Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 07 Jan '16 02:53
    While people have been flying drones, soon It may be possible for people to fly in drones.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-01-chinese-drone-maker-unveils-human-carrying.html

    "Chinese drone maker unveils human-carrying drone"
    --Ryan Nakashima (6 January 2016)
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Jan '16 01:16
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    While people have been flying drones, soon It may be possible for people to fly in drones.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-01-chinese-drone-maker-unveils-human-carrying.html

    "Chinese drone maker unveils human-carrying drone"
    --Ryan Nakashima (6 January 2016)
    And you can pick one up for a mere $200,000!
  3. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    17 Jan '16 15:51
    I saw this on one of the 24 hour news channels. The thing has eight propellers at it's base spread around it. It had better have pretty good collision avoidance or it'll be taking people's heads off. Alternatively they should redesign it so the rotors are at the top like on a helicopter (and that still happens with helicopters due to flutter).
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Jan '16 16:44
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I saw this on one of the 24 hour news channels. The thing has eight propellers at it's base spread around it. It had better have pretty good collision avoidance or it'll be taking people's heads off. Alternatively they should redesign it so the rotors are at the top like on a helicopter (and that still happens with helicopters due to flutter).
    The real thing will have shrouds for sure.
  5. 20 Jan '16 21:23
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I saw this on one of the 24 hour news channels. The thing has eight propellers at it's base spread around it. It had better have pretty good collision avoidance or it'll be taking people's heads off. Alternatively they should redesign it so the rotors are at the top like on a helicopter (and that still happens with helicopters due to flutter).
    In about 400 BCE, the Chinese invented a toy helicopter.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo-copter

    The drone's designed with built-in redundancy (for safety) in its multiple rotors.
    According to the manufacturer, even if most of the rotors fail, the drone still can be landed safely.

    If a drone can carry 100 kg cargo safely, why can't it carry a person weighing 100 kg (or less) safely?
  6. 21 Jan '16 08:37
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The real thing will have shrouds for sure.
    It is 'the real thing' and no, it doesn't have shrouds.

    An easy alternative is to shut down a rotor whenever an obstacle comes to close.
  7. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    21 Jan '16 15:03
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In about 400 BCE, the Chinese invented a toy helicopter.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo-copter

    The drone's designed with built-in redundancy (for safety) in its multiple rotors.
    According to the manufacturer, even if most of the rotors fail, the drone still can be landed safely.

    If a drone can carry 100 kg cargo safely, why can't it carry a person weighing 100 kg (or less) safely?
    It's not the safety of the passenger I'm concerned about.
  8. 23 Jan '16 19:02
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    It's not the safety of the passenger I'm concerned about.
    If you (DeepThought) are concerned about the drone crashing into people, then why
    would that risk be any greater if the drone's carrying a passenger rather than cargo?
  9. 23 Jan '16 19:11
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If you (DeepThought) are concerned about the drone crashing into people, then why
    would that risk be any greater if the drone's carrying a passenger rather than cargo?
    I don't think I wan't too many cargo carrying drones around without safety precautions. Both the propellers and falling on someone are quite serious risks.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    23 Jan '16 20:20 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In about 400 BCE, the Chinese invented a toy helicopter.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo-copter

    The drone's designed with built-in redundancy (for safety) in its multiple rotors.
    According to the manufacturer, even if most of the rotors fail, the drone still can be landed safely.

    If a drone can carry 100 kg cargo safely, why can't it carry a person weighing 100 kg (or less) safely?
    317 BCE Ge Hong writes his book Baopuzi ("Master who embraces simplicity" ). Here is an excerpt talking about Chinese flying technology:

    Some have made flying cars with wood from the inner part of the jujube tree, using ox-leather (straps) fastened to returning blades so as to set the machine in motio. Others have had the idea of making five snakes, six dragons and three oxen, to meet the "hard wind" and ride on it, not stopping until they have risen to a height of forty li. That region is called [Taiqing 太清] (the purest of empty space). There the Qi is extremely hard, so much so that it can overcome (the strength of) human beings. As the Teacher says: "The kite (bird) flies higher and higher spirally, and then only needs to stretch its two wings, beating the air no more, in order to go forward by itself. This is because it starts gliding (lit. riding) on the 'hard wind'. Take dragons, for example; when they first rise they go up using the clouds as steps, and after they have attained a height of forty li then they rush forward effortlessly (lit. automatically) (gliding)." This account comes from the adepts, and is handed down to ordinary people, but they are not likely to understand it.


    China also invented magazines for ammunition at the same time. The crossbow was called Cho-ko-nu.
  11. 23 Jan '16 23:07 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't think I wan't too many cargo carrying drones around without safety precautions.
    Both the propellers and falling on someone are quite serious risks.
    The issue of air traffic management is independent of what the drones are carrying,
    unless, of course, the drones are carrying explosives for military purposes.

    When drones have been employed to strike military (or 'terrorist' ) targets, has there
    been a high incidence of the 'propellers falling off'?
  12. 24 Jan '16 06:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The issue of air traffic management is independent of what the drones are carrying,
    unless, of course, the drones are carrying explosives for military purposes.
    I agree.

    But what drones are carrying does affect flight patterns.

    When drones have been employed to strike military (or 'terrorist' ) targets, has there
    been a high incidence of the 'propellers falling off'?

    I am unaware of quad-copters or octacopters being used by the military to strike targets. The vehicles they use that are commonly called 'drones' are in fact ROVs not drones as they have human pilots and typically use airports with proper runways and have fairly strict flight control patterns.
    There has been a fairly high incidence of collateral damage from the bombs but reports of accidents where the aircraft crashed and killed someone are generally not published - the army being so secretive and all.
  13. 25 Jan '16 01:07
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If you (DeepThought) are concerned about the drone crashing into people, then why
    would that risk be any greater if the drone's carrying a passenger rather than cargo?
    I suppose the relative risk for that possible outcome would depend on the skill, health and fitness of the pilot, among other factors.
  14. 25 Jan '16 09:34
    Originally posted by NoEarthlyReason
    I suppose the relative risk for that possible outcome would depend on the skill, health and fitness of the pilot, among other factors.
    The drones in the OP are computer controlled. They do not have a pilot.
  15. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    26 Jan '16 18:48
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If you (DeepThought) are concerned about the drone crashing into people, then why
    would that risk be any greater if the drone's carrying a passenger rather than cargo?
    I didn't say it would, I was commenting on the drone that was demonstrated, not on non-existent cargo carriers. However I can think of a few reasons. No one would use a drone for carrying cargo, it's just too small to be of any real use, I doubt anyone outside the military or disaster relief communities would want a drone for freight for roughly the same reason that chinooks are not popular civilian helicopters. Besides freight tends to go to freight terminals so the flight path can be chosen to minimise risk, in the case of a random human passenger the point of departure and arrival are not known at any given time and likely to be densely populated, rather than a freight area where the approach can be chosen and everyone around has had a safety briefing.