See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/229091429

The Entomopter

Chapter · January 2002

CITATIONS READS
10 723

1 author:

Robert C. Michelson
Georgia Institute of Technology
30 PUBLICATIONS   193 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environment and radar operation simulator View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert C. Michelson on 20 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Neurotechnology for Biomimetic Robots

Robert C. Michelson
Principal Research Engineer
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Adj. Associate Professor
School of Aerospace Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology

The Entomopter

The Entomopter is a multimode autonomous robot that is capable of flight, ambula-

tory locomotion, and swimming behaviors in a single vehicle. Autonomous naviga-
tion is based on a combination of attraction and avoidance behaviors deriving input
from both an integrated optic olfactory sensor for detection of chemical species (or
alternately a sensor for a specific type of radiation), and an ultrasonic swept beam
ranging device.

For indoor flight operations, the flapping wing is considered the best approach. Other
modes of locomotion (crawling or swimming) are based on the same actuation system
as that used for flapping wing flight, but do not involve the complexity, precision, or
energy expenditure associated with flight. For this reason, current development has
concentrated on the problems associated with flight using flapping wings.

Entomopter feasibility was established under contract to the DARPA/DSO Mesoma-

chines program where it is referred to as a Mesoscaled Aerial Robot (MAR). The
Air Force (AFRL) has issued a contract under its Revolutionary Technology Pro-
gram to extend the flight muscle to into the fourth generation of size reduction and
performance enhancement. Of particular interest to the Air Force and others is the
potential for swarms of Entomopter vehicles to rapidly penetrate denied areas such
as deeply buried underground facilities. This is possible because of the Entomopter
size, multimode locomotion, and its anaerobic propulsion system which allows covert
ingress through sewer pipes, ducts, or electrical conduits. The NASA Institute for
Advanced Concepts (NIAC) has funded a study to look at the Entomopter for use as
a Mars Flyer for exploration. The Entomopter’s ability to fly in low Reynolds num-
ber conditions without need for air breathing propulsion makes it a natural candidate
for a Mars Flyer which will operate with a larger vehicle size in the rarefied Martian
atmosphere (at Reynolds numbers similar to those encountered by its miniature
Earthbound predecessor). Unlike fixed wing flyers, an Entomopter-based Mars Flyer
would be able to cover a wide area while still being able to fly slowly, land, crawl,
obtain surface samples for analysis, and return to a base station for refuelling. As of
this writing, one patent has been issued for the Entomopter concept and a second is
pending for the reciprocating chemical muscle design.

Biomimetics was the starting point for the Entomopter design, but rather than attempt-
ing to replicate biological kinematics and aerodynamics, improved systems have been
devised to leverage what is observed in biological systems to produce a machine that
is manufacturable, controllable, and able to generate the power necessary to fly from
onboard energy sources. Just as wheels are superior locomotors under certain cir-
cumstances, but are not a common form of locomotion for biological systems, so the
Entomopter has extended its design beyond the biological baseline in some areas.

The Hawk Moth (Manduca sexta) was chosen as a base line model for the wing aero-
dynamics. The flapping mechanism for the Entomopter has been extended beyond
that of the Hawk Moth to provide a resonant single-piece construction that takes ad-
vantage of torsional resonance in the Entomopter fuselage to recover flapping energy
as is common to flying insects which temporarily store potential energy in either the
muscles or exoskeletal parts (resilin).

The same structure that provides wing flapping also scans a frequency modulated
continuous wave (FMCW) ultrasonic beam to provide front, side, and down-looking
range measurements for obstacle avoidance and altimetry. It also has the potential to
track and follow free-moving agents in a fashion similar to that employed by bats.

Stability and control in flight as well as navigation is achieved by actively modify-

ing the lift of each wing on a beat-to-beat basis using pneumatic control of the air
circulating over the beating wing. Positive lift can be generated on not only the down
beat but the up beat as well. Coefficients of lift exceeding the theoretical maximum
by 500% for the given wing shape can be achieved, without the complexity of active
angle-of-attack modulating mechanisms.

A chemically fueled reciprocating chemical muscle has been designed and is in its
fourth generation of development at the time of this writing. This actuator system
has demonstrated 70 Hz reciprocation rates with throws and evolved power levels
necessary to support flight, crawling, or swimming of a self-contained fully autono-
mous Entomopter system.
Terrestrial Entomopter Missions
Assets exist for outdoor aerial reconnaissance. Experiments have shown on numerous
occasions, including operations such as Desert Storm, that conventionally-sized UAVs
often go unnoticed when flying at several thousand feet over their targets. The state of
the art in optics is such that high resolution video and infrared images can be gathered
unobtrusively from platforms that exist today (e.g., Predator, Global Hawk). “Tiny”
has additional stealth advantage, but carries an unwarranted cost when considered as
a replacement for existing assets performing outdoor missions. This cost is not only
in dollars, but in the ability to perform missions under even moderate weather aber-
rations. The real issue to be addressed is how to get the intelligence to be gathered
under the control of, and into the hands of the individual warfighter. “Tiny” is only
one of several possible solutions to addressing that goal. For example, multiplexing
the Predator sensors to take snap shots of specific regions of the battlefield and to
deliver them in near real time to the individual users who request them, is probably
an easier and better integrated approach to C3I than putting tiny personal air vehicles
in the hands of the warfighter.

The real mission niche for tiny intelligent unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or me-
soscaled aerial robots (MARs) as we shall call them, will be indoors where the envi-
ronment is controlled, and there are no existing reconnaissance craft that can rapidly
negotiate hallways, crawl under doors, or navigate ventilation systems in an attempt
to quickly penetrate deep into a building to complete a reconnaissance mission. It is
the urban indoor mission that will ultimately justify the development expense. The
very nature of an indoor mission will necessitate (1) multimode vehicles (flying/
crawling/rolling/swimming), and (2) autonomous navigation.

It is desirable that these miniature automatons be not only small but possess multi-
mode locomotion like insects, so they can move more freely and rapidly through a
maze of obstacles, under doors, or inside otherwise inaccessible conduits. Size is
important to a multimode robotic vehicle when negotiating indoor terrain. But it is
also important when considering that operations in the indoor environment place the
mesoscaled aerial robot in much closer proximity to its target than would ever be
expected during outdoor operations. Therefore the stealthiness of small size becomes
a significant feature for indoor operations.

A multimode MAR ought to be able to transition between modes. A flying vehicle

may need to land to crawl under a door, but then be able to take off again. This re-
quirement leads to propulsion techniques that can generate lift sufficient for flight in
confined spaces. Unlike fixed wing MAR implementations, rotary wing and flapping
wing solutions are not only able to land and take off vertically, but they can also fly
slow enough to navigate successfully indoors. Of conceivable rotary wing and flap-
ping wing solutions, the flapping wing has the potential to be the least complex and
most energy efficient if approached correctly.

An autonomous, homing, multimode insect-like MAR addresses a number of defi-

ciencies that exist for indoor reconnaissance missions. A Reciprocating Chemical
Muscle is key to the development of a biomimetic MAR. Indoor reconnaissance
and a number of other missions of military and intelligence importance that are not
currently possible, could be considered were a MAR of even limited endurance in
existence.

