> In 2012 the agency donated two space telescopes to NASA. Despite being stored unused, the instruments are superior to the Hubble Space Telescope. One journalist observed, "If telescopes of this caliber are languishing on shelves, imagine what they're actually using."
After watching Mark Rober's video on Zipline[^1] it'll be really cool to see how their technology works in the US. Hopefully the FAA can approve their operations.
Thanks for the shout-out. I've been at Zipline for 7 years and have been working on the new platform for a while. Mark Rober did an amazing job showing off what we've been up to. I agree it will be really cool to see it in operation alongside our longer range vehicle.
That video inspired me to get off my ass and start looking for companies to work for who have a mission I'm in love with. It's tough because my specialization (infosec) is mostly valued in industries I don't give a shit about, but a reduction in income to get an increase in satisfaction that I'm supporting something I'm wholly in love with is worth it.
I was just thinking earlier today about the absolute meaninglessness of my Big Tech job — and whether it's even feasible or worthwhile to try and find something better.
I have meetings, and many of those meetings are about other meetings. In fleeting moments between calendar chimes, video calls, chat pings, and the flood of email, I code little morsels of SQL or Blub to at least do something interesting. It's tolerable, like all studies in nihilism. But you've got me wondering what it'd be like to work on something I'm genuinely enthusiastic about.
I really dislike the notion of taking a reduction in income to get that, though. I can't pay the bills with "meaning."
I've been lucky to pursue projects I'm well aligned with in terms of both technical interest and mission. Perhaps less attributable to luck, I've also always maintained a high bar for who I associate myself with, and on several occasions I've "laid it all out on the table," confronting people in organizational leadership positions when things are messed up. That's more "grit" I would say. While awkward at the time, so far it's always gone well for me. I've demanded the best, and I've always given my own best. I've gone the extra mile for the company I keep, and I've gotten back the extra mile in return. Zipline in particular has been an overwhelmingly supportive environment to have spent the the last 7 years of my life.
How are you all thinking about compensation in terms of salary vs. equity? I've never sweated over salary. Quite the opposite, I've intentionally sacrificed salary in favor of equity. I've taken calculated risks based on "expected values" I learned in school, and as expected things have turned out well. I prefer to own what I'm working on, and I appreciate the power of specialization. In exchange for meeting my high expectations, I've always trusted my current project or company leadership. Our interests are aligned, so it's easy. So far, prioritizing equity has paid off.
When I left the self driving car project for Zipline, right before it spun off as Waymo, my manager's manager asked me why I was considering leaving. On top of the exciting technical challenges, I mentioned the calculations I had done. I negotiated an offer that had the same expected value, but Zipline's upside was significantly higher. The manager thought it was crazy at the time. When I took the Zipline offer, It was a solid 25% decrease in salary. 7 years later that manager is at another company; several of my friends that stayed at Waymo are now laid off, and others that weren't have been casually looking for new opportunities. Meanwhile I've been having a blast and only have wonderful things to say.
Oh dang! I don't think that was there the last time I checked, I just took more or less this same role on an internal transfer where I'm working now. Thank you! Will definitely throw my hat into the ring for this one!
I remember watching that. It was so refreshing to see a “this will change everything” video about a company or idea that isn’t heavily hypothetical.
I expect something about drone delivery “in the future” like some of Amazon’s promos from years ago.
No, they have a working version. And it’s not just a prototype, it’s pretty heavily battled tested in the real world.
AND it’s useful today. Its operation is not subsidized by VCs burning huge amounts of cash. It’s not in use just to use it for testing. It’s doing its actual job in a way that is cheaper and better than the alternatives.
In short: it’s 100% real. And I’m excited by the chance we may see it here.
> Its operation is not subsidized by VCs burning huge amounts of cash.
I'm not sure why you think this, but Zipline is running at a loss at the moment and is dependent on VC cash. That doesn't mean it can never be profitable, but right now it is not.
