131–140 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple solution - mandate that drones are implemented with a parachute system, it's already being done on prop planes (cirrus)
A 20lb weight can kill a person from a far lower altitude than a parachute could meaningfully slow its descent. Parachutes aren’t magic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen live demonstrations in the mid 1980s (as in, a system protecting borders), and I bet the state of the art has advanced since then. Yup, long stare SAR hooked up to a DVR was a thing over 10 years ago - it could cover a lot of ground (like a large Iraqi city) with a resolution that would easily detect this drone.
Are these the overhead not-quite-satellites you're talking about ? That would require a drone every 5 km or so. Not - one drone. A drone in the air 24/7 every 5km for a border ~2000 km long.
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?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561604/Key-that-cou...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no expert but how autonomous works if there's no positioning methods involved? (To avoid GPS/GLONASS,... Jamming)
Cruise missiles have an optical terrain-following system, that would be a viable approach for drones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Very much this. I've had entertaining conversations with people who were afraid of electric vehicles because they were afraid that the batteries might catch on fire. I asked about driving around with a tank of highly flammable / explosive liquid under the car, and their only response was "that's different." We're comfortable with known risks, but new risks are scary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>So the use case of 'landing on a moving sheep' is probably right up their alley This is critical, as it's almost impossible to hold a sheep stationary while landing a drone on it.
So basically every terror org on the planet have crude off the shelf 500mile cruise missiles now.
They've had this for 15 years already, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Simpson_(blogger)#DIY_Cr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so did i :-) We logged a lot of hours with a person onboard who didn't touch the controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7SjOOuTct0
That's really neat. It looks like the company is defunct -- what happened?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends if we assume they're smuggling or dropping explosives/something dirty.
Suppose they are smuggling narcotics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose they are smuggling narcotics.
Okay, since economics has extensively studied the effect of narcotics on the economy (which is positive, or to put it another way: people will work, even fight, for drugs), we can clearly establish that the cost of missing a shipment is negative. For the economy, it is actually better to miss the shipment than to catch it.