Ask Slashdot: Is a Home Drone Feasible?

dargaud writes "I live in an alpine setting and I'd like to be able to remotely view various remote valleys to check for ice formations for winter climbing. I wonder if there are cheap drones that could do that. Requirements would be: GPS guided on a preset route (no remote control necessary, and anyway there's no line of sight), at least 20km autonomy, 1 or 2 cameras on the sides to record valley walls, easy launching and autonomous landing (parachute?) at predefined point, ground detection to avoid crashes (if preset route is wrong or GPS echoes on valley walls as is often the case). Is there anything commercially available cheap enough, or any DIY that doesn't require a year of assembly?"

Comments

DIY VS. Time

[Osgeld]

Totally depends on your skill levels in meshing the brains together and fabrication. There is not enough information in your post to determine either, but based on the tone I am getting your best bet is money, and for the features you want with the durability just to survive the terrain while carrying a small load, it aint going to be cheap.

Off the top of my head maybe model aircraft with telepresence would be the best mix.

Basic Stamp with GPS.

[Kenja]

Dont see why it wouldn't be possible using Parallax Basic Stamp or another embedded controller that supports a serial GPS receiver. The platform itself may take a little fiddling as you would want something more stable then your standard RC helicopter. Something with coaxial counter rotating blade system or multiple sets of blades.

Re:Basic Stamp with GPS.

[guises]

I don't think there are any quadrotors that have the kind of range he's asking for.

Re:Basic Stamp with GPS.

[entropi]

Quadcopters and the like are generally fairly limited on flight time..10-20 min generally from what I've read. For your range, you might want to go with a air wing/rc plane..but diydrones would still be a good place to get up to speed on the capabilities.

Re:Basic Stamp with GPS.

[justforgetme]

Radio should only be required if he wants live views/interaction. The whole thing could be engineered to be
autonomous. Ditching policy will be a problem if it is going to fly in a populated area.

I guess mountains will have high airflow so anything lighter than air or rotating wing is invalid.
A large size (1m wingspan) RC airplane could be a starting point. Autonomous flight will mean that initially fuel will become an
issue because engine management is quite complex to do (while keeping the thing flying under all conditions). I remember a
talk about an autonomous drone in that size range about a couple of years ago, I think there also was a company behind it.
Landing isn't that much of a problem, you can equip a parachute or make a short range radio override for manual
landing, but as said before the price will probably be over 5k for such a thing, possibly even higher since you will need liquid
fuel engines.

Just my 2c

Re:Basic Stamp with GPS.

[Jane Q. Public]

I was rather encouraged to see other people following my own earlier train of thought. 20km puts a quadrotor out of the running, even if wind velocity did not.

Also, for mountainous terrain, you would not want a glider-style wing plan. A flatter, more slippery design such as used for "slope soarers" would seem to fit the bill most appropriately. For the kind of fuel capacity needed, I will make a rough guess and say you would probably want something in the 1.5 meter wingspan range. X-country flight competitions in the 2-meter range have been around for years.

The big obstacle here is the control of flight dynamics. There is plenty of open-source software out there for quadrotors, but I don't know about fixed-wings. I have seen some very expensive navigation implementations in the industry rags, but I suspect that if DIYers can do a quadrotor, they can do a fixed-wing as well. I suspect the main issue is that you need to make your craft steer toward the programmed flightline, more aggressively the larger the deviation, with buffering and without exceeding the design requirements of the craft. That last part is probably the trickiest.

If this is really mountainous country then you probably need very accurate, 3-axis GPS (for altitude), or some kind of ground-sensing scheme to keep from running into a hillside. I suspect the more sophisticated GPS is probably the way to go. But that also requires carefully planned routes. You will want to stay away from hillsides, preferably routing it straight along the valleys between mountains or mountain ridges.

The equipment is out there. Modern liquid fuel model engines are definitely available in any size you may want. They even make radial
And finally: autonomous navigation via GPS is already out in small drones that are on the market, but they probably aren't in your price range. Not that they could not be... I think the current commercial builders are taking advantage of the topic's fledgeling status to gouge people.

So what that all leads me to is, I would:

(1) consider a fixed-wing plane in the 1.5m to 2m wingspan range.