I was referring more to the model of Uber and some others of just pour hundreds of millions into a hole for a decade until you’re all that’s left and then profit will magically appear.
Sure, but just to provide some context, Zipline has already raised (and spent) hundreds of millions of dollars. Also Zipline has actually been around for over a decade already (they started out as Romotive in 2011).
"The FAA is seeking public input on four requests to conduct beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) drone operations at or below 400 feet. If granted, Phoenix Air Unmanned, uAvionix, Zipline, and UPS Flight Forward will continue to expand the envelope of FAA-approved BVLOS drone operations. Data collected from these operations will inform the FAA’s ongoing policy and rulemaking activities."
Zipline: autonomous delivery
UPS Flight Forward: drone delivery
uAvionix: looks like BVLOS tech?
Phoenix Air Unmanned: "aerial data acquisition services"
Around 400' (120m) is the general legal altitude limit for consumer drone use in many countries.
A lot of this makes sense if you add some smart regulation. Drones over a certain weight class should be transmitting ADSB out if they plan to fly outside line of sight. ADSB in could be optional. If your drone is flying outside line of sight, it's most likely large enough and big enough to be able to transmit. Everyone benefits from that sort of case from pilots to drone operators. Will be interesting to see for sure.
Sure, ADS-B can help. But as of today, there are still some light and ultralight crewed aircraft flying around without ADS-B in certain classes of airspace or altitude ranges.
well, it's absolutely logical that ADSB should be installed on 300 gr drones. because everybody wants to know where they are. also another one on pilot. because he may be alone and still have something to share... I'm thinking about getting a gun, just in case..
I think a sensible approach would be to allow these larger/automated drones only in class C, or extend the adsb mandate to ultralights.
Alternatively, maybe it's time to push them to have a lighter, non certified version of ADSB for light aircraft/drones and mandate a price requirement for a mobile transponder/receiver under 1k. If apple can sell an AirTag for $20, there isn't any reason we couldn't get the prices of longer range beacons down.
For numerous technical reasons, ADS-B itself is not suitable for low-flying small UAS. Technical reasons include but are not limited to the following:
- Lack of support for the 1090 MHz ADS-B channel on any consumer handheld devices
- Cost, Size, Weight and Power (CSWaP) requirements of ADS-B transponders on CSWaP constrained UA
- Limited bandwidth of both uplink and downlink, which would likely be saturated by large numbers of UAS, endangering manned aviation
Understanding these technical shortcomings, regulators worldwide have ruled out the use of ADS-B for the small UAS for which UAS RID and DRIP are intended.
That’s dumb. ADSB is the standard for aviation now. Make it work on drones, don’t try and make some new standard. Pretty sure uAvionix had already solved this way back in 2015 when I was in the industry.
It’s interesting that a large number of the comments are formulaic in nature and state how dangerous the drones could be to the operation of hot air balloons.
As a fixed wing pilot for almost 30 years it seems to me that the real danger is with hot air balloons and their inability to safely maneuver and control their direction within the airspace and not the operation of ‘drones’ or UAV’s.
I realize that my opinion is probably not going to be popular but it’s just my opinion.
Hot air balloons are easy to see, and one of the very first forms of aviation. They’re also hard to maneuver.
Drones are incredibly difficult to see and last I checked FAA was proposing right of way and the burden of detect and avoid (and blame, if collision) on the balloonist. Basically anyone without adsb. And fixed wing pilots love to forget the entire forms of aviation exist outside part 91.
I’m a paramotor pilot and my entire flights are under 400 AGL around populated areas, and this also affects me.
I think it’s pretty fucked up for drones to have right of way over any manned flight.
I think there are ways to bring forward innovation with drones without this strange proposal that essentially shifts liability away from large corporations.
It’s the very inability of the hot air balloons to maneuver that makes them unsafe. There are countless balloon accidents where the craft are dragged along the ground, blown into power lines and other obstructions because the pilots have no real control of the flight path (other than limited control of altitude).
