California Company Plans Tests For Airfreight-Carrying Cargo Drones (siliconbeat.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Company Plans Tests For Airfreight-Carrying Cargo Drones (siliconbeat.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday April 2, 2017 @09:34AM from the excess-baggage dept.

Their ultimate goal is "a cargo drone the size of a jetliner" built with sturdy, light-weight carbon fiber composites and supplemental electric engines to reduce fuel consumption. Long-time Slashdot reader linuxwrangler writes: Backed by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, drone startup Natilus is attempting to reduce global airfreight costs by 50% through the use of autonomous cargo drones. To reduce regulatory and infrastructure burden, they plan to have their cargo drones take off and land on water 12 miles offshore and fly over uninhabited areas below controlled airspace. Shipments that take 11 hours in a 747 would take 30 in the drone but at half the cost. Container shipping is less than half the cost of the drone but takes three weeks. Test flights of a 30 foot prototype over San Pablo Bay north of San Francisco are planned for this summer.
The company hopes to start flying a 140-foot drone carrying 200,000 pounds by 2020, which Draper says will provide goods transportation "without the friction and costs associated with keeping people alive on airplanes."

55 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So it's dumb cause regulation? by locater16 · 2017-04-02 09:44 · Score: 0

Planes save a ton of fuel by flying higher in the atmosphere to reduce drag. This claims to save a lot of money by doing things inefficiently. Where some of that "deregulation" the US was promised by the Repub- ohhh they're too busy giving more power to noncompetitive monopolies that pay them off. How silly of me, my mistake.
1. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
2. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by cirby · 2017-04-02 10:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They save a ton of fuel by flying higher at higher speeds - compared to how fast they're flying. They can actually save some money by flying slower, but people don't like taking too long to fly cross-country.
  Jet engines also get higher thermal efficiency by flying higher, in colder air, but you can get better efficiency by using things like turboprops or propfans at lower altitudes and lower speeds. Up to about 500 mph, turboprops beat high-bypass jet engines by a wide margin in efficiency, and at lower speeds (200 mph), are almost 50% more efficient.
  One of the problems with propfans is higher cabin noise, but an unmanned plane skips that issue.
  The Natilus website shows regular old jet engines, but I bet that changes...
3. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-04-02 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Autonomous GEVs would absolutely be stuff from Sci-Fi movies.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-04-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. It's actually kind of interesting--being able to handle things like waves and the like.
  That said, I might be concerned about storms. For the most part, airplanes fly over storms and big honkin' container ships go through storms. But you start adding downdrafts, updrafts, waves, and the like and things could get interesting.
  Also, while avoiding teh evul gubmint regulations is always amusing, I'd be a it concerned about reliability. I mean, I stick my package on a 747 cargo out of Singapore and I can be pretty secure that it'll show up. I stick it on a container ship and I feel the same way. But if I'm putting, say, $500,000,000 worth of iPhones on your flimsy boat, the insurance is probably going to be pretty outrageous.
  When they're attitude is "Hey, we can wreck and it's no big deal!" while carrying half-a-billion dollars worth of cargo, these aren't the people I want to hire to transport my goods.
5. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by MightyYar · 2017-04-02 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  If only there was some way to predict and track storms?
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
6. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  And that is why Republicans love them despite the dangers.
7. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, forecasting thunderstorms over the ocean is remarkably difficult, and consequently unmanned vehicles have quite a challenge. It's all great as long as you have a datalink, but you have to plan for the link to fail, and you end up having to pay someone to take the responsibility of piloting this thing, which ends up costing about as much as a pilot.
8. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-04-02 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
  While I found the article interesting, it also caught my attention that three of the four photos attached to that Wikipedia article show craft which appear to be either in storage or abandoned, and the fourth appears to be at an air show or museum of some sort. As far as I can tell, none of the vehicles appear to be functional.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
9. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymice · 2017-04-02 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  1/2 a billion dollar shipments will entail such planning that 3 weeks by shipping container won't be a great deal. The target market here is probably things like that new toy you ordered for next-week delivery on Amazon.
10. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  I stick my package on a 747 cargo
  What kind of offspring do you expect to have doing THAT?
11. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by MightyYar · 2017-04-02 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  You are only talking about "forecasting" a number of hours ahead. The computer can just route around existing weather. It can even follow a route where radar is available for some acceptable portion of the journey. If they can't solve this problem, then they will be sunk - but I extremely skeptical that this will be what proves to be insurmountable.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
12. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by rtb61 · 2017-04-02 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't they just slapping a, 'we invented it sticker' on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... A design from the point of how to make a boat go faster, than how to increase cargo capacity of a plane, perhaps GEVs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... will make a comeback.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
13. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by _merlin · 2017-04-02 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, the USSR built plenty of them, but only used them on inland seas (Caspian Sea etc.) and ultimately seemed to give up on the idea. This suggests they ultimately didn't achieve their goals and/or weren't suitable for use on open oceans.
14. Re: So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  No, dumbass, I've actually flown big UAVs over the pacific. In your ignorance, you are unaware that the robot has to be able to handle multiple, cascading failures, and that thunderstorms often have radar shadows behind them. You are also blissfully unaware how fast thunderstorms can develop and how significantly your radar horizon is shrunk by flying a few meters above the ground in a WiG vehicle.
15. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  The crossbreed of a human and a 747 is the Xf-85 Goblin. Sadly, they are a sterile crossbreed.
16. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by monkeyxpress · 2017-04-02 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  I also expect them to go turboprop on any actual design for efficiency. I'm not so sure about the landing at sea thing though. It's not a trivial thing to land 12 miles off shore. Most seaplanes of the era when these were popular had to land on inner harbours, or close to the lee of land masses, because a 2 ft wave when you are at landing speeds is not something easily dealt with by a lightweight airframe.
  I'm sure they must have a wider strategy though, because it would seem rather pointless to try to start an airframe company from scratch to do this. It would be much easier to put their efforts into the autopilot/landing/safety/remote control software, and just go talk to Embraer or ATR about buying a ready-to-go airframe with the cockpit and life support systems stripped out.
17. Re: So it's dumb cause regulation? by MightyYar · 2017-04-02 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like they are proposing a robot that is not up to the standards you have set. Half of this proposal involves ways to get around safety regulations. If you've flown big UAVs, you must be talking military, and yeah, these aren't going to meet your standards. Like I said, if they can't figure out the weather, then this thing is dead on arrival - presumably they've spent more time thinking about it than you or I.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
18. Re:So it's dumb cause regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-03 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Ground effect vehicles have to fly very low, I believe less than 100' (closer to 10-30'). This craft appears to fly significantly higher so I doubt that they would get any ground effect efficiency increases. However flying lower and slower slower and with engines optimized for that altitude could result in a pretty decent fuel efficiency by reducing complexity and air resistance losses.
19. Re: So it's dumb cause regulation? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-04-03 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  You are also blissfully unaware how fast thunderstorms can develop and how significantly your radar horizon is shrunk by flying a few meters above the ground in a WiG vehicle.
  Isn't this a matter for a satellite link? I don't see how putting a super-powerful radar is onto thousands of vehicles (weight-sensitive ones, even) is better than global observation. After all, the "global state" of the weather is shared.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
safety first by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 10:00 · Score: 0

