4 ms·

There's no air support to contain fire because of dangerously high wind. Asking for drones now is like a dumb person's idea of cheap science fiction.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
I think they’re talking about dousing when it first lights. That isn’t “a dumb person’s idea.” But it is presently beyond our capabilities, to say nothing of the huge privacy problem it would entail.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  They're talking about both detecting and dousing. Note they mention two different kinds of drones (a few monitor drones, and then a fleet of drones to deploy and douse). The monitor drones could be practical, we've demonstrated that loitering sensor drones work well in other domains. Depending on the sensor payload (what it's looking for) and how the data is stored and used, it wouldn't really entail a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it wouldn't really entail a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire If you’re hoping to do better than sighting a smoke column, you will absolutely have to be. We’re not at a loss of detecting entire houses burning.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger Again, at that point you’re no longer adding value over the status quo. We don’t have a problem detecting large fires near population centres.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. People aren't the only (or largest hotter-than-background, and maybe not hottest-human-sized) thing on your property that a privacy-violating IR sensor drone might want to detect. > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger. If you want an early-detection sensor for fires, they'll be substantially hotter but not substantially larger than an adult human.
        nomel 2y ago
        I think the point is to detect fires as early as possible, since putting them out becomes much harder the larger they get. If you can detect a fire when it's human sized, you might be able to put it out with a local drone carrying some co2 fire bombs. It's fun/useful to think of things we can do.
- fatbird 2y ago
  It's also poor fire management practice. California has had 100 years of very aggressive fire suppression that's led to burnable areas being extra-flammable: dry brush, dead material, etc. The wildfires have been much worse the last couple decades because it's catching up to them. These extra-flammable areas burn extra hot, extra fast, and spread much, much more quickly than normal. Managing wildfire risks mean letting a certain amount burn every year, including deliberately setting fires to create firebreaks and clearing out areas overdue for it. A fleet of drones constantly finding and stopping wildfires in their early stages would do nothing but set the stage for cataclysmic fires down the road.
- esalman 2y ago
  The reason I said it is a dumb idea is because OP has no idea about the current weather conditions. If the conditions are right, such as tonight when the Santa Ana winds have died down, you don't need fancy drones because firefighters are capable of doing things like this- https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1877210056493539499 https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1877210056493539499
  - trhway 2y ago
    read my other comment to understand why the current retrofitted water-tankers can't be used in high winds while intentionally built drones would still work in much higher winds. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42643189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42643189
nomel 2y ago
> Asking for drones now He did not. It would be worth re-reading his comment. He's pointing out that we do have technology that could help with containment: quickly identify fires, communicate their location, and dispatch some local water carriers. He's also surmising that the cost of keeping these active would be less than the cost of damages, which could very well be true. Something like a Reaper drone, which he specifically mentions, works fine in the wind, as do the water carriers, that fly at hundreds of miles an hour, that have been actively helping this whole time. I think this is probably all true, but probably not the future since it would require a competent state government who embraces tech.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  Putting the cameras on flying platforms actually limits their functionality because the platforms have to be refueled/recharged and rotated out on a constant basis. Water carriers fly close to the ground and make sharp turns because they need to pick up water and make targeted drops, so they are heavily affected by the wind. The water carriers weren't able to start flying until late this morning/early this afternoon due to the winds being too strong (>75+mph gusts).
- esalman 2y ago
  Donald Trump embraced Elon Musk, we'll have to see where that takes us.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

I think they’re talking about dousing when it first lights. That isn’t “a dumb person’s idea.” But it is presently beyond our capabilities, to say nothing of the huge privacy problem it would entail.

Jtsummers 2y ago
They're talking about both detecting and dousing. Note they mention two different kinds of drones (a few monitor drones, and then a fleet of drones to deploy and douse). The monitor drones could be practical, we've demonstrated that loitering sensor drones work well in other domains. Depending on the sensor payload (what it's looking for) and how the data is stored and used, it wouldn't really entail a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it wouldn't really entail a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire If you’re hoping to do better than sighting a smoke column, you will absolutely have to be. We’re not at a loss of detecting entire houses burning.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger Again, at that point you’re no longer adding value over the status quo. We don’t have a problem detecting large fires near population centres.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. People aren't the only (or largest hotter-than-background, and maybe not hottest-human-sized) thing on your property that a privacy-violating IR sensor drone might want to detect. > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger. If you want an early-detection sensor for fires, they'll be substantially hotter but not substantially larger than an adult human.
      - nomel 2y ago
        I think the point is to detect fires as early as possible, since putting them out becomes much harder the larger they get. If you can detect a fire when it's human sized, you might be able to put it out with a local drone carrying some co2 fire bombs. It's fun/useful to think of things we can do.
fatbird 2y ago
It's also poor fire management practice. California has had 100 years of very aggressive fire suppression that's led to burnable areas being extra-flammable: dry brush, dead material, etc. The wildfires have been much worse the last couple decades because it's catching up to them. These extra-flammable areas burn extra hot, extra fast, and spread much, much more quickly than normal. Managing wildfire risks mean letting a certain amount burn every year, including deliberately setting fires to create firebreaks and clearing out areas overdue for it. A fleet of drones constantly finding and stopping wildfires in their early stages would do nothing but set the stage for cataclysmic fires down the road.
esalman 2y ago
The reason I said it is a dumb idea is because OP has no idea about the current weather conditions. If the conditions are right, such as tonight when the Santa Ana winds have died down, you don't need fancy drones because firefighters are capable of doing things like this- https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1877210056493539499 https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1877210056493539499
- trhway 2y ago
  read my other comment to understand why the current retrofitted water-tankers can't be used in high winds while intentionally built drones would still work in much higher winds. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42643189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42643189

nomel 2y ago

> Asking for drones now He did not. It would be worth re-reading his comment. He's pointing out that we do have technology that could help with containment: quickly identify fires, communicate their location, and dispatch some local water carriers. He's also surmising that the cost of keeping these active would be less than the cost of damages, which could very well be true. Something like a Reaper drone, which he specifically mentions, works fine in the wind, as do the water carriers, that fly at hundreds of miles an hour, that have been actively helping this whole time. I think this is probably all true, but probably not the future since it would require a competent state government who embraces tech.

gamblor956 2y ago
Putting the cameras on flying platforms actually limits their functionality because the platforms have to be refueled/recharged and rotated out on a constant basis. Water carriers fly close to the ground and make sharp turns because they need to pick up water and make targeted drops, so they are heavily affected by the wind. The water carriers weren't able to start flying until late this morning/early this afternoon due to the winds being too strong (>75+mph gusts).
esalman 2y ago
Donald Trump embraced Elon Musk, we'll have to see where that takes us.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]