So, again, it’s my opinion that balloons are the real danger, not UAV’s.
No fixed wing pilot I know would ever state and claim that hot air balloons are a risk.
Claiming that “balloons are a risk, not UAVs” is almost so bizarre that I mentally flag your posts as trolling.
Giving UAVs the right of way is bogus and will cost many human lives in General Aviation. There are already countless accidents reported with UAVs nearly taking down planes. They are impossible to see.
Edit: Your comment almost sounds like out of some bad communication workbook for lobbyists from the 70s - “pedestrians are the real danger on the street, cars are safe. Jay walking needs to be punished severely” ; “Public transportation is a communist idea threatening the very ideals of our society - every person should instead buy his OWN car”. Man, Balloons are the neatest and most harmless most easy to avoid objects in the sky. Don’t try to make them look bad. Everyone loves em.
Your comment is very confusing and in fact you do seem to be replying to the person you are claiming you are not responding to even now. Maybe you can go back through the thread and verify the names on all the posts?
Parks, playgrounds, and sidewalks are a public resource for everyone with intangible benefits.
Hot air balloons or even small personal aircraft are a niche that serve a mostly wealthy subset of the population. Drone delivery and transportation will likely grow to serve all of us and kick off a multitude of further technological and business innovations. Because of this, drones should get regulatory approval and preference due to the huge potential benefits for society.
Yeah, the problem with drone deliveries is that they do not solve the main problem: last mole delivery. Whether it is a drone or driver, someone has to be there to pick up / accept the parcel. Since you cannot operate large drones in densly built areas, the number of parcels a single drone can deliver is limited. Compare that to the number of parcels a delivery truck from UPS or DHL can carry. Plus, such a truck does not have to return to base just because one parcel couldn't be delivered.
For remote areas, military resupply and such, sure, drone will works just fine. But that is hardly a trillion dollar market, regardless how hard all those pitch decks try to make it one.
The general rule is that less maneuverable/controllable aircraft have right of way over more maneuverable aircraft. So balloons > gliders > airships > airplanes. By that logic, I’d want drones to be lowest priority on the totem pole. They should have to give way to everyone.
IMO drones should yield to manned aircraft. Currently, there are defined rules about rights of way for manned aircraft. However, even a manned aircraft that has the right of way is going to do everything they can to avoid a collision, because it's their ass on the line.
Since both aircraft have a strong incentive to avoid collision, there are fairly few mid-air collisions.
Now they want to give drones the right of way with no skin in the game. They can just go from waypoint to waypoint, never looking for anything, and if they hit something, they won't die, and they won't even get sued. If they're feeling particularly callous, they could even sue the other pilot's estate for the cost of their crashed drone.
> I’m a paramotor pilot and my entire flights are under 400 AGL
I was shocked when a couple months ago I flew by a paraglider at the edge of my local D airspace, 1000' above the D and 1000' under the B shelf. You guys get crazy but it looks fun
Not sure sure you're trolling, but balloons are big, bright colors and are not even moving relative to wind (which is the relevant frame of reference). I can't think of anything less dangerous in the air.
I suspect we will see more restrictions on drones because of the threat level. Ukraine and Russia are in a war of drones. Ukraine is using up about 10,000 drones a month. Someone is attacking Moscow with drones. Unclear if it's Ukraine or some internal anti-Putin movement.
Anything beyond line of sight or over 400ft anywhere near controlled airspace probably needs to have ADSB to avoid being targeted by air or drone defenses. Even balloons. ADSB is now down to 26 grams.[1]
Still priced over $2000, but expect that to come down.
How easy is it to form and operate your own airforce with a fleet of fast fixed wing UAVs, rotorcrafts and balloons with surveillance sensors and maybe rudemtry arms (model rockets with limited guiding, small arms..)?
Are there airforce based mercenaries who charge for intelligence and others ops and provide service to field armies and other mercs?
