is still in its infancy and is projected to be commercially viable no sooner than 2020. V. MILITARY APPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Overall, the defense sector offers the most promising opportunities for the development of new technologies and the implementation of new capabilities. First, there is a proven track record of success provided by the deployment of full-size UAV platforms in a variety of conflicts throughout the world, most notably in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, the continuing threat of terrorism and regional instability will ensure that there is a continued demand for asymmetric warfare technologies. In 2009, the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed all branches of the armed forces to maximize UAS (unmanned aircraft system) procurement and deployment. Currently the annual UAV budget stands at roughly $4 billion,

Pioneer 6

which represents a 150% increase since 2004, and it is projected to be $15.2 billion by 2015 [8]. Due to the priority placed on these systems, it is likely their development will not be seriously hampered by the defense cuts enacted by the Obama administration. Consider Figure 2 from a recently declassified Air Force Report, which details the MAV capabilities that are desired in the future:

Figure 1. Direction of Capabilities Outlined in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047

i. Surveillance The primary capability that sparked our interest in UAVs was the proposal to use a nano-UAV, which could be disguised as an insect, to perform reconnaissance inside a building. While NAVs offer some exciting opportunities in the future, this goal is likely to be a few decades away. The technical challenges involved in reaching such a small scale, in terms of aerodynamics, sensors, and power storage are simply too great to overcome without miraculous technological advancements. Additionally, our secondary research uncovered the fact that while this idea is popular in the media, there is, actually, not a large demand for this capability in the military. While a nano-UAV-insect could be effective outside, in secure locations, current strategy experts believe such a system could easily be rendered useless by a wide array of simple countermeasures, such as closing all the doors and windows and going around the room with a fly-swatter. The use of micro-UAVs to conduct more traditional surveillance, such as situational awareness for infantry, will likely continue to be the dominant application. As budget constraints and asymmetric threats continue to support a shift from large conventional forces to small, special operations units, MAVs will become even more valuable. While these units possess amazing capabilities, their small size leaves them vulnerable in enemy territory, and continuous situational awareness of their immediate area of operations is needed to operate most effectively.

Pioneer 7

This area represents the most obvious need for MAVs, but the relatively short flight time of current systems, which typically ranges from 45-90 minutes, is inadequate. However, we believe that innovation will occur in this sector as evidenced by the Wide-Area Surveillance Projectile (WASP), which was developed by AeroVironment and DARPA and is currently employed on the battlefield. It can fly for about 2 hours, at 5,000 feet and in 105 degree Fahrenheit weather, and it can be manufactured for about $5,000/vehicle [9]. ii. Strike Capability Another capability that we examined in depth was the ability of a MAV to execute lethal force. We began with the hypothesis that in the near future increased payload capacities would allow MAVs to deploy some specially adapted weapons system. Our most recent research illustrates that although there is a desire to weaponize MAVs, payload capacity is not increasing fast enough to make this a reality. Thus, AeroVironment led an effort to develop a small unmanned aerial system referred to as the Switchblade (pictured below), which is small enough to be carried in a backpack, can be launched into the air through a tube, can stream real-time video, and carries a small warhead that explodes on impact. Thus, the system is designed to be a small, unmanned Kamikaze capable of eliminating small groups of individuals and light vehicles. AeroVironment received $4.9 million for this project in 2011 from DARPA, $5.1 million from the U.S. Army on March 20, 2012, and the company predicts that the device will be carried by American soldiers in 1-2 years [10].

Figure 2. AeroVironments Switchblade MAV

This interest in weaponization is actually one of the most serious issues facing MAVs that could define the future of the technology because it is related to one of the most infamous intelligence blunders in U.S. history. In 1999, an unarmed Predator UAV, being operated by the CIA, located and identified Osama bin Laden on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it could not take any action because it was designed only for surveillance. This incident directly led to an expedited effort to install Hellfire missiles on the Predator. Ever since, the special

