1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




UAVs as part of Seasteading Infrastructure

Home Forums Archive Infrastructure UAVs as part of Seasteading Infrastructure

This topic contains 29 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of libertariandoc libertariandoc 5 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #797
    Profile photo of vincecate
    vincecate
    Participant

    I think UAVs will make life easier on single family seasteads where you might be far from a pharmacy or need to get a replacement part in a hurry. I don’t think we need them to start (so not on critical path) but I think in the long run we will have them. I started a page on this.

    http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/UAVs

    #4760
    Profile photo of SPyle
    SPyle
    Participant

    A little far fetched you think?

    Even in the long run.

    #4764
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    I’ve had a thing for wing-in-ground-effect vehicles for open water transport, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle . Advantages are very high efficiency, L/D ratios. Disadvantages are need to spot and avoid abnormal waves, avoid other traffic on water. Some can briefly fly out of ground effect to hop over obstacles and large waves. Ground effect ceiling is typically 1/20th of wingspan.

    #4765
    Profile photo of vincecate
    vincecate
    Participant

    admiral wrote:

    Ground effect ceiling is typically 1/20th of wingspan.

    UAVs are small enough that 1/20th of wingspan is not going to let them clear normal 8 foot waves.

    #4769
    Profile photo of Thorizan
    Thorizan
    Participant

    I think the admiral was referencing something he was researching, apart from vince’s comments on UAVs. A GEV would be an interesting way to get tourists to a seastead parked 200 miles off shore. The trip can be made in under an hour. It’s a ship, not a plane, so no TSA to get all up in our stuff, and, well, it’s pretty cool.

    Small cargo and other parcels can probably be handled better by UAV, but larger items will need to be transferred on a vehicle similar in nature to that of a GEV. Transportation costs less expensive than a plane, but transportation times are similar. If the Pelican, or something like it, were to ever be made, it would be consistantly above 15-18 foot waves, making ocean travel a possibility, I think. But it would be huge, and not something a fledgling seastead would be able to afford.

    #4772
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    I think UAVs are perfectly feasible for shipping lighter and smaller things.

    Ground effect vehicles… While probably efficient in theory, I´m somewhat sceptical. Once you start traveling at high speeds you are better off as far away from the water as possible. This is done by lengthening the wings a bit. And then you are an airplane. And this is probably why GEVs have never taken off commercially. But, I could be wrong of course…

    For heavier cargo I would rather try an Unmanned Aquatic Vehicle (ie some sort of self-navigating boat or submarine).

    The feasibility of all these things are of course subject to the whims of any governments who decides to interfere.

    #4774
    Profile photo of SPyle
    SPyle
    Participant

    You need to reflect the fact that these are not just aircraft, but systems, including ground stations and other elements.

    With bulky, heavy, expensive and also unavailable equipment. And I don’t think TSI will ever have a R&D team able to homebrew anything really suitible. It’s like the whole home made cruise missile that alot of people quickly developed this emotional and transitory attachment for. Yet I don’t believe anyone actually read the specifications of the missile. Minute payload, limited slow range and very limited accuracy. Little better than a Quassam.

    But saying that, I do love the idea of sending little packages around the ocean autominously through UAVs. Maybe one day this technology would be more civilianised and available.

    #4781
    Profile photo of vincecate
    vincecate
    Participant

    NoDachi wrote:

    And I don’t think TSI will ever have a R&D team able to homebrew anything really suitible.

    […]

    But saying that, I do love the idea of sending little packages around the ocean autominously through UAVs. Maybe one day this technology would be more civilianised and available.

    I don’t mean to suggest that TSI should do this, or really anyone now. There are sudents making UAVs for on the order of $1,000 that hold on the order of 2 lbs. If there were 100 seasteaders floating around the ocean I can imagine some young guy working out a delivery thing for his dad’s store. First it would just be dropping a very small payload with a parachute at a GPS location picked by the customer. If it did not land on the seastead,. the customer would have to fish it out of the water, maybe while in his dingy.

    Just fun that part of what is holding UAVs back is regulations and the seasteaders would not have this issue.

    Yes, I think it would be really fun to see UAVs taking small packages around.

    #4782
    Profile photo of vincecate
    vincecate
    Participant

    > I think UAVs are perfectly feasible for shipping lighter and smaller things.

    Ya! At least I am not alone.

    >For heavier cargo I would rather try an Unmanned Aquatic Vehicle (ie some sort of self-navigating boat or submarine).

    Yes. There will really be more lbs of stuff shipped by boats I am sure. However, it is less necessary to make these unmanned if they are bigger, as I would expect. Also, there is more risk of piracy so you might want an armed guard onboard. A UAV is not an easy target for a pirate to capture without destroying the cargo, so unmanned is fine.

