The AirBurr flying robot (artist's impression) can recover from collisions and resume exploring—without human intervention. Courtesy Adrien Briod, Adam Klaptocz, Jean-Christophe Zufferey, and Dario Floreano of the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems.

Is there anything robots can’t do? They operate on land, in the air, and at sea, and come in an astonishing range of shapes and sizes. Some weigh less than an insect, while others are large enough to carry several tons of bombs. For the military, they provide reconnaissance, defuse roadside bombs, and strike high-value targets. On the civilian side, a flying robot provided the first detailed video of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was damaged in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Robots are helping The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery search for Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra. And, as more than three million YouTube viewers have seen, they can even play the theme song from the James Bond franchise.

But one thing they do have difficulty with is recovering after collisions. That’s where AirBurr, a flying robot, has an advantage. Its flexible body protects the robot should it crash into a wall. And if it falls to the ground, AirBurr—using a leg design inspired by locusts and beetles—can right itself and continue flying. (During flight the robot’s four carbon-fiber legs are rolled up.)

“It all started when we looked at insects, and how they fly,” says researcher Adam Klaptocz, in EPFL’s video, below. “Even though they manage to avoid most obstacles, they still manage to fly into windows and fly into walls, yet it’s ok. They don’t break. They fall to the ground, they get back up again, and they keep flying.” The main application of this type of robot, says Klaptocz, is to explore hard-to-reach places where humans—or even other robots—can’t navigate, such as irradiated nuclear power plants, caves, and collapsed mines.

While some flying robots can try to avoid collisions by using on-board sensors that allow it to create a map of the environment, such platforms are heavier, fragile, and typically don’t survive any accidental crashes. The AirBurr team decided to create a robot that would withstand routine bumps and jolts. This approach allows them to use cheaper, less-complex sensors, and lightens the robot’s weight.

Learn more about AirBurr and the work of researchers Adrien Briod, Adam Klaptocz, Przemyslaw Mariusz Kornatowski, and Jean-Christophe Zufferey.

JETMAN from Evert Cloetens on Vimeo.

Update: Oops, it looks like that video was taken down from Vimeo. Instead, enjoy some of these earlier videos: Jetman flying with a couple of actual jets, and some spectacular scenes while flying over the Grand Canyon.

I applaud Terrafugia’s up-front marketing strategy: they have always marketed the Transition to pilots and those who are willing to earn a pilot’s license. The company has never claimed that road-ragers can untangle themselves from traffic jams by pressing a GO UP button in their Transitions and VTOL-ing up and away, like a scene from The Fifth Element.

But here’s the catch: All involved admit a flying car tends to combine the worst of both vehicles, so for $279,000, you get an underperforming car AND an underperforming airplane in one silly-looking vehicle. In its FAQs, Terrafugia notes, “If bad weather is encountered en route, the pilot can land and drive without worrying about ground transportation…”

Sounds nifty keen-o, but most pilots planning a cross-country flight will check the weather on their route, and prepare to file an instrument flight plan if need be; if they lack an instrument rating, they will schedule the flight for another day. I doubt they find much of an advantage in buying a so-so airplane with which they can land in case of bad weather and continue on in a so-so car. Why not just drive your car to the airport and fly your airplane, like pilots have done since dinosaurs roamed the earth? Not to be a Luddite, but If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, especially with a $279,000 patch kit.

On the other hand, Maverick, the ITEC flying car, does make sense for missionary pilots, the military, poaching patrols, and powerline surveys. It’s a straightforward all-terrain vehicle with a parasail-type wing in which one can navigate dunes and grassland and skim over floodplains or other deal-breakers — for about $90,000.

I’m not bad-mouthing Terrafugia: their hearts and minds are in the right place. It’s just that the idea of a flying car has been around for decades, and there’s a reason why we don’t have one by now:  no market beyond novelty buyers.

Pipistrel-USA takes first place at the Green Flight Challenge. Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls

Thirteen teams signed up for the Challenge, but only three teams made it to the actual race without dropping out or being disqualified.  Performed over the course of a week, the challengers must meet requirements in three separate tests: noise, performance, and speed.

