|
Yuli Ban posted:This is why I keep saying passenger drone air taxi services are going to be a thing, possibly even before autonomous cars are fully matured. With what takeoff and landing zones?
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
fishmech posted:With what takeoff and landing zones? Drone taxis don’t take any sort of extreme space or anything. Someone will need to figure out landing and take off spots as part of their business model but it’s not intractable amounts of room. There is surely enough roofs and parking lots that could rent a ten foot square
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Drone taxis don’t take any sort of extreme space or anything Safe flight actually requires a good deal of space for takeoff and landing to avoid killing and injuring people and property, creep. Owlofcreamcheese posted:There is surely enough roofs and parking lots that could rent a ten foot square You need way more space than that to have a safe zone for takeoff and landing, let alone getting them registered with flight authorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Drone taxis don’t take any sort of extreme space or anything. Someone will need to figure out landing and take off spots as part of their business model but it’s not intractable amounts of room. There is surely enough roofs and parking lots that could rent a ten foot square Once again you don’t know what the gently caress you’re talking about and you have no clue about the regulatory and safety regimes needed to even consider such an idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 05:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Safe flight actually requires a good deal of space for takeoff and landing to avoid killing and injuring people and property, creep. How much space do they need to avoid “killing property” ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
"drone taxis" is just helicopters for tech obsessed millenials, fight me
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:"drone taxis" is just helicopters for tech obsessed millenials, fight me I mean, it’s the automation of the controls that makes something a drone and the software making multiple rotors more reasonable to control for a pilot that makes it reasonable to fly. The actual technology is just helicopters
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How much space do they need to avoid “killing property” ? FAA rules are that you must have a circle with a diameter at least 1.5 times the longest dimension of your aerial vehicle (including length of any rotors) for a helipad, which is what you're asking for. That's the minimum cleared space available, and then you also need additional space around that circle. This also requires a significant amount of clear space to approach horizontally. The minimums are usually on the order of 150 feet in all directions with appropriately visible markings to guide the vehicle downwards, and you should additionally have another 1000 feet or so cleared for the primary direction users of the pad should be approaching from and with visible markers ideally (though it can be legal to have just a few hundred feet). Also you need to have proper drainage, no more than a small amount of slope, etc. You can't just slap it anywhere, and most importantly it's very difficult to meet these requirements in the middle of a city. Before you try to go "well rooftops..." you need to have properly designed rooftop infrastructure to legally have those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
fishmech posted:FAA rules are that you must have a circle with a diameter at least 1.5 times the longest dimension of your aerial vehicle (including length of any rotors) for a helipad, which is what you're asking for. That's the minimum cleared space available, and then you also need additional space around that circle. This also requires a significant amount of clear space to approach horizontally. The minimums are usually on the order of 150 feet in all directions with appropriately visible markings to guide the vehicle downwards, and you should additionally have another 1000 feet or so cleared for the primary direction users of the pad should be approaching from and with visible markers ideally (though it can be legal to have just a few hundred feet). Good point, with these requirements it's clearly impossible. What a loving idiot that guy was to suggest it's not a crazy idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:FAA rules are that you must have a circle with a diameter at least 1.5 times the longest dimension of your aerial vehicle (including length of any rotors) for a helipad, which is what you're asking for. That's the minimum cleared space available, and then you also need additional space around that circle. This also requires a significant amount of clear space to approach horizontally. The minimums are usually on the order of 150 feet in all directions with appropriately visible markings to guide the vehicle downwards, and you should additionally have another 1000 feet or so cleared for the primary direction users of the pad should be approaching from and with visible markers ideally (though it can be legal to have just a few hundred feet). And that’s before we get into anything like proper ATC or the fact that OOCC just assumed that the FAA would be totally cool with AI flight of an experimental aircraft carrying paid passengers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And that’s before we get into anything like proper ATC or the fact that OOCC just assumed that the FAA would be totally cool with AI flight of an experimental aircraft carrying paid passengers. Airbus seem to think it's worth building, are you saying they don't understand the regulations and are stupidly spending money to design and build these types of aircraft? There's also a bunch of other companies investing in this tech too, did they forget to get the goon stamp of approval?