Amazon files patent for 'Death Star' flying warehouse In an image straight out of a dystopian consumerist vision of the future, Amazon has filed a patent for a huge flying warehouses equipped with fleets of drones for airborne drops. The patent describes the airborne fulfillment center (AFC) as an airship that could remain at a high altitude, at around 45,000 feet, with a fleet …
It works in conjunction with the new Amazon floating warehouses, which are certainly NOT converted oil tankers intended to capture and house ballistic nuclear missile submarines. No, the new flying platform is intended to simply launch Amazon's new range of drones under the leadership of the new Amazon CEO Harold 'Bezos' Saxon.
"It would have to be able to handle the entire rainbow of colours."
I'm playing around with a mixing hotend. Uses cyan, magenta, and yellow filaments to make process color plastic. After I finish my experimentation (Bwahahahah!), I may try turning a four color mix head from brass, since black rarely looks good from CMY.
If you're building your own printer, take a look at the Diamond Hotend - http://reprap.org/wiki/Diamond_Hotend
Take that new remake of the airship.
Now add drones to drop and deliver.
I forget when there was an invention to allow bi-planes take off from airships, or if they could also be retrieved... so that's not new.
This shouldn't get a patent because its so simple.
In terms of implementation... never will happen.
FAA will not allow airships to fly low enough or drones high enough to meet.
This shouldn't get a patent because its so simple.
It shouldn't get a patent because it is obvious this is an idea and not a physical object.
Applications like this show just how broken the patent system is. Whilst it is no longer necessary to supply an implementation of the patent on application, it is still a requirement to be able to demonstrate a working example at time of application...
It should have been rejected immediately as it so obviously breaks the laws of physics.
"they can navigate horizontally toward a user specified delivery location using little to no power, other than to stabilize the UAV and/or guide the direction of descent," said the patent."
Really? It can fly horizontally using NO power? What if it's windy? What if air itself has the property of not being frictionless (like it does). OK so they used the word "navigate" rather than "fly" so it's ambiguous (which should also be an instant rejection) but even taking account of the exceptions described it would still require power for other things.
Personhally I think this was filed just to generate some news stories and get some very cheap publicity in the media (and that has obviously worked then....). The idea is obviously stupid for lots of reasons. But am I too late to file a patent for gaining free publicity by filing a ridiculous patent that may sound vaguely plausible to some of the more technically and scientifically challenged people out there?
"Really? It can fly horizontally using NO power?"
They said using "little to no power", not "No power". That is entirely feasible given the height the drone would be descending, they are clearly stating that the horizontal component of the journey would not significantly contribute to the power consumption, all the energy from that would be contributed by the very thing you were suggesting they'd forgotten, the air resistance generated by the descent (i.e. they'd effectively glide horizontally).
Unfortunately you focused on one of the things that is pretty solid and achievable. What I find more curious is how, once the drone has descended 45K feet and delievered its package, does it get back up there? A quick google suggests that the most people have managed to fly a drone to is about 11K feet, and it then needs some way of docking. Alternatively they might be intending to then fly the drones off to some collection point to then be re-installed when the plane lands, but at that point you have to wonder if that's a cost effective solution.
That is entirely feasible given the height the drone would be descending, they are clearly stating that the horizontal component of the journey would not significantly contribute to the power consumption
You're overlooking the obvious flaw: the descent would need to be controlled and hence would require power - given we are talking about controlling the descent of several kilo's the power needs are potentially significant. But then I suggest, designing and building a 'drone' that is capable of carrying a payload of a couple of kilo's and a controlled descent from 45,000ft will in itself involve independently several patentable inventions - just as the helicopter, sewing machine and mobile phones aren't the results of a single patentable invention.
So this is really Amazon patenting a 'method' and demonstrating that a (potentially) patentable
'method' doesn't have to have any basis in reality.
Roland6,
The power needs would indeed be significant for calculations, but my point (and I think theirs) was that the horizontal component of the travel would not add to these costs. If you're calculating a way down, you're making these decisions. Whether that's a direct drop, or a "glide" is irrelevant to the calculation costs. The glide itself is unpowered.
The power needs would indeed be significant for calculations
Vic.
> You're overlooking the obvious flaw: the descent would need to be controlled and hence would require power
At 45000 feet this object will contain a lot of potential energy and very little kinetic energy. As it drops, most of that potential energy gets converted into kinetic. Even commercial jets use a ram air turbine for emergency instrumentation power in the event of fuel exhaustion or other engine failures. Flight calculations are relatively modest unless you start trying to get into weather modeling or something. We are talking iPhone battery levels of power.
