3 ms·

I have some experience with building large (2-3 foot rotors) quadrocopters. They are _heavy_. With batteries and motors and no payload, our copter weighed ~10-3

I have some experience with building large (2-3 foot rotors) quadrocopters. They are _heavy_. With batteries and motors and no payload, our copter weighed ~10-30 pounds depending on the battery loadout. I wouldn't want a 10 pound object falling at whatever the copter's terminal velocity is, smacking me on the head.

baddox 12y ago
Luckily, in general the larger a quadcopter is, the more expensive it is, and thus the less likely it is to be used by an irresponsible person. This obviously isn't a perfect solution; there could be some rich person willing to spend big bucks on a quadcopter while having no clue what he or she is doing, or in the future there could be a $500 off-the-shelf quadcopter with 2 foot rotors (unlikely for quite a while, but possible). So these things self-regulate to a certain extent. That's why you hear of far fewer problems with 700 sized RC helicopters than with DJI Phantoms, despite the former being far more dangerous.
- nathannecro 12y ago
  The issue I think is the cost to build redundant systems. We found that many times, external factors like weather and malfunctions were responsible for the vast majority of our critical failures. If for example, some cloud cover shifts and we lose connection with our copter for just a few seconds, a lot can happen. Even though we built redundancies into our software (if no connection, hold position), those few seconds of lost control could cause some catastrophic problems. I think this is really the biggest issue surrounding drone flight; it's not the question of "Can we build autonomous drones?", and more of "Can we constantly guarantee control over our drones?"
- x0054 12y ago
  DJI Phantoms and the more common clones by Walkera and other manufacturers are well known for going on "journeys of self discovery." When connection with remote drops, they are supposed to come back home, but some just tend to fly away, never to be seen again. One of those dropping on your head from 200 feet in the air will kill you!
  - baddox 12y ago
    I have never seen evidence that fly-aways area used by anything other than basic misuse, namely, not verifying that there is a GPS signal before flying. Granted, I think software changes could mitigate this, and I think I remember hearing that DJI released an update along these lines). Still, misuse of plenty of things can have a probability of killing someone. Automobiles are the most obvious example. Bicycles are a great example, since they can be had for similar prices and similar restrictions (i.e. basically none) as quadcopters. Even a baseball propelled from a bat can kill someone at least as easily (and I would argue much more easily) as a DJI Phantom.
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
Then you should love this: The university in my town is allowing students to check drones out of the library. http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/06/20/students-tampa-campus-allowed-to-use-drones-projects-usf/11124865/ http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/06/20/students-tam... Luckily, there are considerable safety measures so far.

baddox 12y ago

Luckily, in general the larger a quadcopter is, the more expensive it is, and thus the less likely it is to be used by an irresponsible person. This obviously isn't a perfect solution; there could be some rich person willing to spend big bucks on a quadcopter while having no clue what he or she is doing, or in the future there could be a $500 off-the-shelf quadcopter with 2 foot rotors (unlikely for quite a while, but possible). So these things self-regulate to a certain extent. That's why you hear of far fewer problems with 700 sized RC helicopters than with DJI Phantoms, despite the former being far more dangerous.

nathannecro 12y ago
The issue I think is the cost to build redundant systems. We found that many times, external factors like weather and malfunctions were responsible for the vast majority of our critical failures. If for example, some cloud cover shifts and we lose connection with our copter for just a few seconds, a lot can happen. Even though we built redundancies into our software (if no connection, hold position), those few seconds of lost control could cause some catastrophic problems. I think this is really the biggest issue surrounding drone flight; it's not the question of "Can we build autonomous drones?", and more of "Can we constantly guarantee control over our drones?"
x0054 12y ago
DJI Phantoms and the more common clones by Walkera and other manufacturers are well known for going on "journeys of self discovery." When connection with remote drops, they are supposed to come back home, but some just tend to fly away, never to be seen again. One of those dropping on your head from 200 feet in the air will kill you!
- baddox 12y ago
  I have never seen evidence that fly-aways area used by anything other than basic misuse, namely, not verifying that there is a GPS signal before flying. Granted, I think software changes could mitigate this, and I think I remember hearing that DJI released an update along these lines). Still, misuse of plenty of things can have a probability of killing someone. Automobiles are the most obvious example. Bicycles are a great example, since they can be had for similar prices and similar restrictions (i.e. basically none) as quadcopters. Even a baseball propelled from a bat can kill someone at least as easily (and I would argue much more easily) as a DJI Phantom.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

Then you should love this: The university in my town is allowing students to check drones out of the library. http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/06/20/students-tampa-campus-allowed-to-use-drones-projects-usf/11124865/ http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/06/20/students-tam... Luckily, there are considerable safety measures so far.