7 ms·

I think drone delivery will find it's niche. The military started testing drone delivery from ship-to-ship [1]. flyzipline has been successfully doing drone de

I think drone delivery will find it's niche. The military started testing drone delivery from ship-to-ship [1]. flyzipline has been successfully doing drone delivery in Africa for a while. [2] There's a need a huge role that could be filled. However small drones zipping around your neighborhood dropping off tacos? I don't think so. Not any day soon. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41838/drone-makes-first-autonomous-aerial-delivery-between-two-military-vessels https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41838/drone-makes-firs... [2] https://flyzipline.com https://flyzipline.com

RheingoldRiver 5y ago
flyzipline is so cool! I saw an AMA they did on reddit a while ago and their tech for the thing landing where it hooks onto the the wire is really neat! https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c?t=284 https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c?t=284
taneq 5y ago
As with everything, the buzzkill is regulatory and administrative rather than technical. We could easily make drone delivery a thing but the paperwork will kill it.
- maweki 5y ago
  Regulating safety and noise are not a buzzkill. They are essential in preventing corporations, like most regulation, from killing people. Tesla's autopilot is the best example that the hurdles are not regulatory in nature, no matter what musk is trying to tell us. As of now, these machines will kill people on the regular. Even in situations that a human could handle. And that's the bar we're setting and I'm glad we do so. Edit: I know that people are killing people on the regular in situations that a machine could handle. And introducing this stuff as safety systems (like autonomous emergency breaking) is not hindered by regulation.
  - xorfish 5y ago
    The main way you reduce traffic fatalities, is by desgining streets and roads in a way that increases safety for all users. One of the most effective ways is to get as many people to use something other than cars for transportation. You do that by making cycling, walking and public transport faster and saver.
    - maweki 5y ago
      This side of the equation is public policy though. But I agree, that this is the best mechanism we have.
      - xorfish 5y ago
        It will also become a economic necessity. Car dependence is not sustainable. Infrastructure costs need to be covered by the income they generate. That is not the case with car dependent cities. Here is an excellent playlist about how car dependence is so expensive: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6...
    - andrepd 5y ago
      Absolutely. If you want cars to go 30kph in a residential zone, you cannot make a straight, four-lane street and plonk a round sign with a red border saying "30". You need to make a narrow street with bumps and/or curves to make it physically impossible for cars to drive at unsafe speeds (and in the process make most of that space walkable/cyclable and safe for people. YT channel suggestion: "Not just bikes"
      - afandian 5y ago
        As a pedestrian I am terrified by streets with occlusions and random obstructions in the name of traffic calming. There's a road in Oxford with build-out with a tree in the middle of it. You can't see cars coming and they can't see me. Same goes for removing lines from the road. I'd rather cars knew where they stand and focus on what's important like looking out for other road users. I've always thought it was a perverse conclusion that the way to make someone operate heavy machinery more safely is to increase cognitive load of the people operating them. Why not have a the straight roads you describe, with rigid automatic enforcement and penalities that take dangerous drivers off the road? And then put in place infrastructure to make sure that not driving a car is a viable option, so that stricter enforcement has public support. I see this option as a self-reinforcing route to reducing car use.
  - netjiro 5y ago
    Regulatory compliance is, in many areas, a major cost of development. Sometimes the largest. Much of the regulation is in form, not function. Comply with box ticking and you pass, regardless of whether the product is safe in reality or not. If regulation was focused on function it would be less expensive and yield better results for society. > ... is not hindered by regulation. It is effectively stymied by added total cost.
    - maweki 5y ago
      I wonder which regulation you're referring to. Most ticked boxes I can think of are indeed of the "does not kill a certain kind of person"-kind, or of the "can be used by a certain type of person"-kind. And of course, regulation can not cover every case. And if it turns out to be a problem, we can cover the additional cases. This way (in Europe at least) we gradually require cars to be safer for passengers and the environment.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        I think GP is right that there's plenty of "form, not function" regulation - of the form, "must be no longer than X / no heavier than Y", etc. But I think GP is wrong in considering this to be a problem. Rules may be expressed in a non-functional way, but that's often just a way to embody functional rules in a heuristic that doesn't require expertise to apply. For a computing example, you may have a processing algorithm that has a tendency to explode in computational complexity on some datasets, because of complicated algorithmic reasons. Instead of explaining the exact problem to users, most of whom will not be able to understand it, you could determine that the failure mode is very unlikely to happen for smaller datasets, and just say "the input should be no larger than 10MB in size". Other reason for "form, not function" is coordination - there may be many good ways to do something, but all of them require everyone to do the same thing. So it makes sense to pick a reasonable default and tell everyone to stick to it.