To some degree, this idea is explored in Neal Stephenson's novel Termination Shock in a character with the nickname "The Drone Ranger" (play on "The Lone Ranger")
The problem with a lot of drone regulation enacted and proposed so far in the US is that it effectively enables drone-using companies at the cost of other airspace users.
To me it seems like the overall solutions have been pretty obvious - for drones capable of operating in IFR-only controlled airspace, the story is clear (transponder, ADS-B, follow filed flight plan and ATC instructions). For drones operating at lower altitudes in "see and avoid" VFR conditions, drones must be capable of seeing and avoiding traffic (there are some vendors in this space already). Giving commercial drone operators right of way just to make their development simpler is not the answer.
More troubling to me personally, the FAA is once again proposing rules that clearly encroach on private airspace rights. There is clear precedent from US v Causby that the government obviously does not control airspace all the way down to the ground, yet the FAA continues to propose and enact rules that would give it authority to prohibit personal use of the near airspace while providing it to commercial users. E.g. the position that the FAA can regulate your own drone flown over your own property below 400 feet, while enabling companies to do so, represents a serious encroachment on property rights.
The courts decide what constitutes a crime after both sides’ legal arguments are presented — not random people on the internet before.
Many jurisdictions allow armed defense of one’s private property against even human trespassers. Do you think corporate drones flying over your head taking videos of you in your own private back yard deserve more rights?
So the current situation globally seems to be that the US has established itself as a broadly optimistic environment for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) commercial drone deregulation since the FAA BVLOS ARC report https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committe... was released in March 2022. Many European, Israeli and other foreign drone companies are moving to the US to prove their concepts in this buoyant market. The individual approvals granted to specific operators to date seem to have allowed limited testing while maintaining controls and oversight.
Whatever it takes to get drone based delivery, let's just do that.
I don't see why it is so difficult to permit anyone to fly drones below 500m, over public roads, following the direction of traffic, below a certain weight and noise output.
That had not crossed my mind before with these delivery drones. Are they really intending to stay over public roads primarily, instead of a straight line from the launch site to the destination?
I'd prefer straight line, but from a navigation / right of access point of view just using the space above public roads is likely the easy starting point. Then we can expand to just do direct flight BUT let people ban flight over land they control (vital for airports etc, important to busy bodies who have nothing better to do).
68 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 58.4 ms ] threadFinally.
Sort of like the somewhat-mandated "shutter click" sound for digital cameras.
> In 2012 the agency donated two space telescopes to NASA. Despite being stored unused, the instruments are superior to the Hubble Space Telescope. One journalist observed, "If telescopes of this caliber are languishing on shelves, imagine what they're actually using."
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWDNBu9DkU
I was just thinking earlier today about the absolute meaninglessness of my Big Tech job — and whether it's even feasible or worthwhile to try and find something better.
I have meetings, and many of those meetings are about other meetings. In fleeting moments between calendar chimes, video calls, chat pings, and the flood of email, I code little morsels of SQL or Blub to at least do something interesting. It's tolerable, like all studies in nihilism. But you've got me wondering what it'd be like to work on something I'm genuinely enthusiastic about.
I really dislike the notion of taking a reduction in income to get that, though. I can't pay the bills with "meaning."
How are you all thinking about compensation in terms of salary vs. equity? I've never sweated over salary. Quite the opposite, I've intentionally sacrificed salary in favor of equity. I've taken calculated risks based on "expected values" I learned in school, and as expected things have turned out well. I prefer to own what I'm working on, and I appreciate the power of specialization. In exchange for meeting my high expectations, I've always trusted my current project or company leadership. Our interests are aligned, so it's easy. So far, prioritizing equity has paid off.
