Real-Time Google Earth? Give me 5 years.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

Imagine; You’re sitting in your living room and you feel like skimming along the beaches of the Maldives to check out a few babes catching a few rays at the beach. Or, instead of spending $4000 to go on a cruise in a Norwegian fjord, you decide to remotely pilot a vehicle and fly above what’s happening there at that moment. You pick up your controller, provide your account for appropriate billing, and launch a UAV from a local provider and begin your adventure. . .for oh, a 90 minute flight in widescreen 1080P. . .at home, in your underwear, drinking a beer. Of course there's no forgetting your time limit as your flight time duration flashes in the lower right. You get too feisty and annoying with the locals? You also get a warning that flashes in the lower right. Keep it up, and the UAV returns on its own to the lease center.

All this is well within reach, AND will be affordable, within the next six years. Remotely piloted UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) for the common man is coming.

Affordable, as in a complete system for less than $1000. Or more likely, a rentable system with a commercial-based infrastructure. This could possibly end gaming for a large segment of the gamer population who wants more reality in their couch potato experience. Or for those who just want to experience ‘reality’ without the need to go to the expense and danger of traveling themselves.

I have located the components now that would provide such a system, but as it stands, the cost is still well above $4000 and only locally and is limited to flight times of less than 30 minutes.

The possibility of >90 minute global flights will be provided by the convergence of several technologies and commercial systems that are here now, and that will only improve in the next two to four years.

-Micro-electronics
- High-power, low weight energy source. Something similar to lithium polymer (Li-Po) batteries. Most likely a technology utilizing some variant of Li20 technology.
-High density CCD technology
-a 4G 802.16x variant
-neodymium motors with high coercivity
-and last, but far from least, dirt-cheap Chinese labor

I discovered several of these dirt cheap technologies are here now. For example, you can NOW have a high-res 720P 10gram DVR for less than $40

The lifting platform, as well as a GPS interface are also now available as I’ve linked to before.

Remember, you heard it here first from your friendly Psycho Rhino. . .

[GSH]

Bandwidth, especially transcontinental bandwidth, is not increasing quite as fast as you'd like. And, latency stinks. It's at least a half second 1-way trip when bouncing off satellites to get halfway around the world, more like 1 second 1-way lag most of the time. With line-of-sight transmissions, latency is nil, and bandwidth is enough. But, your example is over the horizon, where things take a lot more work.

If the bandwidth & latency issues are going to be solved for consumers within 6 years, it'd better be almost solved for gov't users right now. It ain't.

-- GSH

[MrTwosheds]

I can see a few small "security" issues with this idea. It will probably be quickly followed by "your own personal air defence system" to knock out these intrusive spy devices.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

Bandwidth, especially transcontinental bandwidth, is not increasing quite as fast as you'd like. And, latency stinks. It's at least a half second 1-way trip when bouncing off satellites to get halfway around the world, more like 1 second 1-way lag most of the time. With line-of-sight transmissions, latency is nil, and bandwidth is enough. But, your example is over the horizon, where things take a lot more work.

If the bandwidth & latency issues are going to be solved for consumers within 6 years, it'd better be almost solved for gov't users right now. It ain't.

-- GSH

UAV flight would not depend solely on 'low ping' communication. Onboard flight assistance would correct for loss and latency, just as it does now with the military flying drones in Afghanistan under the control from a US-based pilot. Any signal loss would have the UAV GPS take appropriate action as the Mikrokopter does now. Possibly a 'radial buffer distance' depending on detected latency to stop and hover or return to a previous waypoint marker. Meaning, if you were in the US and wanted to hover 10 meters over some hot chick laying on the beach in Maldives would be denied, but a distance of 80 meters from the closest physical object would be acceptable, also depending on remaining battery %, terrain, distance to origin, weather, etc.

[Red Spot]

Basicly makes me want to ask, if someone is spying on you but you do not notice it, is it still intrusive?

For most obvious reasons I like and dislike this idea/concept.

[MrTwosheds]

Yes.
How would you know the secret police wouldn't use facial recognition software to track down all those dangerous criminals who believe in freedom and democracy? wouldn't you feel a bit vulnerable knowing that could be an Al-queda cam checking out its next target?

[Psychedelic Rhino]

Al-queda will use whatever technology is accessible to them and a no-brainer to use. They have proved time after time they are incapable of imaginative and innovative thinking. There would be no real jump in threat if they used the technology I describe above if they are restricted to the constraints of the system, as everyone else.

Remember, the threat of misuse is by far greater by innovative geek hackers than by severely misguided religious Islamic knuckleheads.

[Ded10c]

Remember, the threat of misuse is by far greater by innovative geek hackers than by severely misguided religious Islamic knuckleheads.

