Hidden Obstacles For Delivery Drones

An anonymous reader writes: A few days ago we talked over some of the difficulties faced by makers of autonomous car software, like dealing with weather, construction, and parking garages. Today, the NY Times has a similar article about delivery drones, examining the safety and regulatory problems that must be solved in addition to getting the basic technology ready. "[R]researchers at NASA are working on ways to manage that menagerie of low-flying aircraft. At NASA's Moffett Field, about four miles from Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., the agency has been developing a drone traffic management program that would in effect be a separate air traffic control system for things that fly low to the ground — around 400 to 500 feet for most drones. Much like the air traffic control system for conventional aircraft, the program would monitor the skies for weather and traffic. Wind is a particular hazard, because drones weigh so little compared with regular planes." Beyond that, the sheer scale of infrastructure necessary to get drone delivery up and running in cities across the U.S. is staggering. Commercial drones aren't going to have much range, particularly when carrying something heavy. They'll be noisy, and the products they're transporting will still need to be relatively close by. What other issues do Amazon, DHL, Google, and other need to solve?

Comments

What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? This is like those "3D printing will solve everything" stories from last year. So much mindless hype.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[viperidaenz]

The problem where people have to be paid to deliver items. Like your postman, or courier drivers. Especially those pesky bicycle couriers in cities.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Baffling response.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[gweihir]

Very much so. And it is basically not solvable in an efficient way anyways. This "drone delivery" is a pure PR stunt that will not materialize in this decade or the next one.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[rudy_wayne]

Driverless cars and drone deliveries are good examples of the old saying, "just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD."

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[ShanghaiBill]

Driverless cars and drone deliveries are good examples of the old saying, "just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD."

Or they could use the driverless cars to do the deliveries.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama bought Low Earth Orbit? Ooooooh, did he pay for it with Debt?

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[deroby]

Weird this got modded 'Interesting'.

Sure, we pay people to have those goods delivered to our door; it's called a service and the people providing it need to feed their families too. That said, if you eliminate those costs by 'automating delivery by way of drones', you'll add the price for buying/training/maintaining these and the whole infrastructure that comes with it; hence, you eliminate known costs by adding new guesstimated (bigger?) costs. TCO is mostly a buzzword in my vocabulary, but in this case it probably is worth having a look at. On top of that you'll probably need to keep a backup 'manual service' at hand anyway because these things won't be able to do their job when it rains/snows/storms/... heck, a bit of wind and you're finished. Nobody cares if the postman wears shorts or a scarf, we 'know' he'll come through.

Also, you may consider bicycle couriers a nuisance, having these things whizz around everywhere sounds (!) much more annoying to me. Might look 'cool' in Sci-Fi movies, it would get on my nerves quite fast in reality I think.

The part I'm I think will be the big show-stopper is the likelihood of people 'catching goodies from the sky'. Given the technical restrictions of these drones it seems fair to assume they'll be used mostly for 'small but expensive' goods. What's to stop people from building a microwave-gun to fry the electronics and run of with the cargo ? Heck, a decent slingshot could probably bring them down. I realize one could rob any courier service, but with drones it's going to be dead-simple unless they start building in all kinds of security measures but thus limiting the capacity/range/... of the machine.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You could (and perhaps should) have self-driving road delivery drones. Those even may not have to be full-car-sized - lower material use, less fuel consumption, more flexibility, and still no driver. One would need a smart package dispenser, though.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Obama runs a baby-Stalin dictatorial regime.

Does the baby Stalin sport a magnificent mustache? If not, I demand a refund!

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm driverless cars are definetly something that we should do. Humans frankly suck at driving and countless lives could be saved if human drivers were replaced with more reliable machines.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[mark_reh]

You've got your political speechifying down pat!

In classic political style speech, you repeat "Obama" over and over when a single mention of his name and one sentence would have been adequate to state all your "Obama" points. Listen to any preacher, politician, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Jesse Jackson (who likes to throw in a lot of rhymes bcause it makes it easy to remember) or other professional blow-hard- this is exactly how they speak publicly. I believe it is based on the principle that if you repeat a lie loudly and often enough it becomes equivalent to truth in the minds of the listeners.

While you may have the style figured out, your content is very weak. I won't bother taking apart your "arguments" point by point- they're just silly. Keep practicing- you may eventually get good enough to be a live caller on Rush or Fox "News".

Does your caretaker know that you got on the internet again?

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[AmiMoJo]

Drones make sense for very rural areas. Instead of sending a van out to a remote farm or town a drone could be sent. It would need some infrastructure and the drones would be fairly large, fixed wing aircraft (maybe 3-4m wing span) with VTOL, but it could work. They could fly fairly high, out of range of microwave guns and most rifles, and then do a vertical landing at the (attended) target area.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[BringsApples]

Or how about a series of these things mixed with a system of really small (but obviously big enough for skateboard and package) tubes (like the banks use, but without the vacuum or clear tubing) probably underground. The main problem with flying items is their weight. As long as you are able to push the weight, then that solves a lot of problems. Remember, at least I think, we're trying to do away with problems that drones bring to the table, right?

But man the loss of jobs...

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

TCO isn't almost a buzzword everywhere...

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[deroby]

If I remember correctly, there used to be pneumatic tube-systems in bigger cities in the past; but they got out of fashion. Wikipedia has some interesting bits on it.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[maestroX]

I realize one could rob any courier service, but with drones it's going to be dead-simple unless they start building in all kinds of security measures but thus limiting the capacity/range/... of the machine.

Blackwater postal services delivering world-wide?

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Oh, we used to have a large municipal pneumatic post network here in Prague, until it got destroyed in 2002 by severe floods. Which is a shame, because otherwise it would still be in use.

Re: What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Hitting a flying bird at 30 mph at 4-500 feet. Better be damn good shot or know where it's going to land.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird that any one cares. The whole idea is laughable to begin with.

Re: What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking like that sounds a lot better than reading like that. Pros know that so this would be written by some failure tin foil hat retard.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

The part I'm I think will be the big show-stopper is the likelihood of people 'catching goodies from the sky'. Given the technical restrictions of these drones it seems fair to assume they'll be used mostly for 'small but expensive' goods. What's to stop people from building a microwave-gun to fry the electronics and run of with the cargo ? Heck, a decent slingshot could probably bring them down. I realize one could rob any courier service, but with drones it's going to be dead-simple unless they start building in all kinds of security measures but thus limiting the capacity/range/... of the machine.

Yes, I was thinking "shotgun", but your ideas are better. Let's run with it a bit. How about a good old fashioned barrage balloon? Or use it to loft a fishing net, or why not a kite? "Honest officer, here I was just flying my kite, minding my own business and all these drones started to fall all around me, not my fault really..."

Or, for the ultimate thrill. Your own drone/RPV. There have been "dog fighting" competitions between RC-planes for ages, trying to cut someone else's streamer with your propeller. Now you could actually make that game worth your time.

Then there's good old fashioned GPS-spoofing that can be done for cheap. Make the drone land/drop thinking it has reached its destination? It's manna from heaven all over again, only this time courtesy of Amazon... :-)

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[ColdWetDog]

Other than a driver, what's the difference between your high tech drone (with support costs) and some twenty something in a UPS truck? Sure, you can zip a roll of toilet paper or a dozen cans of shaving cream on the drone, but Mr. and Ms. Rural also want their dog food delivered so you need the truck anyway.

I can sort of see this in NYC where you can create a spurious business plan consisting of getting workers their Post-It notes quickly, out in the boonies, not so much.

Come to think of it, a driverless UPS truck makes more sense. As long as it dispenses dog treats (which is yet another weak link for a rural drone - this would just be too much fun for the neighborhood dogs - mine would have retrieved the package in seconds and attempted to shred it for the lulz).

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[ColdWetDog]

TCO isn't almost a buzzword everywhere...

In most places, it's an acronym.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[gmhowell]

Umm driverless cars are definetly something that we should do. Humans frankly suck at driving and countless lives could be saved if human drivers were replaced with more reliable machines.

Actually, the number of fatalities isn't countless.

Re: What problem does this solve, again?