Actually, come to think of it, maybe if they use a note 7 battery, they weeks then have a good rocket to launch the drone back to the mothership.
"FAA will not allow airships to fly low enough or drones high enough to meet."
Congestion will also be a problem around airports. A stray drone that malfunctions and flies into the path of an airliner that is landing or taking off could have some, shall we say, interesting results.
A stray drone that malfunctions and flies into the path of an airliner that is landing or taking off could have some, shall we say, interesting results.
It doesn't even need to do that. A stray drone that appears to be heading towards controlled airspace without clearance is enough to trigger the re-routing of many aircraft - with each diversion tending to cause additional diversions in order to maintain separation. It's a mess.
I went to a GasCo safety evening a few weeks back where they showed a NATS video[1] of a light aircraft flying first through Stansted's airspace and then through Heathrow's. Many flights were diverted, which was quite impressive, but I couldn't help but think "bullshit; this would never really happen"; I mean, the aircraft even lined up on the Heathrow runway. And then, at the end, they told us that all the positional data was from real radar traces...
Vic.
[1] Can't find it on the web at the mo - I'll post a link if/when I do.
"Buy a one-way ticket on an Amazon Blue Origin® Mayflower™ vessel today!"
...and buy NOW! The price will increase in line with the nearness of the expected date of the arrival of the planet eating STAAAAAR GOAAAAAAAAT!!!!
Hmm, just wondering about the mass of the drone with payload, and its mass after making its delivery. Its range will be greater after the delivery, but by how much I haven't the foggiest. It might be that for some items - an SD card, for example - the weight difference will be negligible.
I did wonder about that. If the drones can only be used once due to inability to reach 45000 ft, where do they land? Do they park a container nearby for them to home in on,before sending the full container aloft to the mother ship?
And what about weight? Presumably drones won't be used to deliver a new 55" TV to a fan at a football match, so presumably it'll be fairly small items. In which case the majority of the payload of the mothership at take-off will be one-shot drones.
And how is this a better way to get T-shirts to football fans than having a stand outside the ground?
Or are they assuming a very, very high attrition rate for the drones from local shotgun owners?
Whatever, it's really an expensive solution in search of a non-existent problem. I reckon Amazon are just winding people up.
Not all solutions are fixing problems. Sometimes it's just marginal (or larger) improvements on the way things are done. Did you read that part about getting things within minutes of ordering them? Hmmm, let's say I'm a wedding photographer and my camera just died... tap tap tap... new one ordered.... be here in 4 minutes. I like the sound of that.
The BBC has a picture from the patent application with their version of this story. This shows that after the drone makes its delivery, it flies off to a ground location. From there a smaller airship takes it back to the mothership, along with fresh stock.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/295A/production/_93168501_965a49fd-c578-459f-aa7c-6434488e9963.jpg
it flies off to a ground location. From there a smaller airship takes it back to the mothership, along with fresh stock."
I'm still trying to get my head around exactly what it is Amazon want to patent. There's nothing in the diagram that is patentable or isn't already subject to patents. Apart from anything else, cost issues aside, it's blindingly obvious even to me as a possibility, never mind "an expert in the field"
I would like to know more about this
how much could this flying warehouse hope to hold?
how long would it stay in the air?
from the patent notes it looks like restocking (including returning the drones) would be handled by another airship but there is no explanation of how much it would carry, how long it would stay airbourne or any other relevant limits,
e.g. the article mentions people ordering things at a sporting event, would the UAV somehow locate the person in the stadium and drop the item directly to the person, would hundreds of drones descending to drop off snacks or souvenirs not be considered a problem by the other spectators?
Think of all the places where this could go wrong - "Dear Amazon, I'm here at the presidential inauguration, please ship two dozen Rebellious Ryan 9 Inch Dildos With Suction Cup and 20 bags of Hoffman Dehydrated Super Manure to the podium."
What's wrong with that? Unless it's not Jan 20th, obviously ....
Well, the internet is the open version of the closed ward.
On a related topic: if we are typical for a technical civilisation, the Fermi paradox isn't one.
Just came across another 'solution' for the Fermi paradox on Boing Boing:
at the rugby while delivering
Most aircraft are explicitly prohibited from such events - UK Air Law requires at least 1000ft distance to large groups of people, and the US seems to have the same rule (as you'd expect - aviation is well-standardised). So delivering to the rugby would require either specific permission for each flight (which will take months, not minutes), or a change in Aviation Law[1] in every country in which they want to operate.