You are now a target.

[MrTwosheds]

Remember, the threat of misuse is by far greater by innovative geek hackers than by severely misguided religious Islamic knuckleheads.

Absolutely, thing is I can see very few legitimate uses, and a never ending list of misuses. How would you keep them out of Jet engines for example?

[Psychedelic Rhino]

Remember, the threat of misuse is by far greater by innovative geek hackers than by severely misguided religious Islamic knuckleheads.

Absolutely, thing is I can see very few legitimate uses, and a never ending list of misuses. How would you keep them out of Jet engines for example?

Hehe. . .and scaring farmers cows and flying over nudist colonies!

No really, I would assume there would be restrictions to flying in class A, B, C, D or E airspace as well as height ceilings of less than around 200 meters and areas where landowners deny flyovers. But all these details would be ironed out long before commercial leasing comes online. Not a whole lot different than restrictions RC hobbyists obey now. I imagine initial lease centers would be put at or near scenic areas such as beaches resorts, mountain resorts, tropical parks, parkways such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, etc. Also remember, these are all electric, meaning they are virtually silent over 100 meters. MUCH different from nitro-fueled craft that are indeed extremely annoying and dangerous. And the range of these craft would be under 30 miles or air time of 90 minutes at best, limiting them to a flight radius of around 10 miles from the leasing center.

Once again, the tech has not been advanced enough to lower the cost to make it commerically feasible yet. We still need some refinement and improvement of several of the technologies I mentioned above, along with a responsible infrastructure. However, I believe it will arrive in under 6 years.

[MrTwosheds]

I suspect legislation making it mostly illegal will shortly follow. Some sort of satellite air traffic control system would be required, The right to shoot them down (where guns are legal) would almost certainly follow, Insurance on them would rapidly become prohibitively expensive to cover the cost of claims made by anyone who does not like being spied on or had one fall on their car.
Military use would of course be exempt, this is where I see it being used.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

I think you're giving the concept too much autonomy. People don't shoot down ultralights, nor do they shoot at RC models, even when they are very aggressive and annoying, and many are certainly dangerous. If they did shoot down remotely controlled UAVs, they would be breaking the same laws as shooting or destroying a parked car. Granted, if the UAV is trespassing flying over private property at too low an elevation or violating air traffic laws, I suspect there would be much more subjectivity in considering fines for either the UAV owner or the shooter. I don't see a rash of vandalism with remotely mounted surveillance cameras local governments, commercial enterprises or private owners have installed. UAVs are merely portable monitoring systems.

Some sort of satellite air traffic control system would be required

There's no need for 'new' legislation or laws. UAVs could adopt current airspace restriction regulations just as ultralights, balloonists or RC hobbyists follow.

[MrTwosheds]

And how are those regulations enforced, when the UAV is being controlled by a 13 year old, from his Pc, checking out the rear ends of chicks thousands of miles away?

The Uk's roads are monitored by a network of speed camera's, everyone smiles when they see yet another one has been set on fire. We have more camera's per head of population than any other nation, The idea that they could be being used for something other than their limited roles is very disturbing to us. Recently some private company's have been making their security camera footage available on the internet, the idea being, that they cannot really afford to have people monitoring them all, so "concerned citizens" might like to watch them and catch their shop lifters for them Yeah right! this may appeal to a very small number of people in the early stages of dementia.

Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but the Idea that anywhere I go, I may be being filmed by a kid with his dick in his hand, somewhat disturbing.
Given a bit of micro engineering, the abuse of this technology by the paparazzi, intelligence services and perverts is an obvious drawback and hence the right to destroy them is required.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

Some narrow-minded say the internet is an evil force unleashed upon humanity. "The cell phone is nothing but a nagging link to society!" There will always be naysayers for every new technology. New technologies always offer more redeeming value than the negatives that also come along..

The above remote UAV described technology will certainly be misused. But the vast majority will use it to enhance the quality of their life. Those that can't afford to visit the vacation spots they've always wanted to visit. Those that want to visually check on loved ones in desolate vacation spots. Emergency responders that can't safely check areas because of safety, etc.

If we allowed naysayers to cherry pick the negatives to justify why technology shouldn't be done, we would still be using mules and plows, wax candles for evening lighting, and leeches to cure ailments.

[Axeminister]

I must say when my company first handed me a beeper I felt both rage and put-out. And when they handed me a nextel radio I almost made an ass of myself and got fired. I had aways worked alone and didn't have to communicate a lot to anyone. But when I was placed in charge and given communication devices, I was not ready and hated them. But now that I've gotten used to people calling me all the time ( I needed to be broken in, like a horse, I guess lol) I can't live without them.