[DeputySpade]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

Problem solved. :-)

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Driverless cars and drone deliveries are good examples of the old saying, "just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD."

I recall many years ago a child in need of an experimental drug to counteract a poison and a police cruiser driving 100 mph plus across three states to deliver that drug to try and save the child... that child died. Maybe a helicopter was not available, I don't know. Maybe that drug wouldn't have worked, or maybe a 200 mph drone relay could have been worked out to get it there faster and in time to make a difference, I don't know.

But I can think of many examples of why our current delivery technology doesn't adequately address the needs of today, let alone the needs of a growing population with an often gridlocked metropolitan area surface transportation network. Lives could be saved even if just look at the drug delivery aspect of this. And drones for surveillance are not all bad if that means the public has more information and not just law enforcement and politicians.

Re:What problem does this solve, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I have with the naysayers is that all these techniques to bring down a drone or a autonomous car.... you can do today with the FedEx truck (heck they had an example in Fast and the Furious 2!), any manned aircraft, or even a bike courier.

The thing that keeps that from happening today is: regulations, penalties... even scale doesn't play into the picture cause a lot of deliveries are happening today.

I'd say, it will work itself out--and no one said drone applications were going to happen overnight. This is much like the day of PalmPilots compared to today's smartphones.

Hijacking and theft

[MattCC]

How will the drones ensure that the recipient is the correct person? And how will they protect themselves against other people or drones stealing the cargo?

Re: Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

biometrics of course... damn.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

biometrics, of course. ....

damn.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[mykro76]

GUNS! This is America, you know.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

I plan on using my rifle (err, drone anti-aircraft system) to play an awesome new game called "What Did I Win Today", because.. fuck you, this is my airspace (I don't care what the FAA says, if you are at 300 ft, you are in my airspace)

Re:Hijacking and theft

[ShanghaiBill]

How will the drones ensure that the recipient is the correct person?

They don't. Neither does a human delivery person. I have never been asked for an ID to receive a package, and most don't even ask for a signature.

And how will they protect themselves against other people or drones stealing the cargo?

They don't. Neither does a human delivery person when they leave a package on he porch, or in the mailbox.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[deroby]

I've had goods delivered worth hundreds and not even have to sign off for it. (not that those scribbles are worth much IMHO, I've never understood why they don't require a picture of the person accepting the goods... heck, have them hold the package with the label clearly visible, should make denial-ability (sp?) much more cumbersome than it is now)
I've also had goods delivered worth peanuts that required showing my ID and the person in charge copying the number on some form and then me having to sign it.

Courier services are weird at that sometimes... I'm guessing it has to do with the type of insurance that comes with the company/package/...

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll just make that illegal... I don't do illegal stuff, you don't do illegal stuff... nobody does... Therefore, by making it illegal, no-one will accept anything from drones that wasn't intended for them.

Also, we kill the batman...

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

"How will the drones ensure that the recipient is the correct person? "

They'll have to log in to the drone with their credentials.

I doubt that they can make as much mistakes as my mailman, which apparently is not able to read a street name, zip code or house number.
I have constantly letters for my neighbors in my box and they have mine.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[AmiMoJo]

I've had goods delivered worth hundreds and not even have to sign off for it. (not that those scribbles are worth much IMHO, I've never understood why they don't require a picture of the person accepting the goods... heck, have them hold the package with the label clearly visible, should make denial-ability (sp?) much more cumbersome than it is now)

They deliberately don't bother with such a high level of security because most of the time it isn't worth it. From a business point of view it's better to keep times spent on deliveries as short as possible until you have a loss somewhere, and from that point on that one address gets a little more attention from the driver.

If you read the T&Cs they only guarantee to get "a signature", not actually deliver the package to a specific person most of the time. As long as someone signed for it it's your problem to figure out who and what they did with your package.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

biometrics

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Stuarticus]

Or stealing the drones which are probably much more valuable. Besides that the obvious fail points which spring to mind are noise pollution and safety when landing. It won't take many dead cats before people start to have reservations about this kind of craziness.

Re: Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

The way they do it now. But when it arrives to your drone ready location, you sign for it via email.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Smauler]

I used to deliver tyres. One particular drop we had often weren't there, and one time I was just told to unload all the tyres, and leave them in front of the garage. It was about £20,000 worth (about 200 high end tyres), and I did have to unload them all myself.

ps. unloading tyres is an example of a job that is about 5 times as fast with two people compared to one person.

Re:Hijacking and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had a package that was somehow routed to a reclamation business in the middle of nowhere. The company that mailed it to me was flabberghasted to discover that the signatory had used the nome-de-plume "fuck you". My money was refunded.

Two words:

[guygo]

Target practice.

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see how far a garden hose can reach. No crime to shoot water out of a hose at yet another annoying delivery drone.

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

We will MAKE it a crime, says Google.

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's against the law to shoot water out of a hose at a moving vehicle on the road.

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

I was watering the tree!

Re:Two words:

[viperidaenz]

No crime to use a laser pointer on your own property.
Now, lets aim those at commercial aircraft...

Re:Two words:

[lister king of smeg]

Target practice.

Do you shoot at cars that go by your house too? How about planes that fly over? What happens when it falls and hits someone from 5-600 feet up carrying a 50 pound payload you going to pay the hospital bills after you shoot it out of the air?

Re: Two words:

[guygo]

They asked what issues drone delivery will face. My point is that the ability to anonymously take down a drone is way too much temptation for some to pass up. I think it highly likely that there will be attempts to bring them down. What I do personally has nothing to do with it. Sheesh.

Re: Two words:

[MightyYar]

Couldn't the drones include cameras? Very good cameras fit in smartphones, so this isn't a size or weight problem.

Re: Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Another point, besides just having the chance to take one down: whom said that private companies are allowed to fly through MY air?!?

I own the area abouve my house. In the USA, the FAA holds the rights to the space abouve 1000 feet, and I own the area below that, bounded by my property. If these drones are flying at 400-500 feet, within the bound of my property, I see no reason why I cannot commandeer any drones passing within my property until the owner decides to come and collect it - just as if a kid threw a frisbee over the fence. Alternatively, I can file charges for tresspass, or require to be paid for the use of my airspace.

This is why the FAA had to be given ownership of airspace above 1000 feet - so that planes are not trespassing, and aviation rights did not need to be negotiated with landowners.

Re: Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so? Google will be given ownership of airspace below 1000 feet. This is America! You don't have rights anymore. Get used to it.

Re:Two words:

[Noah Haders]

if a somebody's drone was trespassing on my property I would blast it out of the sky.

Re: Two words:

[MildlyTangy]

People like you are why we cant have nice things.

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Already covered by:

- Laws against discharging firearms within city limits.
- Laws against damaging things owned by someone else.

And will be aided by:

- $10,000+ bounties for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone who damages ${company}'s drones.

Re:Two words:

[ihtoit]

it's not against the law to fire water out of a hose at an aircraft.

Although, I'd prefer to take a lesson from history and start deploying barrage balloons. The hazard isn't so much the balloon itself, but the tether. Particularly for a small UAV.

Re: Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming that the company won't be tied into a network of microphones relaying real-time information back to a central computer. Some big cities already have gunshot locators. Now imagine what happens when the drone delivery companies offer to put gunshot microphones on the drones.

Shooting a drone in a big city will be like ordering a SWAT team to your door in 30 minutes or less.
Bonus: They'll charge you with domestic terrorism and send your ass to gitmo.

Re:Two words:

[ShanghaiBill]

it's not against the law to fire water out of a hose at an aircraft.

There is no specific law against it, just like there is no law specifically against throwing bowling balls at passing bicyclists. But there are general laws against endangering or harming other people, or intentionally destroying other people's property.

Re: Two words:

[FlyHelicopters]

I hate to say it, but in general you don't own the airspace above your house...

There are exceptions, and "air rights" do exist.

But rest assured, helicopters fly over houses at 500 feet above the ground all the time and they aren't trespassing.

--- commercial helicopter pilot and certified flight instructor for over 10 years

Re:Two words:

[lister king of smeg]

Target practice.

