I mean fine, pick the launch system of your choice, but regardless of whether it's SLS or commercial, the budget just doesn't currently support putting people on the moon in less than 5 years. Either we double down on SLS (somehow, magically) or develop an EOR and upper stage for a multi-launch commercial solution, but either way having human footsteps on the moon inside 5 years is going to require a hell of a lot more money than we're currently allocating.
Or I mean I guess we could turn off all the satellites and rovers and earth research and the ISS, put up with crappy dilapidated buildings and heaving roads at Langley and see if THAT'S enough to build things in a compressed timeline.
Even in constant 2014 dollars, the current NASA budget is barely a third of what it was at its height — and since Space Has Really Become A Thing since then, what with the space stations and satellites and such, NASA tasked with doing a lot more missions than in the heady days of '66.
We want to get back to the moon in 5 years when we don't have human rated launch capability? And we want to do it on a giant rocket that hasn't launched once yet? Fine, but they're gonna need to open the pocketbooks a hell of a lot more than they are now.
Well, this was a charitable comment. But there's no point in being a jerk on the internet, so:
I don't know much about tethered flight. You're right. How much of this kind of thing happens? Why are these even aircraft? How are they not regulated like kites?
Yeah, generally agreed. These changes just won't affect people flying RC or tethered aircraft who are flying within line of sight and under 400 feet. You might have to go sit for an exam and write a registration number on your aircraft, but it's not a tough exam and you can use small letters.
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
You're either very confused or straight out lying.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm still on point.
I fly a RC aircraft at a small RC airfield in a rural area which is around 10 miles from the nearest (small) airport. I fly a homebuilt RC aircraft that cost me $400 total (including the controller) and weighs roughly 2 pounds to a maximum altitude of around 300 ft. I only get to fly 10 times a year due to time constraints, and in fact, I didn't fly at all last year.
So nothing about these regulations would be especially onerous? You're flying in line of sight, you're flying under 400 feet, you're not flying in controlled airspace or at night...
Now we have the FAA pushing to RC planes like manned aircraft. Keep in mind a pilot's license currently costs $4-10k plus lots of training--to fly a toy in mostly unnavigable airspace.
Yes, we have a problem. There are drones operated near and in class B airspace, and they have caused issues and encounters with aircraft. Something must be done. But treating toy RC aircraft like planes is insane. Calling those laws "no burden" is wrong.
Yes, this is oppression. I should be able to play with toys without tons of training and paperwork in my own backyard. Except for near airports, the safety argument is crap. Last year in the US, 818 people died riding bikes. 110 died from lawnmowers. 51 died from lightning. How many people have died in the history of recreational RC aircraft? 3?
It's not tons of training and paperwork. The commercial exam is the aeronautical equivalent of the Technician ham radio license. You can do free practice tests online, and expect to pass the actual exam. I can't imagine a hobbyist license would be any more difficult.
Repealing 336 (as I'm reading it) would put everyone under the same restrictions as commercial sUAS operators. Now, the exam fee is kind of steep — it oughta be $15 for noncommercial, not $150 — but the rest of the operational flight requirements would affect basically nobody in this thread.
And yeah, if you're gonna fly, you oughta know the rules of the road. For a ham radio analogy: 2 meter handhelds, improperly used, probably won't kill anyone or disrupt much — but you still gotta get a license and know what you're doing.
100% correct. There are many differences in hobby aircraft flyers. I fly mine not much higher than my house and over a field. While other people fly them way higher and over other people and houses. But the regulations often treat both as the same. I can throw a baseball as high as the max I fly and it is never above other people. There is no risk of an aircraft collision -- none at all. Why should we have lots of regulation on that?
But yes there are people who will fly them really high and crazy far distances. But treating the two the same would be like treating a house like a skyscraper. They are very different things.
'Cause you're able to. And sure, maybe you're not gonna, but there's plenty of people who could take that same drone in that same park and go off and do grander things with it. To make a scruffy analogy: You still have to know what a stoplight is to get a driver's license, even if your town doesn't have any.
But here's the thing: None of these regulations would affect the way you fly! Less than 400 ft altitude? Check. Not flying at night, or over crowds? Check. Not out of sight? Check. Maximum speed/weight? No problem. Sure, you gotta have a registration number, but drones have flyaways sometimes, it's not unreasonable to think a driver/homeowner/the cops might need to figure out whose runaway drone just hit someone's tree/house/car. Honestly, I rarely run into the boundaries that govern commercial flight.
But jackwagon who's got a drone out 2 miles with FPV goggles and no spotter? Folks flying next to airports? Those guys need to be reined in.