(2) Make sure it's a style and plan that can accommodate an engine large enough to make the range you are talking about. Keep in mind that you are working against the law of diminishing returns to a certain degree: the larger the engine you put on, the more fuel you will need for it, which requires a larger engine, which requires more fuel. In practice, there are solutions to such things, but I suggest always getting an engine that is at least a little more powerful than you think you'll need. Not a lot, but some. Otherwise you will end up with a sudden gust of wind slamming it against a hillside.

Also, what I call the "Land Cruiser" effect can occur: if it is underpowered, the engine will struggle too hard to perform the way you want and thus use more fuel than an engine designed with that torque and rpm in the center of its range. (I hereby officially christen this effect after the old-school Toyota Land Cruiser, which had a huge 6-cylinder engine that struggled to do things that were well within the design parameters of the rest of the vehicle. But with a 3rd-party kit, the stock 6-cylinder could be replaced with a V-8 of close to the same displacement, which was not only physically smaller than the original, but actually had quite a bit more horsepower and ALSO got significantly better gas mileage. It was a win-win. The original Toyota engine was designed such that common U.S. off-road scenarios were at the fringes of its performance curve, rather than the middle where it was most efficient.)

(3) You don't want realtime telemetry at a 20km range. That would be (a) way too heavy, and (b) too expensive. Instead, you will want your on-board cameras to record the video to storage for retrieval and viewing later. And there are ways to overlay not just the clock on the video, but on-board sensor readouts, as well.

So y

Re:Define

[niftydude]

agree - this request is too light on content to engineer a solution.

What are the typical and maximum wind speeds in the valleys you are looking at?
How high above sea level are you, and what is the highest point you want the drone to get to?
Are there constraints on noise (ie will a loud engine cause avalanches?

More info please.

ArduPilot

[Mindscrew]

Have you heard of this? http://www.sparkfun.com/products/8785

diydrones

[Anonymous Coward]

http://code.google.com/p/arducopter/wiki/ArduCopter

or for other options

http://diydrones.com

I don't think thats legal...

[Anonymous Coward]

But here is the FAA's take on it...

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

Re:I don't think thats legal...

[gnapster]

A fair point: it's one thing to get the legislature of California to entertain self-driving cars. Getting the FAA to bless self-flying planes will be a harder nut to crack.

Do It Right The First Time!!

[Bananatree3]

It sounds like a straight-up cash purchase of a "turn-key drone" is your ticket. Otherwise, I'd recommend some kind of "DIY framework" - a drone platform that's taken care of the aerodynamics, controls and fuel tank and radio controls for you. Then you just tweak it to match your exact need.

My advice: whether, you DIY it or buy it outright.... don't skimp. Walk into this knowing you're probably going to spend twice as much as your initial estimate, if you can budget it. A semi-autonomous LONG RANGE drone is NOT cheap. A 20km bare minimum range puts this project into a semi-professional to professional level. Most "hobbiest" drone projects or commercial products couldn't even spit at the kind of quality and scale needed to perform such a task.

If you decide to buy something... look at commercial surveying drones. They have the range, the quality and the sophisticated integration already taken care of for you.

Do your homework upfront, buy it right the first time, take care of it and maintain it properly and it will give you YEARS of little or no issue service.

Re:Do It Right The First Time!!

[phantomfive]

Do your homework upfront, buy it right the first time, take care of it and maintain it properly and it will give you YEARS of little or no issue service.

Oh, these must be the words of someone who is currently maintaining someone else's piece of crap.

Re:Do It Right The First Time!!

[Kozz]

I noticed that the person asking the question did not include any information to suggest what country (or even continent) they reside in. But let's assume he's in the continental US so we've got something to talk about (and just to piss off the whiners who complain every time this is assumed).

What kinds of US laws are applicable for a "drone"? I thought the laws were basically the same as radio-controlled plans: under 1000ft, line of sight. Anything beyond that, and wouldn't you have to get some kind of commercial license, submit flight plans, or anything else?

I don't actually know anything about this stuff, but I did listen to a podcast recently. That makes me an expert on the internet, right?

Re:Do It Right The First Time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much yea, 1000 ft, line of sight.... which is going to be impossible for this purpose.

There are ways around those rules... you can get exceptions from the FAA for stuff like this, but its not going to be cheap & you'd better have a reason more substantial than "i think it would be fun to do".

Re:Do It Right The First Time!!

[martin-boundary]

But let's assume he's in the continental US so we've got something to talk about (and just to piss off the whiners who complain every time this is assumed).