When I left the self driving car project for Zipline, right before it spun off as Waymo, my manager's manager asked me why I was considering leaving. On top of the exciting technical challenges, I mentioned the calculations I had done. I negotiated an offer that had the same expected value, but Zipline's upside was significantly higher. The manager thought it was crazy at the time. When I took the Zipline offer, It was a solid 25% decrease in salary. 7 years later that manager is at another company; several of my friends that stayed at Waymo are now laid off, and others that weren't have been casually looking for new opportunities. Meanwhile I've been having a blast and only have wonderful things to say.
https://legacy.flyzipline.com/job?gh_jid=5488460003
Congrats on your work at Zipline.
I expect something about drone delivery “in the future” like some of Amazon’s promos from years ago.
No, they have a working version. And it’s not just a prototype, it’s pretty heavily battled tested in the real world.
AND it’s useful today. Its operation is not subsidized by VCs burning huge amounts of cash. It’s not in use just to use it for testing. It’s doing its actual job in a way that is cheaper and better than the alternatives.
In short: it’s 100% real. And I’m excited by the chance we may see it here.
I'm not sure why you think this, but Zipline is running at a loss at the moment and is dependent on VC cash. That doesn't mean it can never be profitable, but right now it is not.
I was referring more to the model of Uber and some others of just pour hundreds of millions into a hole for a decade until you’re all that’s left and then profit will magically appear.
Anyway, cheers.
"The FAA is seeking public input on four requests to conduct beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) drone operations at or below 400 feet. If granted, Phoenix Air Unmanned, uAvionix, Zipline, and UPS Flight Forward will continue to expand the envelope of FAA-approved BVLOS drone operations. Data collected from these operations will inform the FAA’s ongoing policy and rulemaking activities."
Around 400' (120m) is the general legal altitude limit for consumer drone use in many countries.Alternatively, maybe it's time to push them to have a lighter, non certified version of ADSB for light aircraft/drones and mandate a price requirement for a mobile transponder/receiver under 1k. If apple can sell an AirTag for $20, there isn't any reason we couldn't get the prices of longer range beacons down.
The electronics aren't why the beacons are expensive, it's the regulations. Your proposal is to add more?
- Lack of support for the 1090 MHz ADS-B channel on any consumer handheld devices
- Cost, Size, Weight and Power (CSWaP) requirements of ADS-B transponders on CSWaP constrained UA
- Limited bandwidth of both uplink and downlink, which would likely be saturated by large numbers of UAS, endangering manned aviation
Understanding these technical shortcomings, regulators worldwide have ruled out the use of ADS-B for the small UAS for which UAS RID and DRIP are intended.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-arch-31.html
As a fixed wing pilot for almost 30 years it seems to me that the real danger is with hot air balloons and their inability to safely maneuver and control their direction within the airspace and not the operation of ‘drones’ or UAV’s.
I realize that my opinion is probably not going to be popular but it’s just my opinion.
Drones are incredibly difficult to see and last I checked FAA was proposing right of way and the burden of detect and avoid (and blame, if collision) on the balloonist. Basically anyone without adsb. And fixed wing pilots love to forget the entire forms of aviation exist outside part 91.
I’m a paramotor pilot and my entire flights are under 400 AGL around populated areas, and this also affects me.
I think it’s pretty fucked up for drones to have right of way over any manned flight.
I think there are ways to bring forward innovation with drones without this strange proposal that essentially shifts liability away from large corporations.
Some old info on this: https://usppa.org/faa/bvlos/
So, again, it’s my opinion that balloons are the real danger, not UAV’s.
Claiming that “balloons are a risk, not UAVs” is almost so bizarre that I mentally flag your posts as trolling.
Giving UAVs the right of way is bogus and will cost many human lives in General Aviation. There are already countless accidents reported with UAVs nearly taking down planes. They are impossible to see.
Edit: Your comment almost sounds like out of some bad communication workbook for lobbyists from the 70s - “pedestrians are the real danger on the street, cars are safe. Jay walking needs to be punished severely” ; “Public transportation is a communist idea threatening the very ideals of our society - every person should instead buy his OWN car”. Man, Balloons are the neatest and most harmless most easy to avoid objects in the sky. Don’t try to make them look bad. Everyone loves em.