This just isn't going to happen.
Vic.
[1] With all the corresponding fallout from having legislation now different to everyone else...
I'm going to patent my idea of trucks filled with items that can travel across designated paths (I'll call them 'roads'), each one of them carrying a 'human' witch will, upon arriving at the delivery address, hop out and deliver the ordered item.
Yes, now "[long-established X] but with drones" is patentable just like ""[long-established X] but on a computer" or ""[long-established X] but on the Internet" is.
Ha! That's nothing, I just submitted a patent application for Efficient Oxygen Inhalation Through an Autonomic Rhythmic Contractions of the Ribcage's Intercostal Muscles and Diagphram. Those fools at Amazon can literally cough up now or quit breathing! On second thoughts, a licensing clause to exclude patent lawyers would be a great benefit to humanity.
They'll just track what landed where and after billinfg you for it, you will get advertising emails that start with the words
"Based upon your recent delivery history, we thought you would like...."
To be honest, I hope this gets shot down before it ever takes off.
We don't need any more Amazon, as the banners at Kew Gardens Station say.
It will probably require more than one airship so that restocking can occur by descending/ascending an airship and may be a lot more energy/time expensive than land storage/transport, especially given it would require a warehouse with an airship landing/hanger area near it.
I am still dubious about drone use for deliveries because I don't see the short flight time of purely battery powered drone as practical; they'd need a longer lasting, energy dense, power source like Petrol, possibly for hybrid electrically powered propellers.
It maybe more sensible to move a land vehicle, say a van or a lorry, nearer to a cluster of delivery locations, then launch several drones from the top surface with homing back to the possibly moving vehicle, given that could save a lot of flight energy and still save significant time.
Oh course the really tricky part is how fast and reliable hand over of goods is expected to work, given Amazon already have unreliable delivery estimates, as reported by Market Oracle and experienced personally!
"......Could make quite a good haul if you hit the one in the rich neighborhoods where they are stocked with lots of nice high end goods." Just remotely hack the controls for one hovering over Hollywood and have it land in somewhere lawless/extradition-free like Venezuala, Ecuador or Oakland.
If this ever became a reality then how long before you would have bandits taking to the skies to hunt down and rob/destroy these motherships?
It's my understanding that they will be equipped with runways and spitfires (or was that flying sharks with lasers?) for that very reason
No, but I hear you can get them from Syrian Hot Stocks soonish.
(Where is that Alfred E. Neuman icon??? We really need it.)
The Jetstream begins at around 70,000 ft so at 45,000 the mother drone won't be affected, you can get hurricane force winds at 45,000 though. I once flew all the way back to London from California with 80MPH tail winds most of the way and we landed more than half an hour early.
If they do have an airship on station eventually I hope it's kitted out steampunk style.
We know that airships, besides their obvious limitations, can't lift much more than a few lorry loads. Payload on the Hindenburg, one of the biggest ever, was about 40 tonnes. It's a lot of Smarties, but not many cases of wine. You have to wonder if being able to distribute over an area of, say, 100 sq. km. could be done a lot more cheaply with some strategically placed container lorries.
On the other hand, there's the image of Les Nessman of the TV show "WKRP in Cincinnati" dropping live turkeys from a helicopter as a Thanksgiving promotion. Now that's a distribution system that doesn't even need drones!
Great WKRP reference ... however it wasn't Les Nessman dropping the Turkeys - he was doing the live commentary on the ground.describing the dots appearing in the sky descending to the earth and how any moment parachutes must open and then how turkeys were thudding into the ground all around him and ending up with (referencing the Hindenburg newsreel) "oh the humanity the humanity" - it was Mr Carlson dropping the turkeys because, he explained afterwards, "no-one told me turkeys can't fly". Clearly a great program as it must be 35 years since I saw the episode but that section remains in my memory!
About the same time as the Hindenberg, the US navy was experimenting with airships (google "Akron class") that carried 60 crew, 8 machine guns, plus five aircraft weighing about a tonne each. And, presumably, it must've also carried fuel, arms and ammo for the aircraft. It's not huge, but it's considerably bigger than any truck I've ever seen.
And there's a possibility that technology may have advanced in the 80-odd years since then, and Amazon's version could be considerably larger still.