Two teams were up to the task, fulfilling all requirements.  The electric powered Pipistrel scored first place, announced at the awards ceremony Monday afternoon.  According to its website:

The Taurus Electro G2 [model of Pipistrel] can use a shorter runway, climbs faster and performs much better than the gasoline-powered version when it comes to high altitude operations. All this is possible thanks to the specially-developed emission-free Pipistrel’s 40kW electric power-train.

One other plane was up to the challenge, though with slightly lower scores than the Pipistrel: the e-Genius. Also a two-seater electric plane, the German plane uses a 60-kilowatt motor and is backed by Airbus.  Though it didn’t take top honors, the team will still take home $120,000 for second place and an additional $10,000 for the Lindbergh Quiet Aircraft Prize.

The Green Flight Challenge was founded by the Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation and is sponsored by Google, while NASA provides the total $1.65 million in cash prizes through their Centennial Challenges Program.

This summer the X-47B unmanned combat aircraft made its first arrested landing on the USS Eisenhower. Well, actually it was an F/A-18D Hornet (left) operating as a surrogate, using the software and avionics of the X-47B. And a pilot was in the cockpit, or, in Navy parlance, “in the loop.”  Off-camera and well off-ship, a less glamorous King Air fitted with the same control system set down smoothly on a land-based runway.

Both landings brought the Navy a step closer to meeting its mission goal of an “autonomous, low-observable, relevant unmanned aircraft.” The surrogate tests pose lower risk than landing a real X-47B without prior sea trials, and at far lower cost.

Today’s carrier approaches are flown manually by a pilot using visual cues and a radio dispatch, usually sent from the Landing Signal Officer (LSO) on deck. Most of the information is relayed by voice, the rest by handheld flags, which can introduce both delay and errors. The purpose of the UCAS-D (Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration) program is to digitize all communications and navigation data, while minimizing the new hardware and training requirements for the awkward human component.

Both the aircraft and the ship’s control tower will use GPS navigation. Eventually the carrier’s LSO will fold up his flags and transmit all instructions via a digital network integrated with the primary flight control tower on deck. Digital control will also reach the ship’s ready room below, which may have no pilots in the traditional sense.

The landing signal officer, soon to be disconnected

“The idea is to move out from the old-fashioned class system—first class, business class, economy class—and think more about the experience,” says Airbus chief engineer Charles Champion in an interview with The (London) Telegraph. “So the idea is, you approach the plane, you put your hand close to the door, immediately the plane recognizes you, shows you toward your seat, takes care [of] your luggage, and then you’ve got basically a choice within a ‘smart tech’ zone, and a more revitalizing ‘relaxing’ zone.”

For Type A personalities, the cabin’s Smart Tech zone includes an “energy harvesting system” that uses body heat to power the aircraft and light the cabin. Morphing seats adapt to the passenger’s body; each individual’s budget dictates the amount of comfort and space. (Why does this bring to mind Oliver Twist and his bowl of gruel? Please, sir, I want some more.) “You might be traveling alone,” says an Airbus press release, “but holographics, communication technologies and sound showers let you work with your colleagues…” Great.

Never leave the office: work with holographic co-workers in flight. Courtesy Airbus.

Passengers looking to get away from work might choose the Vitalising zone, which offers panoramic views outside the aircraft (the fuselage becomes transparent “with the wave of a hand”). There you can veg in your “intelligent organically grown seat” that will offer you a massage, a drink, a gentle sea breeze or the scent of a pine forest.

Multi-task: Play golf while flying to your destination. Courtesy Airbus.

If you’re like many overworked Americans who never take a vacation, perhaps you’d like to consider the flight itself “a holiday experience.” Head over to the Interaction zone, where you can belly up to the bar or access a “pop-up pod” that “will offer more private spaces that can be used for…a romantic meal.” (Among other things.) Go shopping in the aircraft’s holographic mall, or play tennis, baseball, golf, or “newer options like Airbus Fusion Ball, which lets you play catch across the skyscrapers of New York or the peaks of the Himalayas!”

