Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 202 posts

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#161

Post by leetcrew »

ricardobeat wrote: post #14
hashkb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also... weight is not a useful metric. A 1lb rock has very different ballistic properties than a 1lb feather. A typical 9mm bullet weighs 0.01lbs.

Since this is about objects falling from a certain height, yes, weight is a useful metric for rough safety estimates. A bullet does damage because it holds a lot more energy from being accelerated - a 9mm bullet will go around a mile up before falling down (source: MythBusters). Two 500g boxes dropped from a likely much lower height will have a similar effect (concussion?) when dropped on a pedestrian regardless of t…

a 9mm bullet can only go so high because it leaves the barrel at a much greater speed than its terminal velocity in freefall. 9mm in particular has a fairly low terminal velocity; if it falls straight down it is unlikely to seriously hurt an adult.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#162

Post by darkpuma »

gweinberg wrote: post #90
threeseed wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fans, helicopters etc have been around for decades and are still mostly loud. You can't escape the physics that moving air causes noise.

Sure but size matters. A helicopter that can carry a person weighs 1000 pounds or more. A drone can be less than 1 one thousandth the weight.

Just put wings on the damn thing and you can cut your power requirements down by an order of magnitude.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#163

Post by leetcrew »

asynchronous13 wrote: post #98
jstplanecurious wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First thing they should do is to cover propellers so that they don't hurt anyone. Does anyone know why this isn't standard? I Googled this question: "why don't quadcopters have safety cages" https://www.google.com/search?q=why+don't+quadcopters+have+s... ... ... and even saw cages that go around the whole quadcopter (not just the propellers as I was expecting). If those were a bit squishy they could seriously reduce…

> Does anyone know why this isn't standard? Because cages weigh more. Minimizing weight is critical for anything that flies. If it weighs more, then it takes more energy to make it fly. If it weighs more, then that's less payload that it can carry.

it's actually worse than that. in addition to the weight penalty, prop guards decrease the performance of the rotors and make the aircraft a bit less stable.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#164

Post by dsfyu404ed »

morganvachon wrote: post #152
Buttons840 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once had the exhaust pipe before my catalytic converter on my car fall out due to a bump and some rust that had been building up. My car suddenly became very very loud, louder than I had ever realized it could be. I was quite embarrassed while driving the car home, and soon got it fixed. It wasn't especially expensive to fix. If that happened in California I might get a $1000 ticket? Or is the large ticket only for…

I think in your specific case it would be up to the officer's discretion if you were pulled over for it. About 20 years ago I worked the night shift at a warehouse and my car's passenger side headlight went out on my way to work. I had time to stop at a parts dealer before they closed and picked up a new headlight, but I didn't have time to install it so I chucked it in the back seat and drove on to my job. I was pul…

>I think in your specific case it would be up to the officer's discretion if you were pulled over for it

So people that don't make a good impression get screwed out of a grand they probably don't have. Relying on the benevolence of police is not going to work out well for average people in the long run.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#165

Post by dsfyu404ed »

breatheoften wrote: post #140
slap wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> severe safety compromising design flaws made for stylistic reason Could you explain what exactly ?

People buy Harley’s for the twin cam engine which vibrates a lot and “if you have to ask why this is good then you wouldn’t understand”. The marketing for Harley’s is very much about buying into “worse is better” for “cool” factor — and for social signaling that you might know how to turn your own wrenches. The joke is that Harley owners spend more time in the garage with their bikes than riding them. They require a…

I fully agree that they're shitty bikes (for the money, everything is relative to cost obviously) but I'm not sure it matters when it comes to safety. Mechanical failure/vehicle performance is still basically a rounding error compared to humans being dumb when it comes to causes of crashes.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#166

Post by michaelt »

amelius wrote: post #125
cronix wrote: post #41

One thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life w…

I guess army drones are silent.

Army drones are usually fixed-wing - in the civilian market they'd be called "RC planes".

RC planes are less popular than quadcopters for hobby use, as it takes a lot more skill to avoid crashing them.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#167

Post by dsfyu404ed »

abakker wrote: post #114
bigmattystyles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

FWIW, California changed the minimum ticket for noise violations on vehicles to $1000 this year. They are apparently cracking down on it, as they have abolished the “fix it ticket” that used to allow the vehicle to be repaired and then the ticket is commuted. Now, the officer must fine you.

I know you don't have rust in CA but if they had a $1k fine where I live that would be just a massive slap in the face to poor people driving old cars (the exhaust rusts out and you don't know until it happens). I get that making cars more expensive is popular in certain places but unfortunately the reality is that a ton our infrastructure is based around them and the negative consequences of hidden costs like this are greater than then gain from forcing a few people to give up driving because they can't afford it.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#168

Post by dsfyu404ed »

mbrumlow wrote: post #91
reaperducer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise. Cities, townships, what have you, will care about whatever their active constituents tell them to. It took a few years, but a neighborhood organization managed to get a crackdown on motorcycle noise in Chicago. I don't know if it worked because I moved away before it went into effect. But there was a ton of press coverage for a very long tim…

> My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise. I think the poster was referring to active constituents. But I think you are wrong. I don't know of anybody who wants a loud car or bike trekking by their house. But yet it still happens over and over. It is unclear if enough "active constituents" are not complaining or they are ignored.

I live on a hill with a busy intersection at the bottom. I get to listen to trucks with jake brakes going down the hill and people accelerating out of the intersection. I don't exactly live somewhere high class so vehicles with rusted out exhausts and Civics with fart cans abound. It doesn't bother me one bit. You get used to it.

It's people in gated communities and quiet suburban neighborhoods where there is rarely much noise who complain about noise because the baseline amount of noise they experience is so low that every single loud noise is highly noticeable.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#169

Post by iambateman »

cronix wrote: post #41

One thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life w…

When I flew a Phantom 4 to 150 feet, it was basically invisible and totally silent. I’m guessing you’re thinking of much larger drones?

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#170

Post by oarsinsync »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #168
mbrumlow wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise. I think the poster was referring to active constituents. But I think you are wrong. I don't know of anybody who wants a loud car or bike trekking by their house. But yet it still happens over and over. It is unclear if enough "active constituents" are not complaining or they are ignored.

I live on a hill with a busy intersection at the bottom. I get to listen to trucks with jake brakes going down the hill and people accelerating out of the intersection. I don't exactly live somewhere high class so vehicles with rusted out exhausts and Civics with fart cans abound. It doesn't bother me one bit. You get used to it. It's people in gated communities and quiet suburban neighborhoods where there is rarely…

Unsure why you're being downvoted, but in my experience, this is absolutely correct.

When I lived on a busy intersection, the noise level was always there, it just became background.

When I lived near a flightpath, the sound of airlines was regularly there, and it also just became background.

I now live in a very quiet area, and every passing motorbike is a disturbance.

Then again, the other thing that's changed is my age and expectations of life. Whether or not that's related or not, I dunno.

Post reply on HN