Pioneer 8

operations and intelligence communities have strongly influenced a trend towards ensuring that UAVs can eliminate, or aid in the elimination of, the threats they identify. iii. Communications Due to their low cost and unmanned nature, MAVs offer a set of unique capabilities, such as the ability to self-destruct and a relative indifference to being lost in combat. Thus, there is currently very little emphasis being placed on securing the communication link between ground forces and MAVs because they are viewed as disposable. Also, since MAVs can only be kept aloft for a very brief time, and the current threats facing American soldiers tend to be very low-tech (i.e. IEDs), the threat of hacking is relatively low. Nevertheless, we view this as a critical problem that is not receiving the proper amount of attention. Inevitably, MAVs will be kept aloft longer, employ more destructive weapons, and be tied into large, centralized command and control networks, rather than being operated by a single soldier. As cyber-warfare is proliferated and grows in complexity, MAVs will be vulnerable to being completely taken over or used as a link to networks that contain other valuable information. iv. Cultural Change and Learning Curve The growing importance of UAVs of all kinds has ignited a number of cultural changes in the military that cannot be ignored as systems continue to develop. For example, the Air Force is undergoing a shift in leadership from the pilots who flew the traditional fighters and bombers of the Cold War, to pilots that do their flying with both feet on the ground. This has created a cultural friction, and it has induced the practical challenges of adjusting training programs for pilots and support staff. Thus, over the next 5-7 years there will be a substantial learning curve in implementing the optimal programs and strategies with regards to MAV systems, as UAV pilots begin to replace the old guard leadership. v. Automation The implementation of automation in military MAVs is likely to follow a relatively slow and incremental path in the near future. Note that the initial steps have already been taken by translating the autopilot capabilities of manned aircraft, including takeoff, landing, and navigating between known waypoints. As our interview with JPLs computer vision expert Larry Matthies indicated, the next steps are defined by the ability to dynamically conduct surveillance and mapping operations over a given region. In particular, within five years, a user would designate a target area, and based on the information gathered by an array of sensors during flight, the MAV would identify areas of interest and re-direct to observe. However, our research has shown that the implementation of automation will likely lag several years behind the frontier of technical capabilities due to fears and regulations surrounding the idea of turning over control of military hardware to a computer program. vi. International Market Due to the challenges of asymmetric warfare, growth in MAVs in the US is already taking place at a rapid pace. However, due to the lack of any disruptive technological innovations on the horizon, a senior business executive at AeroVironment indicated that the international market will most likely be the focus of the most rapid growth in the next 5-10 years. This is because the low cost of MAV systems offers nations with limited military resources greatly expanded capabilities for aerial surveillance and reconnaissance. American defense

Pioneer 9

corporations have begun to focus on providing nations in central and southern Africa with MAVs, so that inadequate government forces can better deal with rebels, poachers, and other threats over expansive and rugged terrain. vii. Conclusions and Projections We conclude that MAVs are likely to follow an incremental path of innovation, as relatively small innovations and improvements increase capabilities. This has become the standard operating procedure for all defense related aerospace technologies as old platforms are expected to last several decades, such as the B-52 bomber which will have a 90 year lifetime when it is finally decommissioned in 2040. This prediction, with regards to UAVs, is in line with the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap released by the Department of Defense, which predicts that the Predator and Global Hawk platforms (the major full size UAV systems used today) will be in service until 2030.

Figure 3. Timeline from US Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047

VI. COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS In our midterm paper we surveyed possible civilian applications for MAVs and examined the cost effectiveness in civilian applications compared to other products. Below is a summarized list of possible civilian applications: i. Scientific Research Unmanned aircrafts can assist science where the desired locations of study are either remote or dangerous. A few examples of such areas include: - In 2005, the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration used a variant of a Predator to conduct a 20 hours survey over the Eastern Pacific. - In 2010, NASA used a Global Hawk for collect information on hurricane formation and behavior.

Pioneer 10

ii. Disaster Prevention and Management - Firefighters and other government agencies can deploy micro-UAVs to dynamically examine forest fires continuously, while a conventional aircraft such as a Black Hawk can only fly for two hours and eighteen minutes without refueling [11]. - In April 2011, an RQ-16 was used to assess the damage to the nuclear reactor in Fukushima, Japan. In this mission, manned aircraft could not be used because of the high radiation in the disaster area. iii. Environmental Protection With the development of autonomous systems, for low complexity missions, a UAV can perform an entire mission independently without the constant need of an operator. These are usually lowcomplexity missions, often to collect information in a relatively uniform surface (such as an open ocean) for a long period of time. - Monitoring illegal fishing and water resources - Collection of air and water samples iv. Communication Missions - Here UAVs can replace communication satellites in poor weather conditions. Since they are flying closer to the ground, their signal distorts less than that of the satellites. - In journalism, an MAV can provide a live feed from the scene and at a lower operating cost of a helicopter. v. Homeland Security - A UAV can fly above an area of interest for a long time and alert its operators on the ground if it discovers suspicious activity. - UAVs can be used to patrol national borders instead of ten manned aircrafts or twenty agents on the ground (assuming thirty UAV flight hours) for the same area coverage. The Department of Homeland Security only has six UAVs at the moment [11], since the price of full size UAVs is almost prohibitively high; it usually ranges between $4 and $26.5 million [2]. - In the 2008 Soccer World Cup, the Swiss police used UAVs to observe suspicious movements and for crowd control; the police was able to determine the direction of the crowd movement in real time and prevent build-ups. While some of the civilian applications listed above already use UAVs, the market of micro- and nano-UAVs is expected to hold over 60% of the full civilian UAV market by 2015 [11]. This market change will happen due to the low price of small UAVs compared to a regular UAV. For example, a Dragon Eye UAV cost $28.5K, and the DoD has marked $5000 as the end cost for a nano-UAVs [2]. During our research on possible civilian applications for MAVs, we found that the greatest need for MAVs and NAVs systems is in dynamic applications. Dynamic applications are applications where the aircrafts have a clear mission and can take action to adjust to a dynamic environment. In those missions, time is the critical factor that can save lives. For example, in a search and rescue mission, MAVs can be deployed much faster than existing alternatives (satellites, tethered aerostat radar, and manned aircrafts) and possess lower cost of
Pioneer 11

operation. Another benefit is the fact that MAVs can be deployed by personnel in the area similar to the Raven in the military. This advantage cuts out the middleman (helicopter pilot, satellite image reconstruction specialist, etc.), and enables continuous and direct flow of information. VII. LEGAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES ANALYSIS Unmanned aerial vehicle technologies have advanced tremendously due to their successful development and use in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. These machines, which are often piloted by a remote operator, eliminate the risk that a pilot might otherwise face in conducting reconnaissance or combat missions. They also offer a stealthier means of conducting military operations. Around the globe, MAVs have been used successfully for civilian missions such as coastal monitoring in England and Australia due to the length of their coast-line. Due to their success, Congress showed bipartisan support for a $63 billion bill earlier this year that requires the FAA to come up with standardized regulations to open the domestic airspace for UAVs by 2015 and speed up the current process for government agencies to obtain permits. Until now, the FAA approved 313 permits in 2011 out of which 295 are still active [12, 13]. Now, the FAA needs to provide clear guidelines for UAVs of all sizes in order to use them over domestic soil. Some of the issues that they will be considering include the following: - - - The use of UAVs for reconnaissance on civilians without their consent Reconnaissance by commercial entities for profit Possible Fourth Amendment conflicts

It is not clear whether the FAA will be able to provide satisfactory answers to these questions within the time frame because of the short time that elapsed since the bill passed. Nonetheless, it is was made clear by the large consensus supporting the bill that there were massive lobbying efforts by the defense industry. To consider the motives of the defense industry for lobbying for this bill, one should consider recent developments in conflict areas in which the US is active, as well as the evolution of the industry. With the return of US troops from Iraq and the scheduled return of the troops from Afghanistan in 2014, UAV activity in those regions will decline dramatically. There might be a need for surgical strikes against specific insurgents, but the vast majority of UAV operations will cease. Furthermore, in our Porter forces analysis (see HW 7), we mentioned that most if not all of the UAV manufacturers plan to enter the civilian market by beginning to produce MAVs. This change is possible for those companies since the technology in both systems is the same, but MAVs have lower payload capabilities and shorter flight duration. Additional information was revealed recently when the FAA estimated that the number of permits for civilian purpose UAVs by 2020 will be 30,000 [2]. Hence, after considering the three points mentioned above, one can conclude that the $63 billion bill was strongly lobbied for by the defense industry to enable them to enter their white space market when the conflicts in the Middle East will end, hopefully, in a couple of years. Alas, another serious barrier to the adaptation of MAVs in civilian areas is safety. Public opinion regarding the value of human lives continues to increase (partially because of the collateral damage made by UAV attacks), and the public will not tolerate unjust loss of lives due to accidents in civilian airspace. Prof. Seiler from the University of Minnesota, one of our
Pioneer 12

