There is absolutely no way to know that before they launch at scale. You know why a truck is way more likely to kill you than a drone? Because we have literally millions more trucks than shipping...
There is absolutely no way to know that before they launch at scale. You know why a truck is way more likely to kill you than a drone? Because we have literally millions more trucks than shipping drones. I never said trucks aren't dangerous, but until we have literally millions of these out in service, we can't really say they're that much safer.
The intent of these drones is to replace cargo trucking over inter-city distances. You know, where people mostly aren't? Even if there's millions of them out in service, they're going to be flying...
The intent of these drones is to replace cargo trucking over inter-city distances. You know, where people mostly aren't? Even if there's millions of them out in service, they're going to be flying on stable flight routes between cities. The chances of one falling on your head in the middle of a field or forest would not be high even if there are millions.
There is 0 way these things get off the ground without some sort of filed flight plan with the FAA. That at least we already have a very robust process for.
There is 0 way these things get off the ground without some sort of filed flight plan with the FAA. That at least we already have a very robust process for.
I don't know much about the FAA or how it operates more specifically, is it already sort of automated in the sense of coordinating traffic, like altitudes and exact flight paths and such, or is it...
I don't know much about the FAA or how it operates more specifically, is it already sort of automated in the sense of coordinating traffic, like altitudes and exact flight paths and such, or is it controlled by humans? I assume even if its controlled by humans it's still backed logistically by computers of course, just wasn't sure if humans are the ones making the decisions where flight traffic goes or if a computer is doing it.
It's a vastly complex issue, but in short for something like this it'd probably be mostly automated. Actual planes literally have miles between them and require a tower to physically see the...
It's a vastly complex issue, but in short for something like this it'd probably be mostly automated.
Actual planes literally have miles between them and require a tower to physically see the runways for landings and takeoffs. I suspect this would be more akin to a long range helicopter (because that's mostly what it is), and while I don't know jack about how that's handled, obviously they don't require a control tower and an entire airport.
I'm sure they still have to log flight plans, because anything that's over a certain size and in the air does (even a weather/hot air balloon), but I think it's sorta cross referenced against current traffic and given a green or red light.
I suspect that if something like this really caught on to where they were a considerable amount of traffic, they'd probably be given a "corridor" of some sort to travel through that was reserved for them, with small branch off flight plans to reach final destinations.
That said all my knowledge just comes from knowing some pilots throughout my life, so I could be massively wrong, but I think the helicopter analogy holds some water as a concept.
Yeah I assumed these types of systems would require automation, just wasn't sure if the FAA already had something established that would scale or if they're still relying on humans which could not...
It's a vastly complex issue, but in short for something like this it'd probably be mostly automated.
Yeah I assumed these types of systems would require automation, just wasn't sure if the FAA already had something established that would scale or if they're still relying on humans which could not feasibly scale for these types of operations.
I suspect that if something like this really caught on to where they were a considerable amount of traffic, they'd probably be given a "corridor" of some sort to travel through that was reserved for them, with small branch off flight plans to reach final destinations.
This is interesting, almost would kinda be like utilities in a way. With your utilities, especially electric and internet where they're often run by corporations, those things are generally limited to what can be on a utility pole or underground, you often can't just run wires wherever you want. In effect there's a very real limit to how many companies could actually operate on such a model, though airspace with narrow corridors might still be far more than what we've ever achieved with utilities.
[MightyFly] is working to patent its latest generation of drones that are “three cars wide, one car long,” with the capacity to transport bulk cargo up to 600 miles — roughly 12 times further than their tiny counterparts.
In January, MightyFly received the Federal Aviation Administration’s approval to test flights in a roughly 20-mile corridor between the New Jerusalem Airport in Tracy and Byron Airport in east Contra Costa County.
The latest product, a third-generation drone named the 2024 Cento, is the one MightyFly plan to take to market, providing delivery services to manufacturers, retailers, health care providers and the U.S. Air Force. The company says its hybrid-powered drones produce far fewer carbon emissions than traditional shipping trucks.
I don't know the technical details but I would be very, very surprised if any flying vehicle can be more efficient than a land vehicle at delivering cargo, unless the terrain is extreme.
The company says its hybrid-powered drones produce far fewer carbon emissions than traditional shipping trucks.