Do you shoot at cars that go by your house too? How about planes that fly over? What happens when it falls and hits someone from 5-600 feet up carrying a 50 pound payload you going to pay the hospital bills after you shoot it out of the air?

if a somebody's drone was trespassing on my property I would blast it out of the sky.

Actually you don't own the airspace over your property.

"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flightincluding airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."

-wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights)

In fact the United States Supreme Court in UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY ruled that air space is a public highway, as such you would be shooting a vehicle on a public highway.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/328/256)

And shooting at aircraft including drones is already illeagle and will result in you getting sent to jail for about 20 years.
(18 U.S. Code 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities)

So if you want to spend decades behind bars please by all mean shoot one.

Re:Two words:

[Noah Haders]

Actually you don't own the airspace over your property.

"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flightincluding airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."

ok then I claim the first 100 feet or so above my property. basically anything within range of my shotgun. I'm sure this won't be a problem, FTA doesn't even want to talk about drones much less regulate them as aircraft. if a UPS van drove across your property while delivering packages to other people's houses, you'd shoot it too.

Re: Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

This actually made me ponder: how hard would it be to create a drone that would go around taking down other drones?

This could actually be worth it where it could be done in bulk. 20+ collected Amazon drone packages a day...

Do you think anyone would potentially try doing that in the future?

Re: Two words:

[deroby]

Might trigger a whole new arms-race where Amazon will add surveillance/guardian drones etc ... before you know it the sky will be full with things whizzing up and down, firing blue and red lasers at each other =)

Somehow makes me think of https://www.goodreads.com/book...

Re: Two words:

[OneSmartFellow]

I fail to understand why everyone assumes that drones will be flying over their property.

I automatically assume that delivery drones will be required to fly not far above existing roadways. I guess that this probably increases rather than decreases the likelihood of injury should the drone fall out of the sky; but let's face it, Roadways are already damned dangerous, so adding to the danger increases the excitement level.

Re: Two words:

[CanHasDIY]

People like you are why we cant have nice things.

You can have all the nice things you want, provided you're not using them to violate the private property rights of others.

What you mean to say here is, "People like you are why I can't ignore your rights and play with my toys as I please."

I'm glad for people like them.

Re: Two words:

[CanHasDIY]

I fail to understand why everyone assumes that drones will be flying over their property.

I automatically assume that delivery drones will be required to fly not far above existing roadways.

Doesn't that, you know, completely defeat the purpose of using aircraft?

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

"airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight"

So it kind of depends on where the legal definition of "minimum altitudes" falls. I'm not sure of the legal stance but I had always heard that that altitude was 500' (except around airports). That said "airport zones" these days for legal purposes are insanely large. Back when they were trying to put up a wind farm near me (eventually killed by NIBY's) I heard that the developer was having a bit of an issue with an airport over 20 miles away because a significant portion of our area was covered by some kind of tall structure control zone that said airport claimed.

Re: Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say what you say is legal. When you commandeer the drone you will have to damage it and essentially steal it and the package.

You can be a dick and pay big time for it. Just to be a dick.

This is a civil thing. You need to file a complaint.

Re:Two words:

[VendettaMF]

>> if a UPS van drove across your property while delivering packages to other people's houses, you'd shoot it too.

No. No I would not, and neither would any other sane person.
If you weren't actually "amusingly" exaggerating or parodying someone/something there then you need psychological help, and should not be trusted with any weapon more potent than a rubber spoon.

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

something tells me this person doesn't live anywhere near anyone getting amazon drone deliveries.

Do not want

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't want to have to listen to drones buzzing by for any reason. The convenience factor is not worth the loss of quality of life for everyone.

Re:Do not want

[MightyYar]

I doubt anyone living in a place like Manhattan would even notice, with all of the noise already present - especially from street traffic.

Re:Do not want

[viperidaenz]

But there would be less traffic if there were fewer delivery vehicles on the road. Especially those noisy diesel vans.

Re:Do not want

[avgjoe62]

And how exactly is a drone supposed to make a delivery to my apartment on the 56th floor in the middle of Manhattan? Drone delivery may be good for a farm out in the country where we don't want to waste time sending a truck and driver to the only order in fifty miles. But densely populated cities? A truck and driver will be much more efficient for that environment.

Re:Do not want

[Anonymous Coward]

And how exactly is a drone supposed to make a delivery to my apartment on the 56th floor in the middle of Manhattan?

Yu oda chinee foo?

Re:Do not want

[Tom]

The main problem with traffic is not delivery vehicles, but single-person private cars. For them, more efficient transport options (car sharing, public transport, bikes) exist. For delivery, the truck is often the most efficient solution already.

Re:Do not want

[Tom]

This a thousand times. Watching the videos, I can't shake the feeling about how inefficient these things are and how much more efficient a delivery truck is. Sparsely populated countryside is really the only place where delivery drones make any sense at all.

Re:Do not want

[ShanghaiBill]

The main problem with traffic is not delivery vehicles, but single-person private cars..

But if deliveries are faster and cheaper there will be fewer single-person private cars on the road. Many car trips are to fetch a few items from the grocery or hardware store, or to fetch some documents that you left at work. If on-demand drone delivery was available, these trips could be avoided.

Re:Do not want

[ShanghaiBill]

And how exactly is a drone supposed to make a delivery to my apartment on the 56th floor in the middle of Manhattan?

It could deliver to the roof. Then you could go up and get it, or a robot could bring it to your apartment.

Re:Do not want

[Kohath]

There aren't enough isolated people getting frequent deliveries for it to make economic sense to deploy drones. Why spend millions of dollars developing a new technology to avoid a few trips a year?

Also, a drone that could carry a package 50 miles and return would have to carry a lot of additional weight in fuel. A driverless "car" big enough to carry a package would probably be able to make the delivery for a fraction of the cost.

Re:Do not want

[BitZtream]

The number of UAVs it would take to replace a single FedEx or UPS truck would certainly be several orders of magnitude noisier.

Re:Do not want

[nospam007]

"But there would be less traffic if there were fewer delivery vehicles on the road. Especially those noisy diesel vans."

I was in Amsterdam last week and the ugly brown UPS trucks were electric, I was almost run over by one because I couldn't hear it coming.
It's just a regulation thingie, if they get forced to make no noise inside city limits, they don't.

Re:Do not want

[MightyYar]

I wasn't defending the practical aspect of the technology, just the noise non-issue.

But to answer your question, if you live in a 56-floor building you have a doorman. The same guy who takes deliveries of bulk items all day for 1000s of residents could handle the miniature drone deliveries as well.

Re:Do not want

[CanHasDIY]

The number of UAVs it would take to replace a single FedEx or UPS truck would certainly be several orders of magnitude noisier.

Not to mention, it seems like it would be far more expensive.

What do you suppose is the annual TCO on all the drones that would be in the aforementioned, hypothetical fleet? Not just cheap toys, but robust airframes capable of carrying 50 lbs+ loads over several miles of space? Figure that up, then compare it to how much it costs to pay 1 guy $12.50/hr, or $26,000/yr, to drive a truck that runs about $10,000/yr to own.

Re:Do not want

[CanHasDIY]

And how exactly is a drone supposed to make a delivery to my apartment on the 56th floor in the middle of Manhattan?

It could deliver to the roof. Then you could go up and get it, or a robot could bring it to your apartment.

What happens when it's raining? Does the drone/robot just dump your shit in a puddle?

Anyway, this idea means building the infrastructure in to every single existing and new high-rise building, and passing the costs along to the residents.

How, again, is this supposed to be an improvement over the current method of paying some guy $12/hr to drive around dropping off boxes?

Re:Do not want

[CanHasDIY]

Drone delivery may be good for a farm out in the country where we don't want to waste time sending a truck and driver to the only order in fifty miles.

Well, except the fact that most figures I've seen show there is no efficient, cost-effective way to build a drone that can carry 50+ lbs and have over 100 miles of range.

At those rates, you'd be better off sending a dude in a truck.

Re:Do not want

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they're going to get pretty big UAV's will never replace a FedEx/UPS truck, most packages are probably about the size of a shoebox or larger. I know that 95% of the stuff I've ever received was about 2'x2'x1'. But even if drones are only capable of delivering something the size of a paperback book a single one could deliver dozens of packages a day. That would probably decrease the route of that several thousand pound FedEx/UPS truck by thousands of miles a year.

