3 ms·
No-fly zones tend to be sensitive areas. In fact, the only way they could get away with something like this would be to put them in out of the way unrestricted
by leoedin 15y ago
No-fly zones tend to be sensitive areas. In fact, the only way they could get away with something like this would be to put them in out of the way unrestricted airspace. If you're in an area where visual flight rules (VFR) apply, then you're far less likely to have trouble with aviation authorities. Try and fly something in a no-fly zone, restricted airspace or controlled airspace and you're instantly breaking all sorts of laws.
In practice, in the UK, anything under 7 kg flown under 400 ft and within 500 m of the operator is legal without any certification or permission from anyone. It's possible that if you chose to fly your servers over no territory (international waters), and stayed out of accepted airways, then you'd have a little more leeway.
- discodave 15y agoHow high does the airspace restriction go? 10km? 100km?
- tibbon 15y agoRight, don't we have international treaties that say no one owns "space"?
- uxp 15y agoThis was more or less asked a a few days ago on Reddit[0]. The top comment explains it better than I've ever heard before, in the perspective of an American organization. But, like the article hints at, even unlicensed radio frequencies aren't free and as the LightSquared[1] issues that have recently been making news, sending radio signals from space over a designated frequency still has it's own set of problems. [0] http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/qujkt/if_a_rich_man_like_bill_gates_decided_to_finance/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/qujkt/if_a_rich_m... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared#Interference_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared#Interference_issue...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]