Agreed. Let's also assume he lives in Minnesota, because he mentioned the alpine countryside, which suggests he's got Norwegian ancestry from the great mountains of Central Europe.

Re:Do It Right The First Time!!

[dargaud]

Well, I'm in France and have no idea of the legality of unmanned flying here. Anyway, a discussion centererd on the US is fine as once I know what the pitholes are, I can transpose to a different country with some research.

Re:Do It Right The First Time!!

[phayes]

There was a discussion that came up on /. about a year ago when a guy from Switzerland took his flying wing that sent back a "pilot's eye view" back. He had some very impressive videos that showed his wing flying nap of the earth around the Alps & even a trip to NYC buzzing around the Statue of Liberty (& NOT getting hassled for it which surprised many).

One thing that came up is that there are indeed limitations on Line of Sight just about everywhere & France even outlaws piloting using pilot's eye view without a pilot's license (no surprise there - In France, you pretty much need a license to do anything).

Re:Do It Right The First Time!!

[hairyfish]

I noticed that the person asking the question did not include any information to suggest what country (or even continent) they reside in. But let's assume he's in the continental US so we've got something to talk about

What if he's in Afghanistan, and the remote valleys he wishes to climb are to smuggle heroin and guns across the border? Or maybe to spy on foreign troop movements? Surely this would give us even more to talk about :)

More information required

[Anonymous Coward]

There's plenty of projects around that will do what you're after. An ArduPilot in a plane should do all that, although you'll likely have to land and take off under manual control. A hobby helicopter/quadcopter drone will have trouble with the range (20km is a fair way to travel, and i assume it's not a straight path). Sensors can deal with things like terrain avoidance and calculation of true altitude versus barometer altitude (to help prevent controlled flight into terrain).

But you need to clarify. Just how cheap is "cheap enough"? $500? $10000? Some values are required.

here you go

[way2trivial]

http://www.avinc.com/uas/small_uas/raven/
10km range

only 50k

(this should tell you are way outta budget line)

Civil UAVs are currently prohibited by the FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?print=go#Qn2

You can only fly them as if they were R/C aircraft, which means line-of-sight only and you must have a link to the ground. There are also ceilings and rules about keeping them away from buildings, people, and especially aircraft.

The quadrotors that you see people putting cameras on are not UAVs, they are just remote controlled and someone on the ground is flying them in real-time. The FAA is moving very slowly on approving any sort of UAV flights (public or civil) although they are being forced by Congress to finally issue rules about how they might go about approving civil UAVs. Otherwise, right now UAVs can only be flown by the government, government contractors, universities, or in military airspace.

There are no commercial options that a private citizen can buy, and the DIY options will require lots of work. This is an area of active research in the robotics community, and implementing any one of the features you mentioned would probably be sufficient to get you a Ph.D. right now.

Looking expensive

[MichaelSmith]

The 20 km range excludes cheap electric model aircraft. Also your location requires something with a lot of excess power, due to the disturbed air over mountains.

IAAHAVE, ALPINE = BONED

[Anonymous Coward]

Helicopter avionics is my trade. I also fly stunt rc heli's for fun.

Just of the top of my head, Your Alpine conditions are pretty much the most unfavorable to your expectations of cheap/simple/all in 1
- I expect the winds could knock you out. Only powerful collective pitch heli can handle winds, ie not quadrotors (fixed pitch)
- Heli's do not like high altitudes
- Li ion batteries do not like cold
- If you crash, im guessing its gone for good in the snow. im not aware of any consumer drones have tracking yet.
- Most consumer drones have 1 camera and low to mid level avionics/autopilot. I expect a fair bit of tweaking would be needed to reach your spec

Even still Good Luck !
-k

Re:Define

[Xeno man]

He's not looking for a solution just yet. He wants a starting point. You making things too complex too fast. The question is, can you do those things for cheap? Is it possible? If you have a question, the answer is "Ideal conditions"

What are the typical and maximum wind speeds in the valleys you are looking at? - No wind
How high above sea level are you, and what is the highest point you want the drone to get to? Sea level to 10 feet
Are there constraints on noise (ie will a loud engine cause avalanches? - Doesn't matter

Now build a simple solution. Lets see, GPS, cameras, autonomy, collision detection, 20km range. The cheapest is about $9,000. But it might not meet your needs.