Re:Do not want

[avgjoe62]

I really, really miss our doorman. When the last guy retired, the building did not replace him. Now we get keys to the package drop box in our mailbox if USPS delivers, or notes if there is no free drop box or the delivery is handled by UPS/FedEx otherwise. There are a whole host of other reasons why I miss the doorman and would bring one back in a heartbeat, but not every building in Manhattan has a doorman. Management seems to believe a doorman can be replaced with a web site and a security monitoring company, but that's very shortsighted from my experience.

Re:Do not want

[MightyYar]

Wow, things sure have changed in NYC if a building that large is no longer hiring doormen, or at least someone manning the reception area. I left in 2009.

The main problem: they don't make sense

[Kohath]

The main problem is the overall uneconomical and generally nonsensical idea of using delivery drones. Trucks are simple and work well in bad weather. There's a huge non-employed workforce of people who can easily be trained to deliver packages. Delivery trucks can be powered by natural gas, which is so abundant that many oil rigs simply burn it off rather than going to the trouble of capturing it.

in the general case, delivery drones don't work. Trucks do.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Harlequin80]

Further to this. If we do see self driving vehicles any time soon I would have thought that would have been infinitely preferable to drones. Some kind of system that gets you to meet the truck - calling or texting minutes before arrival. A bay that only has your parcel in it.

A lot of parcels are shipped in standard boxes these days so that shouldn't be too difficult a system to build. It wouldn't replace a driver with odd or bulky parcels of course.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[tshawkins]

The main problem is the overall uneconomical and generally nonsensical idea of using delivery drones. Trucks are simple and work well in bad weather. There's a huge non-employed workforce of people who can easily be trained to deliver packages. Delivery trucks can be powered by natural gas, which is so abundant that many oil rigs simply burn it off rather than going to the trouble of capturing it.

in the general case, delivery drones don't work. Trucks do.

Dang, thats exactly what i told them when they bought in those new fangled automobiles, nobody wants or needs to move faster than 15 miles per hour, and the economoics of them will never work out.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent troll

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. I'll mod you troll.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[gweihir]

Have a look at the time-frame for automobiles. Then extrapolate. Result: In 30-50 years we may have drone-delivery, but not much sooner. And if you make that "flying cars", "never" sounds about right.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obviously a troll. There's zero merit to his comment.

"Time travel doesn't work. A better suggestion is to think ahead so you don't need to travel back in time to fix your mistakes."
"That's what they said about the automobile."

Yeah. Thanks for that insight. Glad you've got moderators on your side so we can keep seeing those gems.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Kohath]

Except it won't work for heavy packages. And it won't work near airports. And it won't work in bad weather. And it's a safety risk to people on the ground. And some simpler answer will always be better. In 30-50 years, truck delivery and logistics will have made progress too.

Think about it. What real world conditions would have to exist for drone delivery to make more sense than trucks?

Traffic? Use two-wheeled vehicles instead of trucks.
No drivers? Driverless trucks or some other ground-based driverless vehicle.

Here's the one situation where airborne drone delivery may make sense: deliveries to boats, to the wilderness, or to people across a body of water with no bridge. That's it.

Or maybe in 200-400 years, when all the challenges to drone delivery have been rendered trivial, it will still be easier and cheaper to use trucks, but since all the problems are trivial and airborne drones are cooler and faster, maybe then use drones sometimes.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[OneSmartFellow]

What's wrong with driver-less 1-wheeled vehicles ?

Now, what's wrong with zero-wheeled vehicles, ah, wait, that would be too similar to a drone to fit into your world view.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem is the overall uneconomical and generally nonsensical idea of using delivery drones. Trucks are simple and work well in bad weather.

The US has great roads, large trucks, and cheap labor. Of course drones don't make sense here.

Stop thinking in US-centric terms, and it will make much more sense. Want to get a package through Mumbai traffic? Want to get a package to the balcony of a 60-story high-rise in Hong Kong? Want to deliver packages to the houseboats of Amsterdam but can't afford the local wages? Want to deliver medicine in Australia or Mongolia, where it's already economical to fly the doctor to the patient? Drones are an obvious win.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[CanHasDIY]

Further to this. If we do see self driving vehicles any time soon I would have thought that would have been infinitely preferable to drones. Some kind of system that gets you to meet the truck - calling or texting minutes before arrival. A bay that only has your parcel in it.

A lot of parcels are shipped in standard boxes these days so that shouldn't be too difficult a system to build. It wouldn't replace a driver with odd or bulky parcels of course.

If you're going to go that route with it, society could easily start building both residential and commercial structures with built-in receptacle ports designed to mate with the port on the delivery vehicle, eliminating the "someone needs to be there to accept delivery" issue.

That is, presuming the industry standardizes the port design, rather than every single manufacturer having a proprietary one that nobody else's equipment will fit.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[PRMan]

We'll have flying cars by NEXT YEAR! Didn't you see the movie?!?

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Harlequin80]

Yes I suppose a new type of letter box. Might be hard in areas with preservation orders or heritage listing but easy everywhere else.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Kohath]

What's wrong with driver-less 1-wheeled vehicles ?

They tip over? I don't know. Lets see a prototype.

Now, what's wrong with zero-wheeled vehicles, ah, wait, that would be too similar to a drone to fit into your world view.

They waste too much energy staying airborne and they are less efficient and harder to build and more risky to operate and less resilient to weather than wheeled vehicles.

Re:The main problem: they don't make sense

[Kohath]

Want to get a package through Mumbai traffic?

Smaller vehicles, logistics, and the knowledge of local couriers.

Want to get a package to the balcony of a 60-story high-rise in Hong Kong?

Deliver it to the front door and take it up on the elevator.

Want to deliver packages to the houseboats of Amsterdam but can't afford the local wages?

Driverless vehicles. Or just charge enough to cover the cost of delivery.

Want to deliver medicine in Australia or Mongolia, where it's already economical to fly the doctor to the patient?

Doctors' time may be worth enough money to make flying worthwhile. Is a truck driver's time worth that much? Also, a bottle of medicine doesn't care if it takes an extra 12 hours to get where it's going.

And any drone that can carry a package a long distance will also have to carry a lot of heavy fuel.

Drones are an obvious win.

There will probably be some extremely rare cases where they make sense. Delivery to boats offshore, for example.

Potentially concerning

[Anonymous Coward]

Who'll regulate where such 'zone freeways' would actually exist? Wouldn't it make more sense to require that automated drones have object avoidence that can sense utility wires and other drones, as well as adverse weather conditions if they want their free fly license and be done with it? We're not talking about automating jets here. The whole advantage of a drone is the fact that it CAN fly in a straight line to its destination and back.

This sounds a lot like idiots trying to regulate technology they know nothing about.

Property rights

[tjstork]

It's bad enough that someone can fly over your house at high altitude without you receiving any compensation, but, a bunch of drones added to the mix just undermines your own property rights.

Re:Property rights

[viperidaenz]

It's bad enough people can walk past my driveway without compensation! I may not own the footpath but its crossing in front of my driveway!
Those companies operating their pesky satellites orbiting overhead should be compensating me too.
Don't get me started when the moon goes over head!

You never bought the airspace above your house. It's not on the title of your property. Shut the fuck up you useless hick.

Re:Property rights

[Gavagai80]

I bet you wanted to sue Apollo astronauts for trespassing because was the moon was clearly above your house.

Re:Property rights

[tjstork]

Why are you so quick to give away for free something that a major corporation will make tons of money on? That transit conduit has a value and it is only because of government that I cannot get some value out of it. You can call me a hick all that you want, and maybe I am, but you're the one advocating a system where people are going to use a resource that you possess, for free, and without even a shred of protest. "Here Amazon, go ahead and make billions of dollars flying drones 500 feet above my house, for free." Yep, that's what you want. I think that's stupid.

Re:Property rights

[QuietLagoon]

...a bunch of drones added to the mix just undermines your own property rights....

Of course, that depends upon the altitude of the drones.

.
If they're flying at 50 feet, there is a definite issue.