"without the friction and costs associated with keeping people alive on airplanes."
safety is over rated
1. Re:safety first by unrtst · 2017-04-02 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I'm not very thrilled by the prospect of a 140 foot 200,000 pound autonomous flying thing, staying below 400 foot (which is still plenty high enough to hurt when it falls from the sky, but not high enough for even a parachute to deploy (normally 600-1200 feet of free fall; reserve chutes open in about 400 ft)), which is being marketed as cheaper because it doesn't have to be safe enough for humans (read: they will fall out of the air from time to time).
  In the best case, there will be 200,000 pounds of stuff and a wreck of vehicle dumped into the ocean not far from shore.
2. Re:safety first by Obfuscant · 2017-04-03 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I'm not very thrilled by the prospect of a 140 foot 200,000 pound autonomous flying thing, staying below 400 foot
  
  There are some places where uncontrolled airspace extends up to the bottom of Class A (18,000'), but darn few of them. Mostly, uncontrolled airspace extends from surface to either 700' or 1200' AGL.
  But don't confuse the term "uncontrolled airspace" with "unmanaged" or "not within the FAA regulatory framework." As opposed to what another poster claims, aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace are not "fair game".
I don't think that's the real secret by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 10:08 · Score: 0

I think it is a custom designed ground effect vehicle. If it doesn't carry humans, and avoids FAA space, so it doesn't have to meet FAA reliability rules. Which can lower design costs. Frankly, I'd set up an 'airline' with hired Russian and Ukrainian help.
1. Re:I don't think that's the real secret by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  That seems unlikely, because the ground effect has issues with many types of ground features. You see it over runways and over water. I think you could meaningfully use it over many roads, but that would require orders of magnitude less accident potential- basically science fiction at the moment.
Air cargo only exists because of delivery time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 10:26 · Score: 1

You are not going to beat cargo ships for costs and you're not going to beat air freight for speed -- what the hell is this startup's business case?
1. Re:Air cargo only exists because of delivery time by MightyYar · 2017-04-02 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  You honestly don't think there is a market for the space between "overnight" and "two weeks"?
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:Air cargo only exists because of delivery time by Anonymice · 2017-04-02 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  You are not going to beat cargo ships for costs and you're not going to beat air freight for speed -- what the hell is this startup's business case?
  The middle ground - those cases that don't need to be delivered within a day, but do need to be delivered within 48 hours/3 weeks. As per TFS, if you only need to guarantee delivery within the next couple of days, currently your only option is to pay for full air-freight at over 4 times the cost.
3. Re:Air cargo only exists because of delivery time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Slightly longer transit time for significant cost savings versus waiting much longer for the cheapest cost... there's a huge market for such a mode of transport.
  The first thing off the top of my head is perishable food and drink. As crazy as it sounds, there are milk producers air freighting fresh milk from Australia into China today. The milk costs over $15/gal and people buy it because of quality concerns with local Chinese milk. A significant portion of that cost would be transport. Container shipping is too long for that, but taking 30 hours instead of 12 hours of flying for half the transport cost would allow the price to be cut and the market to grow.
4. Re:Air cargo only exists because of delivery time by avgjoe62 · 2017-04-03 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  They are landing this drone twelve miles off shore. Pretty sure that's to avoid pesky government regulation at the 12 mile limit but that means they have to off-load at sea, load it into boats, take it to harbor, go through customs and then ship the milk from the nearest port to the final destination. How is that going to work out for Beijing? Or Chicago? Most of delivery is about the final mile. Landing these things at sea just adds more distance and complication to that.
  
  --
  How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
5. Re:Air cargo only exists because of delivery time by zlives · 2017-04-03 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  i for one welcome our new pirate overlords.
depends upon your definition by turkeydance · 2017-04-02 10:40 · Score: 1

of uninhabited.
Fun for Muslims by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 10:52 · Score: 0

1. Reserve spot on commercial cargo drone
2. Load Mohammed-approved explosives
3. Send drone to infidels
4. Profit!
"Keeping people alive" by cirby · 2017-04-02 10:59 · Score: 1

...isn't just about not falling out of the air.
It includes all sorts of things, from seats to air conditioning. Flying at lower altitudes keeps you from needing pressurization, but there's still all of those pesky "doors" and "instruments" and the like. With 30 hour flight times, you also need things like extra crew members and toilets and such.
Leaving humans out of the equation will save tens of tons on this sort of aircraft...
1. Re:"Keeping people alive" by FlyingGuy · 2017-04-02 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, 10's of tons?! Really? What have you been smoking?
  
  --
  Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
2. Re: "Keeping people alive" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  If it's what I'm smoking, it's very good.
Re: The Donald by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 11:05 · Score: 0

Your fired!
READ: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 11:10 · Score: 0

Testing. Testing is not the same thing as implementation, and the vast majority of things tested never make it into the mainstream. Projects like self-driving cars are a rare exception in which there are very public beta tests, and they have a ton of financial support, because both tech firms and the auto industry are short-sighted, greedy morons that don't seem to understand much of anything with any great degree of depth.
The Ocean is a Rough Environment by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 12:04 · Score: 0

For this thing to be profitable, it has to be predictable. There's a reason that all extant flying boats, amphibians and wing-in-ground-effect aircraft land in protected waters. Their attempt to avoid regulation by landing 12 miles out to sea will see them some brutal water conditions.To survive any sea state requires one hell of a hull, which is why this is implausible.
1. Re:The Ocean is a Rough Environment by _merlin · 2017-04-02 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Aso, you get all the disadvantages of a boat and a plane at the same time. It has to be light enough to fly, strong enough to withstand a decent swell, waterproof, corrosion-resistant, aerodynamic, hydrodynamicâ¦ Flying boats were initially popular due to lack of suitable airstrips for larger aircraft. Now that we have airports everywhere, there's no case for it.
IORN, white AL-CIA-DA vows to by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 12:35 · Score: 0

In other related news, white AL-CIA-DA vows to shootdown every drone that doesnt by a detour tax and scenic-view tax.
More expensive flight tickets? by skaag · 2017-04-02 12:54 · Score: 1

Assuming this actually gets off the ground (pun intended), won't this affect airline pricing? Or are commercial airlines not doing freight?

