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"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