So the question becomes, how high do the drones have to fly before the issues they raise become moot?

Re:Property rights

[tjstork]

There's actually an international treaty that prohibits countries from claiming property rights on celestial bodies due to their being in space. By signing that treaty, countries agreed that the property of space effectively belongs to the United Nations or whatever treaty body controls claims for it. But yes, suing for space is ridiculous, but, is noise pollution for airlines flying above your house as ridiculous? What about drones flying 500 feet overhead, or even 100 feet? I think as a property owner you should be compensated for that. It's your land, and you are entitled to "some" of the airspace above it, and I wouldn't be so quick to just hand that value of that away to another corporation to make money off of. I mean, would you let someone set up shop and frack in your back yard? What's really the difference?

Re:Property rights

[MightyYar]

Ultimately, your property "rights" are granted rights, not inalienable or natural rights. You don't own air rights or mineral rights for simple, pragmatic reasons.

Hell, by international convention "conquest" is the most sure-fire way to get more real estate.

As for noise pollution - people have been suing over that since the dawn of aviation. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose (hard to prove harm if you bought a house near an existing airport...). Over the years, we've made jets quieter, we've restricted the operating hours, and we've limited flight to sub-sonic over land. People fight over industrial plant emissions, sewer plant location, and yes - fracking locations - all the time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that drone use will be regulated through the democratic process and not (solely) by some quaint notion of property rights.

Re:Property rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, that depends upon the altitude of the drones.

.
If they're flying at 50 feet, there is a definite issue.

They fly at 400-500 feet. This is still a problem.

So the question becomes, how high do the drones have to fly before the issues they raise become moot?

1000

Re:Property rights

[viperidaenz]

It's only because of the government that you cannot get value out of it?
It's only because of the government that you have your property in the first place. You bought the land in exchange for certain rights. Why do you expect additional rights for free?

Re:Property rights

[Tom]

You never bought the airspace above your house.

You are wrong about that. I cannot legally build my house right over your house, even if it never touches the ground that you bought.

Clearly, airlines are flying above without considering property rights below, so somewhere "your" airspace ends, but just because it's in the air doesn't mean it doesn't touch property rights.

Re:Property rights

[gweihir]

You want that slice of the universe over your house as well? Then better start policing it, if you can....

Re:Property rights

[Electricity Likes Me]

The various flight ceilings on commercial aviation might speak to that, but I seriously doubt any court is going to interpret the law as being about property rights as opposed to public safety / nuisance.

You have all sorts of protections from things that never touch your property, but they're definitely not defined by the property boundaries. For instance you can't demand that soundwaves do not enter your premises at all - instead you can possibly get a neighbours air conditioner moved so it isn't above a certain volume, within the bounds of what's considered reasonable.

Re:Property rights

[bondsbw]

I cannot legally build my house right over your house, even if it never touches the ground that you bought.

I don't see the point here. Even if we assume I don't own air rights above my house, that doesn't mean that you do.

Re:Property rights

[ihtoit]

there are no set boundaries on airspace in property. What there is, is reasonable use of airspace such that it does not interfere with others' use of the same airspace. For example, zoning laws mean that buildings are restricted in terms of height (more to do with the density of the ground than what the airspace is used for), but there are some circumstances, such as near airports, that clearly define for reasons of safety, where building construction may *not* encroach, such as approach lanes and ILS beam paths, RADAR sweeps, and other such areas where commercial aircraft flying through might pose a hazard. For reasonable use of airspace, read: you may build a 20-foot high dwelling (which occupies the bottom 20 feet of airspace above your land) and while you may later decide to extend that to 200 feet high, in the meantime easement is implied unless it causes a nuisance. What is above your roof is by implication of it being contiguous with surrounding air space, navigable airspace hence public airspace. The amount of noise generated by jet engines necessitates the restriction on traffic floors for commercial jet aircraft (in England I think it's 1500 feet for subsonic aircraft, supersonic flight is restricted to offshore airspace). You *may* collect some sort of toll on easement *if you have the right and authority to do so* but normally, you do not. CAA authority over public airspace begins and ends with maintaining safe traffic flow, air licensing revenues collected on their behalf actually pays for this (and it's only the commercialisation of airspace and the associated traffic density that necessitates traffic flow control). It ain't some magic oompa loompa thing, it's actual people doing this and people need to eat.

Re:Property rights

[ihtoit]

there is nobody stopping you from operating your own drone over your own land, as long as you don't cause a nuisance to others. Their enjoyment of the airspace over your land comes with the same condition: that they don't cause a nuisance to you.

Re:Property rights

[jklovanc]

Your airspace does end somewhere.

The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land.

Re:Property rights

[u38cg]

Wrong. You do own the airspace. In some jurisdictions, you can in theory sue airlines for trespass and win nugatory damages. In others, the law has been specifically changed to allow overflight.

Re:Property rights

[AmiMoJo]

We may need some new laws regulating things like tethered balloons and kites though. Currently anyone can buy one and set it up in their back yard, but if drones become popular they could end up being like those anti-aircraft balloons used in WW2.

Re:Property rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when they're using the contails to dose you with drugs to keep you passive and obedient! Whenever I see a contrail from my home I get out my spray bottle of vinegar and disperse it.

My property rights trump ALL others. If you are on MY property (or flying over it, or tunneling under it) your life belongs to me. If I choose to exercise my right to bear arms and blow you away, it is my Jesus-written constitutional right to do so.

Re:Property rights

[drinkypoo]

Ultimately, your property "rights" are granted rights, not inalienable or natural rights.

You mean, just like all so-called "rights"?

Re:Property rights

[gurps_npc]

Wrong, on just so many levels. This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of property rights.. If you own property, you usually own the air rights. Up until recently, this usually only came into the law's purview when you can build above your property.

If for example, your neighbor on both sides get married, they legally can not build a bridge between their homes, over yours.

Also, you can SELL your air rights. It happens all the time in major cities. Typically, a new building will buy the air rights above an older one. They do this for two reasons.

1), if you have a large building with a good view, you might buy the air rights of the smaller buildings next to it to ensure you keep your view.

2) If the city has rules about how high you can build your building, sometimes they let you average it out over a city block. So if the city says no building may be above 200 ft, they might let you buy the 100 ft air rights of the building next to you, so your building can be 300 ft, and theirs is stuck at a mere 100 ft.

Re:Property rights

[tsqr]

Ultimately, your property "rights" are granted rights, not inalienable or natural rights.

You mean, just like all so-called "rights"?

By inalienable rights, no doubt he's referring to those rights that according to the Constitution, the government cannot take from you. The Constitution does not grant those rights; it prohibits the Federal government from interfering with them.

Now, feel free to rant about the obvious overstepping that's been going on since the Civil War.

Re:Property rights

[drinkypoo]

By inalienable rights, no doubt he's referring to those rights that according to the Constitution, the government cannot take from you. The Constitution does not grant those rights; it prohibits the Federal government from interfering with them. Now, feel free to rant about the obvious overstepping that's been going on since the Civil War.

I don't have to, because you pointed it out. It proves that the government doesn't actually consider those to be rights. We have no rights, period, end of story.

Re:Property rights

[MightyYar]

You mean, just like all so-called "rights"?

All of the rights except for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm a True Believer, but even I have to admit that "pursuit of happiness" is a weasel-phrase, open to plenty of interpretation :)

Re:Property rights

[CanHasDIY]

The various flight ceilings on commercial aviation might speak to that, but I seriously doubt any court is going to interpret the law as being about property rights as opposed to public safety / nuisance.

I used to seriously doubt that any court in the US would allow a lawsuit against an inanimate object, but apparently many municipal governments make fat bank doing just that, all the time, with Philadelphia leading the pack.

Now I know better than to "seriously doubt" any of the the idiotic things our legal system allows for.

Re:Property rights

[CanHasDIY]

Non-misspelled link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Re:Property rights

[Kijori]

That transit conduit has a value and it is only because of government that I cannot get some value out of it.

Government is the source of your land rights - you have rights to control what happens with your land because of the laws enacted by society, through the Government. Your whole point here is incredibly wrong-headed.