        andrepd 5y ago
        You have still not given a concrete example of what you mean.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  And insurance :). Having 10-30kg high-speed flying machines, built by the lowest bidder and operated by companies that like to move fast and break things, being hurled around above densely populated areas full of squishy people and car traffic... how long do you think it will take before a first fatality? Do you want to live in constant fear of getting hit in the head by a low-flying brick? No, a thick regulatory straitjacket is the only thing that can enable drone delivery in cities. But then, there's little point to even do that, until the noise issues are resolved. -- On a related (and likely just as improbable) note, perhaps cities should start treating delivery as another municipal utility. Right now, most houses and apartments in a typical city are fitted with pipes that bring in water, gas and fresh air, and take away sewage and stale air. I can envision another utility - a "package pipe" - a conceptual blend between old-school pneumatic tubes and parcel sorters. Imagine each apartment having an outlet sized for a standardized container[0], through which packages could be sent and received. I bet it could cover upwards of 90% of delivery needs of any town - most things people send would fit, larger orders could be split into multiple containers, and bulkier things would be delivered by trucks on-demand. An installation like this would deliver all the benefits and solve all the problems of in-city drone delivery, cheaper, safer, better, and without any of the noise issues. The obvious drawback would be the costs of building it up and maintaining it. Someone would need to do a calculation, but I suspect it could be paid for the same way other utilities are (small fixed payment for access + pay per use + whatever other bullshit business shenanigans electricity providers usually engage in). Looking at the cities I've been in, most existing buildings could be retrofitted with it as an external attachment (imagine an external lift going to every apartment). The big problem I envision is routing the inter-building segments of the pipeline - it would likely have to be above ground due to size, and thus expose it to the usual problem of landowners trying to extract as much money as they can from the public to let the project go through their plot. But hey, one can dream :). (My bigger dream is that one day, we'll all have something resembling a Star Trek matter replicator, perhaps in a form of sophisticated 3D printer fed from a municipal "matter stream" supply.) -- [0] - Say, UPS 10kg - "16.5in x 13.25in x 10.75in (42cm x 34cm x 27cm); weight limit 22lbs/10kg", or UPS 25kg - "19.75in x 17.75in x 13.25in (50cm x 45cm x 34cm); weight limit 55lbs/25kg". Via https://www.ups.com/us/en/shipping/create/package-type-help.page https://www.ups.com/us/en/shipping/create/package-type-help.....
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  If you accept regular drone accidents involving buildings, people, animals, vehicles and perhaps even aircraft, sure. I know regulations are heavy but self-piloted craft can do really weird things when they think they're right. It's no wonder the difficult part was when the drones came in to land. That one washing line that's hard to spot, the overjoyed dog jumping up at what he thinks is a new toy, that grass field that was actually an overgrown pond...
gerbler 5y ago
Oh wow - Zipline is so inspiring. This video showing their setup in Rwanda is fantastic: https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c
DonHopkins 5y ago
You mean Tacocopter was a joke?!?! https://tacocopter.com/ https://tacocopter.com/
- kordlessagain 5y ago
  Beer Drone is real if we all believe it’s real.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Here in the UK drones have been used to deliver medical supplies and mail to the Isles of Scilly [1] (south west tip of Britain) and Isle of Wight [2] ('big' island on the south coast). Essentially these are operated like planes but at a fraction of the cost. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHrcORbBo04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHrcORbBo04 [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56322350 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56322350
ghaff 5y ago
Yeah, there are clearly cases where you don't have an easy way today to take a package from point A to a relatively nearby point B. But it's really hard for me to imagine what delivery problem drones solved for the average Amazon package. At first it really seemed like a PR stunt but, by every indication, Bezos was actually serious about it. Which I honestly don't get.
- fakedang 5y ago
  The problem of paying for delivery drivers and partners I reckon.
swiley 5y ago
I'm not convinced it's an improvement over ballistic delivery with some kind of elastomere faring.