Entomopter System Description

An autonomous insect-like robotic vehicle capable of rapidly and covertly placing sen-
sors in remote, inaccessible locations within buildings is under development. Known
as an “Entomopter” (GK: en, in + temnein, to cut (in ref. to an insect’s segmented
body) + pteron, wing  “insect wing”), this mesoscaled aerial robotic vehicle will be
multimode in that it will not only crawl, but fly. Other embodiments could be made
to swim if a mission required it to move through sewers, for example. However, this
discussion will concentrate on a biomimetically-inspired MAR capable of only flight
and ground locomotion.

The heart of the proposed Entomopter is a Reciprocating Chemical Muscle (RCM).

Internally-funded efforts at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) were con-
ducted to develop a proof of principal RCM. The RCM is an anaerobic, ignitionless,
catalytic device that can operate from a number of chemical fuel sources. While
under funding from DARPA/DSO to show feasibility of an Entomopter-based MAR,
the RCM was refined, reduced in size, and demonstrated to develop the power and
speed necessary for flight.

Using acoustic ranging methods similar to “bat navigation”, the Entomopter is able to
recycle waste products from locomotive respiration to create a frequency modulated
continuous wave (FMCW) ultrasonic emission for obstacle avoidance and altim-
etry. A miniature gas-operated ultrasonic transmitter for the Entomopter has been
demonstrated as part of the DARPA/DSO Mesomachines for Military Applications
program.

A novel approach to flapping wing design has been developed which avoids the me-
chanically complex kinematics of an insect wing. Instead, a simple resonant autonomic
wing beat has been shown to produce yaw, pitch, roll, and speed changes through the
use of pneumatically generated lift modification of the dual Entomopter wings using
only waste gas produced by the RCM. These wings have been modeled after those
of the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta but have since been simplified in morphology to
accommodate active flow control and to be made easier to manufacture. Wind tunnel
tests show that the wing aerodynamics are not degraded by these simplifications.

During indoor missions, stability and navigation is achieved through instantaneous lift
modification of the of the wings on a beat-to-beat basis. A combination of attractive
(homing) and reactive (avoidance) behavior is used to navigate. Solid state interfero-
metric sensors developed at GTRI are capable of detecting minute concentrations of
molecular species to direct the Entomopter to a source of outgassing. The acoustic
obstacle avoidance system overrides the olfactory motivation when temporary course
changes are necessary in order to prevent collisions.

The goal of the Entomopter program is to develop, build, and demonstrate a flying,
crawling insect-like MAR that can rapidly penetrate a structure to covertly deliver or
retrieve a host of miniature payloads to/from a specific location. First order computer
simulations of a 50 gram MAR have already shown that flights of up to a kilometer
are achievable in a labyrinth of hallways of a multistory building.

The Reciprocating Chemical Muscle (RCM) is a regenerative device that converts

chemical energy into motion through a direct noncombustive chemical reaction.
Hence, the concept of a “muscle” as opposed to an engine. There is no combustion
taking place nor is there an ignition system required. The RCM is not only capable
of producing autonomic wing flapping as well as small amounts of electricity for
control of MEMS devices and the “nervous system” of the Entomopter, but it cre-
ates enough gas to energize circulation-controlled airfoils. This means that simple
autonomic (involuntary, uncontrolled) wing flapping of constant frequency and equal
amplitude can result in directional control of the Entomopter by varying the coeffi-
cient of lift (CL) on each of the wings, thereby inducing a roll moment about the body
of the Entomopter while in flight. Figure N1 shows ‘milli-scaled’ wing structures
grown in the Institute’s stereolithography and fused deposition modeling machines.
Wings like these will not only act as smart structures to create a proper angles of
attack under opposite aerodynamic loads during the up beat and down beat, but the
hollow micro-channels in the ribs provide circulation control gas from the RCM to
“blow” the wings for directional control in flight as well as lift when the wing is at
negative angles of attack during the up beat.

The implementation of a Reciprocating Chemical Muscle is motivated chiefly by the

basic necessity for very high rate of energy release from compact energy sources.
Electrically-driven systems suffer from the poor energy density of batteries, while
electrical actuators are typically dense (heavy), or suffer from insufficient force and
motion as in the case of electrostatic or piezoelectric propulsors. To increase motion,
piezoelectric ceramics can be stacked, but this leads to greater weight, stiffness, and
often higher required voltages. Rheological fluids can be slow to respond and will
therefore be difficult to use with flapping wing implementations requiring beat fre-
quencies of 20 to 50 Hz. Faster acting polymeric muscles have been demonstrated,
but require high actuation voltages, dictating the need for power conversion circuits
which add weight and loss to the already heavy onboard battery pack. Actuators of
NITINOL wire are totally out of the question due to the significant current require-
ments and variable performance under environmental extremes.

On the other hand, a milli-scaled RCM (Figure N2) has demonstrated pounds of
force at frequencies up to 20 Hz on the workbench (Michelson1, 1998), and the 2X
version of Figure N3 was able to reciprocate at 70 Hz with throws of 0.5 inches.
This supports the idea that a reasonable range of power/motion and frequency can
be achieved to flap the wings of a 15 to 20 cm Entomopter. The goal of creating
an Entomopter with a wingspan of less than 20 cm places constraints on the size of
the muscle mechanism but also creates an environment in which high speed muscle
operation is less affected by inertia.

The 2X RCM shown in Figure N3 is fabricated from components using conventional

precision machining techniques. Manufacturing techniques used to produce the pres-
ent milli-scaled RCM remain applicable for an implementation at half the current
size. In fact, the 2X scaled RCM of Figure N3 has internal porting that is actual size
(1X) for a 50 gram Entomopter. Even greater performance is expected as the muscle
mass and volume are reduced.

As conceived, the RCM-driven Entomopter employs a novel X-wing flapping design

that differs from the conventional wing flapping observed in birds and insects. It
provides additional longitudinal stability (pitch axis) while simplifying manufacture
at the mesoscale since the flapping wings and body (fuselage) can be produced as a
single torsional part.
The Entomopter-based MAR is an advance in the state-of-the-art of robotic reconnais-
sance vehicles in that it uses flapping wing technology driven by a novel propulsion
system to allow not only to ground locomotion, but flight. Its resonant X-wing flap-
ping is a nonobvious solution that simplifies manufacture of the MAR at the micro air
vehicle scale (under 15 cm in any dimension as defined by DARPA), and is ideally
suited for actuation by the RCM.

Active flow control of the wings for stability, control, and flight path adjustment is
also a nonobvious solution to the complexity of multiple degree of freedom flapping
wing dynamics. Through the use of this technique, complete control of the vehicle
flight dynamics can be had from a simple single degree-of-freedom autonomic up-
down flapping motion. Since the wing kinematics are simpler, the ability to produce
an affordable Entomopter at these scales is enhanced.

Stored energy becomes a significant impediment as MAR mission duration increases.

