|
CrazyLittle posted:well... gently caress. Guess I need to see if it'll work where I fly, or else try to flip the 900mhz stuff. I'm not going to be flying over city/neighborhoods proper, but there's plenty of cellular coverage out there. 900Mhz is only used by old analog cell phones now, so I'd give it a try. I've deployed a 900mhz radio system for something else in a city before and was able to handle any cell tower based interference.
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Well AT&T's 3G band is 850mhz and 1800mhz, but gsm in general can be 850, 900, 1800 or 1900 bands. So there's a good chance the antennas in the area will interfere. I will just have to find out. Fair enough, only T-mobile uses 900mhz GSM in the US though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Helldesk posted:It's also a HAM frequency so get your licence (and, most importantly, the related know-how) in order before using it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Also RC air vehicles must be within line of sight of the controller.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:I'd like to ask a newbie question too. I'm looking into using a RC copter to gather low-level atmospheric data, basically temperature and relative humidity (and maybe wind speed/direction if I can calculate it). My general idea is to get a T/RH and GPS data logger on the copter, fly it up (hopefully) to about 500', then have it come down. If I could have it auto fly via GPS that would be magical. Just curious, why won't a ballon work? That's what has traditionally been used for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:A weather balloon will travel to a height of 100,000 feet over the course of 90 minutes at a cost of about $200 (including parts and labor) per launch. Big time overkill. I'm looking at detecting/forecasting radiation fog, which at worst is maybe 1500' thick. There are balloons smaller than a weather ballon though, just use a correctly sized balloon to loft what you need the limited distance. I think powered flight is overkill if you just need the height. Just get some party balloons and some kite string and go to town.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
rotor posted:i was actually thinking about a kite as the easiest, but that kinda ... i dont know, there's no OOMPH. You sir, don't know enough about kites. If it is that windy just use a power kite.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:What are you talking about? It is illegal to use a UAV to make money period. It doesn't matter if it is manually controlled or autopiloted or even if it has a camera. Are you sure they were in the US at time of filming? If so, just file a complaint with the FAA if you actually care that much. The Feds work on a complaint based system so complain away!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Yep, unless Gold Rush is lying about being in Alaska or unless the Joe Shmoe Show isn't in LA or unless Moonshiners isn't filmed in the south. On further digging there are several large loopholes that are likely being used. This page lists most of them: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/ But basically, those film crews are likely using donated time/equipment from a manufacturer that is then writing off the cost. This is authorized because they are doing research on UAS platforms in advance of the new small UAS rules and because they can still demo for foreign clients. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Golluk posted:Yep, looking into that as well. Though I'd think Rx would not require a license, just the Tx? How do you receive a signal without transmitting it first?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Yeah the fact they announced it during their biggest shopping season on a national TV show rather than a tech conference or PR event is a big giveaway. Plus the fact that the rules for that haven't been finalized and that robotic cars will probably be considerably cheaper in all but the densest urban areas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:It'll happen, but it's years away and this was mostly a PR stunt. I really doubt drone delivery will be a consumer thing. Besides the complicated issues of "where do I meet my drone if I live in a high-rise/flight restricted area/duplex/etc" I just don't think the economics are there. The energy-costs of flying are huge and air-package delivery has the fuel/weight conundrum that means to carry a reasonable payload for a meaningful distance (with landing/takeoff buffers on both ends) means you need larger robust drones. Which then pushes your costs up and further worsens the flight path and landing/takeoff issues. Meanwhile anywhere people want to go pretty much have a road, autonomous vehicles are driving around right now in several states, and short-hop ground transport is an already proven economic model. Why fly a pizza to your house with a robot when a robot can just drive it there and deliver 5 other pizzas on the way? All with a lower per-pizza delivered cost.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
I see a self-driving car on the road at least 1-2 times a week (I live near Mountain View). Even from an an electric vehicle to electric vehicle comparison, the energy costs of lifting and flying cargo + fuel will be significantly larger than just driving the drat thing. I can see Amazon/UPS/Pizza Hut using drones to say, track and monitor their automated ground fleet (say the Pizza-mobile is driving into a high-risk area), as then you don't have to transport a payload, land or have a human interface all of which have weight costs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
ease posted:You're an idiot, and here's why. Straight lines will always be more efficient and safer. RTK gps will allow for these drones to fly w/ in 1cm xy and 2cm z. It's already possible now. Machine vision will allow it to detect any kind of interference and play around it. And where not talking 32 degrees of vision, we are talking complete spherical machine vision. Spider poo poo. Not to mention that soon, it will be required that everything in the air have some sort of ADS transmitter. Hell, I'd go as far as to say in 15 years we'll loving tag geese with whatever the next generation of ADS is. Straight lines aren't more efficient when you have to carry everything rather than roll it. Whatever magic computer vision you can imagine will in fact be applied to automated ground vehicles too, where this marketplace is already solved efficiently by ground transit. Look at it this way, how big of a drone would be needed to fly a 1kg payload 1 mile, then have hover capacity for 15min, then return? Now you have a drone that can deliver 2 pizzas at a time. Meanwhile, the pizza delivery driver (or driver bot) can take 20 pizzas and probably deliver the 20 pizzas faster overall, and unquestionably cheaper to the company. This makes even less sense for non-parishables where it doesn't matter if my kindle comes in 15 minutes or 2 hours. Vitamin J posted:I'm glad I can amuse you. The NAS is already incredibly micro-managed, and if every UAV has a transponder and VFR is addressed, then boom they're already integrated into the NAS. If by "specific route programmed in" you mean you look it up in Google Chauffeur? Then yes. That's what you have to do for the Google self-driving cars. They're on the regular road all the time. I just 2x checked, and apparently Googlers use them to commute all the time, and company policy is to only autonomously drive on the freeway when commuting. So today, there are autonomous vehicles in use during rush hour on the Interstate. The pizza issue is just my point. You really think it will be easier to service NYC by drone then by car? Pray tell where will you deliver my pizza in the snow when I live on the 57th floor? Or how many drones will a pizza shop need for the rush hour when they get 30 pizzas within 60 minutes? Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
ease posted:Straight lines win when energy costs are only different by pennies, and getting a package in 15 minutes vs 2 hours is worth getting your customers money. Do you imagine little r2d2's throwing packages out their slots? How about when they get stuck in the snow? Or when kid's push them over for fun. It's just silly sounding. There is tons of space above us, and limited space below us. I just don't think you understand the physics of this, its not a marginal difference between flying something and driving it in terms of energy costs, its a factor of 10x or more. An autonomous car isn't something a kid would just push over (and we already have parking spaces, no need to build drone landing pads everywhere) so that's not really related to the conversation we're having. Seriously, what's a multi-copter drone with a 1kg+ payload and 15m hover time and 30m flight time look like? How big would that thing have to be?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
ease posted:Right now. This is today : A copter can fly out 5 miles and back on one charge. That's about $.05 of electricity. What makes you think that in the future the amount of energy used to deliver a package is going to matter enough to say oh hey lets put this in a land based robot? With how much payload? This whole argument is about cargo movement so just quoting magical numbers about an unburdened drone is silly. Marginal costs are huge factors for capital purchases (buying the thousands of drones required to cover even one city). For example, the Draganflyer X8 can carry 800g, so more than 1 pizza but it can't support a pizza volumed payload. But the Maximum Flight Time: Approx. 20 min (without payload) And it also requires 60 minutes to charge, so you need at least 3x copters to provide coverage. What's the size of a multicopter with 1kg payload and 30+ min flight time? Edit: Even the platform used in Domino's Domidrone stunt only had a 10m flight time when loaded with 2 pizzas. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Yes, the google cars drive on the highways themselves, but they don't pull out of the driveway or drive into the Mcdonald's autonomously, the human needs to interact with it at certain points of the journey. All I said was a car is easier than a copter. The cars actually do pull themselves out of parking lots etc, Google just doesn't daily drive them like that. Those are still supervised by 2 engineers, right now they are auto-driving them on the freeway with 1 engineer. The way google deals with stuff like signs/snow that is,its not reading the road signs to know how fast its going, they use Google's databases. The LIDAR has decent water penetration. Then they compile all of the vehicles travel along a route to create an understanding of the route and what changes and how often. The statistics are pretty good in terms of mis-identification. All this software stuff helps UAS too. I believe we'll overcome both the pilot and driving AI issues. That pizza drone only had a 10minute total flight time with payload, so that's not realistic for commercial purposes. That's my basic argument is the fuel needs don't make sense for drone delivery on a consumer scale.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