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Airbus seem to think it's worth building, are you saying they don't understand the regulations and are stupidly spending money to design and build these types of aircraft? There's also a bunch of other companies investing in this tech too, did they forget to get the goon stamp of approval? Airbus might know what they’re doing but OOCC isn’t Airbus and he doesn’t know what the gently caress he’s talking about. Last time he went on and on about emergency remote pilots who can assess any emergency situation and remotely fly any commercial aircraft with no problems what so ever. As for all those “bunch of other companies” like Uber, no they don’t know what the gently caress they’re talking about - they wanted to use sport licenses for commercial travel and electric helicopters that don’t exist. Being ignorant of the law and ignoring the law once they’re told is the MO of many Silicon Valley companies and maybe “move fast and break things” shouldn’t be the way to go when it comes to air travel. How about for once in a tech bros life, you guys actually take the time to learn why things are done the way they’re done rather than just presuming you know better than everyone else because you’re a coder? Maybe learning how “every rule is written in blood” might make folks actually understand what is at stake. This isn’t some loving IoT toy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Airbus seem to think it's worth building, are you saying they don't understand the regulations and are stupidly spending money to design and build these types of aircraft? There's also a bunch of other companies investing in this tech too, did they forget to get the goon stamp of approval? "personal flying car using some sort of helicopter blade" is a pretty frequent vaporware item, it's like the mount everest for crank inventors. here's three current ones i just googled https://terrafugia.com/ https://lilium.com/ https://www.aeromobil.com/ and, well, there's a long history of these things   turns out the problem isn't technology but regulation! and also technology when you start looking into dead end technolgies and other discarded ideas, there's just a giant heap of personal flying vehicles and jetpacks and all kinds of that nonsense. when large companies design these things they're usually just doing it as a concept exercise to create buzz, in airbus' case, or in the case of uber who had their own silly flying car concept it's to keep investor storytime perpetuating. journalists are hungry for optimistic sci-tech news for geeks to drool over and generate clicks, development on these things have been going on for decades and how many flying cars are there in the skies? in the absence of any recent breakthroughs in battery technology the entire idea is still wildly impractical
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:As for all those “bunch of other companies” like Uber, no they don’t know what the gently caress they’re talking about - they wanted to use sport licenses for commercial travel and electric helicopters that don’t exist. Being ignorant of the law and ignoring the law once they’re told is the MO of many Silicon Valley companies and maybe “move fast and break things” shouldn’t be the way to go when it comes to air travel. these companies are definitely just making concepts, the onus is on fanboys to not confuse "hey this would be a neat idea, huh?" as a branding exercise with "this is definitely a real thing that will really exist on the market, soon" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MrIv1JDlhg
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Drone taxis don’t take any sort of extreme space or anything. Someone will need to figure out landing and take off spots as part of their business model but it’s not intractable amounts of room. There is surely enough roofs and parking lots that could rent a ten foot square Oocc have you ever at any point gotten tired of not knowing your rear end from a hole in the ground
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Good point, with these requirements it's clearly impossible. What a loving idiot that guy was to suggest it's not a crazy idea. He said you only need ten square feet, but yeah dude die on that hill
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:these companies are definitely just making concepts, the onus is on fanboys to not confuse "hey this would be a neat idea, huh?" as a branding exercise with "this is definitely a real thing that will really exist on the market, soon" There's a difference between concept and what Airbus, Ehang, and others have actually built and have successfully flown. It's really convenient that you're using old as gently caress videos of entirely different technology to prove the concept is unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:He said you only need ten square feet, but yeah dude die on that hill Maybe some guy on the internet saying 10 square feet is enough isn't the end of the discussion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe some guy on the internet saying 10 square feet is enough isn't the end of the discussion? The thing is you're explicitly freaking out over someone telling oocc why the thing he said is wrong. Not "it's impossible to ever do this" just "this is why you are wrong and don't know what the gently caress you're talking about" I don't know why you feel the need to die for his posting honor or misread posts so badly
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:There's a difference between concept and what Airbus, Ehang, and others have actually built and have successfully flown. my point is that people were coming up with old goofy concepts that never went anywhere in the past, too. pontiac built a stinger and drove it around. how many did they produce for sale though? upscaling a quadcopter isn't even a new idea. none of these things are new ideas   you don't have to look very far back at history to see the dozens of failed flying car and personal helicopter prototypes, none of which achieved a level of quality to ever be practical for any purpose other than novelty. please don't commit the extremely common and very musky error of failing to look even briefly at human history and what has come before us before you start declaring how the future will look
