UAVs Will Study Californian Smog 79
Roland Piquepaille writes "The California Energy Commission is funding a research effort named CAPPS, short for California AUAV Air Pollution Profiling Study. CAPPS will use autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (AUAVs) to gather meteorological data as the aircraft fly through clouds over Southern California. The goal is to study smog and its consequences as well as better understand the sources of air pollution. The first flights started in April 2008 and data collection will continue until January 2009. But read more for additional references and photos of these autonomous unmanned aircraft."
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Airplanes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've ever been around the LA area, you know that it's mostly CARS. There are a LOT of cars out there, sitting idle in traffic frequently.
Cars are remarkably clean these days - only the order of 1/10000th of the emissions as the pre-cat days when LA had it bad, smog-wise.
Two-stroke engines, on the other hand, are still basically unregulated, and in many cities exceed passenger-vehicle tailpipe emissions as a pollution source. You can easily produce more emissions in 1 hour of mowing your yard than in 10 hours of driving!
Not even the easy, cheap changes that would give a 99% reduction to two-stroke emissions are being considered, while peopl
Good work defining the acronyms! (Score:2)
Re:Good work defining the acronyms! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And why? (Score:2, Insightful)
UAVs make sense where the flight is into harms way, but this?
Re:And why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume it's primarily a cost type thing. Flying 4 small automated UAVs is probably cheaper than even 1 manned craft.
There are other possible reasons too. At their size, it's relatively easy to fly the UAVs at low alititudes (like 1 or 2k feet). They are going to be quiet (unlike a small Cessna) when close to the ground. They could be run 'round the clock, and if they can hold a charge (or they put solar panels on 'em) they could stay up for 12+ hours at a time.
I can see some real good points for why you may want a UAV.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They could be run 'round the clock, and if they can hold a charge (or they put solar panels on 'em) they could stay up for 12+ hours at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With the pilot sitting on the ground, and possibly flying multiple AV's at once, how likely are they to be using the same level of awareness of the airspace around the vehicle?
As these are restricted to solely military airspace, I'm not as worried...
FTA:
Because of Federal Aviation Administration regulations that prohibit unmanned aircraft from flying in public airspace, the flight paths will be limited to military airspace, which is exempted from FAA rules.
What I'm curious about is how those police departments that recently bought UAVs can legally use them in public airspace....
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm curious about is how those police departments that recently bought UAVs can legally use them in public airspace....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And a plane with a pilot in it has better awareness of other planes, and can fly outside of military airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A pilot in a bunker is a pilot not in the vehicle. So subtract the weight of the safety equipment and the weight of the pilot you should see quite a reduction in fuel costs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The UAV's are cheaper to maintain, don't require 100's of hours to learn to fly, don't waste as much, safer (that is if it crashes it won't kill the pilot and probably wont cause as much ground damage) etc etc. The better question is why not?
"goals" (Score:4, Funny)
<tinfoilhat>
Oh, that's what they say... But let's just see if they don't get used for citizen surveillance as well... If they're already flying there, you know someone in power will ask for it.
</tinfoilhat>
Heisenberg -- UAV create smog (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Heisenberg -- UAV create smog (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.acrtucson.com/UAV/manta/index.htm [acrtucson.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see any mention of a catalytic converter on the spec sheet
great. just what we need in so cal.. (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... (Score:2)
You have plenty of options.
COD4 (Score:2)
Smog is way down, why is this needed? (Score:1, Troll)
Here's a report [joelschwartz.com] on the subject.
If UAVs are needed, it's because we've surpassed the point where the air is adequately clean and we need to take ridiculous measures to try to attain perfection. Perfectly clean air is not needed, is not possible, and is certainly not cost-effective for the public.
Re:Smog is way down, why is this needed? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
But all the cites are much, much cleaner than any time in the last 40-50 years. Especially LA. Efforts to clean up emissions have succeeded.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbook/mapo3n.html
and here's one for the 8-hour criterion:
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbook/map8hrnm.html
California suffers from the double whammy of having large cities, plus a range of mountains that traps large masses of air in the valleys where the pollutants build up, but you can see that any largely popula
Re: (Score:2)
That way, the EPA still needs more funding even if the air is clean.
By moving the goalposts, they ensure their efforts are always "needed".
If the standards had not changed, almost every one of these places would pass easily.
California smog can make your lungs bleed (Score:3, Informative)
Los Angeles has it good compared to the entire San Joaquin Valley, Fresno in particular.
Walking out of the house at 5:30 in the morning (exercise to beat the heat), one notices that the air smells like someone just lit a firecracker. During the day, the haze is orange-brown and often so dense there is no visibility after half a mile.