    ] >The feasibility of all these things are of course subject to the whims of any governments who decides to interfere.

    In international waters there is not anyone making such regulations or enforcing them. If we kept below normal airspace and above ship heights I don’t think there would be trouble.

    #4783
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Do you have any links to the homebrew UAV designs, i.e. opensource projects? I’ve had an interest in UAV’s for telepresence for virtual travel to remote places. UAV blimps or dirigibles seem promising for long duration flights and VTOL/STOL capability. A solar powered dirigible using hydrogen for lift could remain permanently aloft by collecting rainwater to replace lost hydrogen with electrolysis.

    #4784
    Profile photo of vincecate
    vincecate
    Participant

    admiral wrote:

    Do you have any links to the homebrew UAV designs, i.e. opensource projects? I’ve had an interest in UAV’s for telepresence for virtual travel to remote places. UAV blimps or dirigibles seem promising for long duration flights and VTOL/STOL capability. A solar powered dirigible using hydrogen for lift could remain permanently aloft by collecting rainwater to replace lost hydrogen with electrolysis.

    http://diydrones.com/

    http://weblogs.asp.net/jmoon/archive/2005/06/13/412084.aspx

    http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/Main_Page

    http://openuav.astroplanes.com/

    If you fly within a countries territory you are supposed to follow their laws, which probably won’t let you fly this further than an RC radio airplane can go.

    Yes, solar powered hydrogen dirigible that can stay up forever is a very fun idea.

    #4787
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Yes. There will really be more lbs of stuff shipped by boats I am sure. However, it is less necessary to make these unmanned if they are bigger, as I would expect. Also, there is more risk of piracy so you might want an armed guard onboard. A UAV is not an easy target for a pirate to capture without destroying the cargo, so unmanned is fine.

    Unmanned surface vessels could possibly work in worse weather than those with human crews. An autonomous submarine certainly could, I would guess. It would also be very safe from pirates, as well as cheaper to build because it doesn´t need to be human-rated. Navigation and offloading at the seastead are issues though.

    Drug smugglers build submarines these days, so it´s not exclusively the domain of government money.

    In international waters there is not anyone making such regulations or enforcing them. If we kept below normal airspace and above ship heights I don’t think there would be trouble.

    True, but seasteads will depend a great deal on trade with the mainland. I think inter-seastead trade is likely to be very small by comparison for the foreseeable future. So the economy might not be there to make the development of such an infrastructure economical.

    #4816
    Profile photo of SPyle
    SPyle
    Participant

    Drug smugglers don’t really use submarines. That’s just media spin for boats with minute water boards.

    But automated submarines designed just to carry cargo would be easier to make than probably expected. Except I think it would look rather suspicious don’t ya think? :P

    #4825
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Drug smugglers don’t really use submarines. That’s just media spin for boats with minute water boards.

    Oh, how about that. Fooled by the media again. Damn them!

    Anyway, here is a very interesting article about concrete submarines: http://concretesubmarine.com/

    There is a problem with using submarines for cargo though. Loading. You need a really big door to be able to load big things. And submarines lie really low in the water, which makes having big doors (close to the waterline) problematic. Also for pressure reasons.

    So, back to UAV´s.

    Ideally they should be able to take off and land on their own. Otherwise you will need infrastructure for this, like catapults/runways and nets to catch them in.

    And they should be fixed wing, because this is more efficient than a helicopter while at speed. And the majority of the time will be spent in flight. Only a small percentage in hover when landing and taking off. Tilt rotor or tilt wing is too complicated.

    A tail sitter ( http://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/uav/twing/ ) might be a good alternative. You could program it to recognize a helipad (which a lot of seasteads will have anyway) visually, or put up some sort of beacon to assist with landing.

    A problem is power. Most small engines are gasoline, and we don´t want this on a seastead due to the fire hazard. Small diesel engines are scarce. Jet or turboprop is possible of course, but more expensive. Perhaps not too expensive though, I´m not sure. Batteries, while certainly having improved a lot lately still suffer from the delay and hassle with recharging.

    I think a lot of pilots will balk at the idea of a lot of unmanned aircraft buzzing around at up to 1000 feet, so this ceiling might have to be a lot lower.

    #4837
    Profile photo of Jesrad
    Jesrad
    Participant

    I had seen videos of small fixed wing UAVs that would take off and land “upright” and fly in horizontal, usual plane stance. Too bad I can’t seem to put my hands back on them :(

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)

The forum ‘Infrastructure’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate