7 ms·

The real issue is scale--it costs a lot of money to put a helicopter in the air, and that's a good thing because it ensures restraint in use. Maybe Americans w

The real issue is scale--it costs a lot of money to put a helicopter in the air, and that's a good thing because it ensures restraint in use. Maybe Americans won't notice that aspect and assent to this sort of thing because it's "just like what's already going on". But if so, they'll be missing that due to the economics, it'll be a totally different ball game.

jm4 13y ago
I would imagine the helicopter costs less than the drone.
temp453463343 13y ago
That's not a great rational to not use drones. You're throwing away tons of money maintaining helicopters that you don't need most of the time because it's too hard to regulate the use of drones? That's like forcing police officers to only use 18th century muskets so they don't shoot too much
- scarecrowbob 13y ago
  Well, in the US tasers proliferated, and so has taser use.... the weapon's "cost of use" is much smaller than a firearm so it gets used much more casually as a compliance tool rather than as a last ditch tool to keep officers safe.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    well, it is far safer and easier to taser someone rather than tackle, club, or otherwise physically subdue them.
    - daraul 13y ago
      Safer for the officer, definitely. Curiously though, not for the person being tased.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        I take it you've never received a knife stick blow to the head?
        ryanac 13y ago
        This is like saying "I take it you've never been shot", like knife stick or gun is the only other option. xD Do you really think they would have subdued the (already held down by 5 officers) kid asking John Kerry uncomfortable questions with a knife stick if they didn't have tasers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE Pretty sure they would have just handcuffed him and walked him out of the auditorium, untazed and concussion free.
    - darkarmani 13y ago
      I'd love to see some numbers, but my hunch is that they taser a lot more people now than they would have physically subdued, just because it is lower risk to the officer. Before they might try to handcuff the perp first, but now if there is any indication at all in their opinion, they can just taser.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > That's like forcing police officers to only use 18th century muskets so they don't shoot too much I think you could actually sell me on that.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
True, automating surveillance has always been about efficiency in terms of $ spent on enforcement vs value at risk. While LA keeps at least 2 and maybe 3 helicopters pretty much in the air all the time, they can't actually be everywhere all the time. But a couple of dozen drones could in fact provide continuous surveillance of parts of the city (as could ARGUS [1]). I know that at least one police force made the argument that the city could approve either the drone or more officers. I'll have to go track down some of the debates to see if anyone has made your point about scale on the record. [1] A contact suggested that the ARGUS demos were done at an altitude to not appear creepy since if you fly that thing at 10,000' its picking out daisies in your hard that are missing petals.
stonemetal 13y ago
For now drones cost more than helicopters. On NPR the other day they mentioned the drones used for border security are 18 million each. Maybe that will change with time, and maybe it won't. The only reason to use a drone vs a helicopter over American soil at the moment is the stealth factor of a much smaller bird in the air.
- discostrings 13y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. The current cost of high-end surveillance drones is higher than helicopters, yes. I do wonder if that $18 million is only for the drone, or for its associated infrastructure on the ground as well, though. My point was more theoretical than based on current costs. To me, it seems prices will almost certainly drop fairly quickly. There are many fewer constraints in building a vehicle that doesn't have to hold a human. As the technology is produced in greater numbers, and as the technology is refined, I imagine the cost will plummet. And as the process becomes more automated, it will require less personnel as well. I imagine there will also be "light drones" that cost much less, if there aren't already. If there's a counterargument for the price dropping, I'd love to engage with it, but I'm having trouble coming up with it myself. I'd love to see some real numbers. My suspicion is that the amount of surveillance per dollar spent already heavily favors the drone and will only get better, but I could be wrong. In a situation in support of an ongoing event, I imagine the helicopter is currently a lot more useful.
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    Good quality optics aren't getting any smaller as far as I can tell. So a good surveillance drone is always going to have to be a certain size to carry that payload. I can see them getting cheaper than helicopters but not cheap.
    - psb217 13y ago
      Smaller drones with worse optics should be cheaply producible. With large numbers of such drones, lower altitude surveillance with greater redundancy of coverage would become affordable. The computational costs associated with patching together the key-hole views provided by a swarm of fungible drones could be offloaded to ground-based computational resources. In my opinion, the result will be a net shift towards favoring many small cheap drones coupled with fancy off-board image processing. Though, one or two large expensive drones capturing monolithic images with great onboard optics should remain the better option for some situations.