The air is so bad, one asthmatic friend of mine who teaches at Fresno State had to move to Santa Cruz. He now commutes twice a week (2.5 hours one way). After his bike rides
Re: (Score:1)
Air pollution has been largely eliminated in the US. Our air has been getting cleaner for 40-50 years now and is now extremely clean, despite what you might hear from activist groups and the news media.
Better than it was 50 years ago is nice, but fly into an LA area airport on many days, and your will actually descend through a yellowish-brown layer. Good enough? Not in my book.
Perfectly clean air is not needed, is not possible, and is certainly not cost-effective for the public.
Perfect isn't the goal. Paying for illnesses that are caused or aggravated by smog isn't cost effective either, both in terms of economic and human impact.
I think you are missing the point of the research, which is geared to understanding how pollution moves around the globe, and how far-flung its effects can be.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
...t fly into an LA area airport on many days, and your will actually descend through a yellowish-brown layer...
The actual number of days in "many days" is in the 20-30 range now. That's down from 200+ days in the past.
Paying for illnesses that are caused or aggravated by smog isn't cost effective either, both in terms of economic and human impact.
Asthma is negatively correlated with air pollution. See this report [johnlocke.org], page 10.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...t fly into an LA area airport on many days, and your will actually descend through a yellowish-brown layer...
The actual number of days in "many days" is in the 20-30 range now. That's down from 200+ days in the past.
I live in the Inland Empire which gets the smog from LA. Lately, I've been in the habit of taking a morning walk at a park in the foothills of the mountain range that forms a northern border of the greater LA area. That puts me at about the same elevation as the smog layer.
About half the time there's too much haze (white fogginess) to see the smog layer. On days without haze, the smog layer (brown fogginess) is usually visible. Some days it's hard to ignore, other days you have to look for it - but it's r
I call BS (Score:1)
The actual number of days in "many days" is in the 20-30 range now. That's down from 200+ days in the past.
I don't live in LA, but I travel there frequently, and speak daily people who live there. Better is still not good enough. You don't give a source here, but if it's as reliable as your next one, it's not worth much.
Asthma is negatively correlated with air pollution. See this report [johnlocke.org], page 10.
No. Wrong. The graph in Joel Schwartz's report you cite attempts to correlate ozone (not overall
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a lawyer, BTW. What does asthma caused by pets have to do with air pollution? Are there fewer pets on high pollution days? I'm not sure why you'd want to muddy the waters with irrelevancies.
--
My main point was that the air is cleaner. It's so clean that it's no longer a problem in most places in the US. There are anti-freedom agencies and activ
Re: (Score:1)
You sound like a lawyer, BTW.
Hmm. I'm not sure whether I should feel insulted. I think I'll take it as a compliment, although I generally have a dim view of most lawyers. ;)
FWIW, IANAL. I work with computers.
What does asthma caused by pets have to do with air pollution? Are there fewer pets on high pollution days?
Asthma has different triggers. The report compares urban and rural environments, but does not explore the differences between them. The report assumes that all asthma cases reported relate directly and only to ozone. Attributing all these cases to ozone is erroneous.
For example, since urban locations have more restricti
Re: (Score:2)
Southern Ca also has the San Bernardino mountains, you could just as easily drive up at various elevations and take samples.. but again, I don't think there is going to be anything learned we don't already know. Another thing to consider is this.. Wh
The first flights started in April 2008 (Score:2, Troll)
sure, you've earned my trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction: (Score:2)
For more, see my post here [slashdot.org].
Why UAVs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
you either tie it to the ground, or remotely operate it like a blimp.
Planes can cover a larger area which is more useful for taking a variety of air samples with a smaller number of craft.
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't see many blimps flying in wind above a few knots. For instance, flying into a 20 kt headwind (not uncommon at even low altitudes), a blimp would be standing still if not moving backwards over the ground.
There may be some more novel approaches to come, but a winged UAV is a practical unmanned vehicle that is cheap and doesn't require a trained pilot to fly. They aren't trying to invent a novel UAV, they are trying to study an ocean of air.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right, and what else? (Score:1)
I see they are using pusher configuration (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They are secretly equipped with spy gadgets to watch everyone!
They even have Hellfire missles to secretly bomb coal fired electric plants!
== I won't tell you my tin foil hat size, because that's a secret. ==
Re: (Score:2)
Today the payload tray is for "pollution", tomorrow its for you.
Same with cameras and microphones.
This Just In. (Score:2, Funny)
Armed? (Score:1, Funny)