"And there's a possibility that technology may have advanced in the 80-odd years since then, and Amazon's version could be considerably larger still."
Technology has advanced a great deal, but helium or hydrogen will still give the same amount of lift as it did 100 years ago.
About the same time as the Hindenberg, the US navy was experimenting with airships (google "Akron class") that carried 60 crew, 8 machine guns, plus five aircraft weighing about a tonne each. And, presumably, it must've also carried fuel, arms and ammo for the aircraft. It's not huge, but it's considerably bigger than any truck I've ever seen.
Erm ... so five tonnes of aircraft, six tonnes of Americans, say a tonne of guns and ten tonnes of supplies? That's twenty-two tonnes. The smallest standard shipping container of the type that can be loaded onto an articulated lorry (truck) can carry over twenty-eight tonnes. (See https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/downloads/press_and_media/publications/Brochure_Container_Specification_en.pdf.)
So your example airship can carry at most one trucks-worth of drones & goods. How many trucks already go to any large sporting event anyway to provide all the foam fingers and hotdogs? One more truck parked outside with a roof platform for drone take-off & landing isn't going to add to the congestion much is it?
And unless you are going to use hydrogen for lift (not out of the question *) the airship leaks irreplaceable helium into the atmosphere from where it escapes to space.
As others have pointed out - this is a terribly inefficient delivery platform. At best, it would be an advertising gimmick.
* Contrary to popular belief, hydrogen is not really that dangerous as lifting fluid. Recent evidence suggests for example that the Hindenburg's outer cover caught fire having been inadequately fire- and spark/lightning-proofed. When the hydrogen did catch it moved upwards as it burned. The casualties died from falling and burning wreckage, not hydrogen. Modern materials could mitigate the risks to an acceptable level. And we're not likely to run out of hydrogen any time soon whereas we have a finite - and rapidly diminishing - supply of helium unless and until we can harvest it from elsewhere in the solar system.
Here's a fun idea.
Phish a large group of induhviduals before said induhviduals go to a stadium.
Order a shedload of goods via said induhvidual's phished bank details, and have it delivered to the stadium (eg lots and lots of hot dogs with extra ketchup and mustard)
Sooner or later something like this will happen, trolling by drone.
I'm all for a fantastic future. I'd personally be very happy if Amazon could deliver to me by drone but I just can't see how it will faster or cheaper than using a human on a moped.
It works for pizzas (which are heavy, delicate and time sensitive). We'd need significant improvements in power storage density and AI before a drone would be a better solution than a human on a moped
it would also help youth employment levels
"It works for pizzas (which are heavy, delicate and time sensitive). We'd need significant improvements in power storage density and AI before a drone would be a better solution than a human on a moped"
All ready got that covered: orbital pizzas!
Still a few bugs in the system though.
Place order.
They stare at the order on their screen for two days.
Then they claim it's been shipped, but the courier has no record of it for two days
Then it's being shipped for two days.
Then it's 'Out For Delivery' for two days.
Then it's 'Delayed by weather' for two days.
That's what '2 Day' shipping means. Over a week.
At least 'The Grand Tour' car show is worth it.
It was noted that, "...two day shipping does not mean two day order fulfillment..."
Historically, before signing up for Prime, Amazon would ship the order within *hours* after placing the order. I'd typically receive items in three or four days by regular mail.
Now with Prime, it takes a week. Because they faff about for several days before even beginning the "fulfillment" process.
One recent example was crystal clear. Their predicted "2 day" delivery, as shown on the order summary, was a full week. Before any further delays.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Because it's been Xmas lately.
Point remains valid. "2 days" is B.S. YMMV.
Two days plus one half day for fulfillment if I order at night is usual from key click to ripping open the box for me (if it is a prime deal). It is why I re-upped and re-upped again, even when the price for doing so went up. If they couldn't live up to the promise I wouldn't pay miller fer privilege.
Including an order that went in on the evening of Wednesday the 21st and the box was in my hands on Christmas Eve. And three orders for stuff that were put in on the previous Monday morning and were in my hands by that Wednesday night.
I admit that when I ordered that "home NAS" thing the Reg writer de jour was frothing over they told me that it would take weeks to deliver on account of them not actually having any in stock yet - so I cancelled the order and Amazon were happy to let me do that.
I also had one order listed as prime that took five days to deliver, but that one was NOT shipped by Amazon, but by the vendor. Can't blame *Amazon* for that. That ball is squarely in the vendor's court (though they did deliver within the terms of service, even so, so there were no formal grounds for complaint).