The present state-of-the-art in battery technology does not allow for long endurance
MAR missions, though it is hoped that someday improved electrical storage media
(miniature fuel cells, etc.) will result in the energy densities required for useful long
endurance (> 1 hour) missions in small insect-sized vehicles. Near term solutions
to onboard energy storage will come from chemical or fossil fuels because of their
superior energy density. As a point of contrast, consider the amount of releasable
energy stored in a drop of gasoline compared to that which can be stored in a battery
the size of a drop of gasoline.

Analysis (Michelson2 1997) shows that a successful flapping wing MAR will have to
be less than 50 grams in weight and will expend 4 watts continuously to maintain flight.
Merely doubling the vehicle weight to 100 grams would cause the energy required
for flight to soar by 800 percent! As fuel is consumed, the Entomopter will become
lighter and easier to fly, unlike battery-driven vehicles which are just as heavy toward
the end of the mission as the beginning. The RCM-driven Entomopter will actually
improve in performance as the mission progresses. Current battery technology and
electric propulsion is simply too heavy.

Flight Locomotion
There is, of course, a natural prototype for flying and crawling mesoscale machines
- the insects. They are among the most accomplished fliers, and with an alternat-
ing tripod gait that is stable at all phases of the cycle, excel at ground locomotion
as well. Their crawling abilities have already caught the interest of planetary rover
designers, and we now understand the aerodynamics of their flight sufficiently for
exploitation in a mesoscale aerial robot. That insects have solved the problem of
flight for the mesoscale size range is readily apparent. Their ability to hover and
maneuver slowly, combined with fast flight capabilities, make them unsurpassed as
an observation platform. Until recently, however, the secret of their aerodynamic
success was unknown.

Aerodynamic analyses of their flight consistently revealed that their wings must pro-
duce 2-3 times more lift than conventional wings, and in some cases up to 6-7 times.
The extra load-lifting capacity this would offer to Entomopters is highly significant,
and indicates that a novel design based on flapping insect flight would outperform a
more traditional aerodynamic approach.

The insect solution is also better than that of larger birds and bats, whose wing per-
formance is quite ordinary by conventional standards. The reason for the high-lift
production by insect wings has recently been discovered (see Refs. 6 - 10). Insect
wings are thin with a ‘sharp’ leading edge in an aerodynamic sense, and as air flows
around the leading edge it separates and rolls up into a leading-edge vortex (LEV –
see Figure N4). This LEV augments the circulation and hence the lift of the wing,
according to normal unsteady aerodynamic principles. However, the LEV should grow
in size until it breaks away from the wing, causing a deep stall. This is prevented by
spanwise pressure gradients that cause the LEV to spiral out to the wing tip, convecting
the vorticity into the tip vortex instead of it breaking away from the wing. Thus the
LEV is stabilized by this newly discovered spiral form, giving high lift from flapping
wings without attendant stall. This LEV phenomenon can be enhanced through cir-
culation control of the wing aerodynamics which can increase the LEV augmentation
by keeping it attached to the wing for longer periods than otherwise possible.

LEVs are a common unsteady phenomenon in the size and Reynolds number range
of insect wings. They result from the well-behaved nature of laminar flow around
sharp corners, and small trapped vortices can even be seen between the veins of cor-
rugated insect wings. LEVs are also observed on thin man-made wings, such as the
Jedelsky profile, in the mesoscale. They are probably present as well on the wings of
very small birds and bats, which are not much larger than some insects.

At even larger sizes, however, the laminar flow becomes turbulent and the LEV breaks
away. The outstanding lift performance from a laminar LEV is therefore primarily
restricted to the size of insects, assuming that it can be stabilized to prevent deep stall.
The spanwise pressure gradient needed to create the spiral, stable LEV is absent from
fixed wing designs. Rotary wings (propellers and rotors) have the necessary pressure
gradient, but a spanwise flow has not been reported for them. Our working hypoth-
esis is that the LEV is only marginally stable, even with spanwise flow, so stall must
eventually develop.

Flapping flight would therefore be essential to exploit the spiral LEV— the wing
motion is periodically reversed just as the LEV starts to become unstable. All of the
current evidence points to flapping flight with a spiral, laminar LEV as a high-lift
design that is unique to the mesoscale range. Studies of insect flight also define
an optimal size for a Entomopter. Insects are geometrically similar on average and
they follow a basic design. The smallest flying insects that have been studied have
a wingspan of about 1 mm and the largest about 10 cm. In all cases the airflow is in
the laminar regime, but viscous effects become progressively more important as size
decreases. Aerodynamic lift is not greatly affected over this range, but viscous drag
forces reduce the lift-to-drag ratio for small insects: it is about 3-4 for medium-sized
insects but close to unity for the smallest ones.

Relative to their size, smaller insects must therefore pay a higher price for the ‘pro-
file’ power needed to overcome friction drag on their wings. The adverse scaling of
profile power for smaller insects is countered to some extent by a beneficial scaling
of ‘induced’ power; the rate at which kinetic energy is imparted to the downwash
of air in the wake, corresponding to the momentum flux necessary to balance the
weight. The wings of larger insects must impart a greater downwash to the air, and
this entails a higher induced power requirement. The net result is that for a given
mass to support, it can be accomplished with less power using a longer wing length
and lower frequency: i.e., a larger design. The power saving can be very substantial,
approaching an order of magnitude for designs of different sizes. Therefore, larger
machines would be the best starting point for MARs, provided that the airflow remains
laminar. Recent discoveries about the aerodynamics of insect flight have come from
studies on the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta, which is one of the largest insects with a
wingspan of 10 cm. We have characterized the flight of Manduca very thoroughly,
from high-speed films of free flight to flow visualization around the wings, and it is
most fortunate that the first successful Entomopter will be built in a similar size range
using the Hawkmoth wing as an initial aerodynamic design.

The Entomopter will rely on flapping wing flight to allow it to negotiate the interior
of buildings at flight speeds which are compatible with an enclosed environment. At
the mesoscale, the Entomopter will benefit directly from the Hawkmoth wing vortex
aerodynamic analyses. Unlike the Hawkmoth however, the Entomopter will employ
several quite innovative propulsion and control techniques which are not known to
occur in nature, but which simplify the design and facilitate manufacturability.

First the Entomopter wing will be designed to produce lift on both the downstroke
and the upstroke. Instead of relying on wing twist under muscular control (a com-
plex action requiring an extra degree of freedom in the wing hinge), the wings will
be stiffened with materials that react differently to opposite loads. The flexure of the
wing ribs (similar to those shown in Figure N1) will cause the wing to deform relative
to the leading edge spar (which drives the wing up and down) such that it maintains
an angle of attack and camber which provides positive lift on the downstroke. Upon
the upstroke, these same ribs will deform under an opposite load to create an angle of
attack and camber relative to the leading edge spar that also has an upward lift vector
on the inboard section of the wing for at least a portion of the up beat. The interstitial
material between the wing ribs serves as the aerodynamic lifting surface, but relies
on the wing ribs to give it form. This is depicted in Figure N4. In the circulation
controlled airfoil development work conducted for NASA, generation of positive
lift was measured at very large negative angles of attack (approaching -70 degrees),
and was produced by very high supercirculation caused by the trailing-edge circula-
tion controlled blowing (Englar11, 12, 1994). Coupling the deformation of the wing
on the upstroke with intelligent application of circulation control, will allow lift to
be generated not only on the entire down beat, but on the up beat as well. This will
result in an efficiency greater than that of a conventional insect wing. Beyond the
up beat lift that can be created, the overall coefficient of lift (CL) of the wings can be
augmented by pneumatic blowing to achieve values that are 5 to 8 times higher than
the theoretical maximum achievable by a typical wing planform and camber (which
has a CL of one or less).