And - really? Assuming you can get around the whole rights-without-Government issue, you don't think there are any other obstacles to monetizing that airspace? Or do you just prefer to blame "government" for every perceived ill, because you don't really understand?

Re: Property rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. If they did pay, you would need the system to track it. And they would just fly over cheaper airspace ie poor areas. So go ahead and purchase the air traffic tracking system and send your bills. Ohh wait, you are a poor, dumb hick.

Go fuck yourself you greedy stupid piece of shit.

Wait, I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we could 3D print everything we need at home? Why do we need drones delivering stuff? Sounds like a Luddite solution.

Re:Wait, I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's gotta deliver the filament and print heads 'cause we're all too fat and lazy to walk down to the store

Weight

[ebonum]

"Wind is a particular hazard, because drones weigh so little compared with regular planes"

I'm not so sure about this one. A 747 in a 20 mph cross wind does 20 mph sideways. A drone in a 20 mph cross wind does 20 mph sideways.

When there is a gust (or any change in wind speed), there would be a difference. An object with a lot of mass will react more slowly to the same force. That said, once a 747 starts blowing sideways in the wind, making a correction is going to take more time and a larger force that it would for a light drone. In a big plane you do a lot more planning ahead for good reason. There are more "well, it depends on.." Even when mass is equal, a plane with a small tail (vertical stabilizer) close to the center of mass is going to react very differently than a plane with a large vertical stabilizer far from the center of mass. (Think lever arm/torque) In one you need a lot of skill to keep it from ground looping when landing in gusty cross winds.

Re:Weight

[Animats]

"Wind is a particular hazard, because drones weigh so little compared with regular planes."

Small drones don't have much inertia. They can be easily flipped by a small local wind gust. This is a big problem for drones that operate close to buildings, where there are eddies and turbulence as air hits the building. Pass the corner of a building and the wind situation may be completely different.

Very smart and aggressive stability control systems are able to overcome this. See this drone from PSI Tactical, which weighs about 0.5Kg and is supposed to be able to operate in winds up to 30MPH.

Re:Weight

[DrJimbo]

Good points. I think the key concept is called Wing Loading which is the ratio of mass to wing area. For example:

Effect on stability

Wing loading also affects gust response, the degree to which the aircraft is affected by turbulence and variations in air density. A small wing has less area on which a gust can act, both of which [I think they are referring to low area and high mass] serve to smooth the ride. For high-speed, low-level flight (such as a fast low-level bombing run in an attack aircraft), a small, thin, highly loaded wing is preferable: aircraft with a low wing loading are often subject to a rough, punishing ride in this flight regime.

IOW, what matters is the ratio of the mass to the wing area and not just the mass (weight) with no context. For example, if you have two round rocks of roughly the same mass and tie a very light wing to one of them (which makes the masses equal). The one with the wing will be more affected by gusts even though the masses are the same.

Re:Weight

[gl4ss]

when the max speed of said drone is 21mph while it can just maintain the altitude then a wind of 23 becomes quite problematic especially if it transitions to it quickly.

Why use drones at all?

[Marrow]

Drones seem un-necessary. Why the return trip? Why not make the delivery vehicle....a "smart-bomb". A delivery vehicle that could be dropped from a [very] large plane and that descends in a very controlled fall to its destination. Maybe homing in on GPS, or using a small camera.. It would have just enough smarts to control its descent and make adjustments, but be disposable otherwise. Or tough enough to ship back to Amazon by "ground" shipping.

Re:Why use drones at all?

[QuietLagoon]

Of course, this raises the question... what if a drone delivers a package but never makes it back to "home base"? The loss of how many drones per year has Amazon figured into the business plan?

Re:Why use drones at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

By this logic, we should just build "smart mortars" that can launch packages straight from the warehouse to land precisely at the delivery address.

Re:Why use drones at all?

[Richy_T]

I propose a series of tubes...

just too many issues

[resfilter]

people in apartments or yards of an inappropriately small size, or with too many overhanging trees, will be blacklisted as the things crash repeatedly, they'll default to truck delivery.

an equation of range vs weight will be used that ends up defaulting anything but a friggn' bottle opener to truck delivery.

during questionable weather, shipments will be heavily delayed until the weather clears, and they'll default to truck delivery.

bird flys into your shipment. kid throws a rock at it. whatever. re-shipments probably default to truck delivery.

people (including me) will order $5 packages, wait for them to arrive, then steal the 'copter for parts. no real way to prove it didn't just crash, right?

eventually it'll just become a cool novelty if some package lands successfully in your backyard instead of by truck, instead of a real utility.

Re:just too many issues

[Tom]

or with too many overhanging trees, [...] people (including me) will order $5 packages, wait for them to arrive, then steal the 'copter for parts. no real way to prove it didn't just crash, right?

Which is why Googles system (lowering the parcel on a rope, the drone never comes even near ground) is superior to Amazons (land-and-release) system.

In general, though, I do agree with you.

Re:just too many issues

[BitZtream]

(lowering the parcel on a rope, the drone never comes even near ground)

Until I grab the rope and pull the UAV to the ground.

Re:just too many issues

[Anonymous Coward]

If they go that route, you know there will be a break-free system to avoid exactly that, and to contend with other unexpected entanglements.

Re:just too many issues

[PRMan]

Cameras and cheap internet and criminal prosecution will probably avoid the problems you are listing, while creating even worse ones, thanks to the dishonesty of people like you.

Go underground

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see an underground network built for delivery. Avoids most weather conditions (if floods/mudslides/erosion/earthquakes are protected against). Avoids construction, traffic, and other road hazards and obstructions.

We have something similar where we deliver our waste, so why not stuff more waste in there as it stands? It's not like people really need this products so much that they couldn't get off their fat ass and get it themselves.

Re:Go underground

[XnavxeMiyyep]

New York City used to have a pneumatic tube system. It's a shame there's nothing similar today.

Re:Go underground

[jklovanc]

Perhaps you should read what you referenced. High cost and low capacity killed it. It may not be viable for non-paper items as thay may be damaged. Also the tubes were only 7-8 inches in diameter. Letters bend while parcels don't.

Re:Go underground

[GameboyRMH]

To be fair, it seems that most of the high cost came from the government paying rent to private property owners. I don't think that would be an issue today.

Monitoring the sky 500 feet up?

[aviators99]

Seems impossible. This would have to be some peer-to-peer/mesh network model of traffic control. I hope they aren't really planning on using ground-based radar for this. It would require too much infrastructure.

Drone network down..alert..alert..

[Rick in China]

Imagine the chaos if the skies are full of these delivery drones - carrying shit everywhere - and for some reason they start dropping like flies. The random stuff dropping from the skies pelleting, in addition to the drones themselves.. surely this scene would fit into a sci-fi 'sharknado'-bad low-budget film as a surprisingly amusing scene.

I want to see it happen either way.

Re: Drone network down..alert..alert..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that could potentially happen maybe with an EMP blast.

I don't know enough about drones/UAVs. Does anyone know what kind of radius you'd get on a medium sized EMP, and would they actually take down drones or are they equipped enough to run without... electronics?

I could imagine, suppose in downtown New York if there were hundreds of drones and someone set off an EMP maybe you'd get a hundred or something falling to the ground.

But then that brings up the question of: what's the point? But still interesting to ponder considering a lot of people's natural hate reactions towards drones.

Re: Drone network down..alert..alert..

[GameboyRMH]

Haha no remotely modern drone could run without electronics. But, to set off an EMP of meaningful size, you'd need to detonate a nuke in the upper atmosphere, there's no other way if you want the device to have a better effective range than a keychain flashlight.

Re:Drone network down..alert..alert..

[ColdWetDog]

Or manna from heaven. Just depends on your viewpoint.

"Oh, wait, tampons. I guess I don't need those ... "

The best reason to ban drone delivery...

[SoundGuyNoise]

Diaper services. The worst time to have a midair malfunction.

Re:The best reason to ban drone delivery...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused about how diapers work.
(Hint: Stores only sell unused diapers.)

Re:The best reason to ban drone delivery...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are companies that provide the service of cleaning cloth diapers. So it takes little imagination to imagine the consequences of a drone failing while carrying to-be-cleaned diapers over someone's house, parade, or hopefully a KKK rally.

