International%20universities%20mini%20UAV%20competition%20http://concours-drones.onera.fr%20%20Philippe%20Choy,%20ONERA

1
International universitiesmini UAV
competitionhttp//concours-drones.onera.fr
Philippe Choy, ONERA
2
Context

• Subsidized by DGA, organized by Onera
• Open to engineering schools and universities (2nd
  cycle degree program)
• Goals
• Demonstrate the operational interest presented by
  mini UAVs to seek objectives in an urban
  landscape
• Bring forth innovative concepts and solutions,
  constitute a library of technological subsets
• Original method an initial financing is awarded
  to the competitors (leaded by a French team)
  because of the difficulty of the technological
  challenge

3
Why organize a competition ?

• Stimulate the university research in the field of
  mini UAVs and micro-technologies
• Favor the French-French and international
  cooperation, if possible to discover competence
  (laboratories) abroad which could lead to future
  cooperation
• Competitions are highly esteemed by students
  (Shell Marathon, EM6 cup)
• Why appeal to engineering schools and
  universities ?
• Because the "academics" (students and teachers)
  can have simple and original ideas, and can
  afford to take more technological risks than the
  manufacturers
• Most of the schools and universities have
  research laboratories
• This subject can easily join a motivating
  educational project (multidisciplinary aspect)

4
What already exists in the States
The competition organized by DGA and Onera
proposes an intermediate approach

• Direct DARPA funding to university laboratories

5
To know everything about the DGA competition
http//concours-drones.onera.fr

• Bilingual French / English
• Regulation download(final version September,
  2003)
• Application form
• List of the registered competitors
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Latest news

6
Schedule
Sept 02
Sept 03
Sept 04
June 03
June 04
June 05
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Academic years
April 05
June 04
Application ends
Safety dossiers
Operational and static testing
In flight demonstrations
Pricegiving
?
7
The great day June 2005
- A static judgement - An operational
judgement Marking criteria (appendix IV of the
regulation) Design miniaturization,
micro-technologies, endurance, vulnerability,
assembly / disassembly / transport Navigation
autonomy take-off and landing, tele-piloting
or autonomous navigation in free space or below
the tops of buildings Operational capacity
achievement of mission objectives, real-time
transmission and\or data storage,
stabilisation, images quality, targets
identification
8
The operational testing (2005)
2/ system deployment UAV(s) launch
Point of departure
6/ UAV recovery - system packing
Final destination
Zone area ? 1 km2
9
Considered site for the final test

• Artificial village(thus uninhabited)
• streets width 10 - 15 m
• 1 ou 2 floors only one 3 floors building (lt 10
  m)
• highest point churchs bell tower (10 m)
  trees ? 20 m
• Place not revealed today for security reasons
  (army area, near a shooting range)

10
Applications result in June 2003(first financial
assistance allocation)

• 23 teams registered
• 20 technical dossiers presented
• from 6 to 60 students professors
• one team associated with foreign university
  (Mexico)
• association between 2 schools / universities for
  8 teams
• 10 financial assistance allocated

11
Beneficiaries of the 10 first financial
contributions

• Université de Technologie de Compiègne (projet
  AURYON)
• École Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique et
  d'Aérotechnique (projet AMADO)
• École Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique et des
  Microtechniques
• École Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Métiers
  (Paris) Université de Clermont-Ferrand
• École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris et
  École Centrale de Paris (projet Oiseau
  artificiel)
• École Centrale de Paris et École Nationale
  Supérieure des Mines de Paris (projet
  Quadricoptère)
• Groupe ESIEE (projet PulsESIEE)
• Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de
  Strasbourg  (projet Cigognes)
• Université d'Évry Val d'Essonne (Laboratoire des
  Systèmes Complexes - projet XSF)
• École Supérieure de Conception et de Production
  Industrielle et CNAM (projet AéroDRONES)

12
The jury of June 2003 16 members

• Chairwoman Mrs Fargeon, DGA
• Ministry of Defence
• DGA (SPMT, CTA) (2), French Army Staff (1)
• French research organisations
• ONERA (2), École des Mines (1)
• European organisations
• Saint-Louis Institute (2), European Spatial
  Agency (1), Royal Military Academy of Brussels
  (1), Pisa University (1)
• Manufacturers (4)
• Dassault Aviation, EADS, Sagem, Thales
• some observers (Ministry of Defence) not having
  participated in the vote

13
The proposed technical solutions
Aerodynamic concepts (1/2)
14
The proposed technical solutions
Aerodynamic concepts (2/2)

• R/C helicopter (1)

15
The proposed technical solutions
Human-Computer Interaction

• Joystick or  piloting glove 

16
The proposed technical solutions

• Onboard equipment
• Motorization electric or fuel (choice sometimes
  remaining to make)
• Camera(s) fixed, directional (1 or 2 axes) or
  panoramic
• Generally Inertial Measuring Unit GPS
  additional systems
• Rangefinders / obstacles detection IR, laser,
  ultrasound, stereoscopy
• Development of sensors / actuators using MEMS
  technology

17
The proposed technical solutions

• Specific softwares developments
• Images analysis (environment reconstruction, help
  for targets or obstacles detection)
• Often ambitious piloting-navigation function
  (high level of decision-making autonomy),
  requiring a step by step approach by increasing
  difficulty levels
• AI type algorithms for navigation

18
Comments of the jury

• For the first series of financial contributions,
  the jury has decided to support the projects
  proposing innovative developments (aerodynamics,
  components, algorithms...)
• the human and educational means implemented also
  influenced the choices of the jury
• But certain projects (even among the first 10
  prize-winners !) contain gaps which it will be
  necessary to try hard to fill before the final
  test. It remains in particular to refine
• the aerodynamic concepts and the piloting systems
• the choice of numerous components
• the balances of masses, volumes and powers
• and it will be necessary to manage well the
  available time (only 2 years left !)

19
The continuation

• February 2004 Second exam of the technical
  dossiers and allocation of 9 new financial
  contributions
• The technical solutions should begin to converge
  (and be more concrete)
• June-September 2004 Safety test
• Foreseen during the JMD 2004 (see final version
  of the regulation, appendix II)
• Exam of the safety dossiers will allow the jury
  to make a technical point one year before the
  final test and to give the last recommendations
• Demonstration test (optional, public) will
  allow the competitors to demonstrate the
  advancement of their project (and possibly to
  have the last contacts in case of difficulties)

20
Conclusion

• The competition is today on the right track
• Important number of competitors
• Ambitious, interesting projects from the
  organizers point of view
• but
• The jury regrets the low foreign participation
  (however, the application deadline is still far)