Experiments under Georgia Tech’s Entomopter IRAD program have shown that it
may be possible at the mesoscale, to directly use the ABS plastic output from an
FDM machine to form the hollow rib structure and then to overlay and bond a non-
stretching polyester film as an interstitial aerodynamic surface.

Another innovation is the use of an “X-wing” design instead of the classical opposed
“clapping” wing flap mechanism. The X-wing relies on twin wings, one fore and one
aft, that pivot like “seesaws” across the central fuselage. If operated 180 degrees out
of phase with one another, there will always be two rising wings and two descending
wings during the flapping cycle as depicted in Figure N5.
The forces from each wing pair are resolved across the fuselage. If each wing is
producing an upward lift vector on both the down- and upstrokes, then a net lift for
the entire vehicle will be realized. By separating the pair of wings at either end of a
fuselage, longitudinal (pitch) stability is increased over a single flapping wing pair.

Now, if the fuselage separating the fore and aft wing spars is made of a material with
a torsional memory, then the wing spars can become integral to the fuselage and can
be torqued out of phase such that the fuselage acts as a torsional spring with a resonant
frequency depending on the inertia of the wing spars, the flapping drag of the wings
(damping), and the spring constant (K) of the torsional fuselage.

This implementation achieves two important things. First, it allows the entire system of
fuselage, wing spars, and wing ribs to be constructed as a single piece with no hinged
parts. This greatly simplifies the construction of the Entomopter and facilitates it mass
production. If further guarantees a higher level of consistency of performance.

More importantly, this construction forms a totally resonant structure. The torsional
resonance is essential to make a flapping wing vehicle viable. All insects have reso-
nant structures that store potential energy in either the muscles themselves, or in their
exoskeletal parts. Many insects use a substance called resilin to store mechanical
potential energy. In order to flap wings, energy must be added incrementally in or-
der make flight viable. Any attempt to flap wings using brute force without a tuned
resonant structure will require too much energy. This is particularly obvious when
one considers that actual insect muscles (wasp) have been shown to expand and con-
tract only two percent of the overall muscle length during each full beat of the wing
(Gilmour3, 1993), while the muscle efficiency and level of resonant energy storage
has been estimated for the fruit fly Drosophila hydei to be only ten percent, with the
energy stored elastically for resonant release estimated to be somewhere between 35
and 85 percent (Dickson4, 1995).

In another innovation that simplifies the Entomopter wing structure, waste gas from
the RCM is valved and can be vented through the hollow wing ribs to slots along the
trailing edge and tip of the wing in order to achieve a level of circulation control and
to keep the lift-augmenting outward spiraling leading edge vortex (LEV– see Figure
N4) attached to the surface of the wing longer that normally possible. Circulation
controlled air foils have been shown to exceed the theoretical coefficient of lift by
more than five orders of magnitude by keeping the air passing over the airfoil from
separating into shed vortices.

In either case, intelligently changing the lift of one wing and not the other, will result
in an aileron motion that will cause the Entomopter to turn in flight (combined roll
and yaw). This technique for flapping wing flight control eliminates the need to beat
wings harder on one side or to modify the angle of attack of only one wing in order
to change direction. Employing a simple pair of binary valves to reuse gaseous waste
products from the resonant autonomic wing beating process, results in a significant
weight and energy efficiency compared to that of less innovative wing-manipulative
approaches.

Since the fuselage is torqued alternately in opposite directions by as much as ± 45° to

± 60°, the fundamental resonant mode will have a node exactly half way between the
fore and aft wing spars. No twisting of the fuselage will occur at this node. There-
fore the propulsion system, and any payload, will be attached to the fuselage at this
point to prevent rotation of these components, and to prevent interference with the
resonance of the wing system.

The innovative flapping wing design of the Entomopter therefore eliminates the need
for additional degrees of dynamic freedom found in most insect wings. Twist and
differential beating motions are supplanted by a simple constant and equal autonomic
wing beat that combines circulation control techniques with the compliance of smart
materials to achieve the same effect. This in turn allows for fewer separable moving
parts, fewer manufacturing steps, and added robustness of the flight mechanism.

To enhance the effectiveness of the Entomopter as an indoor sensor placement plat-

form, it must be multimodal. In addition, it should be able to crawl, roll, and/or swim.
For the purpose of this discussion, alternate modes of locomotion will be limited to
crawling.

Surface Locomotion
Crawling will allow the Entomopter to precisely position a sensor once flight has
brought the sensor into the general vicinity of where it is to be used. Crawling also
allows the Entomopter to pass through small openings (perhaps under doors) where
flight is not possible. Such a capability could make the difference in the continued
prosecution of a mission when it might otherwise be terminated by an obstacle. Fi-
nally, crawling can be a mode of continued locomotion when either too little energy
remains to maintain flight, or when the flight system has become damaged and is no
longer functional.
When crawling, the same RCM used for flight can actuate sets of legs. As shown in
Figure N6, a set of four legs can be integrated onto the RCM such that they recip-
rocate in a plane 90° to that of the wing motion. The number of legs is not really
an issue, but the mechanical complexity is. Figure N6 shows very simple unjointed
legs that basically “paddle” like oars. The shape of each leg is bent to catch on rough
features when pulling the Entomopter forward, but slides over those features when
repositioning for the next step. Certainly other leg configurations are possible, but
this simple concept can be used to drive the Entomopter forward with the fewest
moving parts per leg.

During crawling, the rate of reciprocation of the RCM is lowered from tens of Hertz,
down to one Hertz or less by appropriately metering the fuel. Depending on leg height
and wing flapping angle, the wings could be allowed to remain engaged and continue
to flap at this low frequency with little effect. Shedding of wings upon landing like
alates (winged termites) is another option. The legs on the other hand, must be dis-
engaged during flight since they would adversely affect the power required for flight
as well as the resonance of the system were they allowed to flail at 20 - 50 Hz.

Another ground locomotion concept is depicted in Figure N6. A “velcro-foot/friction-

pad” pair would allow inch worm-like ground locomotion as the RCM oscillates.
This configuration would be useful on relatively smooth surfaces which have enough
surface roughness to allow the velcro hooks to engage the surface in one direction
and slide in the other. Applications for this type of ground locomotion might include
travel through an electrical conduit in side a wall, or down heating ducts where space
is limited. Such missions would favor the ability to go long distances through a guid-
ing pipe but would not require flight (no wings).

The inset in Figure N6 shows one mechanical method of automatically disengag-

ing the legs from the guide bushing of the RCM during flight. The weight of each
leg causes it to pivot away from its driving source to hang motionless during flight,
but when the Entomopter lands and its weight is placed on the legs, they reengage
automatically.