Re:The best reason to ban drone delivery...

[AmiMoJo]

Who buys a sack of shit off the internet? Wait, don't answer that.

Re:The best reason to ban drone delivery...

[luis_a_espinal]

Diaper services. The worst time to have a midair malfunction.

Try condom delivery services. That would be an even worse time for a midair malfunction.

Problem to be solved

[BillX]

People plinking a drone when it flies over their yard (or any public field) and getting a free Xbox or whatever it was carrying.

Re:Problem to be solved

[Paco103]

It's like skeet shooting pinatas! This is so going to be so much better than clay pigeons!

Law or not....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll shoot them down every chance I get. Good luck since it's private property.

drones away

[phantomfive]

If a drone malfunctions at 500ft, it's going to hurt when it lands on someone.

Re:drones away

[BitZtream]

If a UAV of even 5 pounds drops from as little as 10 feet above your head, it can easily kill you.

Re:drones away

[phantomfive]

If a UAV of even 5 pounds drops from as little as 10 feet above your head, it can easily kill you.

Five pounds of bitcoins?

Re:drones away

[sound vision]

No, five dollars of kilograms.

Re:drones away

[phantomfive]

That's a heavy distance to drop.

Standard Silicon Valley Approach Will Work

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Patent all possible methods of delivery for packages so that you drive down the stock prices of every courier company including FedEx that could deliver packages cheaper and safer.
2. Buy them all up with the money you have stockpiled not paying US taxes and hiring H-1B workers.
3. Buy enough congressmen and senators to shut down the US Postal Service.
4. Profit from forcing consumers to use your inferior, more expensive service.

It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post system

[Electricity Likes Me]

The drone delivery thing seems like a proxy for the fact that the regular postal system desperately needs a revamp to include more standardization. Basically, we need some system which acknowledges that parcel and package delivery is an increasingly important part of the process, and we want to receive things unattended.

You can only sometimes get this now.

If we had a system where we standardized mailbox sizes to some specification, and then licensed out some NFC/smart card system to let postal workers/delivery companies open them, then we might be getting somewhere. Sure, it's not perfect and it wouldn't be everywhere at once, but if you could simply buy the relevant thing at Home Depot and then delivery companies could be expected to use it, it'd be progress. Then the free-market innovates from there: various multi-tiered security products or the like.

Re:It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post sys

[Rick in China]

Correct. Using delivery services in Canada, in my experience, were much more of a hassle and much more costly than they are in China. There is no chance drone delivery would be considered in China considering:

I can order something from jd.com this morning and it arrives this afternoon COD.
I can ship documents from the middle of China to Hong Kong within a business day or two for, in USD, a few dollars.
I can ensure everything I arrives promptly and get automatic updates when items I'm shipping are either picked up by delivery people, sorted at delivery centres, arrive at delivery centres, or any other significant milestone in the process.

US Postal System. Yes, rain, snow, wind, sleet, good luck with that.

Re:It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post sys

[BitZtream]

If we had a system where we standardized mailbox sizes to some specification

Done, been that way all my life (I'm almost 40).

and then licensed out some NFC/smart card system to let postal workers/delivery companies open them, then we might be getting somewhere

You mean some sort of key ... Again, done, group boxes have had keys all my life.

but if you could simply buy the relevant thing at Home Depot

Home Depot sales mailboxes, all of which meet all sorts of standard requirements for US Postal Service deliveries.

You do realize that everything you've said has been around for, what, a century?

There are even standards for positioning of the mailbox, not just size.

I'm guessing you're not real observant and haven't noticed that all mailboxes are already the same size, basic shape and location.

People

[nick_davison]

What other issues do Amazon, DHL, Google, and other need to solve?

People. Bored, often too intelligent for their own good, people.

How long before trolls figure out they can drive their cars close enough and in such a manner that self driving cars execute lane changes to avoid accidents and pull off the freeway? Or until someone realizes they can jam the car's sensors and the poor passenger, with no access to a steering wheel, can't convince the car to pull out of the open parking spot it's convinced it's barricaded in?

How long before an Amazon delivery drone comes in to a house that's observed to regularly get deliveries and gets a blanket tossed over it before being purloined by nerds who just got a sweet free drone to try hacking?

Wind gusts happen. You can factor in for a typical wind gust, a severe wind gust, a once in a century wind gust. You can factor in for different types of hardware failure, for power loss, etc. You can factor in for trees, for tall buildings, for cables... They're finite problem sets.

But bored people? They're infinite.

Re:People

[Anonymous Coward]

But bored people? They're infinite.

Infinity?! 7.25 billion is too many already.

Re:People

[Anonymous Coward]

you're showing more than a little naivete. From the bottom up, amazon is full of smart people, who can no doubt program their drone system with weather report information and minimize catastrophic losses before they've got a significant amount of capital whirring around. Remember kids, significant to Amazon is a lot different than what your'e used to.

"comes in to a house" what are you 5?! These things aren't santa clause. Get it together.

Aside from that capturing one of these would be a tremendously bad idea, especially for a "nerd" who probably likes to get deliveries, ever, not to mention whatever law enforcement issues they'd face. There are car-thieves, and the rest of us. The former will not be interested in these.

Ok now we're onto self driving cars which is a different issue but whatever. You're going to jam computer vision and laser range finder how? Also yes, running a self driving car off the road will certainly be possible. How is that different than humans?

You are a class 1 asshat.

Re:It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post sys

[Electricity Likes Me]

And you have missed all the subtlety of the problem. For one thing, there's no way anyone's fitting an iPad package into a mailbox, or even through a mailslot.

There's no way to distribute or update keys rapidly enough to make them general use for delivery companies and the post.

Which is the entire point: the century of mail was for mail with packages considered the exception. Special case enough to warrant needing to be physically present to receive them, or simply gambling nobody steals them when left on the front porch.

Basically you might want to take your last line there and apply it to yourself.

Re:It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post sys

[BDeblier]

In Belgium we've got this: https://www.bpack247.be/. Part of the normal postal service. Basically you get a card with a barcode (to be scanned at the machine) and a pin code. A growing number of online stores will ship to these. Convenient if you're never at home during normal delivery hours. Since I pass through a train station equipped with one of these every evening, my problem's solved.

Is this some kind of secret code?

[Camael]

I keep getting a naggy feeling that these anonymous posts with over-the-top claims are some kind of coded communication.

Think about it - in today's times when all communication is tapped, saved, processed and filtered by supercomputers, what better way to convey coded information or pass instructions than to post in the open, on public boards, buried in posts adopting the same manner and tone as thousands of other crack-pot posts?

And if the secret is in danger of being let loose, to immediately flood the forum with derisive posts decrying the "conspiracy" -after all, nobody likes looking stupid or gullible.

Or maybe I need more sleep.

Re:Is this some kind of secret code?

[mark_reh]

Crank posts in internet forums are the modern day equivalent of the numbers stations on short wave radio.

Thank goodness we have the NSA scooping all this stuff up and looking for patterns!

Re:Is this some kind of secret code?

[ColdWetDog]

You lost me at 'communication'.

Clay pigeon

[Camael]

There is no specific law against it, just like there is no law specifically against throwing bowling balls at passing bicyclists. But there are general laws against endangering or harming other people, or intentionally destroying other people's property.

If the drone is flying in my backyard without permission, isn't it trespassing on my premises? Am I therefore not allowed to defend the sanctity and privacy of my home by shooting it out of the sky with extreme prejudice? For all I know, it could be carrying a camera... or a bomb... or a firearm (unlikely I'll grant you, but sadly in today's climate not impossible).

Or to use a clearer example, if I observe that the drone is in danger of crashing into my 4-year-old son and I shoot it out of the sky, I am confident that it would not be held a crime.

My point being that the legal position of drones is far from clear.

Re:Clay pigeon

[ihtoit]

it's not trespass if it's not causing a nuisance. The second it causes a nuisance, it is trespassing. The law is pretty clear on that. The exception is emergency vehicles and military aircraft. Of course a Harrier jump jet hovering five feet over your daughter's swing set is going to cause a nuisance, but if your home is situated a dozen yards from the end of RAF Bollockstown don't be surprised if you get regular traffic doing low passes fifty feet over your house during normal approach manoeuvres.