interviewees, mentioned that the probability of fatal error of UAVs is seven orders of magnitude higher than fatal errors in commercial manned flights. The large difference is due to the lack of a triple redundancy system, which was described in HW 5, in UAVs. A new approach of analytical error modeling is being developed to significantly improve the rate of fatal errors in MAVs which will result in more reliable operation. If MAVs can become nearly accident free, it is likely that they will be here to stay. VIII. COMMERCIAL, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL PROJECTIONS In order to estimate the timeline of the adoption of MAVs into our civilian lives, one should consider several factors. For one, legal issues are currently being considered, as the recently passed FAA bill has paved the way for the legalization of the usage of UAVs domestically. Also, technology readiness is a twofold issue. On one hand, the technology of MAVs is mature and several models are deployed around the world. On the other hand, the high fatal error rate of UAVs is a concern (the rate is 0.01 fatal errors per hour of flight). We envision that the FAA will provide the required regulations by 2015, but the usage of micro-UAVs will not become widespread until the safety issues have been resolved, which we estimate to be around 2018. A period of five years was chosen to accommodate the development of analytical models for fatal errors in aircrafts. Since the modeling knowledge and aircraft dynamics are well known areas, we believe this estimate is realistic and achievable. It will not be advantageous for commercial companies and government agencies to use MAVs without addressing this concern, since one accident over a populated area will be a high profile event in the media, which can sway the public away from supporting the usage of unmanned aircrafts over US soil. IX. S-CURVE ANALYSIS The DoD has shown interest in MAVs and NAVs through initial funding in the late 1980s. Between 1990 and 1999, the DoD invested over $3 billion in UAV development, procurement, and operations. The increasing budget spent on the development of UAVs has led to decreased size and higher performance, from Pioneer in the 1980s to Dragon Eye in early 2000. The vast majority of the research and development has occurred in the defense industry due to relatively high capital costs, which has consequently resulted in a low demand commercially. MAVs are in the growth region in the defense industry, but still in the introduction region in commercial applications as discussed in the section above. Possible applications for micro-UAVs that would fully differentiate them from their fullsize counterparts are not yet fully developed. Thus, in the very near future, there will continue to be a reliance on manned aircrafts and full-size UAVs. However, as micro-UAVs become more cost effective and gain the required capabilities they will establish a sizeable market position. Presently, micro-UAVs face strong competition from larger UAVs and their manned counterparts, but there is still the potential for a disruptive market event. Figure 5 below shows the projected budget on UAVs for next ten years.

Pioneer 13

Figure 4: Teal Groups estimation of the budget to be spent on UAV's [14]

This recent market study by Teal Group [14] estimates that UAV spending will approximately double over the next decade from current worldwide UAV expenditures of $6.6 billion annually to $11.4 billion. Therefore, within the next 10-15 years, micro-UAVs will enter the initial growth region commercially and initial maturity region in the defense industry.

Figure 5: S-Curve analysis for the next 10-15 years

X. TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVEL The technology development of UAVs in general had started as early as World War I, but when the army began demonstrations, initially UAVs failed due to several technological faults. However, UAVs have developed significantly since then, and after becoming fully
Pioneer 14

operational, the DoD began funding on micro-UAVs in 1990s. Micro-UAVs had reached a Technology readiness level of 6 in 2005 [15], when the technology had been demonstrated successfully by the military and was beginning its transition through the Future Combat Systems program of United States. The technology readiness of micro-UAVs can be divided into the readiness of three main aspects 1. Sensors The sensors for autonomous operation of micro-UAVs are still at Level 4, as the sensors are still being developed according to the size for targeting and coordination between swarms of UAVs. 2. Power Source Although different energy sources have been demonstrated for microUAVs as noted above, research is still being carried out to prove feasibility on a widespread scale. Thus, the power source readiness is still at Level 3. 3. Processing Capabilities Presently, microUAVs only carry out single-application specific tasks, but the technology is being developed (Level 4) to allow for more dynamic tasks. XI. TEAM ANALYSIS