Rather than making the legs move intelligently with alternating motions to allow
steering, they are set only to provide forward propulsion. A single steering device
(wheel or skid) forward of the legs, directs the forward thrusts of the legs by providing
a side force to the front of the Entomopter. For simplicity, this guiding device can
be trinary in nature such that it exists in one of three positions: left, center, or right.
The position is determined by onboard sensors.

For a homing response, the Entomopter could contain a pair of side-mounted mono-
lithic molecular concentration sensors. If the concentration of a target chemical was
greater to the right, the guiding device would turn to the right. If the concentration
on both sensors was equal, the guiding device would be aligned along the axis of the
Entomopter fuselage. In this way, the Entomopter would exhibit a homing behavior
as its legs propelled it forward. In flight, the same molecular concentration sensors
would modulate the circulation control valves to induce changes in heading until the
concentration of the molecular target species was equal on both sensors and increas-
ing with time.

Both the legs and the steering mechanism provide a simple, low parts count, low
energy solution to ground locomotion by employing the same RCM used for flight,
as a primary ground locomotive power source. An analogous example could be
conceived for paddles and a rudder when implementing an amphibious multimode
robot variant.

Autonomous Navigation
An Entomopter operating indoors must be autonomous. Due to the size of the Ento-
mopter, it will be difficult to support the long antennas necessary to communicate at
lower frequencies. The higher frequencies which can be easily supported are more
susceptible to attenuation through walls and become very directional (requiring line-
of-sight between transmitter and receiver) as the frequency of operation increases.
Teleoperation once within a building is precluded not only by the physics of signal
propagation, but also by the inability of a remote operator to see the Entomopter or
know its location. The use of the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system is not an
option for navigation because the required antenna is too large to be carried by a me-
soscaled vehicle and the signal strength is too weak to be reliable inside a building.

Through the use of homing behavior however, the Entomopter can find its way around
within buildings as it seeks particular chemical scents, acoustic sources, or strong RF
emitters. It could also use dead reckoning to move down corridors and into rooms if
there is an a priori knowledge of the building.

Critical to autonomous navigation will be obstacle avoidance. A sense of where the

floor and walls are is essential. Knowledge of ceiling height is of lesser importance
as the Entomopter could be programmed to fly at a predetermined altitude using the
floor as a reference.

Only short range obstacle avoidance is really necessary. When flying down a corridor,
the fact that a wall is 3 meters from the Entomopter is of little significance. Only
when the Entomopter approaches to within some minimum distance dictated by the
Entomopter’s ability to maneuver, should a correction be needed. This implies that
any ranging system need only operate over a short distance.

Inherent to the reciprocating chemical muscle is the ability to generate a frequency

modulated continuous wave (FMCW) acoustic emission that can be used for short
range unambiguous altimetry and obstacle avoidance. In addition, the energy cost
to the RCM-equipped Entomopter is negligible because the FMCW transmission is
essentially free through the use of RCM waste gas, and energy only need be expended
to receive and process the returned acoustic signal.

Figure N7 shows how a tuned resonant cavity can be acoustically excited by a waste
gas jet from the RCM to produce an ultrasonic emission (other techniques physically
similar to “dog whistles” can also achieve a ultrasonic acoustic emissions at scales
compatible with the Entomopter and its RCM). By varying the length of the cavity
with a mechanical linkage to the RCM or Entomopter wing system, the frequency of
the ultrasonic emission can be swept as a series of eigenvalue frequencies approximat-
ing a linear triangle or sinusoidal wave (depending on the linkage used) as shown in
Figure N8. As shown in Figure N9 and Table N1, such an FMCW waveform can be
used to generate a ranging solution that resolves Doppler ambiguities.

A single ultrasonic acoustic source can be vectored by the wing flapping mechanism
of the Entomopter to illuminate not only the floor for altimetry, but also to each side
to detect impending collisions with walls. The same beam can be multiplexed as
shown in Figure N10 to create a forward looking beam. Response to the received
ranging signal would control the lateral flight path of the Entomopter as well as its
altitude. Active flow control of the wings would effect lateral maneuvers and can
be used to temporarily adjust altitude. An increase or decrease in wing flapping
frequency around the resonant point (as controlled by fuel metering/RCM pressure)
would effect longer term vertical maneuvers.

Processing of these return signals could be discrete in that any range to a side obstacle
can be ignored so long as it does not intrude within the Entomopter’s safety zone.
When an obstacle moves too close (either due to the movement of the obstacle or due
to the Entomopter closing on the obstacle) the behavior could be a simple avoidance
response. Such a simple obstacle avoidance algorithm can be implemented with a
minimum of onboard processing and can in fact be almost a reflex action, but the re-
sulting flight path could be “zig-zagging” as the vehicle alternately tends toward and
avoids opposite walls. On the other hand, altitude might be monitored more closely
in terms of actual distance to facilitate more coordinated landings.

GTRI has designed a built a mesoscaled ultrasonic ranging transmitter for use on the
Entomopter, and has performed sound pressure level measurements at RCM waste
gas pressures in the range of 40 psi. These tests have shown that sensible ranges of
3 meters are attainable, with greater ranges possible (see sound pressure levels of
Figure N8). Emission patterns have been plotted to show that a directional beam can
be created (Figure N11), and an acoustic mirror scheme has been designed into the
Entomopter which is capable of scanning the output from a single ultrasonic source
ranging from right-horizontal, to head-on, to downlooking (altimetry), to head-on, to
left-horizontal on each wing beat (20 - 30 Hz scan rate).

Energy Efficiency
When all is said and done, a highly innovative reuse of waste products to increase
system efficiency is employed wherein the gas created in the Reciprocating Chemical
Muscle is reused six more times after wing flap excitation prior to expulsion. Gas
created in the Reciprocating Chemical Muscle is reused six more times for different
functions prior to expulsion. Decomposition of the chemical fuel source creates gas
and heat. A gas generator is situated within the fuel tank to allow it to preheat the
fuel for better performance, and to allow the high thermal conductivity of the fuel to
provide a heat sink for conformal thermoelectric materials on the outer surface of the
gas generator. The first use of the gas generated within the RCM is to drive the wing
actuation mechanism. During this process, mainly heat energy is extracted. At the
same time, the thermoelectric generator scavenges waste heat from the exothermic
decomposition of the fuel to create a small amount of electricity. Waste gas is then
used to resonate a cavity to create ultrasonic FMCW emissions for altimetry and ob-
stacle avoidance. The act of wing flapping scans this ultrasonic beam spatially and
also modulates it with the FMCW encoding. The gas then passes through a system of
ejector nozzles to entrain external air in order to increase the mass flow while drop-
ping the pressure and temperature of the waste gas. The waste gas and entrained air
then drives gas bearings at the junction between the fixed frame fuselage components
and the oscillating wing structure. After passing through the gas bearings, the gas is
diverted into each wing by means of fast acting binary valves to effect beat-to-beat
active flow control for lift modulation of the wings. Any excess gas is finally dumped
as jet thrust. This recycling process is depicted in Figure N12.
Extraterrestrial Entomopter Mission: Mars Exploration Example
Although the Entomopter was originally sized and designed as a mesoscaled aerial
robot for rapid penetration of denied structures, it has found potential utility in an
unlikely application: Mars exploration.

