Just in case anyone is wondering what the USAF is dreaming up for drones over the next 50 years: <a href="http://www.uadrones.net/military/research/acrobat/090724.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.uadrones.net/military/research/acrobat/090724.pdf</a>
Harvard recently developed an improved manufacturing technique for similar robots based on self-deforming materials and origami construction techniques:<p>[ <a href="http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/pop-up-flying-robots" rel="nofollow">http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/pop-u...</a> ]
The latest New Yorker also has an interesting article on drones:<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_paumgarten" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_...</a>
Clearly the reporter has dialed up their glasses to 100% rose tint :-)<p>There are power, material, and optical problems that have 10 year lifetimes between this vision and reality.
The time-lines seem unrealistic. While the mechanical design seems impressive, what about imaging, computing, and comms?<p>I.e. it's one thing to make a mini UAV flight demonstrator, but quite another to put a payload on it and have it transmit data over a usable range, for a useful length of time.
Just make the wings of semi-transparent solar cells (<a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2958923/flexible-transparent-solar-panel-heliatek" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2958923/flexible-transpare...</a>) and you've made it immortal (at least during the day).
1. Re: airports and train stations - its much easier and more productive to hijack security cameras.<p>2. Re: forests and jungle - much better results can be achieved by implanting cameras and control chips into real birds.
20 grams? <a href="http://www.delfly.nl/?site=DIII&menu=&lang=en" rel="nofollow">http://www.delfly.nl/?site=DIII&menu=&lang=en</a> is almost an order of magnitude lighter.