1980squatch Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Anyone else more interested in the long term ground deployment operation than the airship? I'm going to be more interested in that getting underway than the ship taking flight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Agreed 1980squatch, the airship is an interesting addition to what can be done, and when it takes the air it will certainly add to the possibilities, but without the crew on the ground it would avail very little. Nathan and Team have the thing riding on their backs, if they cannot track and locate the creatures and determine when and if the airship would be of use, well it will be just wasted gas. Sending the craft up when the ground crew already has located a trail and is in proximity to the creatures just adds another dimension of observation, though the craft will be flown daily to help with the mapping of the area and observation of the local wildlife. Much can be learned as both dimensions are brought into play, what kind of movements are observable for the elk, deer, bears, and what ever else is seen, this will paint the bigger picture that right now we cannot quite see. Edited March 4, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 IMO, the end game of this project is a body down with several bullet holes in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Yuchi1, while that might be what ultimately proves the existence of the creature, the goal of the Falcon Project is education, learning the habits of these creatures and documenting that to a far greater extent than what we have till presently. This might lead to the ultimate goal of discovery without having to take a specimen, however the taxonomy and classification of the creature may still require a more detailed study of the anatomy. Perhaps we can recover a body that was already deceased and still not need to harm any of these very special creatures. I know that in no way will anyone on the Falcon Project attempt to fire at a creature unlessit is a life or death situation, and only for self protection will such an action be allowed. Edited March 4, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 What if, one of the ground team decides to shoot a Bigfoot, then buries it, and after the show is over, goes back and claims it, taking full glory for the discovery? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Who cares, as long as there's a body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 What if, one of the ground team decides to shoot a Bigfoot, then buries it, and after the show is over, goes back and claims it, taking full glory for the discovery? Very tempting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 4, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) I think the implication is, SWWAS, that the Falcon will be flown as an FPV vehicle, which will put the pilot in the "virtual" cockpit, another steep learning curve, related to, but different than flying RC from the ground. At this time, I believe that both MAAC and AMA (Canadian and US governing bodies for model aircraft flight) require that all FPV flights must have a copilot with visual contact from the flight station with the aircraft. Another level of complication for the project, but an important safety consideration that could save the craft, as well as people/objects on the ground. Just happened to have seen a demonstration of a FPV given my NASA JPL engineer son. He has worked on three of the mars rovers now on mars. His assessment of the Falcon project is that the control and reliability issues of the project are daunting and will be very expensive. FPV flying is challenging and while it might help to keep the airship out of the trees, FPV is of little benefit for traffic separation or during approach and landings. Especially when operating out of small fields as my son demonstrated. Perhaps their intent is to operate off of established airfields but that certainly limits their area of operation. You are correct in that FAA regulations for such aircraft require a safety observer to keep the remotely piloted aircraft in view at all times to watch for conflict with manned aircraft. That and safety to people on the ground is the FAA's primary concern. Given the size and weight of the airship, and potential danger to air navigation, you can be sure that flights will be monitored by the FAA to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. One misstep and they will be rule violated just as happens with commercial flight operations. That will shut them down until they have a hearing and determination of violation. That will shut them down for weeks and require a lawyer. Another requirement to operate at their intended 4000 agl, is that they will require licensed high power transmitters for command and control and downlink of video and data. Hobby equipment will not work. So that involves the FCC and special licenses or licensed amateur radio operators who have the capability. Not sure if the FCC will consider this a commercial enterprise but if they do, then amateur radio operators will not be able to be involved. So here is a second federal agency to deal with. For those without foundations and big budgets, remotely operated cameras mounted on tall trees with surrounding views of the terrain could be done for a fraction of the money without a single permit and are just as likely to produce good results. Climb a tree, mount the camera on a boom so you can get a nearly 360 view, and get as far away as you can get and still have radio contact with the camera. I know not as cool but something just as likely to succeed. Edited March 4, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 What if, one of the ground team decides to shoot a Bigfoot, then buries it, and after the show is over, goes back and claims it, taking full glory for the discovery? Part of the rationale for my post, as there are pro-kill advocates involved in this project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 5, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 5, 2015 ^ be more specific?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 One of the principals and one of the support team have previously voiced the need for a cadaver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 5, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 5, 2015 I heard they were changing the name to the luddendorff and switching to hydrogen due to helium shortages and budget concerns. Beats hockenspitt anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 5, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) I am sure that BF will be happy to oblige providing a cadaver when humans begin hunting them! One of the principals and one of the support team have previously voiced the need for a cadaver.I am sure that BF will be happy to oblige providing a cadaver when humans begin hunting them!The problem is it will most likely be a human cadaver. Edited March 5, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Looking from this perspective, the principals are going to spend $1 million+ (when all is said & done) on this project, just to take pictures..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Looking from this perspective, the principals are going to spend $1 million+ (when all is said & done) on this project, just to take pictures..... No, not just to take pictures. I covered a few points related to what we are doing and what types of data we are collecting. We are trying to collect footage, audio, DNA, other related trace evidence and behavorial/social information on the species. Science is repeatable, if our methods and results can be repeated then they can therefore verified. Edited March 5, 2015 by NathanFooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts