Chinese e-tailer beats Amazon to the skies with one-ton delivery drones

Re: sounds familiar @Iglethal

Your argument was going so well....and then this:

"if cars were designed to the same strict guidelines as aircraft, you would get a new model of car (e.g. a new VW Golf) every 7 years. Not yearly relases as you get now."

Cars ARE designed on that c7 year timescale. It takes about five years and costs about $/$/€ 1 billion or more to design and get approval for a new mass market car across major markets, and the costs are several times that amount if the car maker is developing a complete new car, sharing the platform and key components across different models and brands. Despite marketing lies to the contrary, most of the yearly "model refresh" is not in anyway a new model, it is simply low cost changes like new light clusters, modified grilles and styling trim, sometimes out-of-cycle new engines or gearboxes, a few modified panels, a change of interior trim, options or model names. Budget for these model year changes can vary hugely, but we're talking typically of the order of $100m, of which I'd guess 30% is engineering and design, 40% vendor tooling, and 30% marketing programme, campaigns, and collateral. But you could do a model year refresh purely on paint colours, trim mixes, and then all you'd need is a few million to market this "new, 2017 model".

Re: sounds familiar

The fact that a problem is an actual problem and requires some actual consideration is not an excuse for flat-out failing / refusing to deliver some sort of workable regulation indefinitely. When one answers "we'd like to try something new" essentially with "well we don't, so you won't get to, either" one should not be surprised to end up regarded as the enemy.

Re: THUD

So what weighs more, a ton of Chinese tat or a one ton piano? To my way of thinking, either one could flatten your lunch.

"they are not delivering pianos or anvils."

Wiley E. Coyote would sue for customer discrimination.

Re: One-ton

No,

it goes....

"Ming!"

(apologies to Spike Milligan)

Re: Better make them REALLY secure

Not every "terrorist" in the world is a believer of the Koran..

"real" official heavy weight drones would need bloody good security to ever be allowed to be used in the E.I/UK..

But as knowledge and parts become more easily available,then the idea of a home built diy,heavy lift drone becomes achievable,my immediate thought was what an easy way to deliver a ton of nitram to the palace of Westminster,truck Into close to target,fly out through top of box body van,quick very low level flight,bang..

Very difficult to stop,easily hardenable against microwave etc and could just lead to early bang in crowded public place,very hard target for auto guns etc,collateral damage risk v high.

Very short flight time,sub 30 seconds,little reaction time,many targets roofs upper floors are not hardened.stopping 6 simultaneously,basically impossible in built up area.

It's almost the perfect weapon delivery system,cheap(ish) low knowledge base needed,short range means you could use fly by wire,so no chance of electronic barrier,and one tin doing 40mph goes a long way from 100feet up.etc etc etc.

Re: Better make them REALLY secure

Er, if a one ton drone was dropped on your house I think it would cause you a lot more harm than preventing you from having a cup of tea and watching East Enders. It would cause you to have to move out of your house for weeks/months for repairs at minimum, end your life at worst.

Re: A hijack target?

Possibly, the Chinese have a different attitude as to the risks and benefits

Of course they do, because they're not a democratic country. If the party says "yes", then there's no questioning that. That does mean that China (and many dictatorships) are far better at *some* aspects of planning and strategy, because they can approach the questions in a purely logical manner. In this case, the use is put of rural distribution, and the chances of a random drone crash landing on somebody or something in rural China is apparently an acceptable risk. In the US (and to an extent Europe), there would be somebody successfully arguing that would not be an acceptable risk, using worst case arguments of a coach full of pensioners, a regional gas transport hub, a high speed rail line, or a wildlife sanctuary for endangered toads.