Now the poster sees that and think 1 of two things.
1. Oh damn, I was hoping for something between $1,000 - $2,000 so I'm not going to find something that will work in my price range. I'll give up searching for now. Or
2. Sweet, That is well below what I'm willing to spend. Lets do some more research and ask more questions about what I really need now I know that this is feasible.

DIYDrone Blimpduino?

[gizmo_mathboy]

An interesting part of the DIY Drones stuff.

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A44817

Winds might be sort of a problem.

I wonder how easy it would be to make a DIY drone using a powered paraglider.

Well, it does look like it has been asked:

http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/uav-paraglider?xg_source=activity

Cool.

2 cameras? GPS driven? Parachutes? Lightweight?

[gavron]

This post belonged on 2012-04-01.

There's nothing on Earth that can do what you want.
Your requirements are self-defeating.

I'm a helicopter pilot.
I own 10 R/C helis.
I've flown UAVs.
I only own two R/C fixed-wing aircraft.
One has one camera on it.

Weight is everything. You want a 20Km range and
2 high-def cameras. Those things fly at 160Km/H max.
You're talking 15 minutes "there" and back. Not going to happen today.

*puff the magic dragon*

E

Of course it's feasible!

[Black Parrot]

Just program your household robot to control your flying car.

Short Answer: No

[introcept]

I'm in the middle of writing my EE thesis is on embedded control systems for UAVs and this is as good a distraction as any, so here goes:
The kind of specs you're talking about you'd be lucky to get for high-end military and commercial (mini) drones. You'll either be spending tens(hundreds?) of thousands on an off the shelf model or a lot of time developing, testing, crashing and fixing your DIY solution. There are hundreds of DIY drones on the net but I doubt any of them have the kind of reliable autonomy you're talking about.

Autonomy is especially difficult, you'll need to learn a lot of control theory, kinematics, Navigation/AI and possibly computer vision. Then rememeber that you need to fuse sensor data from gyroscopes, acceleromters, GPS, compass, altitude and airspeed sensors, and that all of these sensors are unreliable/error prone. You need to be able to deal with loss of GPS link which means you need to have an alternate means of localisation(which is very difficult). Also, every commercial system I've seen requires an always on downlink and manned base-station for control, even if this isn't technically necessary, it's pretty much mandatory for safety.

Making an autonomous UAV only makes sense as a learning exercise or for R&D but it's not a good way to get any work done. If your goal is to get aerial photos, stick a camera on an RC plane, get some video goggles, a long range radio and some flying lessons.

Video Piloting (FPV/RPV)

[guantamanera]

I recommend you FPV and I find it more fun than the drone. There are many ready to fly solutions for cheap. Here is the link to the proper forums RcGroups http://youtu.be/b7e2IQ_Ft3c

Cheap and easy - but not what you're asking for

[mpoulton]

For around $1500, you could have a radio controlled aircraft with one or more video links that can fly reliably over that kind of range. The price goes down to under $1000 if you can deal with shorter range. Basic autopilot functions (wing leveling and heading-hold) can be integrated for not much additional cost. All of this has been done before by many RC aircraft hobbyists, and flying by video is easier than flying by line of sight. However, you still have to fly the aircraft and it is not autonomous. Aircraft autonomy of the type you are requesting is very challenging and not available off-the-shelf. The cost and complexity required to achieve it will probably not be worthwhile for your application.

Re:Define

[ozmanjusri]

He's not looking for a solution just yet. He wants a starting point.

Then DIY Drones would be a better starting point than Slashdot. http://diydrones.com/

"Convert any RC airplane into a fully-autonomous UAV! Just add the APM 2 autopilot to any RC aircraft and it becomes a fully-programmable flying robot with a powerful ground station and Mission Planner. APM 2 is an open source, Arduino-compatible, pro-quality autopilot. It is the most advanced IMU-based open source autopilot available today, and provides an entire UAV control system with scriptable missions with 3D waypoints, in-flight uploading of commands and powerful ground station software. "

Features include:
Return to Launch with a flick of your RC toggle switch or a mouse click in the graphical Ground Station
Unlimited 3D GPS waypoints
Built-in camera control
Fully-scriptable missions
One-click software load, and easy point-and-click configuration in the powerful Mission Planner. NO programming required!
Replay recorded missions and analyze all the data with a graphing interface
Supports two-way telemetry with Xbee wireless modules.
Point-and-click waypoint entry or real-time mission commands while the UAV is in the air
Fly with a joystick or gamepad via your PC--no need for RC control!
Built-in failsafe will bring your aircraft home in the case of radio loss

"Technically" feasable, or "legally" feasible?