Flight on Mars?
The notion of flight on Mars has been a subject of contemplation since Werner von
Braun conceived a rocket plane as a means of Martian exploration in 1953. In the
’50s Mars flight was purely fancy, but in the 1970s it was revisited more seriously,
being spurred on by the successes of the Viking Program. The NASA Dryden Re-
search Center, Developmental Sciences, Inc., and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
proposed unmanned aircraft designs for Mars exploration in 1977 and 1978. Their
concept was a propeller-driven fixed wing aircraft fueled by hydrazine. No follow
up was forthcoming and the ideas died.

A decade later, JPL sponsored a Mars airplane study in which Arora Flight Sciences
proposed the electrically propelled “Jason” aircraft. About the same time, Ames
Research Center and Sandia National Labs conceived a high speed aerospaceplane
named AEROLUS. Unlike the earlier attempts to make a slow speed aircraft that would
be deployed from an aeroshell after touchdown on the Martian surface, AEROLUS
would make a direct atmospheric entry and then fly through the Martian atmosphere
at hypersonic speeds. To date, neither the Jason nor the AEROLUS projects have
been embraced by NASA’s Mars exploration program.

Successes with the Mars Pathfinder and Global Surveyor programs renewed interest
in Mars flyers for exploration. In 1995 NASA Dryden and Ames Research Centers
once again considered unmanned aerial vehicles to extend the reconnaissance range
of Mars landers. The new concept was to launch a small unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) from the lander after it had stabilized on the surface. The UAV would provide
video of the immediate vicinity of the lander (within several thousand meters) to
provide feedback as to the most interesting areas for investigation by ground-based
rovers. The expendable, one-flight UAV would be electrically powered with rocket
assisted takeoff.

The following year in 1996, the Ames Research Center proposed an unmanned Mars
aircraft in response to a NASA Announcement of Opportunity for Discovery Explo-
ration Missions. Ames’ approach was to use a propeller driven, sailplane configura-
tion which they called “Airplane for Mars Exploration” (AME), however it was not
selected for the Discovery mission.

On the following NASA Announcement of Opportunity for Discovery Exploration

Missions in 1998, JPL submitted a proposal for a multiple glider system (dubbed
“Kitty Hawk”) wherein several areas could be investigated during a single mission.
Being gliders, the vehicles were obviously limited in endurance, but benefited from
the lack of weight and complexity associated with a propulsion system in return
for redundancy of numbers. NASA Ames also submitted a proposal to the 1998
Announcement for a motorized UAV named “MAGE”. Both concepts deployed
from an aeroshell once it had become subsonic approximately 12,000 meters above
the Martian surface. Again, neither concept was selected for the Discovery mission
(Foch13 1999).

On February 1, 1999, NASA Director Daniel Goldin announced the “Mars Airplane
Micromission,” which will be the first NASA program to launch on an Ariane 5 rocket.
Mars’ next close encounter with Earth would have the first Mars airplane arriving on
the Red Planet around December of 2003, coincidentally close to December 17, 2003;
the hundredth anniversary of the Wright brother’s first flight. However, for various
reasons including risks associated with the deployment of vehicle types proposed
thus far, the Wright brothers hundredth anniversary will pass without a Mars Flyer
being deployed.

The Mars Environment

The Martian environment provides a number of significant challenges to atmospheric
flight, none the least of which is the lack of oxygen to support combustion for pro-
pulsion, a rarefied atmosphere, and extremely cold temperatures. Specifically, the
Martian atmosphere is over 95% carbon dioxide and is less than 0.5% as dense as
the Earth’s. The average surface pressure is only 0.007 Earth’s atmospheres, which
is roughly equivalent to Earth’s atmospheric pressure at an altitude of 105,000 ft.
The average temperature near the surface of Mars is –63°C, with diurnal highs and
lows ranging from +20°C down to –140°C. On the other hand, Mars has only 37%
of Earth’s gravity, making flight easier in spite of the thin Martian atmosphere.

A Mars Flyer faces a number of engineering challenges beyond those of the environ-
ment in which it must operate. In particular, one must consider:

• How to deploy the Mars Flyer.

• The aerodynamics of low Reynolds number flight and the flight dynamics of a
vehicle of low weight and potentially large momenta.
• Non air breathing propulsion, and operation of moving parts at extremely low
temperatures.
• Fully autonomous flight and the ability to land, maneuver on the surface, take-
off.
• Navigation while in flight and while on the surface.
• Electrical energy generation/storage/harvesting.
• How to communicate findings.

Entomopters as Mars Flyers

As it turns out, the Reynolds number regime in which the Entomopter operates is
nearly identical to that of Mars’ atmosphere, where to Entomopter to be upscaled from
its present size. In addition, the propulsion technique being used in the Earth bound
design happens to be anaerobic, and can use multiple fuels including hydrazine.

Unlike prior attempts at Mars airplanes, the Entomopter is a flapping wing vehicle
that can fly slowly and theoretically hover. The fact that the wings move rapidly in
the supporting atmosphere mean that its fuselage can move at slower speeds, thereby
facilitating aerial reconnaissance. In contrast, fixed wing Mars airplane solutions
must fly at high speeds (over 100 m/s) simply to stay aloft.

Images returned from the Viking and Pathfinder landers show a rocky surface that
precludes landing an airplane moving 100 m/s. The slow flight of the Entomopter af-
fords the possibility of landing on the Martian surface to inspect objects, take samples,
or to rest during periods of communication blackout, adverse weather, or to harvest
energy from the environment.

Because the Martian atmosphere is thin, fixed wing Mars Flyers will have to make
tremendous sweeping turns in order to change course. Orbiting a point close to the
surface will be difficult. The flapping wing approach used by the Entomopter allows
much tighter maneuvers because directional control and stability are achieved through
active lift modification of the wings on a beat-to-beat basis. On Earth, the coefficient
of lift can be changed from a maximum of around “1” (based on wing shape) to coef-
ficients of between 7 and 15, and can be done rapidly on a beat-to-beat basis for wings
flapping in excess of 25 Hz. This control is derived from the waste gas resulting from
the propulsion process and therefore comes almost free of charge.
The Entomopter uses autonomic wing beating as part of a resonant structure, thereby
avoiding the complications of traditional biomimetic flapping wing machines (con-
straints placed upon an Entomopter Mars Flyer by the Ariane 5 payload area will
complicate the simple design by requiring a folding or inflatable wing structure
however). The simplicity of the wing design will be an advantage in the cold Mar-
tian environment where moving parts must maintain bearing tolerances and require
lubrication. The gas bearings currently designed into the Earth bound Entomopter
avoid wet lubricants.

Locomotion, either flying or crawling, is energy intensive. The Earth bound Ento-
mopter will require between 4 and 8 Watts to propel 50 grams in flight. Because of
its mission to operate within confined spaces, the Entomopter is necessarily small. A
Mars Flyer based on the Entomopter design benefits from a larger form factor, mean-
ing that there will be a greater physical volume available to carry fuel. Proportionally,
the fuel will also weigh 37% less than on Earth.

The exothermic metabolism of the Entomopter affords a means of heating electron-

ics and moving structures. Further, there is the potential for thermoelectric power
generation by scavenging waste heat liberated by the propulsion system.