Returns, in the rare event I've had to make them (I think four times in as many years), have been a dream to conduct too. When I contrast this experience with what I went through when I lived and shopped in the UK I laugh 'till I cry. Yeah, "unfair" practice is what is killing the high street vendor.
Amazon, right here, right now = toasted bacon sandwich with HP sauce good.
You're living in the wrong place, Jeffeypoooh. 8o)
Including an order that went in on the evening of Wednesday the 21st and the box was in my hands on Christmas Eve
A few months back, I put in an order at about 8pm on a Friday evening. The box was delivered about noon the following day. I was most chuffed[1].
Vic.
[1] Especially as I'd gone for the free delivery option. And because it was a case of wine.
Stevie suggested "You're living in the wrong place..."
As I've explained, they're taking several days to accomplish the so-called "fulfillment" step (an internal process that occurs wholly within the walls of their warehouse).
This step has nothing to do with where I live (beyond being in Canada, in case that matters).
Historically, this step used to require mere hours. Ever since I've signed up to Prime, it now requires several days. I've got ten orders since mid-December, and they're all about the same. Several days from ordering to 'Shipped'.
Based on my experience, Prime "2 day" shipping is a bit slower than regular shipping. In part, because they're slower to "fulfill" the order. And in part perhaps due to Xmas.
Perhaps it was not wise of Amazon to release 'The Grand Tour' to Prime Video (in Canada and elsewhere) just two weeks before Xmas?
Again, YMMV.
Why?
USA and UK likely didn't experience the same Xmas aligned Prime spike, as TGT was released to Prime in the USA and UK a month earlier. That timing may be the explanation for the obviously differing experience.
I assume that Prime in Canada had a huge spike, due to widespread love of Top Gear, and the mid-Dec timing of release of The Grand Tour. Speculation...
I assume all the comments about 2-day Prime delivery must be from US readers as in the UK it's 1-day delivery and in my experience over last couple of years it's almost 100% reliable (only one problem when Amazon emailed me to apologize that they'd lost one of my orders in transit and were resending it). Many times I've placed orders in middle of one day and picked it up from an Amazon locker on my way home from work the next day.
"almost 100% reliable" --- agreed.
Son told me at 16:40 on the 27th that he had "not yet got round" to purchasing a secret santa gift for a visit to the family the following evening. 10 minutes later we had ordered it, 1 hour later it was dispatched and it arrived in Middlesbrough the next morning, about 12 hours before we did.
Next day delivery of in stock Prime items is nearly always 100% reliable in my experience --- so much so we didn't even bother buying a back up gift in case it hadn't arrived.
Further data point.
On sequential days, I ordered three items. The first item ordered on the first day was shipped "Two-Day", the next two items ordered on the second were shipped "Regular" (Canada Post).
Canada Post delivered their two items today. In just less than two business days.
I'm still waiting for the "Two-Day" item which was ordered a day before the others.
Lesson learned. "Two-Day" is, in my case, bogus. It's slower than Regular. YMMV.
I'll stick to "Regular" shipping from now on.
Rather than concentrating on all the minutiae of how this could work I think its probably simpler to see this as a "defensive" patent ... Amazon probably remembered how they managed to prevent anyone else from doing "1-Click" ordering and as they brainstormed drone ideas came up with the possibility of delivering from flying warehouses so dropped off a patent so that if competitors came up with the same idea they could release the lawyers to stop them.
That's already in patent law. They must actually produce the product or a competitor can challenge it on inactivity grounds.
[Citation needed], because if you were right, we would never have a problem with submarine patents.
AFAIK, The only inactivity that matters is a failure to take action against known infringers of a patent - which can reduce or remove the damages paid by the infringer if the court believes that inactivity was intended to lure the defendant into further infringement.
Vic.
"I've never seen anything about patents requiring 'activity' to remain valid. It doesn't even make sense."
Just to clarify, this is a proposal, not a declaration of existing processes. What I'm proposing would not affect the purchasing of active patents for existing products by patent licensing companies (or trolls), but would be intended to torpedo the likes of Amazon filing for patents in advance of a "discovery" such as the one the article is about because they are purely trying to prohibit future development by *anyone* just in case they can make a business case for some, currently, pie in the sky theory.
From 45000 ft all it would need is a simple plain wing to get a bit of range. a guidance system and a parachute for braking. Attach to the packaging and drop.
No need for a powered drone.