I don't know the technical details but I would be very, very surprised if any flying vehicle can be more efficient than a land vehicle at delivering cargo, unless the terrain is extreme.
Yeah, it does seem unlikely. They're using a hybrid scheme but I wonder what powers the generator? Maybe they're using an alternative fuel. They don't say it's more energy-efficient, just greener....
Yeah, it does seem unlikely. They're using a hybrid scheme but I wonder what powers the generator? Maybe they're using an alternative fuel. They don't say it's more energy-efficient, just greener.
Flying point-to-point probably helps, though.
Without any substantiation, my assumption is that it's a startup saying stuff based on a dodgy comparison that makes trucks look worse. They're not revealing much yet.
I agree with you, but maybe speed and absence of stops/slowdowns during travelling will play a role. You don't need to spend fuel to stop and then accelerate vehicle every time. But of course real...
I agree with you, but maybe speed and absence of stops/slowdowns during travelling will play a role. You don't need to spend fuel to stop and then accelerate vehicle every time. But of course real data is necessary to get an answer.
It's interesting to me because trains are more efficient over long distances than trucks, but they aren't used nearly as much. Trucks have the benefit of being rerouted if something goes wrong,...
It's interesting to me because trains are more efficient over long distances than trucks, but they aren't used nearly as much. Trucks have the benefit of being rerouted if something goes wrong, they can even handle last mile if they absolutely must. All of this could be said of drones of this size, ignoring things like the artificial ceiling in some cities used to power buses.
It's going to come down to what's most cost efficient for companies to use. If drones are the least efficient of all the choices, which I assume they are, they may still become the preferred choice when they cost the least.
They are obviously comparing emissions of a partially electric aircraft to those of a gas/diesel powered truck. This kind of doublethink is rampant in the industry.
They are obviously comparing emissions of a partially electric aircraft to those of a gas/diesel powered truck. This kind of doublethink is rampant in the industry.
I'm sure this is in some abstracted sense that's cheating on the numbers. Yeah it doesn't emit carbon in the way a truck does while moving, but if you actually look at the energy needed and how...
I'm sure this is in some abstracted sense that's cheating on the numbers. Yeah it doesn't emit carbon in the way a truck does while moving, but if you actually look at the energy needed and how it's generated it's almost impossible for it to be better.
Of course the upside is that if you get your energy generation to be lower carbon footprint (solar/wind/nuclear), then it affects this, but as things stand I'd bet money this thing is worse.
I think stuff like this will be fine, because the FAA still has some teeth, unlike the NHTSA (think its them) that seems to think letting Tesla beta test autopilot on public roads is fine. Anyone...
I think stuff like this will be fine, because the FAA still has some teeth, unlike the NHTSA (think its them) that seems to think letting Tesla beta test autopilot on public roads is fine.
Anyone who's messed with drones over a certain (surprisingly small) size knows that the FAA does not fuck around with this stuff, and a lot of work has been done making it easy to file flight plans for these devices and check that you're not about to screw something up.
I imagine that any commercial product, especially of this size, will be forced to do a much more rigorous flight plan, and like planes, have to meet certain standards for take off and landing locations (no airport next to a hospital, and a certain distance from houses due to noise and safety).
All in all, this does seem like it could be the future, and a net benefit for transport, but I am curious about the actual use case an efficiency of it when compared to trucking/planes. It sounds great to just say "hey we can land almost anywhere" but that's not a reality until the FAA says it is.
Oh god can you imagine one of those falling out of the sky on top of someone. What a way to go
You know what's the size of multiple cars and way more likely to kill you? A truck. The chances of one of these being a danger is miniscule.
There is absolutely no way to know that before they launch at scale. You know why a truck is way more likely to kill you than a drone? Because we have literally millions more trucks than shipping drones. I never said trucks aren't dangerous, but until we have literally millions of these out in service, we can't really say they're that much safer.
The intent of these drones is to replace cargo trucking over inter-city distances. You know, where people mostly aren't? Even if there's millions of them out in service, they're going to be flying on stable flight routes between cities. The chances of one falling on your head in the middle of a field or forest would not be high even if there are millions.
That's going to be fun to coordinate between companies - or not.
I daresay companies will want to not lose their cargo in flight to random mid-air collisions. Do you think they're going to just crash into things?
There is 0 way these things get off the ground without some sort of filed flight plan with the FAA. That at least we already have a very robust process for.