Virgil Tracy (foreground) flanked by bro Gordon (orange sash), and engineer "Brains" (who designs the team's equipment).

Who can forget billionaire ex-spaceman Jeff Tracy and his five sons (Scott, Virgil, Alan, Gordon, and John), each named after a Mercury astronaut? Remember how they—through their organization (International Rescue)—um…rescued people…internationally? Ok, so they were puppets. Deal with it, people!

The Royal Air Force Museum (London) invites fans of the 1960s television show Thunderbirds to revisit their inner child (as well as the museum) on May 14 and “play with giant sized versions of classic children’s games whilst listening to music of the 60s and 70s.” The museum will also have on display original models, and will air episodes from Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet in the museum’s cinema. Sylvia Anderson, the voice of Lady Penelope and the co-creator of the show, will discuss her career, the actors she worked with, and the inspiration behind the puppets. (Anderson and her husband are the creative team also responsible for Space: 1999, starring the wooden Barbara Bain and the over-the-top Martin Landau.)

Screenshot of Thunderbird 2 copyright Carlton International Media Limited.

Our marionette heroes use a variety of air- and spacecraft to carry out their missions. Thunderbird 2 (usually piloted by son Virgil Tracy, he of the intimidating eyebrows, above), is a large green VTOL aircraft used in most of the team’s earth-based rescue missions. The big bird can fly anywhere in the world without refueling, and cruises along at 2,000 mph, but can achieve 5,000 mph when needed. Amazingly, it is not the team’s fastest mode of transport. That honor goes to Thunderbird 1 (typically piloted by Scott Tracy), a hypersonic rocket that can travel 15,000 mph, or Mach 22.6. You’d think that a rocket capable of that speed would have extremely complex controls, but no. Thunderbird 1 is controlled by a mere two control levers. Life is so easy when you’re a puppet!

Screenshot of Thunderbird 1 copyright Carlton International Media Limited.

Lockheed Martin's transformer concept.

The defense research agency DARPA recently selected six companies to participate in a year-long program to transform a Humvee-like vehicle into an aircraft. Lockheed Martin and AAI Corporation are asked to supply something that can “avoid traditional and asymmetrical threats while avoiding road obstructions,” according to DARPA’s press release.

The program hopes to “combine the advantages of ground vehicles with helicopters.” But is this scenario even plausible? As John Grossmann wrote for us in January 1996 (“Auto Pilots”), “The challenges of building [a flying car] are perhaps exceeded only by the challenges of selling it. Because a vehicle worthy of both land and air has compromise written all over it, the technical challenges are numerous. The common elements are few: fuel tank, steering wheel, passenger and baggage compartments, wheels, and engine. For flight you need wings, ailerons, a horizontal stabilizer, a vertical tail, rudder, elevators, and a propeller, none of which has any business on a car. For the road, you need a drive train and bumpers, not to mention rear-view mirrors and catalytic converters—all dead weight in the air.” (Even Terrafugia’s “roadable aircraft” lists this as a caveat: “Terrafugia’s philosophy is to design a vehicle for pilots that brings additional ground capability to an airplane instead of attempting to make a car fly.”)

AAI Corporation's concept.

DARPA’s vehicle is supposed to carry four troops and travel up to 250 miles (that’s both on land and in the air). First phase development will include propulsion systems, wing structures, and the advanced flight control system.

The flight control system, by the way, will allow for semi-autonomous flight, according to the press release, “permitting a nonpilot to perform VTOLs [Vertical Takeoff or Landing], transition into forward flight, and update the flight path in response to changing mission requirements or threats.”

Aerocar. Courtesy NASM.

Did no one think of the Aerocar (left) as a solution to this problem? If I saw a bunch of Marines piling out of that bad boy, I’d run.

Artwork: Wright Patterson AFB.

The Air Force’s X-51A Waverider is being readied for its first hypersonic test flight on Tuesday, May 25. If all goes well, the scramjet-powered vehicle will fly for five minutes and hit Mach 6 before coming down into the ocean off the California coast. Project engineers hope to collect lots of data, while breaking the previous record for a scramjet flight, just 10 seconds, set by NASA’s X-43 in 2004.

