Drones that can haul a 20-pound load for 500 miles and land on a moving target

Post by SimbaOnSteroids » Sun, May 27, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #19

THE_PUN_STOPS wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article. The founder was an operations guy at Tesla and specifically did the numbers to justify the company based on the need of Tesla parts supply. There is room for this in the supply chain of many firms. There’s a lot of industries where waiting for something can be very expensive.

I worked in a Fortune 50 consumer electronics company, sitting right next to our procurement team. It's not my field and I'm not an expert but I know enough to be wary of a founder who makes such claims, moreover, there's enough data available to piece together what would work and not without having to accept anyone's claims on it. Most companies and their parts suppliers are in cities, wherein there are any number o…

Post by agumonkey » Sun, May 27, 2018, 3:49 PM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #112

agumonkey wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're stuck in a mountain and in an emergency, a drone delivery could be quite the very nice

> But if you're stuck in a mountain and in an emergency, a drone delivery could be quite the very nice Sure. For the 5 people a year that happens to. Not really enough to build a company around. The only type of medicine that I can think of that's urgently needed, but that the person wouldn't have the foresight to keep on them is something like snake anti-venom. If medication is really important, people tend to just…

Post by zdkl » Sun, May 27, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

MikkoFinell wrote: post #82

candiodari wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, that's cute. The issue with that is that locating UAV's that are, say 50 meters above the deck, more than 1km from your detector is essentially impossible. Without a VERY dense detection infrastructure, catching these things is not going to happen. Furthermore even though these lasers are very cheap, by army norms, to fire, they're still 600$ or so for a single shot. So shooting down drones will be expensive. Fa…

> Furthermore even though these lasers are very cheap, by army norms, to fire, they're still 600$ or so for a single shot. So shooting down drones will be expensive. Far more expensive than the drones themselves. What is the approximate cost of allowing the drone in?

Post by asynchronous13 » Sun, May 27, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

davnicwil wrote: post #32

candiodari wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get that. Before the sun rises tomorrow, for the US alone, 32 Americans will make a mistake with their car that kills someone (potentially, but unlikely, themselves, 2 will kill themselves, 29 will kill someone else, one will kill 2 others, for a total of 33 deaths). At the same time, a further 2000 Americans will injure someone with a car, and another 3000 will cause severe (I believe > 1000$) property damag…

It's simply that that's not a new risk. Everyone has grown up with knowledge of that risk and accepted it as a given, therefore it is not alarming. I think this is necessary because to constantly evalute and fear ever-present risk would be debilitating. New risks however are alarming, and do trigger the fearful 'better not try that in case the worst happens' response in a lot (the majority?) of people - this probably…

Post by thunfischbrot » Sun, May 27, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

spodek wrote: post #73

haberman wrote: post #28

What 20 pound load could have saved the Titanic? Why wouldn't such a miraculous tool or part have been brought aboard already as a precaution?

Flotation devices. They wouldn't save the boat but could help people in the water and don't weigh much. Not sure the technology then for self-inflating boats for people to get out of the cold water, but today you could make self-inflating rafts under 20 pounds.