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
No, you _can't_ fly your drone out of sight without a spotter or a waiver. You never know when a helicopter's gonna be around, or when you'll bump into something you can't see. No, you can't fly over 400 feet without a waiver — low flying air traffic can't see a 3 ft wide drone until it's too late, and if they're coming up in your (massive) blind spot, you won't see them either. Flying at low altitudes over large crowds of people can be unsafe if you have some sort of malfunction.
Look, it's all fun and games when you're flying a drone around inside. But if you're in a busy airport's Class C airspace, you don't need to be screwing around where your drone can get sucked into a jet intake or smack into a helicopter. You need to know the rules of the road. You need to know where and when it's safe to fly.
It's not even that hard to get a commercial license. Study, take a few practice tests online, go down to an FAA testing center and sit for the exam. There's a fee, which should arguably be lower, but for Pete's sake, these are exceptionally reasonable requirements.
Sometimes. Or, to abuse an old phrase: "It's not the hack that has your name on it you have to worry about...it's all those other ones marked 'To whom it may concern."
Y'know, seriously though. I can make it from Pensacola to Fort Walton Beach (35 miles) on 60 watts with an ITSY BITSY TINY LITTLE BITTY 5/8ths wave mag-mount. At 144 MHz.
Explain to me why the local FM station needs 50 KILOWATTS at 99 MHz to make it clearly across the same distance? Hmmm?
Oh, yeah, I know, I know, being able to listen to the radio inside buildings. WhatEVER.
THE VC?!?!?!
(Score:1)
by rel4x (783238) Alter Relationship on Thursday September 29, @05:27PM (#13680404)
WHY bring the Viet Cong into this? WHAT GOOD WILL COME OF IT?!...oh yeah...dupe...and yet...I don't mind...there's no news like good news...twice....
Slashdot Mirror
I mean fine, pick the launch system of your choice, but regardless of whether it's SLS or commercial, the budget just doesn't currently support putting people on the moon in less than 5 years. Either we double down on SLS (somehow, magically) or develop an EOR and upper stage for a multi-launch commercial solution, but either way having human footsteps on the moon inside 5 years is going to require a hell of a lot more money than we're currently allocating.
Or I mean I guess we could turn off all the satellites and rovers and earth research and the ISS, put up with crappy dilapidated buildings and heaving roads at Langley and see if THAT'S enough to build things in a compressed timeline.
Even in constant 2014 dollars, the current NASA budget is barely a third of what it was at its height — and since Space Has Really Become A Thing since then, what with the space stations and satellites and such, NASA tasked with doing a lot more missions than in the heady days of '66.
We want to get back to the moon in 5 years when we don't have human rated launch capability? And we want to do it on a giant rocket that hasn't launched once yet? Fine, but they're gonna need to open the pocketbooks a hell of a lot more than they are now.
No, what they sacrifice is _money._ And the current presidential budget proposal does not match Pence's words.
I think the way a lot of FPV racing folks get around that is by flying in large warehouses. Inside == not an FAA problem.
But yeah, sort of like flying a drone through a blow-up paintball course or something. That could be fun.
Well, this was a charitable comment. But there's no point in being a jerk on the internet, so:
I don't know much about tethered flight. You're right. How much of this kind of thing happens? Why are these even aircraft? How are they not regulated like kites?
Yeah, generally agreed. These changes just won't affect people flying RC or tethered aircraft who are flying within line of sight and under 400 feet. You might have to go sit for an exam and write a registration number on your aircraft, but it's not a tough exam and you can use small letters.
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
You're either very confused or straight out lying.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm still on point.
I fly a RC aircraft at a small RC airfield in a rural area which is around 10 miles from the nearest (small) airport. I fly a homebuilt RC aircraft that cost me $400 total (including the controller) and weighs roughly 2 pounds to a maximum altitude of around 300 ft. I only get to fly 10 times a year due to time constraints, and in fact, I didn't fly at all last year.
So nothing about these regulations would be especially onerous? You're flying in line of sight, you're flying under 400 feet, you're not flying in controlled airspace or at night...
Now we have the FAA pushing to RC planes like manned aircraft. Keep in mind a pilot's license currently costs $4-10k plus lots of training--to fly a toy in mostly unnavigable airspace.
Yes, we have a problem. There are drones operated near and in class B airspace, and they have caused issues and encounters with aircraft. Something must be done. But treating toy RC aircraft like planes is insane. Calling those laws "no burden" is wrong.
Yes, this is oppression. I should be able to play with toys without tons of training and paperwork in my own backyard. Except for near airports, the safety argument is crap. Last year in the US, 818 people died riding bikes. 110 died from lawnmowers. 51 died from lightning. How many people have died in the history of recreational RC aircraft? 3?
It's not tons of training and paperwork. The commercial exam is the aeronautical equivalent of the Technician ham radio license. You can do free practice tests online, and expect to pass the actual exam. I can't imagine a hobbyist license would be any more difficult.