Update on the April 22 HTV-2 hypersonic test: No joy—the vehicle stopped transmitting data nine minutes into its flight.

DoD photograph by Cpl. James L. Yarboro, U.S. Marine Corps.

What springs to mind when thinking of the Humvee? Its sleek, aerodynamic lines? Well, no. But that didn’t stop DARPA from announcing (in a 58-page proposal) its plans for combining an SUV-type ground vehicle with Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) capabilities. In other words, a flying Humvee.

DARPA’s “desirable field design considerations” (found at FastCompany.com) require a payload capability of 1,000; the ability to carry 4 troops and their gear; maximum dimensions of 8.5 feet wide, by 9 feet high, by 30 feet long; and that the vehicle be capable of VTOL. Added perks would include automated takeoff and landing, and the ability to make use of standard military fuel, primarily JP-8.

The UK Register reports that a prototype of the “Transformer TX” is expected by 2015, at a cost of no more than $43 million.

Mach 20! Yee-hah!

The field of hypersonic flight research is about to get a boost—actually, two boosts. DARPA’s Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, or HTV-2, is due to launch Thursday on a Minotaur rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (after two days of weather delays).

The unpowered glider will be released from the rocket to fly back through the atmosphere, and is expected to reach at least Mach 20 before slamming into the Pacific Ocean near Kwajalein Atoll. On the way down, it will send back lots of data on basics like structural heating, navigation and aerodynamics. The flight should last just 30 minutes, and will be followed by a second Falcon test early next year.

Then, later this spring (no sooner than the end of May), the U.S. Air Force’s X-51 WaveRider is due to begin a series of flights from Edwards Air Force Base. Here’s a preview:

Photo: Solar Impulse

A Swiss-built solar-powered airplane made its first short “flea hop” flight yesterday, in anticipation of initial test flights next year. The Solar Impulse HB-S1A, a project of Swiss aeronautical adventurer Bertrand Piccard, flew 1,150 feet, skimming along a military runway in Zurich just a meter above the ground.

See pictures and videos here.

Concept courtesy of Lockheed Martin.

Size matters. (Well, at least in the surveillance world.)

And three projects under way take dimensions to whole new lengths. The LEMV (it stands for Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle) is a mammoth hybrid airship championed by the U.S. Army as part of a future fleet of reconnaissance vehicles. As required in the U.S. Army’s LEMV proposal request, the non-rigid autonomous airship must be able to operate at 20,000 feet above sea level, have a 2,000-mile radius, and remain deployed for 21 days.

The 250-foot-long airship will be able to house a 5,000-pound payload of radar and motion-imagery sensors, in addition to other spyware. While the LEMV has yet to be built—Lockheed Martin is one possible airframe supplier—the buoyant behemoth is expected to deploy to Afghanistan within 18 months.

Photograph courtesy AeroVironment, Inc.

On the other end of the spectrum is AeroVironment’s NAV (Nano Air Vehicle) “Mercury,” which weighs less than an ounce. Mercury mimics a bird in flight with its ability to climb and descend vertically—as well as fly sideways and backwards—and is part of a new class of small remote-controlled gadgets able to fly indoors and gather intelligence in urban settings.

Lockheed Martin’s NAV, based on a maple seed, is in the second stage of testing. As we reported in 2006, Lockheed Martin hopes that soldiers will be able to carry the NAV in their pockets, and use the technology to photograph cave interiors, or to see what’s lurking down a blind alley.

Photograph courtesy Lockheed Martin.

According to Jill Krugman, a public affairs officer with Lockheed Martin, DARPA stopped funding the project at the conclusion of phase one. But the company felt development should continue, and the corporation has been funding the project through Independent Research and Design (IRAD). “Through IRAD,” says Krugman, “the team developed the approximately 30″ SAMARAI as a technology demonstrator.” (View a YouTube video of the 30″ prototype here.) As the project progresses, the team will build increasingly smaller versions, based upon what they learn during testing.