Figure 7. Technology Readiness Level diagram [16]

The team structure was as follows: Each member reads the weekly assignment and develops some preliminary points prior to the team meeting, typically held on Friday. The case questions are discussed and major points are recorded. The write-ups for the assignment are split between team members, and other action items are assigned following a discussion of which tasks need to be completed, such as contacting primary resources. A rotating designated compiler receives individual HW sections and sends the compiled document to the team for review. Overall the team functioned extremely well. Some main points are highlighted: Meeting times have been flexible to enable all team members to be present at every meeting. Team meetings have all been effective and efficient, rarely requiring more than one hour per week. Every assignment was satisfactorily completed to all team members standards, and the marks received reflect the high quality of work done by each individual team member. Interviews were conducted as a team. As mentioned in HW 4, the only two issues that arose were some initial uneven distribution of work, and submission of individual HW sections to the compiler during reasonable hours. Within the two weeks following, those issues were rectified and no new problems with the teams function have arisen since.

Pioneer 15

XII. SCENARIO It was no more than a slight buzzing sound that awoke Billy in the middle of the night. Just a swarm of bees passing by, he thought, putting his head back down. They wont harm the crops. The next time he awoke, it was to footsteps and shuffling, loud and intent. The doors burst open and the police had Billy on the ground within seconds. It was over; they had found him and his marijuana farm deep within Yosemite National Park. The Chief Ranger responsible for the bust said in a news release: Thanks to the newest addition to our police forces surveillance equipment, we were able to perform rapid and wide sweeps for marijuana plantations throughout Yosemite, and yesterdays operation reaffirms our commitment that the reserve remains safe for visitors. The job had just become a whole lot easier.

Pioneer 16

XIII. APPENDIX i. Analysis of Interview Responses While the majority of the responses we obtained through primary research were very informative, consistent, and insightful, there were a few extreme responses of which we were naturally wary. On one hand, Dr. Yu-Chong Tai of Caltech gave a very pessimistic view of the future of micro-UAVs. However, we note that his research was conducted more than 5 years ago, and the state of the technology has changed dramatically during that time. For instance, when asked about the future of micro- and nano-UAVs, his response was that neither would be feasible. All of our other sources, who are more up to date with the current state of the technology, agree that the former are feasible while the latter are not. On the other end of the spectrum, we remain critical of the extremely positive responses obtained by Mr. Michael Thoss. It is clear that the marketing manager of a company which sells micro-UAVs would be overly optimistic, due to the vested interest in the technology. ii. Interviews Conducted 1. Dr. Yu-Chong Tai Principle Investigator of Caltech MEMS Group, Electrical Engineering Department. In-person interview. 1. Why did your group stop its research on micro- and nano-UAVs? - While the area is interesting no doubt, it has a significant barrier to overcome. That is if its physically possible. 2. What is the barrier that you are referring to? - The main barrier of these UAV categories is energy, more specifically energy conversions from the battery to the motor and the motors efficiency. 3. But it seems that these days motors, in general, become more and more efficient across the board. What is the issue with the motors of micro- and nano-UAVs? - As we miniaturize devices such as motors there is a great loss of efficiency. While wind turbines can operate at 40% efficiency, efficiency decreases with size. For example, when they tried to miniaturize combustion engine the loss of efficiency came from its small dimension that resulted in loss of heat to the surrounding. Also, electric motors cannot provide high enough energy density to power up a sophisticated nano-UAV. This combined with a low Reynolds number (<100k) makes this physical size barrier impassable. We, in science, try to mimic nature in our devices (micro- and nano-UAVs), but natures mechanism is orders of magnitude more efficient than ours. Another example: conversion of fat to ATP is about 80%90% efficient, and our most advanced and dense lithium battery is nowhere close to this. Also, muscle movement in our body is very energy efficient, and in nature this efficiency is maintained with reduced size (i.e. a mosquito has the same muscleenergy efficiency as us, humans). Our physical laws tell us that it is impossible to mimic nature in this aspect, but I would love for someone to show me evidence on the contrary. 4. Last time, to be clear, in your opinion micro- and nano-UAVs are not feasible? - Yes, they are not because of the physical laws to govern our universe. 5. Assuming scientists pass the energy barrier, would it be possible to create sensors and actuators for nano- and micro-UAVs?