Repealing 336 (as I'm reading it) would put everyone under the same restrictions as commercial sUAS operators. Now, the exam fee is kind of steep — it oughta be $15 for noncommercial, not $150 — but the rest of the operational flight requirements would affect basically nobody in this thread.
And yeah, if you're gonna fly, you oughta know the rules of the road. For a ham radio analogy: 2 meter handhelds, improperly used, probably won't kill anyone or disrupt much — but you still gotta get a license and know what you're doing.
I'm using Verifly for insurance — they happily cover commercial operations. It's a few bucks per flight.
I fly an Inspire One, pretty comparable to the 3DR Solo.
Fabulous! These regs generally won't affect you!
100% correct. There are many differences in hobby aircraft flyers. I fly mine not much higher than my house and over a field. While other people fly them way higher and over other people and houses. But the regulations often treat both as the same. I can throw a baseball as high as the max I fly and it is never above other people. There is no risk of an aircraft collision -- none at all. Why should we have lots of regulation on that?
But yes there are people who will fly them really high and crazy far distances. But treating the two the same would be like treating a house like a skyscraper. They are very different things.
'Cause you're able to. And sure, maybe you're not gonna, but there's plenty of people who could take that same drone in that same park and go off and do grander things with it. To make a scruffy analogy: You still have to know what a stoplight is to get a driver's license, even if your town doesn't have any.
But here's the thing: None of these regulations would affect the way you fly! Less than 400 ft altitude? Check. Not flying at night, or over crowds? Check. Not out of sight? Check. Maximum speed/weight? No problem. Sure, you gotta have a registration number, but drones have flyaways sometimes, it's not unreasonable to think a driver/homeowner/the cops might need to figure out whose runaway drone just hit someone's tree/house/car. Honestly, I rarely run into the boundaries that govern commercial flight.
But jackwagon who's got a drone out 2 miles with FPV goggles and no spotter? Folks flying next to airports? Those guys need to be reined in.
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
No, you _can't_ fly your drone out of sight without a spotter or a waiver. You never know when a helicopter's gonna be around, or when you'll bump into something you can't see. No, you can't fly over 400 feet without a waiver — low flying air traffic can't see a 3 ft wide drone until it's too late, and if they're coming up in your (massive) blind spot, you won't see them either. Flying at low altitudes over large crowds of people can be unsafe if you have some sort of malfunction.
Look, it's all fun and games when you're flying a drone around inside. But if you're in a busy airport's Class C airspace, you don't need to be screwing around where your drone can get sucked into a jet intake or smack into a helicopter. You need to know the rules of the road. You need to know where and when it's safe to fly.
It's not even that hard to get a commercial license. Study, take a few practice tests online, go down to an FAA testing center and sit for the exam. There's a fee, which should arguably be lower, but for Pete's sake, these are exceptionally reasonable requirements.
It's not oppression. It's just safety.
Sometimes. Or, to abuse an old phrase: "It's not the hack that has your name on it you have to worry about...it's all those other ones marked 'To whom it may concern."
Sure thing. It's only been... ...good lord, it's been 11 years? Well then.
Thanks a bunch. I just logged in for the first time in forever.
..the sad part is, I can't tell whether you're joking or not. It doesn't look like it; thus...
BRILLIANT!
INFORMATIVE?! Seriously, now. What is this, kevinmitnick.com?
When you were a kid, I bet you stood outside Episode V and told everyone who Luke's father was.
Journey > Destination.
No, and no, and Yes. (in that order)
Re: Wyoming, USA.
-bow- My only quibble with your comment is that you made it before I did.
HAIL KEEN!
A kilowatt at 2 meters. Brr.
Y'know, seriously though. I can make it from Pensacola to Fort Walton Beach (35 miles) on 60 watts with an ITSY BITSY TINY LITTLE BITTY 5/8ths wave mag-mount. At 144 MHz.
Explain to me why the local FM station needs 50 KILOWATTS at 99 MHz to make it clearly across the same distance? Hmmm?
Oh, yeah, I know, I know, being able to listen to the radio inside buildings. WhatEVER.
-grumble-
...we can just block all e-mail coming off of Nigerian, Russian, and Chinese servers, and VOILA!! 90% of our spam problem is gone.
You want your half of the Internet, Rest-of-the-World? Well, you can friggin' have it.
...don't forget! It's frequency AND power, not just frequency.
See, I spend much of my driving time around 60W radios, but it's on 146 MHz. So I don't sweat it. Now, if it was 60W at 2.4 GHz...
-shudder-
Obviously, you slept through Econ I. The government DOES have a bottomless pit of money.
bleah, don't get me started.
Uh, dupe.