I would be a bit concerned about the reliability of the parachute deployment as I do not relish having to use a JCB to retrieve my delivery.
Incoming........
Cut out the container ship and truck journeys. Instead, tat is freighted by blimp direct from China, where it then takes up position over a town, then litters said town with a snow of tat over the next week until emptied, whereupon the blimp returns to China for a refill.
I have drawn this badly on a piece of paper left over from christmas party games and submitted it to the patent office.
Gatwick Approach: "Speedbird 123, traffic is 12 o'clock, 2 miles, passing FL80 on descent, squawking as an Amazon Delivery drone containing pizza, popcorn and a Windows 11 tablet addressed to a Mr A Hancock of Railway Cuttings, East Cheam. Advise traffic in sight."
Turns my penguin's blood cold just thinking about it.
The best thing: Once Alexa becomes self-aware, whole cities will be obliterared with areal bombardments comprised of toasters, smartphones and sextoys. Out of the rubble, a new kind of techno-cultist society will emerge, praying to the angry blimp beyond the clouds.
"When the sky god is furious, he sends the hard rain"
It is a kind of stealth or catch all patent? As in, no one in their right minds things they will every build this design. But they think some aspect of it is vital (say using blimps for cargo transport between warehouses) and want to patent the idea so no one else can use it....
Maybe Amazon should use some of their billions of revenue dollars to provide warehouse employees a living wage with humane work conditions rather than fritter money away on pipe dreams. And you know the kind of pipe I am talking about.
Frankly, if this was such a good idea UPS, FedEx maybe even some post offices around the world would be working on it.
Another version of this...idea...included flying blimps. And, of course using little drone thingys to buzz around dropping packages onto the targeted masses when they aren't crashing into innocent pedestrians.
Frankly, if this was such a good idea UPS, FedEx maybe even some post offices around the world would be working on it.
Vic.
Yeah... No! If anything they should use this BEELLIONS to further Mechanize thier outfit, and sack the last useless Meatsack standing. Like MickyD's have been doing with those Touchscreen Order Pads that some Stores have now. This is how you deal with those Living Wage Freaks! Perhaps next time you might be able to work your way, up to a real Job that pays something closer to what you want.
But, as it pertains to your 15$(USD), Burger flipper Position, yeah good luck with that! Cause I'm not gonna support that sh-- by purchasing, (What was a 4.95€ Burger with Fries, and Cola), a 7.98€ Meal. Just so baby can keep its first Entry Level Position.
"Yeah... No! If anything they should use this BEELLIONS to further Mechanize thier outfit, and sack the last useless Meatsack standing. Like MickyD's have been doing with those Touchscreen Order Pads that some Stores have now."
Now, behind-the-scenes stuff there's little one can do to stop automation since none of the customers really see what goes on there, but in point-of-sale people really prefer to talk to a face, if anything because most people's orders aren't all that simple ("And hey, can I have the cone first? I want to be able to eat it while I wait for everything else."). Given the choice between a touchscreen and a person, prices being equal, customers will focus on the person. So what will happen when they see their business at the touchscreen locations drop versus person locations? Will they be forced to start closing locations altogether?
I haven't seen the touchscreens at my place yet, but this may be because they're trying something different: order by app, which offsets the lack of a person two ways: you're not there yet (so you're not expected to talk to a face), and you're ordering ahead (so you save time, especially if you're re-ordering a favorite menu).
if the descending drones were paper aeroplanes it might be possible to make them so cheap that they are little more than "advanced packaging"
There's a group at Southampton University who are making paper planes and printing circuitry on them using conductive ink. There's going to be a way to go to make disposable delivery aircraft viable, but it's not beyond the realms of fantasy...
Vic.
45,000ft is crazy for an airship. While climbing to altitude, the lift cells will expand, requiring venting or pumping out, to be restored during descent. At that altitude pressure is down to 14% of ground level and the difference in density between helium and air therefore about 1/7th.
An airship that can lift 70 tons off the ground can only lift 10 tons at 45k. As the airship itself doesn't get lighter, the payload becomes non-existant
Patenting the idea of a warehouse floating above and making it work is something very different. There are many problems of such a warehouse like: how long should this warehouse fly around? How new goods will be delivered to this warehouse. Are there any commercial available mini-drones capable of flying up to 30.000 m (15.000 in both directions)? What kind of fuel these mini-drones whould use?
So it is very questionable if this idea could really be implemented in the next time.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