Pioneer 17

For the micro-UAVs it is not as big of an issue, as it is for nano-UAVs. On one hand, sensors dont consume any energy, and hence it is possible to implement them on any size drone assuming that they dont add significant weight (again, wed like to have a high Reynolds number). On the other hand, actuators consume energy, so their activity will be limited.

2. Mr. Stayne Hoff Director of International Business Development for Unmanned Aircraft Systems at AeroVironment. Senior Program Manager of Strategic Products for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Senior Program Manager of Design Development Center for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Over 20 years of experience in aerospace engineering. Telephone interview. Sees incremental improvements in the field of MAVs but does not see the potential for any breakthrough or disruptive technology in the near future. Due to the current limit on technical capabilities, there is an inability to meet additional demands of US military, so there is a focus on exploiting international growth. The communication links with the Predator were initially entirely unencrypted: If you had a computer and an Internet connection, you could have watched the video streams sent back by the Predator from Bosnia. Security of communications and software systems is dictated by performance needs and costs: Emphasis on protecting large, complex, and sensitive systems (i.e. Global Hawk). Discussed AeroVironments corporate strategy for succeeding as a $500 million market cap company amongst multi-billion dollar defense firms: i. Engineering-centric. ii. Maintains direct relationship with military and understood and pivoted to the changes caused by 9/11. iii. Utilize a technology readiness scale to manage R&D. Does not believe nano-UAVs are practical in the near future (5-10 years), but sees a definite push towards commercialization of MAVs.

3. Mr. Michael Thoss Marketing manager of German company Microdrones GmbH. Email correspondence. 1. Are there any foreseeable disruptive technologies that could alter the development of micro-UAVs, or do you think it will follow a natural progression as UAVs did? - My personal guess is that it will follow a natural progression. 2. What are the various applications where UAVs have been used in past? What are the most popular UAV applications presently? - Various applications: count penguins in Antarctica, inspections of pipe and power lines, photogrammetry, precision farming, GIS, inspection of industrial plants, big projects in research and development for disaster management (Air Shield: http://www.microdrones.com/company/research-and-development/uav-projectsmicrodrones.php#air-shield). - Most popular: Inspection flights & surveys of all kinds (Photogrammetry, GIS). 3. What do you feel would be the most realizable commercial applications for microUAVs?

Pioneer 18

- 4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

Aerial Inspection Services, Aerial Mapping Services, Aerial Security Services (e.g. safety for industrial plants or other sensitive areas). What are the possibilities for weaponization of micro-UAVs? - Microdroness aerial platform could get used for scouting jobs (get an overview of an area). How much does an average micro-UAV cost and how do you see the costs in the near future? - A Microdrone platform costs between 23.000 and 40.000 EUR as a standard version. How have the sales of UAVs and number of competitors in the field been in the past? - Sales have been excellent and it looks like they will be in the future since our products seem to be well accepted by our clients - they love them, which is even more motivating for us. - Very few other producers, we evaluate as a qualified competition although a lot of "hobby lines" seems to pop into the market. How do you see the sales of UAVs in the near future (5-10 years)? - Strongly increasing. Where do you see the market of UAVs heading? What market has been the most popular for you (except the military)? - For micro drones, the military market never has been one of the most popular. - Totally more into the civil market (see above) next to public authority market: firefighting & disaster management. Concluding, how many years until micro-UAVs would be used widely all around the world in various applications? - At Microdrones, the micro drone platforms are already since 2006 getting used worldwide. It is already happening and the worldwide market is strongly increasing.

4. Dr. Larry Matthies Principal investigator/task manager of numerous research tasks in computer vision funded by NASA, DARPA, U.S. Army, and other sponsors since 1992 at JPL. Conducted seed research in the area of vision-based navigation of micro air vehicles for reconnaissance and surveillance. Telephone interview. 1. What is the focus of your particular work within the Micro-UAV industry? Can you speak to any fields in particular? - Research on autonomous systems specifically for military reconnaissance applications. MAVs will be used for civil surveillance, news reporting, and entertainment, which all require automation to a different extent. 2. Of these, which do you expect to have the greatest need for automation? - Mostly DOD reconnaissance and inspections, or anything to survey large areas, will need to greatly improve automation capabilities. For instance, automation was key during the disaster in Fukushima when UAVs were sent in to inspect the damage to the reactors. 3. What are some of the greatest technical challenges associated with MAVs used in the military? - There are several key areas: The significantly smaller size of MAVs is an issue for durability and endurance. The smaller the vehicle is, the lower the endurance.

