6 ms·

I guess this means that this project is dead or not viable for some reason, and they're being nice and releasing their work. Good job Google! As an aside, it s

I guess this means that this project is dead or not viable for some reason, and they're being nice and releasing their work. Good job Google! As an aside, it should be law to release any firmware, code, and backend services code for any device that is no longer fully supported by the manufacturer. Let other people play with your dead things and reduce the barrier for new innovation on top of them.

UncleOxidant 6y ago
Google stopped funding Makani several months back. I'm not sure how applicable most of this code will be for other kite power companies. The Makani "kite" turbine was 2000 lbs. It definitely required Google-level funding to develop which is now gone. None of the remaining kite power companies that I'm aware of have the kind of significant funding required to develop this - ours ran out of money late last year.
- tobinfricke 6y ago
  > The Makani "kite" turbine was 2000 lbs. Essentially the same code could run Makani's smaller machine, the 20 kilowatt "Wing 7", with a 7.8 meter wingspan and a mass of 60 kg. Many of the existing kite power companies are working on machines of this scale. But we did have the luxury to design and build the system from the ground up, whereas scrappier startups might have to cobble together existing components. Hopefully they will be able to utilize some of the materials we've just released.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    So what's to stop me cobbling together something like the Wing 7 and just leaving it unattended in a field to launch and generate whenever the wind conditions are suitable? If I did, and I got typical government subsidies for wind power, I might earn $10k/year. That ought to pay for all the machines parts if I buy everything hobby grade from AliExpress. The 2nd year is pure profit assuming the craft lasts that long. So that leads me to suspect the key issue is the various control algorithms can't be made reliable enough to run for years and years without crashing under any combination of gusts and wind conditions. Am I along the right lines of the issues?
    - krisoft 6y ago
      The FAA (or your local alternative) might want to check your paperwork and licensing too.
      - londons_explore 6y ago
        While it stays tethered to the ground, I don't believe the FAA would be interested? Am I mistaken?
        pas 6y ago
        It depends on how high it gets, because even high buildings/structures can be problematic. (They need a blinky light of course, but maybe more importantly a radar reflector.)
        desdiv 6y ago
        A tethered unmanned aircraft is still considered an aircraft by the FAA and subject to FAA regulations: https://plane-lyspoken.foxrothschild.com/2017/12/03/tethered-v-untethered/ https://plane-lyspoken.foxrothschild.com/2017/12/03/tethered...
        tobinfricke 6y ago
        Makani engaged early with FAA and we had a great working relationship. This enabled us to move out of China Lake (where we were using the military's restricted airspace, which didn't require FAA approval) and out into the public airspace in Hawaii. We did several test flights in close collaboration with FAA observers, developing a color scheme for the tether and a lighting system for the kite and ground station that were deemed adequately conspicuous. We also held a round-table with local pilots to get their input. Ultimately we operated under a "determination of no hazard" that classified the Makani system as an obstruction, something like a large radio tower. Our COO gave a talk on the FAA approval process at the Airborne Wind Energy Conference (AWEC) a few years ago: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:ea8256a2-2c52-402e-a72f-fd60b0794c6b/datastream/OBJ/download https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:ea8256a2...
    - 6y ago
canofbars 6y ago
I think the main obstacle is these things often contain licensed code the company does not have permission to open source.
- tobinfricke 6y ago
  That's right; or the IP gets sold to someone and never sees the light of day. Think of BeOS (sold to Palm Inc) etc.

UncleOxidant 6y ago

Google stopped funding Makani several months back. I'm not sure how applicable most of this code will be for other kite power companies. The Makani "kite" turbine was 2000 lbs. It definitely required Google-level funding to develop which is now gone. None of the remaining kite power companies that I'm aware of have the kind of significant funding required to develop this - ours ran out of money late last year.

tobinfricke 6y ago
> The Makani "kite" turbine was 2000 lbs. Essentially the same code could run Makani's smaller machine, the 20 kilowatt "Wing 7", with a 7.8 meter wingspan and a mass of 60 kg. Many of the existing kite power companies are working on machines of this scale. But we did have the luxury to design and build the system from the ground up, whereas scrappier startups might have to cobble together existing components. Hopefully they will be able to utilize some of the materials we've just released.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  So what's to stop me cobbling together something like the Wing 7 and just leaving it unattended in a field to launch and generate whenever the wind conditions are suitable? If I did, and I got typical government subsidies for wind power, I might earn $10k/year. That ought to pay for all the machines parts if I buy everything hobby grade from AliExpress. The 2nd year is pure profit assuming the craft lasts that long. So that leads me to suspect the key issue is the various control algorithms can't be made reliable enough to run for years and years without crashing under any combination of gusts and wind conditions. Am I along the right lines of the issues?
  - krisoft 6y ago
    The FAA (or your local alternative) might want to check your paperwork and licensing too.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      While it stays tethered to the ground, I don't believe the FAA would be interested? Am I mistaken?
      - pas 6y ago
        It depends on how high it gets, because even high buildings/structures can be problematic. (They need a blinky light of course, but maybe more importantly a radar reflector.)
      - desdiv 6y ago
        A tethered unmanned aircraft is still considered an aircraft by the FAA and subject to FAA regulations: https://plane-lyspoken.foxrothschild.com/2017/12/03/tethered-v-untethered/ https://plane-lyspoken.foxrothschild.com/2017/12/03/tethered...
      - tobinfricke 6y ago
        Makani engaged early with FAA and we had a great working relationship. This enabled us to move out of China Lake (where we were using the military's restricted airspace, which didn't require FAA approval) and out into the public airspace in Hawaii. We did several test flights in close collaboration with FAA observers, developing a color scheme for the tether and a lighting system for the kite and ground station that were deemed adequately conspicuous. We also held a round-table with local pilots to get their input. Ultimately we operated under a "determination of no hazard" that classified the Makani system as an obstruction, something like a large radio tower. Our COO gave a talk on the FAA approval process at the Airborne Wind Energy Conference (AWEC) a few years ago: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:ea8256a2-2c52-402e-a72f-fd60b0794c6b/datastream/OBJ/download https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:ea8256a2...
  - 6y ago

canofbars 6y ago

I think the main obstacle is these things often contain licensed code the company does not have permission to open source.

tobinfricke 6y ago
That's right; or the IP gets sold to someone and never sees the light of day. Think of BeOS (sold to Palm Inc) etc.