I'm just going to hate having drones trying to land on the sidewalk while I'm walking under it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:You're the only one talking about the future. UAVs are working making deliveries in many places around the world. Ground vehicles aren't. Actually, I'm pretty sure USPS and UPS do ground vehicle delivery everyday  Outside of a military context where are drone deliveries being done (and are they autonomous without pilot backup)? There are licensed ground autonomous vehicles in use legally in large metro areas. Its stupid to argue that the AI issues are going to be a big deal for either mode of transport. I'm arguing the energy costs of drone delivery hardly make sense for consumer purposes. I actually agree with the document currier via drone idea, because then the courthouse could have a dedicated drone landing spot, along with whatever law firms need the drones. As opposed to having to build a landing platform for your pizza/condoms. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:I have no doubt (unmanned) ground vehicles will one day become a very popular. I'm sorry but matternet only had a 2 month trial, it isn't being used anymore. Also they only had 3 drones for that 2 month trial, not exactly a real-world deployment. Then there's this: The CEO of Matternet posted:"I think we are on the quadrocopter hype curve right now," Raptopoulos says. "We assume the tech is more ready for primetime than it actually is." Likewise the SFExpress was only a test and every single drone was monitored by staff the corrected its flight, so not fully autonomous either. Attached is a picture of the drone used by SFExpress, clearly not a realistic drone for actual deliveries. Meanwhile autonomous ground vehicles have logged millions of driving miles in fully autonomous mode in the real world, versus 2 months in Haiti (luckily no tall buildings left to run into) and a Chinese publicity stunt.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Even if I accepted your arguments, and I don't, you still have only addressed half of that post, at most, and very little of my previous posts. 1 - There aren't actual real world uses of consumer drone delivery for me to refute. The military deliveries replacing helicopter deliveries isn't something that's comparable to consumer use...there aren't manned helicopters to replace with drones. Most of the other best examples of use cases are all areas with limited or no infrastructure. The opposite of a consumer environment. 2 - You realize none of the delivery drones demoed (except military) can do this? Even Matternet uses prepositioned beacons for navigation. Autonomous ground vehicles can do all the things you ask, they just don't do it unmanned for liability reasons (see #5). 3 - I don't know why I have to somehow prove you can fit a package into a ground vehicle. Meanwhile the only answer to the fact that no one (even matternet) gives flighttimes of +20 minutes with cargo is "oh well, technology will fix that". 4 - While a potentially complicated issue, I've accept delivery from drivers' cars before, so its not too different to meet the delivery vehicle on the street/parking spot for your asap delivery needs. 5 - They already are. In the US California, Nevada, and Florida already have a licensing and regulation process for autonomous cars, all the way from testing to public use. The vehicles are in LA traffic and are driving every day. Once the milage counts in testing are reached, they will begin fully autonomous consumer operation. I'm not arguing that UAV delivery won't have huge markets in underdeveloped areas, where a beacon is easier to build than a road. But in our cities and communities, we mostly have pre-outfit things for cars and land vehicles and when the infrastructure is already paid for, the cost is unbeatable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:1 - There were several businesses in China operating drones for delivery until recently when the government shut them down. There were and are no businesses pursuing unmanned ground delivery vehicles, or unmanned ground vehicles for anything besides commuting. Maybe you have evidence that UPS or FedEx are looking into it? Please find a source that cites a company other than SFExpress as doing drone delivery in China? Since SFExpress's is just a marketing ploy like the rest (they were remotely piloted). I can't find any other companies doing it after a quick google. Vitamin J posted:2 - Not true, a simple youtube search will show you the opposite. There are many proof-of-concepts. The Chinese delivery drones used only onboard GPS and sensors. In labs UAVs are able to fly through incredibly tight obstacle courses and small holes, fly tightly in formation, and avoid other moving objects. Can you show me anything similar for cars? You have already admitted that unmanned ground delivery is impossible because of liability issues. Are you seriously trying to argue that videos of what can happen in a fully 3d imaged lab where an IR matrix is projected over the entire flying space is meaningful proof of concept for real world use? Instead, I point you to all the videos of autonomous cars driving, which is exactly the equivalent thing shown in all the drone videos. I didn't say liability was impossible, just that in testing engineers are required because they're actually operating in the real world. Find me someone operating completely autonomous UAVs in an urban area. Vitamin J posted:
All that video actually shows, is that someone has strapped some books to the bottom of a UAV. It actually doesn't show a delivery, navigating an urban environment, range, or consumer handoff. That's not much of a proof of concept. Also, that company hasn't made a single delivery yet. Vitamin J posted:4 - Firstly, that's loving stupid, a UPS delivery window is like 6 hours. Not that it matters because you can't even show a proof-of-concept or a company pursuing these things, it's just all in your own head. Secondly, a UAV can land on your front porch or backyard or roof or balcony with today's technology, in 1 or 2 years they will be able to fly inside your house or apartment through an open window. I was talking about getting food etc delivered. In the neighborhood I used to live in, it was pretty common for a delivery driver to call you because they were double parked in the street and then you'd go to the car and make your transaction. All of your arguments about how great AI is getting applies to both platforms, and it doesn't really address the fundamental range/weight/duty cycle issues. Even if you solve the last 100 feet problem, which I still think drones are at an infrastructure disadvantage over, it still doesn't fix the fact that flying is a space/weight constrained transport method and you'll need more drones to overcome that. Vitamin J posted:5 - Autonomous cars (that aren't autonomous because they require a human occupant) can be driven in 3 out of 50 states in 1 country out of 193 countries in the world. And as you say, a driver has to be onboard....so autonomous delivery by ground is not possible under those regulations and we're back to square one... Meanwhile the FAA is designating 6 zones for UAV integration into the National Air Space next year and UAVs fly everyday along the US boarder proving that UAVs can be integrated into the existing NAS very easily under full autonomous control with none of the same liability concerns. No, what I'm saying is that the path to consumer autonomous vehicles is so steady that regulations are already in place in the US and other countries (UK and Japan for example). We are already building the regulatory infrastructure for individuals to own and operate autonomous cars, as opposed to where we are with drones where they are outright banned in many locales and only beginning to have a regulatory structure for business use.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
This is the fun swarm video we've all probably seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzuL60V9ng At the very beginning you can catch the amazing cameras used for the off-drone calculations, but that's just a matter of shrinking components. I want some sharper image style novelty decoration using those things. Screw usefulness, I want a fountain of drones in my living room for when the boss comes by.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
You don't seem to even understand the difference between a UAV and a fully autonomous UAV (as you cite one as proof of the other) so I don't really know what the point of trying to have a discussion about the profitability of fully autonomous UAVs for mass consumer shipping versus other means. What's a commercially available multi-copter with a 30m+ flight time while carrying a 1kg payload? I'm honestly curious what size they are. Edit: I must once again point out that 1/2 of your videos are publicity stunts (the copters have flight times of less than 15m) and the other 1/2 are planes not multicopters. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:
The highest maximum payload of all those drones you linked is 300g. Kinda proving my point here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Uhh yeah hey guys, I'm just a regular drone-builder nerd, yeah it's pretty cool (like me). So, now that we're friends, how many people you killed with your drones? I would go first, but I'm just a little embarrassed by my small k/l ratio (that's the kill-loss ratio, for those in the know). I'd be good to compare myself with some of the pros itt  What's the smallest size multicopter that can fly outdoors realistically?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
A really interesting article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/drones-faa-lawsuit-coming-to-american-skies-102754.html?hp=pm_2 Basically it appears the FAA never actually made commercial drone operations (and commercial r/c operations) illegal. The FAA's official comment was they were not prepared to answer if flying a drone commercially is illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Commercial flight of unlicensed aircraft has always been illegal. That's the whole point, the FAA is actually refusing to say that commercial use is illegal. So the FAA is trying to bust him for the reckless flying charge since that's the only rule that could stick. quote:I asked an FAA spokesman at least five times whether flying a drone for profit is illegal and, after several attempts to follow up, was told that the agency was not prepared to answer that question.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Wojcigitty posted:Also the 400 foot guideline is from some bullshit 1 page monthly circular from 1981 and many RC pilots regularly exceed 400 feet with no consequences. Exactly. They never formally made any rules. This may be a short term deal (theoretically new rules come out this year), but I think it actually has never been illegal to operate UAVs/RCs/Drones for any purpose just that the FAA thought it was but never put in the effort to make it law. I feel like this means that finally the deadline for formal UAS rules won't slip. If the cat is out of the bag about commercial drone use, they will want to quickly get their rules in place.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:I already pointed out how the above statement is wrong. There doesn't need to be a law that specifically bars commercial UAV flight when ALL commercial flight is banned without a licensed craft and a commercial pilots license. Then why won't the FAA say that? The FAA is unwilling to officially state that commercial drone use is illegal. So unless you know more about the rules than the FAA, I wouldn't be so sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Because they're in the process of making rules and exemptions for UAVs? But that's the point, there are no rules covering UAVs right now. Sure, once they issue rules then those rules apply. Right now the only tool the FAA can use, is to argue that all commercial drone use is inherently dangerous because they're not integrated yet. Edit: The crux is that it appears the FAA failed to engage in a full rulemaking process, before deciding that commercial UAVs were banned, so the regulation never actually existed. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/10/MotionToDismiss.pdf Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:They didn't talk to "the FAA", they talked to "a guy at the FAA." It's not surprising that one guy would be unwilling to give any statement on such a controversial topic until the FAA has made a public announcement of one kind of another. Like, I really, really wouldn't want to be the random guy on the phone who shot his mouth off about the legality of drones and is quoted in a hundred newspapers before his boss even gets in the next morning. If by "a guy at the FAA" you mean the FAA Spokesman, the person who's job it is to be the official face of the rules of the FAA.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What difference does that make? If the FAA has no current rule on the subject -- and you can guarantee that it's under debate right now, so it's not like they're just farting around and ignoring it -- he isn't going to give you any statement one way or the other. "The FAA has no rule on this" is just as committal a response as "you can do whatever you like." There's a big difference between asking about future rules and the state of current rules. If a regulator refuses to say if something is illegal but everyone thinks it is illegal, that is a big sign that in fact it may not be illegal. I actually would be shocked if the attorney's general office of any state would refuse to say if marijuana was illegal or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:I'm pretty sure there's no law banning the operation of a killdozer down the street if it's got its vehicle license, and yet it's not legal. You're making the errant assumption that flying is a right, or that driving is a right. There's no right to either of those things. You use FAA airspace and public roads by permission granted, not strictly by restriction of law. You are really being dense about this. The whole reason Trappy is being charged with "wrecklessly flying over people" is because the FAA couldn't charge him with operating a commercial UAV, because its not illegal. The FAA failed to actually make a rule regulating UAVs at all, they just issued a policy statement, which by law cannot restrict the actions of the general public. The Motion to Dismiss the FAA Fines posted:In this proceeding, the FAA uses those same policy statements as a pretext for applying federal aviation regulations to the operation of model airplanes. This approach violates the most basic tenets of regulatory law and the Administrative Procedures Act which require a valid notice-and- comment rulemaking process before legislative rules are issued. Both at the time of Mr. Pirker’s model aircraft operation in 2011, and still today, there exist no enforceable federal aviation regulations Also your killdozer thing is both: against a number of laws, and a confusion between regulation and torts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
His lawyers are arguing and the Federal Register confirms that the FAA never engaged in the legal regulatory process to begin to regulate UAVs, which have traditionally been unregulated (See the entire history of the R/C Planes). The advisory notices the FAA produced in 2007 about UAVs, are legally forbidden from placing restrictions on the public as they are only for clarifying or stating internal FAA procedures. Read the motion to dismiss, it makes a compelling and easily verifiable (through the Federal Register) argument that the FAA failed to actually establish the regulation: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/10/MotionToDismiss.pdf Yes, this is a regulatory loophole that will be closed as soon as the new rules are issued, but the FAA has been delaying those rules and thus this may force them to actually meet deadlines. A good example of this is the fact the NTSB does not investigate deaths from R/C planes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
I was right about something for once! Honestly, this might be the most exciting thing to happen in the industry in years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:The first time a commercial photography drone falls out of the sky over a crowded stadium or concert and kills someone things will change in a bad way... This ruling doesn't impact state Trespassing laws, so either that stadium/concert would have to approve its use or the pilot can still be at fault for injury.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
RadioPassive posted:My bet is the new rules require a shitload of money/resources to comply with, effectively shutting down anyone smaller than Amazon/Google/etc. from running drones commercially. License fees of $100,000, required million-dollar drone insurance, and/or some sort of expensive drone safety system to prevent damages in case of crash. I think there will be vastly different rules for those trying to operate on exclusively private property with owner permission and those trying to operate in the full public airspace. They will likely require liability insurance equal to the maximum possible damage that your drone falling out of the sky could cause, which will likely be large but not much more than the usual liability insurance that any sort of transportation company carries.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I dunno how you define "maximum possible damage", though. Crashing on someone's car while it's parked is pretty different from crashing on someone's car while it's driving down the highway. And I've love to see what happens when you crash a bunch of carbon-fiber rods into a high-tension line. There are many methods to do this. We already do this for planes and space launches, I don't see how it would be harder to do with drones. Here are the rules for commercial space launches for example: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/launch_reentry/expendable/financial/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Erh, don't fly around your daughter! Why not? What age is acceptable to start watching someone else fly RC?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 22:23
|
|