Pioneer 19

4.

5.

6.

7.

The decreased energy efficiency of flight requires high energy-density power sources. This also pertains to sensor and processors, which also need to be made smaller to minimize their impact on the endurance. It is difficult to ensure communications within swarms between individual vehicles for obstacle avoidance and path planning. The simultaneous localization of maps is a big requirement for swarms to work effectively, and this is currently a significant area of focus. As for visual systems and obstacle avoidance, what is the current state-of-the-art? - Currently, this would be Kinect, where vehicle motion is tracked within a closed environment. Some problems such as wind disturbance arise in open areas. What are currently some of the areas of specific focus? - Mapping is a big point of focus. When a vehicle does not have an external reference map, it needs to generate an internal map from sensor input. Many people are working on this, and they work closely with people involved in motion planning. What are the funding trends in the MAV field? Does most of it come from the military? - Since there are multiples sources of funding such as the DOD, NSF, and DARPA, funding over the years has been fairly steady. It is expected to remain so. Do you have a rough timeline for when MAVs will come to the market, say to be in the hands of a teenager? - You can get a quadrocopter today for about $300, but of course it will have very limited automation capabilities.

5. Dr. Peter Seiler Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics at University of Minnesota. Research in the area of control systems with applications to aerospace systems, and design and analysis of safety critical systems. In-person interview. 1. What is your primary research area? - My research interest is in flight controls, more specifically in developing analytic models for error prediction that do not rely on the Fly By Wire (FBW) method. 2. What is FBW? - FBW is the most common method of failure detection in airplanes. It uses the concept of triple modular redundancy. For example, the Boeing 777 has three main computers which were all designed by different teams and relay on different processors (Intel, AMD, and Motorola). 3. What are the advantages of using FBW? - FBW uses independent sub-modules that take over if one system fails, and it also, in some sensors, serves as a signal comparator to detect system error. 4. What are the disadvantages of such a system: - Well, if we consider unmanned aircrafts it means that in order to provide high safety measures against fatal system errors, the company needs to use more processors, sensors, etc. These redundant components add weight and hence reduce the payload of the UAV. Additionally, power consumption is tripled which reduces the mission time. - In commercial airplanes, added weight and higher power consumption are not typically an issue. For small aircraft such as micro aerial vehicles, this redundancy is not possible.

Pioneer 20

5. On that topic, how does your research pertain to micro-UAVs? - As I mentioned, you cant put redundant components on an MAV like you can a commercial airplane like the 777. Through modeling, we can detect errors without needing to use heavy sensors to directly measure them. 6. What are the existing safety regulations on commercial aircraft? - The FAA regulations require that all aircraft above civilian airspace have a probability of fatal system error less than 10-9 per hour of flight. 7. How does the failure rate of MAVs compare? Is it significantly worse? - Yes, by orders of magnitude. The rate of fatal system errors in current MAVs is 0.001 per hour of flight. In fact, you are much more likely to get hit by lightning than be in a commercial plane crash, but MAVs are still too unreliable. 8. Why are the failure rates so much higher for MAVs than commercial planes? - The small size of MAVs prohibits the component redundancy found in commercial planes. 9. In your opinion, roughly by when would you estimate that UAVs achieve the same safety statistics as manned aircraft? - Earlier this year, Congress passed a bill requiring the FAA to develop regulations on commercial UAV usage. I believe that in the next 5-10 years the industry will be forced to comply with these upcoming FAA regulations in order to compete in this emerging market. 10. What are the main sources of funding for your research? - My research regarding analytic models of flight control is mainly funded by DARPA and the DOD. 11. Do you expect funding to change in the next years? - No, these agencies provide continuous and stable funding for this type of research. 6. Dr. Peter Seiler Email correspondence following interview. 1. What are some of the physical design challenges specific to small aircraft such as microUAVs that don't exist in a large aircraft? What methods of fault analysis are currently employed in UAVs? - Size, weight, and power constraints are the main issues with micro-UAVs relative to large aircraft. As noted in my talk, commercial aircraft mainly rely on massive physical redundancy to obtain reliable designs. This is not possible for micro-UAVs. I'm not up to date on the micro-class of UAVs but medium/larger sized UAVs mainly rely on single-string designs (i.e. they don't use as much redundancy). I would imagine the same would be true for micro-UAVs. 2. You had mentioned that commercial planes have a failure rate of 10^-9 per hour of flight. Would it be it possible, in the near future, to completely avoid triple modular redundancy in favor of analytical failure models and achieve similar failure rates? - It seems unlikely that micro-UAVs would achieve a level of 10^-9 catastrophic failures per hour achieved by commercial aircraft. Military aircraft achieve ~10^-5 fails/hour and recent data on larger UAVs (e.g. predator) show even higher failure rates ~10^-2 fails/hour. One point is that micro-UAVs may not need to achieve such high levels of reliability because the consequences are not so severe (no pilot onboard, smaller aircraft means that crashing into something may not be catastrophic). I