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:The thing is you're explicitly freaking out over someone telling oocc why the thing he said is wrong. Not "it's impossible to ever do this" just "this is why you are wrong and don't know what the gently caress you're talking about" Because it's easy to poo poo on everything, you literally have nothing to lose by making GBS threads on ideas. You're not noble or a genius for saying "nuh uh, you're a dummy" when someone puts their beliefs out there. Also there's a difference between technologies, pretending like everything is the same is what stupid people do, you can do the research and see what is feasible and what isn't. luxury handset posted:my point is that people were coming up with old goofy concepts that never went anywhere in the past, too. pontiac built a stinger and drove it around. how many did they produce for sale though? Of the poo poo you posted many of those concepts turned into real vehicles that haven't gone into mass production yet but do actually work. Just because they haven't been commercial successes doesn't mean they're not realistic. Terrrfugia was sold to a conglomerate that owns Volvo and Lotus, seems like a success to me. Lilium Jet looks incredibly promising, they just secured 90 million in funding last year. Aeromobile looks to still be pretty deep in development, but they do have working prototypes. However the big difference between what you've been posting and the more recent drone systems being designed is the control system. These new systems are autonomous, the reason the other recent attempts haven't seen commercial success is probably due to the fact that you're required to a) have a pilots license and b) you need to take off at an actual airport. The autonomous taxi/drone systems in the works now all support VTOL and don't require a pilot. These key differences make them way more flexible and since they'll be operated by Airbus or whoever they have more dollars to spend than some wacko who wants to fly his personal plane in to work every day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Because it's easy to poo poo on everything, you literally have nothing to lose by making GBS threads on ideas. You're not noble or a genius for saying "nuh uh, you're a dummy" when someone puts their beliefs out there. Also there's a difference between technologies, pretending like everything is the same is what stupid people do, you can do the research and see what is feasible and what isn't. He posted actual regulations but yeah ok I guess pointing out that ten square feet is an unreasonably small space makes him the great satan
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Because it's easy to poo poo on everything, you literally have nothing to lose by making GBS threads on ideas. You're not noble or a genius for saying "nuh uh, you're a dummy" when someone puts their beliefs out there. Also there's a difference between technologies, pretending like everything is the same is what stupid people do, you can do the research and see what is feasible and what isn't. so did the very concept of human inventiveness give birth to you or what? because this is a pretty personal reaction to people criticizing wild claims about technology ElCondemn posted:Of the poo poo you posted many of those concepts turned into real vehicles that haven't gone into mass production yet but do actually work. Just because they haven't been commercial successes doesn't mean they're not realistic. you aren't reading my posts very closely. luxury handset posted:you don't have to look very far back at history to see the dozens of failed flying car and personal helicopter prototypes, none of which achieved a level of quality to ever be practical for any purpose other than novelty. you seem to think that all of the actual, for real existing machines i am posting pictures of don't really exist? when there is a wide difference between 'realistic' and 'practical'. ultralight helicopters exist too but only daredevils and light aviation nerds fly them, joe commuter definitely does not and never will ElCondemn posted:Terrrfugia was sold to a conglomerate that owns Volvo and Lotus, seems like a success to me. -companies often get bought for their talent pool or patents, not their prototypes -90 million in funding for vehicles is not very much, actually -every crank with a garage has a working prototype ElCondemn posted:However the big difference between what you've been posting and the more recent drone systems being designed is the control system. These new systems are autonomous, the reason the other recent attempts haven't seen commercial success is probably due to the fact that you're required to a) have a pilots license and b) you need to take off at an actual airport. the real roadblock here is battery size, using AI to eliminate the weight of a pilot is a red herring since all aircraft in the united states must be under the direct control of a human being despite autopilots being a thing that have existed for decades
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
anyway i'll just repeat myself one more time and point out that if you do even the most cursory reviews of exciting personal technology that is definitely right around the corner!!! then flying cars and other personal flying machines of that nature are right at the top of the list in terms of overpromised, never delivered technology. it is a consistent theme in future prediction as far back as we can meaningfully chart what people thought the future would be like and so you have to closely scrutinize any claims for pesky things like "can this device power itself" or "is this device technically illegal" in terms of how those factors might impact the ability of the creator to bring the device to market anyway here's an illustration from the year 1900 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Self-flying airplanes are no-poo poo vastly more simple. I cannot stress enough how much less complicated air navigation is. Even with air traffic highly regulated, constantly monitored and directed by centralized air traffic controllers, and controlled by trained and experienced pilots aided by advanced autopilots, midair collisions still occasionally happen. Sure, the sky is big - but most aircraft are going to pretty much the same places, so there's huge potential for collision in the vicinity of those places. There are people whose entire job title is dedicated to managing and coordinating air traffic. Saying that aircraft don't need to do anything more than fly in a straight line because you can't hit things in midair is, quite frankly, ignorant. It's a perfect example of how nerds tend to make sweeping statements about how easy it would be to automate a field they know virtually nothing about. That's the same tendency that led to, for instance, Elon Musk ignoring the experience and knowledge of manufacturing experts and insisting on heavily automating Tesla's assembly lines - even though the established automakers had learned the hard way decades ago that overautomation tended to jam up production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:46