Because the Entomopter can potentially land and takeoff from the Martian surface,
communications may be facilitated. Stored data can be uploaded to orbiting repeat-
ers over periods of hours or days without expending locomotive energy if the Mars
Flyer can land on the surface. Traditional fixed wing Mars Flyers will have to upload
all of their information while in flight, or have a survivable electronics package that
can continue to operate after the vehicle has crashed into the surface of the planet at
over 100 m/s. The ability to land and take off allows the Entomopter to continue its
reconnaissance mission for as long as it has fuel available, but with long intermis-
sions. If energy harvesting is possible by converting surface materials, collecting
solar radiation, or harnessing the Martian winds in an onboard generator, then the
Entomopter could potentially operate for years.

Autonomous operation of all Entomopter modes has already been anticipated in the
present Earth bound design which includes an obstacle avoidance system as well as
an altimeter. A Mars Flyer would likely use an RF interrogator for obstacle avoid-
ance and altimetry while navigating based on cooperative cues from preplaced radio
beacons around the landing area. The magnetic field on Mars is too weak and un-
reliable for navigation. In a fashion similar to the honey bee, the Entomopter could
use solar cues coupled with Martian time and sidereal information to perform gross
navigation tasks.

Multiple Entomopters could be deployed from a single lander or “mother ship” (see
Figure N13). During daylight, the Entomopters would explore the Mars landscape
while solar navigation is possible. Unlike fixed wing solutions, an Entomopter-based
Mars Flyer would be capable of slow flight in the Martian atmosphere because the
rapidly flapping wings can generate sufficient lift even if the fuselage is moving at
a relatively slow air speed. The ability to fly slowly also makes landing and takeoff
from unprepared surfaces possible. Landing to acquire samples or to wait out the dark
phase is possible with the Entomopter configuration. Periodically each Entomopter
would return to the stationary lander for refueling and to deposit samples.

Because of the latency in transmissions between Mars and Earth, teleoperation of a

Mars Flyer is impractical. Even supervised autonomy is of limited value. A Mars
Flyer will have to be able to carry out its science mission without human interven-
tion while being ever cognizant of its environment to assure that it avoids obstacles,
hazards, and situations that would result in starvation.

Motivation for navigation would be based on various remote sensors that will be
dictated by the type of science experiments to be performed by each Entomopter.
For example, the search for life might entail sensors that can detect traces of water
or fossil bearing rock. Other Mars Flyers might be measuring atmospheric species
or performing reconnaissance for later close inspection by ground-based rovers. In
each case, the Mars Flyers would use preprogrammed search patterns initially. When
measuring a volume as in the case of atmospheric sampling, the entire flight might
be preprogrammed. When searching for life, a preprogrammed search pattern would
be abandoned in favor of following gradients based on the frequency of occurrence
of evidence (motivational behavior). During the landing process, obstacles on the
surface must be negotiated (avoidance behavior), and the Entomopter must select a
spot from which it can launch itself back into the air as it transitions from ground
locomotion to flight.

Due to the occurrence of Martian storms, the Entomopter-based Mars Fliers might
have to seek shelter on the surface by landing in a self preservation behavior. Dust
storms tend to occur when Mars is near perihelion in its orbit, when the solar intensity
is the greatest. It is believed that the greater intensity of solar radiation coupled with
variations in the topology of Mars triggers the dust storms. The storms can last up sev-
eral months and the opacity of the storms can be quite high, thereby precluding flight
and some types of navigation such as solar tracking. Even local events such as “dust
devils” could be a threat to a small Mars Flyer. Dust devils are short term variations
in measured surface pressure, wind velocity and air temperature over periods of tens
of seconds to minutes. This is shown in Figure 14. Dust devils about 2 km wide and
a few kilometers high, have been observed in the tropics by the Viking orbiters.

In all cases however, the Mars Flyers would have to be able to find their way back
to the lander in order to replenish depleted fuel supplies as they exhibit a feeding
behavior also driven by a self preservation motivation.

A definition of the requirements for the sensors and the type of science which can be
performed on Mars by an Entomopter-based Mars Flyer has been defined as part of
the Mars micromission aircraft program (McKay15 and Cutts16). The following is a
list of some of the science data that can be collected by the Entomopter.

• High Resolution Surface Imaging

• Surface Mineralogy and Sampling
• Atmospheric Sampling, Dust Properties and Weather Data
• Payload Delivery
• Magnetic Field Mapping
• Water Content and Distribution
• Infrared Mapping
• Radar Mapping

The use of an Entomopter-based Mars Flyer for the exploration of the Martian envi-
ronment can be summarized as three main mission types. These types are:

• Exploration within the range of a central vehicle.

For this scenario, a lander containing a number of Entomopter vehicles would land
on the surface. The Entomopters would then depart this central vehicle and explore
the surrounding terrain. All data and samples collected would be brought back to
the central vehicle which would also act as a refueling station for the Entomopters as
well as a communications link between the mission and Earth.

The main advantage of this type of mission structure is that the lander provides a
number of applications which would otherwise have to be performed by the Mars
Flyers. The communications requirements for the Entomopters is relaxed since they
need only communicate over a short (typically line-of-sight) distances to the lander.
Also the lander can provide a source of fuel for the Entomopters, greatly extending
their mission lifetime. This fuel can either be carried by the lander from earth or pos-
sibly made on site, depending on the type of fuel used.
The main drawback to this type of mission is that the exploration area is limited to
the round trip range of the Entomopter about the lander.

• Independent exploration using an Entomopter.

In this scenario, a lander containing one or more Entomopters lands on the surface.
The lander serves solely as a transport vehicle. The Entomopters leave the lander and
begin to explore the surrounding territory. Each Entomopter is an independent vehicle
and relays its data directly to an orbiting communications platform. Unless fuel can
be harvested from the environment and processed by the Entomopter, this second
mission scenario is one-way with the Entomopter being considered as expendable.

The main advantage of this type of mission structure is that the Entomopter can double
its range of exploration, however the ability to return to an area for further investiga-
tion is not an option once the onboard fuel supply is expended.

• Tandem system, the Entomopter works in conjunction with a rover.

In this scenario a lander contains one or more Entomopter-based Mars Flyers as well
as a surface roving vehicle. The rover and Entomopters leave the lander and begin
to explore. The lander is a transport vehicle and has no additional capabilities. The
Entomopters communicate with the rover which in turn relays the data to an orbiting
communication system. The Entomopters can assist the rover in terrain navigation
as the group slowly moves across the surface. The mission capabilities would be
similar to the first scenario described, however in this case instead of a fixed lander
the mobile rover serves as the home base. The Entomopters would be able to dock
with the rover for refueling.

The main advantage of this third deployment scenario is that new territory can be
explored each day by the Entomopters, since their home base (the rover) slowly
progresses along the surface. This scenario only makes sense if stored fuel is avail-
able for the Entomopters on the rover, and the rover itself is able to recharge (solar
electric). Alternately, the rover could be a mobile factory to process Entomopter fuel
from solar electricity or from synthesis of constituents found in the environment.
With rechargeable vehicles, the only limit on mission duration is mechanical failure
or physical barriers.