Pioneer 21

3.

4. 5.

6.

guess I would envision model-based methods being used to improve the existing UAV reliability by a few orders of magnitude (from 10^-2 to 10^-4). This seems feasible but I don't envision that you would get to 10^-9 purely with model-based methods. By when do you expect micro-UAVs to attain a sufficiently low failure rate to be used commercially? - As noted above, I don't envision micro-UAVs ever achieving the same level of reliability as commercial aircraft. This is not really a big issue in my mind since military fighter aircraft also do not achieve the same level of reliability as commercial aircraft. What do you think would be some of the first commercial applications of micro-UAVs? - Surveillance (e.g. after natural disasters), scientific studies that require mobile sensors, enhanced agricultural sensing, etc. Do you have an opinion on the negative public perception that is triggered by the thought of conducting surveillance using UAV's over American soil? - Yes, there are important ethical and legal issues that must be addressed. What are/have been the main sources of funding for your research, and what do you anticipate the trend to be in the near future? - Funding for UAV in general typically comes from the usual suspects: NSF, AFOSR, ONR, NASA, industry (Lockheed, Boeing, Honeywell, Goodrich). This trend will likely continue possibly with some additional funds from the FAA and/or Dept. of Homeland Security.

iii. References [1] New York Times. War Evolves with Drones, Some Tiny as Bugs. January 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/world/20drones.html?pagewanted=all [2] Department of Defense. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030, 2005. http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav_roadmap2005.pdf [3] Barnard microsystems limited. Solar Powered unmanned aircraft. http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_solar_uav.htm [4] Popsci. Power-Seeking Flying Microdrone Would Scavenge Solar and Thermal Energy Day and Night. April 2010. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/microdrone-would-scavenge-solar-and-thermal-energy-day-and-night [5] Gizmag. Micro-UAV distance record smashed. November, 2007. http://www.gizmag.com/go/8287/ [6] Laser Power for UAVs. http://lasermotive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/WirelessPower-for-UAVs-March2010.pdf [7] Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies. Horizon Fuel Cell Powers New World Record in UAV Flight. http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/file/Pterosoardistancerecord.pdf [8] United States Air Force. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009 2047. http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/072309kp1.pdf [9] Federal Research Division, DoD. Mini, Micro, and Swarming Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Baseline Study. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521374 [10] AeroVironment. AeroVironment Switchblade. http://www.avinc.com/uas/adc/switchblade/ [11] Chad Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler, Homeland Security. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and
Pioneer 22

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Border Surveillance. Congressional Research Service, July 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf Hill Kashmir. Congress Welcomes The Drones. Forbes, July 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/07/congress-welcomes-the-drones/ Waterman Shaun. Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress. Washington Post, July 2012. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/print/ Teal groups prediction on future UAV market. http://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/teal-group-predicts-worldwide-uav-market-will-total-89-billion-in-its-2012-uavmarket-profile-and-forecast-147008115.html Gizmag. UAVs get smaller: The Micro Air Vehicle nears readiness. http://www.gizmag.com/go/4779/ NASA Technology Readiness Level Scale. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/NASA_TRL_Meter.jpg

Pioneer 23