I don't know much about the FAA or how it operates more specifically, is it already sort of automated in the sense of coordinating traffic, like altitudes and exact flight paths and such, or is it controlled by humans? I assume even if its controlled by humans it's still backed logistically by computers of course, just wasn't sure if humans are the ones making the decisions where flight traffic goes or if a computer is doing it.
It's a vastly complex issue, but in short for something like this it'd probably be mostly automated.
Actual planes literally have miles between them and require a tower to physically see the runways for landings and takeoffs. I suspect this would be more akin to a long range helicopter (because that's mostly what it is), and while I don't know jack about how that's handled, obviously they don't require a control tower and an entire airport.
I'm sure they still have to log flight plans, because anything that's over a certain size and in the air does (even a weather/hot air balloon), but I think it's sorta cross referenced against current traffic and given a green or red light.
I suspect that if something like this really caught on to where they were a considerable amount of traffic, they'd probably be given a "corridor" of some sort to travel through that was reserved for them, with small branch off flight plans to reach final destinations.
That said all my knowledge just comes from knowing some pilots throughout my life, so I could be massively wrong, but I think the helicopter analogy holds some water as a concept.
Yeah I assumed these types of systems would require automation, just wasn't sure if the FAA already had something established that would scale or if they're still relying on humans which could not feasibly scale for these types of operations.
This is interesting, almost would kinda be like utilities in a way. With your utilities, especially electric and internet where they're often run by corporations, those things are generally limited to what can be on a utility pole or underground, you often can't just run wires wherever you want. In effect there's a very real limit to how many companies could actually operate on such a model, though airspace with narrow corridors might still be far more than what we've ever achieved with utilities.
Sorry, I changed my comment earlier after I thought about it more :)
I agree with you.
This would have ACME written all over it
Like an airplane crash.
From the article:
I don't know the technical details but I would be very, very surprised if any flying vehicle can be more efficient than a land vehicle at delivering cargo, unless the terrain is extreme.
Yeah, it does seem unlikely. They're using a hybrid scheme but I wonder what powers the generator? Maybe they're using an alternative fuel. They don't say it's more energy-efficient, just greener.
Flying point-to-point probably helps, though.
Without any substantiation, my assumption is that it's a startup saying stuff based on a dodgy comparison that makes trucks look worse. They're not revealing much yet.
I agree with you, but maybe speed and absence of stops/slowdowns during travelling will play a role. You don't need to spend fuel to stop and then accelerate vehicle every time. But of course real data is necessary to get an answer.
It's interesting to me because trains are more efficient over long distances than trucks, but they aren't used nearly as much. Trucks have the benefit of being rerouted if something goes wrong, they can even handle last mile if they absolutely must. All of this could be said of drones of this size, ignoring things like the artificial ceiling in some cities used to power buses.
It's going to come down to what's most cost efficient for companies to use. If drones are the least efficient of all the choices, which I assume they are, they may still become the preferred choice when they cost the least.
They are obviously comparing emissions of a partially electric aircraft to those of a gas/diesel powered truck. This kind of doublethink is rampant in the industry.
I'm sure this is in some abstracted sense that's cheating on the numbers. Yeah it doesn't emit carbon in the way a truck does while moving, but if you actually look at the energy needed and how it's generated it's almost impossible for it to be better.
Of course the upside is that if you get your energy generation to be lower carbon footprint (solar/wind/nuclear), then it affects this, but as things stand I'd bet money this thing is worse.
I think stuff like this will be fine, because the FAA still has some teeth, unlike the NHTSA (think its them) that seems to think letting Tesla beta test autopilot on public roads is fine.
Anyone who's messed with drones over a certain (surprisingly small) size knows that the FAA does not fuck around with this stuff, and a lot of work has been done making it easy to file flight plans for these devices and check that you're not about to screw something up.
I imagine that any commercial product, especially of this size, will be forced to do a much more rigorous flight plan, and like planes, have to meet certain standards for take off and landing locations (no airport next to a hospital, and a certain distance from houses due to noise and safety).
All in all, this does seem like it could be the future, and a net benefit for transport, but I am curious about the actual use case an efficiency of it when compared to trucking/planes. It sounds great to just say "hey we can land almost anywhere" but that's not a reality until the FAA says it is.
Or the size of an American pickup truck. (Saying this as an American with 2 pickup trucks)