Edited: “It was never…” to “I never…” Didn’t realize that @looping__lui was referring to a different comment. And, I’m not trolling e_e.
Who goes after balloons with “balloons are a risk, not UAVs”!?
In General Aviation thats like kicking puppies. And this direct quote to me very much sounded like “UAVs are not a risk”.
If I had to place my bets, I think that drone-operated aviation, delivery, etc. will become a trillion dollar market.
If that's the case, then obviously it takes precedence.
Hot air balloons or even small personal aircraft are a niche that serve a mostly wealthy subset of the population. Drone delivery and transportation will likely grow to serve all of us and kick off a multitude of further technological and business innovations. Because of this, drones should get regulatory approval and preference due to the huge potential benefits for society.
Not sure I met many “wealthy” balloon pilots, but glad you make “the trillion dollar industry of drones” a “fight for the common man”
For remote areas, military resupply and such, sure, drone will works just fine. But that is hardly a trillion dollar market, regardless how hard all those pitch decks try to make it one.
It's been years since fedex/ups/usps has done anything but quickly drop packages at my front door and get back in their truck asap
Since both aircraft have a strong incentive to avoid collision, there are fairly few mid-air collisions.
Now they want to give drones the right of way with no skin in the game. They can just go from waypoint to waypoint, never looking for anything, and if they hit something, they won't die, and they won't even get sued. If they're feeling particularly callous, they could even sue the other pilot's estate for the cost of their crashed drone.
I was shocked when a couple months ago I flew by a paraglider at the edge of my local D airspace, 1000' above the D and 1000' under the B shelf. You guys get crazy but it looks fun
Anything beyond line of sight or over 400ft anywhere near controlled airspace probably needs to have ADSB to avoid being targeted by air or drone defenses. Even balloons. ADSB is now down to 26 grams.[1]
Still priced over $2000, but expect that to come down.
[1] https://uavionix.com/products/ping2020/
Are there airforce based mercenaries who charge for intelligence and others ops and provide service to field armies and other mercs?
but if it is less restrictions on what can be done, I'm all for it.
To me it seems like the overall solutions have been pretty obvious - for drones capable of operating in IFR-only controlled airspace, the story is clear (transponder, ADS-B, follow filed flight plan and ATC instructions). For drones operating at lower altitudes in "see and avoid" VFR conditions, drones must be capable of seeing and avoiding traffic (there are some vendors in this space already). Giving commercial drone operators right of way just to make their development simpler is not the answer.
More troubling to me personally, the FAA is once again proposing rules that clearly encroach on private airspace rights. There is clear precedent from US v Causby that the government obviously does not control airspace all the way down to the ground, yet the FAA continues to propose and enact rules that would give it authority to prohibit personal use of the near airspace while providing it to commercial users. E.g. the position that the FAA can regulate your own drone flown over your own property below 400 feet, while enabling companies to do so, represents a serious encroachment on property rights.
Barring that they’ll encroach further and further.
Many jurisdictions allow armed defense of one’s private property against even human trespassers. Do you think corporate drones flying over your head taking videos of you in your own private back yard deserve more rights?
The general plan seems to be to enforce RemoteID (local broadcast of UAV ID, mission, ground station location, etc.) https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&..., UAV and proposed flight path pre-registration with the local regulator plus a "well clear" avoidance zone around other UAVs. Once this is seen to work, commercial operations at scale can begin. There is an IETF DRIP standard being proposed allowing the develop of generic avionics to effect similar methods globally. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drip-arch/ https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-arch-31.html
After trawling through 100s of "me balloon, you drone, balloon no like drone" comments, some of the 'better' articulated comments are https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0061/attachm... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0011 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0014 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0022 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0006 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0018 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0015 https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0036/attachm... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0005
I don't see why it is so difficult to permit anyone to fly drones below 500m, over public roads, following the direction of traffic, below a certain weight and noise output.