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 13:04 · Score: 0

Trump's a liar and an idiot. Much like his supporters.
1. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 20:40 · Score: 0
  
  Liar! Some of them aren't liars.
Just to be clear by argStyopa · 2017-04-02 13:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Ocean freight is more typically 1/10th the price of airfreight.
Ie 40k lbs/19 metric tons from Munich to Chicago would be about $3500 by ocean, or about $34,000 by air charter.

--
-Styopa
I Was With Them by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 13:31 · Score: 0

Until they mentioned electric engines, "to reduce fuel consumption"!
Ah, so much the stupid! Electric engines will require batteries and batteries are heavy, far too heavy for any general aviation use. OK, those super long endurance electric planes with enormous wingspans and enormous arrays of solar cells, you eat the payload penalty and carry batteries. However even then, no one has yet come up with any compelling use-case or market for these planes. They are simply academic exercises in, 'can we build it and make it work'.
Cargo drones make sense to me. Electric cargo drones are nothing more than a hipster's navel-gazing dream. Get real.
1. Re:I Was With Them by backslashdot · 2017-04-02 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Their CAD model appears to have two jet engines on it.
2. Re:I Was With Them by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-03 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  There's a video on Youtube somewhere that details the concept, it's actually quite interesting. They don't for a second suggest that the aircraft will be completely electric, as you noted it is not technically feasible with current batteries. It's more like a hybrid aircraft, jets need a lot of power on takoff but not so much for landing & cruising. The jet engines are optimized for cruising at altitude and are significantly smaller because the electric engines provide the extra thrust for takeoff. There is also several systems the new power systems replace (I can't remember which) that allows for significantly higher efficiency.
Heavy problems? Why no mention of luggage? by Neuronwelder · 2017-04-02 13:34 · Score: 1

Can you make more smaller ones? Can they be monitored all the trip, to make sure they arrive safely? (Use "land pilots.").. I also find it ironic that they don't offer luggage transportation services.
...and fly over uninhabited areas below controlled by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-02 13:43 · Score: 1

somebody owns it and if you fly below controlled airspace then you're fair game. Pull!
Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-03 03:30 · Score: 0

It would be a good verification of the reliability, cost effectiveness and utility of large drone craft and would be of little risk to people as long as it is done right. It should of course have hard coded and triple redundant settings that would prevent the craft from straying over land or getting above/below a certain altitude, but that shouldn't be too difficult. If all else fails it should have a self destruct system much like rockets that is held by a third party and activated the moment the jet strays into a situation that is dangerous to people.
Very similar to USAF drone drops by WillAffleckUW · 2017-04-03 06:54 · Score: 1

There are some neat applications of sub-sonic high-speed drone swarms from US airframes, where they keep at speed, drop an entire cargo of drones to hunter killer the Russians, and then swoop in to pick them up - at speed.
Doing cargo drops and pickups sounds way easier. Plus nobody is trying to shoot the airframe down.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Ramond Scott Loan Offer. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-04 01:50 · Score: 0

RAMOND SCOTT FINANCIAL SERVICES.
Ramond Scott Financial Services is a Register / Accredited Financial Company Which Provides a high standard of financial (LOAN) services to private and corporate clients. Do you need funds as investors? Are you in financial mess? Do you need a loan? We offer loan from the range of $5,000 to $50,000,000 (USD, EUR, GBP) OR EQUIVALENT IN OTHER CURRENCIES. We offer loan at an annual basic interest rate of 3% from a duration of 1 to 35 years to clients serious and trustworthy! Clients are require to pay back our loan repayment by monthly installment after 6 months of receiving his / her loan funds. Interested borrower is advice to forward request to us via e-mail: ramondscottloanfirm@gmail.com