[element-o.p.]

DISCLAIMER: IANAL, so this is not legal advice.

Having said that, I am rather interested in DIY drones, and therefore, I have been following technical and legal aspects of amateur drones/UAVs/UAS' for a couple of years. I don't see any *technical* reason why what you want to do isn't possible. However, if you live in the USA, I don't believe what you want to do is legal. As I understand, the FAA requires amateur operated drones to be under line-of-site control at all times. Here are some links to help you figure out the legal restrictions for what you want to do:

DIY Drones Regulatory FAQ
FAA Advisory Circular 91-57
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

HTH!

Re:2 cameras? GPS driven? Parachutes? Lightweight?

[Anonymous Coward]

This post belonged on 2012-04-01.

There's nothing on Earth that can do what you want.
Your requirements are self-defeating.

I'm a helicopter pilot.
I own 10 R/C helis.
I've flown UAVs.
I only own two R/C fixed-wing aircraft.
One has one camera on it.

Weight is everything. You want a 20Km range and
2 high-def cameras. Those things fly at 160Km/H max.
You're talking 15 minutes "there" and back. Not going to happen today.

*puff the magic dragon*

E

http://vimeo.com/16080459
I'll just leave this here

Not legal to fly

[erice]

The lack of line of sight is the killer. From one of many articles on the subject: FAA regulations developed in the 1970s to cover the amateur use of radio-controlled planes, which also apply to today's DIY drones. Those rules include restricting their altitude to 400 feet (120 meter), requiring them to always be in view of their controller on the ground and prohibiting them from being flown over built-up areas.

You could ask for a specific waiver. That is how researchers have been able to fly their drones. I am skeptical though that the FAA would be willing to issue a waiver for something is just a hobby.

Re:Call me an ahole or a hippie

[lymond01]

That reply was like a horse femur for that troll. He won't need to eat for a week!

Re:Define

[niftydude]

He's not looking for a solution just yet. He wants a starting point. You making things too complex too fast. The question is, can you do those things for cheap? Is it possible? If you have a question, the answer is "Ideal conditions"

Silly me. I thought that the poster was seeking to draw on the combined IT and engineering expertise of slashdot, not get information he could easily google for.

I guess I stand corrected.

Re:2 cameras? GPS driven? Parachutes? Lightweight?

[gavron]

Yes leave it there. No two cameras. No self-maneuvering. No GPS. No valley winds. The problem with the specs is you can meet one or more of them... but to meet ALL OF THEM at a low cost? Never.

E

Re:Define

[dargaud]

You are right about the constraints, ideal conditions first and then we'll see. Anyway the altitude isn't very high. As for the noise, something quiet would be better: it's not a national park but still, animals in winter waste energy if they get scared and have to move; and people get away from the city in order not to hear moped noises coming from the sky.

As for the price, yes 1~2k$ would be ideal. Technically this looks interesting, but they appear to sell only to spy^H^H^Hlaw enforcement agencies.

Re:2 cameras? GPS driven? Parachutes? Lightweight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that is Trappy's world record run, so:

It had 2 cameras (A GoPro and a low res security cam).
It has a GPS, return to home (self maneuvering), and a transmitter to send a live video signal back to someone on the ground
He flys in a valley between two mountains. And can handle moderate wind.

Total cost is less than $2000 on the plane, maybe $3000 counting ground equip.
Of course, that is a world record... not an easy thing to duplicate. But the main difficulty is in the "live video signal back to the ground". If you remove that requirement, things get a lot easier. And scarier, since you won't have feedback on what your flying mass of money is currently doing.

What it does not have, and what you will not find on ANY light plane right now is ground avoidance. Most of the rest is easy, even the preset route. (My $800 glider can do that). Even 20km total ground covered isn't too absurd... although 20km out and back with meandering is getting into "you'll have to work REALLY hard" territory.

Hmm, also, auto-landing is something that is not fully matured. Some systems have it, but usually mean for it to be a failsafe.

Finally, and this is really the only nail in his coffin, is that it sounds like he wants to do this with minimal work (Easy launch, easy landing, no control, etc makes me suspect this). And right now, while this can all be done, it requires a LOT of work and manual interaction with the plane.