The science to be performed by each Entomopter-based Mars Flyer could be different.

In all three of the scenarios, different Entomopters could return to previously visited
locations to perform different investigations. In this way, no single Entomopter has
to bear the weight of multiple sensors, yet over a period of time multiple experiments
can be performed.

Conclusion
The Entomopter is a unique aerial robot with biomimetic origins, but which goes
beyond biomimickry to incorporate novel control techniques that facilitate both
performance and manufacturability. A fueled reciprocating chemical muscle allows
the Entomopter to fly, crawl, and swim in environments devoid of oxygen. In its
smallest embodiment, the Entomopter reuses the waste products of its own propulsive
respiration to control itself in flight as well as navigate around obstacles. Because
flapping wing propulsion is used, the Entomopter is conducive to indoor terrestrial
flight operations and even shows promise as an airborne extraterrestrial exploration
vehicle over the landscape of Mars.

The Entomopter was conceived as an autonomous vehicle from its inception. Olfac-
tory inputs are the primary terrestrial motivators for navigation although any radia-
tor can serve as an attractant. Obstacle avoidance is achieved by means of an active
FMCW ultrasonic emission which sweeps a 180° field of regard in front of the En-
tomopter while in flight. The mechanism that provides propulsive motion also scans
the acoustic ranging beam to detect nearby obstacles as well as to provide altimetry
information.

Subsystems associated with the reciprocating chemical muscle, the wings, and the
ultrasonic ranging system have been demonstrated in hardware at or near the scale
of the terrestrial flight vehicle. A chemically fueled reciprocating chemical muscle
has been designed and is in its fourth generation of development at the time of this
writing. This actuator system has demonstrated 70 Hz reciprocation rates with throws
and evolved power levels necessary to support flight, crawling, or swimming of a
self-contained fully autonomous Entomopter system weighing 50 grams.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge contributions by Dr. Charles Ellington of Cam-
bridge University, Dr. Krish Ahuja of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, and An-
thony Colozza of NSI.

REFERENCES

1. Michelson, R., Reece, S., “Update on Flapping Wing Micro Air Vehicle Research– Ongoing
work to develop a flapping wing, crawling Entomopter,” 13th Bristol International RPV Con-
ference Proceedings, Bristol England, 30 March 1998 - 1 April 1998
2. Michelson, R., Helmick, D., Reece, S., Amarena, C., “A Reciprocating Chemical Muscle
(RCM) for Micro Air Vehicle “Entomopter” Flight,” 1997 Proceedings of the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems, International, June 1997, pp. 429 - 435

3. Gilmour, K.M., Ellington, C.P., Journal of Experimental Biology, No. 183, pg. 101, 1993

4. Dickson, M.H., Lighton, J.R.B., “Muscle Efficiency and Elastic Storage in the Flight Motor
 of Drosophila,” Science, Volume 268, 7 April, 1995, pp. 87 - 90

5. Azuma, A., Springer - Verlag, The Biokinetics of Flying and Swimming, Tokyo, 1992, pp. 77
- 154.

6. Ellington, C.P., van den Berg, C., Willmott, A.P. and Thomas, A.L.R., “Leading-edge vortices
in insect flight,” Nature 38:D 1996, pp. 626-630.

7. van den Berg, C. and Ellington, C.P., “The vortex wake of a ‘hovering’ model Hawkmoth,”
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 352, 1997, pp. 317-328. Also, Ref 8. “The three-dimensional
leading-edge vortex of a ‘hovering’ model Hawkmoth,” ibid, pp. 329-340.

8. Willmott, A.P., Ellington, C.P. and Thomas, A.L.R., “Flow visualization and unsteady aero-
dynamics in the flight of the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 352,
1997, pp. 303-316.

9. Willmott, A.P. and Ellington, C.P., “The mechanics of flight in the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta. I.
Kinematics of hovering and forward flight,” J. exp. Biol. 200, 1997, pp. 2705-2722. Also, Ref
11. “The mechanics of flight in the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta. II. Aerodynamic consequences
of kinematic and morphological variation,” ibid, pp. 2723-2745.

10. Liu. H., Ellington, C.P., Kawachi, K., van den Berg, C. and Willmott, A.P., “ A computational
fluid dynamic study of Hawkmoth hovering,” J. exp. Biol. 201, 1998, pp. 461-477.

11. Englar, Robert J., Marilyn J. Smith, Sean M. Kelley and Richard C. Rover III, “Development
of Circulation Control Technology for Application to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft,
Part I: Airfoil Development” AIAA Paper No. 93-0644, Log No. C-8057, published in AIAA
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1160-1168, Sept-Oct 1994.

12. Englar, Robert J., Marilyn J. Smith, Sean M. Kelley and Richard C. Rover III, “Development
of Circulation Control Technology for Application to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft,
Part II: Transport Application” AIAA Paper No. 93-0644, Log No. C-8058, published in AIAA
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1169-1177, Sept-Oct 1994.

13. Foch, Richard, “UAV Flight on Mars”, Proceedings of the 1999 Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International Symposium, Baltimore Maryland, (CD ROM) July, 1999.

14. Schofield, J.T., Barnes, J.R., Crisp, D., Haberle, R.M., Larsen, S.,Magalhaes, J.A., Murphy,
J.R., Seiff, A., Wilson, G., “The Mars Pathfinder Atmospheric Structure Investigation/Meteo-
rology (ASI/MET) Experiment”, Science, Volume 278, Number 5344, Issue of 5 Dec 1997,
pp. 1752-1758.

15. Dr. McKay, C.P. Chair, Mars ’03 Airplane Micromission Science Definition Team, “Mars
’03 Airplane Micromission Science Definition Team Final Report”, Document 0907-01-01A,
September, 1999

16. Cutts, J.A., Bauer, J. Blaney, D.L., Lemke, L.G., Smith, S., Stetson, D.S., Kerzhanovich, V.V.,
“Prepared in support of the Mars Architecture Study”, August 1998. (for latest update see http://
[Link]/aerobot/reports/[Link])

FIGURE/TABLE CAPTIONS
 Figure N1. ABS plastic wing ribs from Fused Deposition Modeling machine.

Figure N2. Milli-scaled second generation Reciprocating Chemical Muscle.

Figure N3. 2X scaled third generation Reciprocating Chemical Muscle.

Figure N4. Lift vectors on the upthrust and down thrust wing halves.

Figure N5. X-wing motion of fore and aft wings as viewed from front of Entomopter.

Figure N6. Possible ground locomotor schemes.

 Figure N7. RCM-driven FMCW ultrasonic acoustic ranging source techniques.

Figure N8 Empirically derived frequency excursion vs cavity length.

Figure N9 FMCW ranging waveform.

TABLE N1. DEFINITION OF FMCW RANGING TERMS

Figure N10. Multiplexing of waste gas-driven FMCW ultrasonic acoustic ranging source.

Figure N11. Directivity of swept ultrasonic source.

Figure N12. Innovative recycling of waste products.

Figure N13. Deployment of Entomopter-based Mars Flyer from Mars Lander.

Figure 14: Measurements taken during a dust devil (pathfinder data; Schofield14).

View publication stats