RheingoldRiver 5y ago

flyzipline is so cool! I saw an AMA they did on reddit a while ago and their tech for the thing landing where it hooks onto the the wire is really neat! https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c?t=284 https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c?t=284

taneq 5y ago

As with everything, the buzzkill is regulatory and administrative rather than technical. We could easily make drone delivery a thing but the paperwork will kill it.

maweki 5y ago
Regulating safety and noise are not a buzzkill. They are essential in preventing corporations, like most regulation, from killing people. Tesla's autopilot is the best example that the hurdles are not regulatory in nature, no matter what musk is trying to tell us. As of now, these machines will kill people on the regular. Even in situations that a human could handle. And that's the bar we're setting and I'm glad we do so. Edit: I know that people are killing people on the regular in situations that a machine could handle. And introducing this stuff as safety systems (like autonomous emergency breaking) is not hindered by regulation.
- xorfish 5y ago
  The main way you reduce traffic fatalities, is by desgining streets and roads in a way that increases safety for all users. One of the most effective ways is to get as many people to use something other than cars for transportation. You do that by making cycling, walking and public transport faster and saver.
  - maweki 5y ago
    This side of the equation is public policy though. But I agree, that this is the best mechanism we have.
    - xorfish 5y ago
      It will also become a economic necessity. Car dependence is not sustainable. Infrastructure costs need to be covered by the income they generate. That is not the case with car dependent cities. Here is an excellent playlist about how car dependence is so expensive: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6...
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Absolutely. If you want cars to go 30kph in a residential zone, you cannot make a straight, four-lane street and plonk a round sign with a red border saying "30". You need to make a narrow street with bumps and/or curves to make it physically impossible for cars to drive at unsafe speeds (and in the process make most of that space walkable/cyclable and safe for people. YT channel suggestion: "Not just bikes"
    - afandian 5y ago
      As a pedestrian I am terrified by streets with occlusions and random obstructions in the name of traffic calming. There's a road in Oxford with build-out with a tree in the middle of it. You can't see cars coming and they can't see me. Same goes for removing lines from the road. I'd rather cars knew where they stand and focus on what's important like looking out for other road users. I've always thought it was a perverse conclusion that the way to make someone operate heavy machinery more safely is to increase cognitive load of the people operating them. Why not have a the straight roads you describe, with rigid automatic enforcement and penalities that take dangerous drivers off the road? And then put in place infrastructure to make sure that not driving a car is a viable option, so that stricter enforcement has public support. I see this option as a self-reinforcing route to reducing car use.
- netjiro 5y ago
  Regulatory compliance is, in many areas, a major cost of development. Sometimes the largest. Much of the regulation is in form, not function. Comply with box ticking and you pass, regardless of whether the product is safe in reality or not. If regulation was focused on function it would be less expensive and yield better results for society. > ... is not hindered by regulation. It is effectively stymied by added total cost.
  - maweki 5y ago
    I wonder which regulation you're referring to. Most ticked boxes I can think of are indeed of the "does not kill a certain kind of person"-kind, or of the "can be used by a certain type of person"-kind. And of course, regulation can not cover every case. And if it turns out to be a problem, we can cover the additional cases. This way (in Europe at least) we gradually require cars to be safer for passengers and the environment.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      I think GP is right that there's plenty of "form, not function" regulation - of the form, "must be no longer than X / no heavier than Y", etc. But I think GP is wrong in considering this to be a problem. Rules may be expressed in a non-functional way, but that's often just a way to embody functional rules in a heuristic that doesn't require expertise to apply. For a computing example, you may have a processing algorithm that has a tendency to explode in computational complexity on some datasets, because of complicated algorithmic reasons. Instead of explaining the exact problem to users, most of whom will not be able to understand it, you could determine that the failure mode is very unlikely to happen for smaller datasets, and just say "the input should be no larger than 10MB in size". Other reason for "form, not function" is coordination - there may be many good ways to do something, but all of them require everyone to do the same thing. So it makes sense to pick a reasonable default and tell everyone to stick to it.