Too Late

[JimSadler]

There is already one full size helicopter, drone, making a daily repeat run from The US to Mexico. It is able to fly at any altitude that a human piloted helicopter can fly. For that matter the average commercial aircraft flying passengers is effectively a drone with a pilot only as backup these days. We will need a new label for low flying drones to distinguish them from larger drones. We also need to gain knowledge on items like fuel consumption for heavy lifter type drones. For example my super market gets a tractor trailer load a day or more from a central warehouse about 50 miles away. A drone lifting the same weight and bulk just might be fuel efficient due to slow highway traffic. Cost may determine use more than legal issues. Other items need to be considered as well. If i order a bulldozer to a job site there is a huge issue with parking the tractor and lowboy that transports the dozer. A flying drone could deposit the dozer and wait nearby in many cases where a large truck and trailer could not fit in well. Or we may see the air ambulance effect ruin it all. It seems that a rescue helicopter for a trauma victim ads about 5K per mile over a car type ambulance.

Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

Batteries batteries batteries

Better batteries mean more time in the air, less weight, maybe more speed too

Every incremental improvement to batteries will send shockwaves through the tech world, because they are the bottleneck

Re:Batteries

[queazocotal]

They are _a_ bottleneck.
lithium-ion batteries are quite adequate for 10 or 20 minute flights in a small drone.
3 minutes flight at 60km/h takes you 3km.
Taking for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - this needs around 60 drone stations to cover the entirety of London.

Each drone can do 10 deliveries an hour - 180 a day, 65000/year.
The network can do 4 million deliveries per year.
The cost per drone is perhaps pessimistically, 1000 pounds.
They need to survive a week or so to easily recoup their losses.

People are insanely expensive

[Overzeetop]

Jobs machines do are incredibly cheaper than humans doing those same jobs in nearly all cases. Humans are insanely expensive, even mostly untrained ones. A $10,000 drone, especially one purchased quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands, seems like expensive kit for just doing deliveries. But you could throw it away every 4 months instead of maintaining it and it would still be cheaper than hiring a human.

Re:People are insanely expensive

[Wycliffe]

People are expensive because money is "stored people". It's basically a store of labor.
People pay money to let someone else do the labor when they can't or don't want to.
Your new iphone if followed down enough steps is almost 100% labor. The raw materials cost
money because of the labor required to create them. We have things like robots, machines,
animals, etc.. that reduce the amount of human labor at one step but all those still require
human labor to maintain them.

Re: People are insanely expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Think people are expensive? Try having a drone fall on one and see a personal injury claim. Like the airlines say: Think safety is expensive? Try having an accident.

Re:People are insanely expensive

[gmhowell]

Just gonna leave this here.

Please do

[Overzeetop]

That will be one more gun-toting idiot either financially destitute or behind bars. $100,000 and 20 years is the maximum federal penalty for firing on a commercial aircraft. Lock and load, baby!

Re: Please do

[johnamadsen]

Yes. This. Plus firing in city limits. Danger to public equivalent. Civil suit by delivery company. Never own a gun again for obvious reasons. Theft of service from disabling their device. It it falls on someone and kills or injury occurs. Or it falls in traffic causing damage to car or accident. So many charges. It's not a game. I think you were joking but if you are not point that gun to your face. Some retard will do this and they will make an example out of the low class moron.

Re: Please do

[ColdWetDog]

All right. All right.

We'll just use lasers.

Re:Please do

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the statute defines "commercial aircraft" as something other than "motorized, 10-pound flying toy." If I write "commercial aircraft" on a paper plane, toss it, and shoot it, I don't think I'd do serious time.

$10k city/state fines? Pshaw!

[Overzeetop]

Try $100,000 and 20 years in federal PMITA prison.

Ever heard of parachutes?

[Overzeetop]

For 3-5% of gross vehicle weight, each drone can have a safety parachute which activates automatically in the event of any stability failure or rapid drop in altitude. Failsafe systems can be engineered to protect the life of anyone who might be on the ground to several nines reliability. A decent drone recovery reward will get the equipment back - either for re-use or for evaluation of failure mechanism - and onboard camera(s) and real-time flight recording will ensure that sabotage is prosecuted ($100k and 20 years in federal prison, currently).

Re:Ever heard of parachutes?

[Anonymous Coward]

For 3-5% of gross vehicle weight, each drone can have a safety parachute which activates automatically in the event of any stability failure or rapid drop in altitude.
If the drone was on a low approach for landing it could still fall on your head and kill you before the parachute deployed.

[R]researchers?

[fisted]

No, it didn't say rresearchers anywhere in TFA.
Do it right, at least.

Re:It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post sys

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in Germany. In fact, the German system doesn't even require that online services do anything different. You just give the address for the postbox where you want your package dropped with your client number, and the mailman does the rest.

In cities there are enough boxes around that you're more or less guaranteed to have one near home or along your commute.

We'll have package delivering drones when

[mark_reh]

we all go to work, school, and shopping using our helicopter backpacks.

This isn't going to happen

[koan]

So stop writing about it.

PTSD

[Anonymous Coward]

I pray for an EMP. The silence will be deafening.
Flying lawnmowers, dozens of em, all day and all night.
What's not to like?

For heaven sakes think of the noise pollution...

[Anonymous Coward]

The noise from these things is an absolute showstopper. No way they'll be tolerated in residential neighborhoods. People will scream for legislation before you know it. Guaranteed.

Jeeze, people ...

[CaptainDork]

... for those idiots advocating shooting drones, check your local ordinances. It's illegal to discharge a weapon within city limits, subject to certain exceptions from which a drone is exempt.

Re:Jeeze, people ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Potato projectile? Snag it with a kite? Use another drone (or a small flock of them) to herd it?

c'mon people. Guns are not the answer to every problem.

Re:Jeeze, people ...

[david_thornley]

It's illegal to shoot lots of things that get routinely shot up during hunting season. I don't want anybody shooting at the drones, but it's going to happen.

Power Lines

[Etherwalk]

I just don't want to have to listen to drones buzzing by for any reason. The convenience factor is not worth the loss of quality of life for everyone.

Power lines make communities much, much uglier if you actually stop to look at them. Convenience almost always trumps annoying the reticent.

Opt out?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Given these things are going to be noisy-- I live in a quiet neighborhood. If that ends up being disturbed by the buzzing of drones I won't be ordering products from companies that use them.

Re:Opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you live in a quiet neighborhood, chances are you don't live within a 10 minute "drone" flight of the warehouse that contains the goodies. I wouldn't worry about this too much.

Re:It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post sys

[ColdWetDog]

Does that system go to every hamlet and village in China? Actually curious. That's just one of the lead weights that the USPS is saddled with. They have to send stuff to Five Fingers, Alaska, pop 300, as well as to Los Angeles.

I'd also venture to bet that the system in China hasn't funded pension liabilities out for 100 years.

Apples to Apples and all that.

Re:It's a proxy for needing to revamp the post sys

[Rick in China]

"Does that system go to every hamlet and village in China?" I can't answer this definitively, but from what I gather, the answer is close to yes.. what I mean is, they operate in a quantity/batch mode. Actually one of my company's largest domestic (China) clients is SF, one of the two largest courier companies in China - they don't limit their business to just delivery but are expanding into so many other sort of related markets - like selling imported goods over the net.. I guess I could find out how 'distant' they ship, but I would put my money on *as distant as people want to receive*, keep in mind China is an extremely highly populated country, and even the most remote inhabited mountain regions have groupings of people growing and drying their corn who need stuff delivered. :D

"I'd also venture to bet that the system in China hasn't funded pension liabilities out for 100 years." absolutely true. That isn't really an argument against the fact that the USPS is a dogged pile of shit that will either end up debilitated to the point of uselessness or needs a massive overhaul in how it operates, though, is it? That's essentially saying the way they operated and the length of time they operated warrants them a pass for becoming essentially irrelevant, so lets keep funding it just because. I don't follow that logic...