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:anyway i'll just repeat myself one more time and point out that if you do even the most cursory reviews of exciting personal technology that is definitely right around the corner!!! then flying cars and other personal flying machines of that nature are right at the top of the list in terms of overpromised, never delivered technology. it is a consistent theme in future prediction as far back as we can meaningfully chart what people thought the future would be like and so you have to closely scrutinize any claims for pesky things like "can this device power itself" or "is this device technically illegal" in terms of how those factors might impact the ability of the creator to bring the device to market Please do not break nda by posting my new prototype on the forums
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's the same tendency that led to, for instance, Elon Musk ignoring the experience and knowledge of manufacturing experts and insisting on heavily automating Tesla's assembly lines - even though the established automakers had learned the hard way decades ago that overautomation tended to jam up production. He is the guy that offered ice cream and roller coasters as an alternative to unionization. On the other hand, technology has improved a lot since someone last made a big push at heavy automation in the automobile industry, and electric cars are actually pretty different from traditional petrol cars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 11:17
|
|
|
PS. I can't find anything actually saying you need 1000 feet around a helipad, I am pretty sure that fishmech found the 1.5 size requirement and said "oh, that actually sounds reasonable to build" then stuck his own made up number on it because he didn't like that. According to this the safety area needs to be 2x the size of the helicopter, around a pad 1.5 the size. Which is absolutely no where near 1000 feet. https://www.hospitalhelipads.com/helideck-technical-specifications/ Also personal helicopters and helicopter taxis already exist, rich people use them frequently, the personal helicopter stuff all happened but not in an attainable price range. Which is a thing that can change with improved technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:PS. I can't find anything actually saying you need 1000 feet around a helipad, I am pretty sure that fishmech found the 1.5 size requirement and said "oh, that actually sounds reasonable to build" then stuck his own made up number on it because he didn't like that. According to this the safety area needs to be 2x the size of the helicopter, around a pad 1.5 the size. Which is absolutely no where near 1000 feet. https://www.hospitalhelipads.com/helideck-technical-specifications/ Quit loving ignoring everyone and actually address our posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Quit loving ignoring everyone and actually address our posts. I don't know what time zone you are in but I made my previous post at 12:02AM then the net one at 7:23, I don't know how much more frequently you could possibly expect me to post in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't know what time zone you are in but I made my previous post at 12:02AM then the net one at 7:23, I don't know how much more frequently you could possibly expect me to post in this thread. You can respond to multiple people in the same post, or maybe don’t post on topics you don’t know the first thing about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You can respond to multiple people in the same post, or maybe don’t post on topics you don’t know the first thing about. I know I can't find a single thing that requires 1000 feet of clear space around a helipad. Nor does it seem like that could be possibly correct since most hospitals have helipads and don't clear a fifth of a mile around them. But everyone is just gonna accept that unquestionably because someone said it with no link.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I know I can't find a single thing that requires 1000 feet of clear space around a helipad. Nor does it seem like that could be possibly correct since most hospitals have helipads and don't clear a fifth of a mile around them. But everyone is just gonna accept that unquestionably because someone said it with no link. See, you’re ignoring all the other responses because it’s too inconvenient for you to shut up and listen to actual experts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:See, you’re ignoring all the other responses because it’s too inconvenient for you to shut up and listen to actual experts. Who are you claiming are actual experts here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:PS. I can't find anything actually saying you need 1000 feet around a helipad No one ever said there was. Good job being unable to do more than skim posts!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Who are you claiming are actual experts here? Not you. Now quit your evasion bullshit and address the posts previous that point out all the ways you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No one ever said there was. Good job being unable to do more than skim posts! can you post the source that "recommends" 1000 feet? Because it seems like you looked it up, saw the requirements were very reasonable and doable then tried to staple a huge number on because you didn't like that answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
OOCC, just for shits and giggles, can you briefly explain the requirements to transit Class B or C airspace that exists around most major cities, and the corresponding weather minima? In your opinion, how would this affect your bugfuck insane fantasy of autonomous drone flight within urban areas on a consistent basis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:can you post the source that "recommends" 1000 feet? Because it seems like you looked it up, saw the requirements were very reasonable and doable then tried to staple a huge number on because you didn't like that answer. The FAA recommends it where possible, for the primary approach direction, beyond the mandated cleared space around the direct landing zone of about 150 feet: https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150_5390-2 Notice how this has nothing to do with your wild claim of 1000 feet all around
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
fishmech posted:The FAA recommends it where possible, for the primary approach direction, beyond the mandated cleared space around the direct landing zone of about 150 feet: https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150_5390-2 Can you quote the part where it "recommends it where possible" because the number 1000 doesn't show up at all in that document except for an altitude. So again, it seems like you looked up the real answer then didn't like it and tried to stick a huge number in to make it sound impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:05
|
|