jm4 13y ago

I would imagine the helicopter costs less than the drone.

temp453463343 13y ago

That's not a great rational to not use drones. You're throwing away tons of money maintaining helicopters that you don't need most of the time because it's too hard to regulate the use of drones? That's like forcing police officers to only use 18th century muskets so they don't shoot too much

scarecrowbob 13y ago
Well, in the US tasers proliferated, and so has taser use.... the weapon's "cost of use" is much smaller than a firearm so it gets used much more casually as a compliance tool rather than as a last ditch tool to keep officers safe.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  well, it is far safer and easier to taser someone rather than tackle, club, or otherwise physically subdue them.
  - daraul 13y ago
    Safer for the officer, definitely. Curiously though, not for the person being tased.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I take it you've never received a knife stick blow to the head?
      - ryanac 13y ago
        This is like saying "I take it you've never been shot", like knife stick or gun is the only other option. xD Do you really think they would have subdued the (already held down by 5 officers) kid asking John Kerry uncomfortable questions with a knife stick if they didn't have tasers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE Pretty sure they would have just handcuffed him and walked him out of the auditorium, untazed and concussion free.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    I'd love to see some numbers, but my hunch is that they taser a lot more people now than they would have physically subdued, just because it is lower risk to the officer. Before they might try to handcuff the perp first, but now if there is any indication at all in their opinion, they can just taser.
jlgreco 13y ago
> That's like forcing police officers to only use 18th century muskets so they don't shoot too much I think you could actually sell me on that.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

True, automating surveillance has always been about efficiency in terms of $ spent on enforcement vs value at risk. While LA keeps at least 2 and maybe 3 helicopters pretty much in the air all the time, they can't actually be everywhere all the time. But a couple of dozen drones could in fact provide continuous surveillance of parts of the city (as could ARGUS [1]). I know that at least one police force made the argument that the city could approve either the drone or more officers. I'll have to go track down some of the debates to see if anyone has made your point about scale on the record. [1] A contact suggested that the ARGUS demos were done at an altitude to not appear creepy since if you fly that thing at 10,000' its picking out daisies in your hard that are missing petals.

stonemetal 13y ago

For now drones cost more than helicopters. On NPR the other day they mentioned the drones used for border security are 18 million each. Maybe that will change with time, and maybe it won't. The only reason to use a drone vs a helicopter over American soil at the moment is the stealth factor of a much smaller bird in the air.

discostrings 13y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. The current cost of high-end surveillance drones is higher than helicopters, yes. I do wonder if that $18 million is only for the drone, or for its associated infrastructure on the ground as well, though. My point was more theoretical than based on current costs. To me, it seems prices will almost certainly drop fairly quickly. There are many fewer constraints in building a vehicle that doesn't have to hold a human. As the technology is produced in greater numbers, and as the technology is refined, I imagine the cost will plummet. And as the process becomes more automated, it will require less personnel as well. I imagine there will also be "light drones" that cost much less, if there aren't already. If there's a counterargument for the price dropping, I'd love to engage with it, but I'm having trouble coming up with it myself. I'd love to see some real numbers. My suspicion is that the amount of surveillance per dollar spent already heavily favors the drone and will only get better, but I could be wrong. In a situation in support of an ongoing event, I imagine the helicopter is currently a lot more useful.
- stonemetal 13y ago
  Good quality optics aren't getting any smaller as far as I can tell. So a good surveillance drone is always going to have to be a certain size to carry that payload. I can see them getting cheaper than helicopters but not cheap.
  - psb217 13y ago
    Smaller drones with worse optics should be cheaply producible. With large numbers of such drones, lower altitude surveillance with greater redundancy of coverage would become affordable. The computational costs associated with patching together the key-hole views provided by a swarm of fungible drones could be offloaded to ground-based computational resources. In my opinion, the result will be a net shift towards favoring many small cheap drones coupled with fancy off-board image processing. Though, one or two large expensive drones capturing monolithic images with great onboard optics should remain the better option for some situations.