      - andrepd 5y ago
        You have still not given a concrete example of what you mean.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
And insurance :). Having 10-30kg high-speed flying machines, built by the lowest bidder and operated by companies that like to move fast and break things, being hurled around above densely populated areas full of squishy people and car traffic... how long do you think it will take before a first fatality? Do you want to live in constant fear of getting hit in the head by a low-flying brick? No, a thick regulatory straitjacket is the only thing that can enable drone delivery in cities. But then, there's little point to even do that, until the noise issues are resolved. -- On a related (and likely just as improbable) note, perhaps cities should start treating delivery as another municipal utility. Right now, most houses and apartments in a typical city are fitted with pipes that bring in water, gas and fresh air, and take away sewage and stale air. I can envision another utility - a "package pipe" - a conceptual blend between old-school pneumatic tubes and parcel sorters. Imagine each apartment having an outlet sized for a standardized container[0], through which packages could be sent and received. I bet it could cover upwards of 90% of delivery needs of any town - most things people send would fit, larger orders could be split into multiple containers, and bulkier things would be delivered by trucks on-demand. An installation like this would deliver all the benefits and solve all the problems of in-city drone delivery, cheaper, safer, better, and without any of the noise issues. The obvious drawback would be the costs of building it up and maintaining it. Someone would need to do a calculation, but I suspect it could be paid for the same way other utilities are (small fixed payment for access + pay per use + whatever other bullshit business shenanigans electricity providers usually engage in). Looking at the cities I've been in, most existing buildings could be retrofitted with it as an external attachment (imagine an external lift going to every apartment). The big problem I envision is routing the inter-building segments of the pipeline - it would likely have to be above ground due to size, and thus expose it to the usual problem of landowners trying to extract as much money as they can from the public to let the project go through their plot. But hey, one can dream :). (My bigger dream is that one day, we'll all have something resembling a Star Trek matter replicator, perhaps in a form of sophisticated 3D printer fed from a municipal "matter stream" supply.) -- [0] - Say, UPS 10kg - "16.5in x 13.25in x 10.75in (42cm x 34cm x 27cm); weight limit 22lbs/10kg", or UPS 25kg - "19.75in x 17.75in x 13.25in (50cm x 45cm x 34cm); weight limit 55lbs/25kg". Via https://www.ups.com/us/en/shipping/create/package-type-help.page https://www.ups.com/us/en/shipping/create/package-type-help.....
GekkePrutser 5y ago
If you accept regular drone accidents involving buildings, people, animals, vehicles and perhaps even aircraft, sure. I know regulations are heavy but self-piloted craft can do really weird things when they think they're right. It's no wonder the difficult part was when the drones came in to land. That one washing line that's hard to spot, the overjoyed dog jumping up at what he thinks is a new toy, that grass field that was actually an overgrown pond...

gerbler 5y ago

Oh wow - Zipline is so inspiring. This video showing their setup in Rwanda is fantastic: https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c https://youtu.be/jEbRVNxL44c

DonHopkins 5y ago

You mean Tacocopter was a joke?!?! https://tacocopter.com/ https://tacocopter.com/

kordlessagain 5y ago
Beer Drone is real if we all believe it’s real.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Here in the UK drones have been used to deliver medical supplies and mail to the Isles of Scilly [1] (south west tip of Britain) and Isle of Wight [2] ('big' island on the south coast). Essentially these are operated like planes but at a fraction of the cost. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHrcORbBo04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHrcORbBo04 [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56322350 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56322350

ghaff 5y ago

Yeah, there are clearly cases where you don't have an easy way today to take a package from point A to a relatively nearby point B. But it's really hard for me to imagine what delivery problem drones solved for the average Amazon package. At first it really seemed like a PR stunt but, by every indication, Bezos was actually serious about it. Which I honestly don't get.

fakedang 5y ago
The problem of paying for delivery drivers and partners I reckon.

swiley 5y ago

I'm not convinced it's an improvement over ballistic delivery with some kind of elastomere faring.