Re:Define

[Anonymous Coward]

See? You can be annoying and helpful at the same time

Re:Define

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the last point: except for military use, autonomous drones are illegal in most countries.

Most things called "drones" that are accessible to the average consumer are nothing more than remote controlled aircraft and can only be operated legally when in line-of-sight and below a certain height limit (400ft is common, particularly near airfields).

As a GA pilot

[Alioth]

As a general aviation pilot, who has had occasion to do mountain flying, please for the love of dog don't do it unless it has "sense and avoid" mechanisms you're positive work well. You can't rely on GA aircraft having transponders, either, in remote areas often they don't. It's all about see-and-avoid. So your drone needs to see-and-avoid too.

I've almost had a mid-air collision with an RC aircraft flying where it shouldn't have been. Small RC size aircraft are hard to see from a full size aircraft, even a slow one like mine (115 mph on a good day). In the case of the RC aircraft, I think the aircraft was deliberately flown at us (we were a formation of 2 aircraft, so perfectly visible - it actually flew between us going the opposite direction).

If you want to check out stuff from the air, then learn to fly and do it as pilot in command of an actual aircraft. Yes, it's expensive, but a PPL will probably cost the same to do as building a drone with the capabilities you need, and it opens up a whole lot of other fun, too.

I also fly RC helicopters and fixed wing, so it's not like I'm some grumpy GA pilot who hates RC.

Re:Define

[grim-one]

Ah, but Slashdot was his starting point and you just led him to http://diydrones.com/ which he may not have known existed.

Re:Define

[azalin]

Silly me. I thought that the poster was seeking to draw on the combined IT and engineering expertise of slashdot, not get information he could easily google for. I guess I stand corrected.

I do have a hard time to recall the last time anything really helpful was posted in reply to "ask slashdot" that couldn't have been found by researching google for a few hours. It might be my foulty impression, but usually the "IT and engineering expertise of slashdot" boils down to:
1)" Use Linux you idiot"
2)"Apple is better"
3)"Apple sucks, Android is way better"
4)"Google is evil"
5)"Why would you want Software that needs Windows"
6)"There is a cool new open source project" (Link to unusable pre alpha software that never matures and only remotely fits to topic)
7)"You might want to heck these out "(Links to several actually useful sites that might have been found by Google)
8)Offtopic rantings (see this post)
Most times the "IT and engineering expertise of slashdot" only helps by recommending better places to look for answers. But maybe I'm just bitter because of the lousy weather around here.

Re:Define

[Aceticon]

If the wind conditions are "No Wind" then a lighter than air platform (blimp) would probably be the best choice - certainly it would solve the problem of finding something that has a 20km minimum range and can carry 2 hi-def cameras: it would be very slow but have great staying power if there is no wind.

Somehow I think "No Wind" might be a simplification too far.

Re:Define

[grumpy_technologist]

This is correct, in that this is the best option. Unfortunately, none of these options will be perfect. OP should be prepared to lose drones because of momentary GPS loss, and should not assume that radio connectivity can be maintained . I can't stress that enough. Even these well-proven options typically required a human-failsafe. In an alpine setting it is easy to imagine that radio connectivity will be lost.

Disclaimer: Not an expert, but have 2 years experience with autonomous vehicles for similar tasks over short time scales (1 day max).

Re:Define

[jellomizer]

I want to simulate a multi-billion dollar project by the military for under $1000.

My best advice is to strap a smartphone to a balloon with a para-shoot launch it up into the air. when it comes down use Find my phone or simular feature to find it. Download the data and you got your data.

Re:Define

[tophermeyer]

The Sheriff might not. But local pilots might.

It's hard to say without knowing more about the location. But if this is an alpine environment with climbing/hiking trails, and possibly ski slopes, there are probably also regular helicopter flights to check out the very same information this guy wants to collect. Those guys might have a problem with an autonomous drone that they know nothing about.

Re:Define

[quarmar]

Just launch your own satellite! :)

Hans Reiser is that you?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Looks like Hans Reiser got Internet access!

Wonder when reiserfs 5 will be released?

Re:Define

[ozmanjusri]

I'm looking at one of these http://www.nitroplanes.com/projet-drone-2500mm-kit.html. If I can fit it with a petrol engine, it should have a great range.

I'd prefer something that looks a bit more civilian, but most of the larger kits are scale models of real aircraft, not well suited to photography.