Hacker News Reader

Comment by carbocation | Hacker News Reader

In a flat area, you could imagine designing a system so that it couldn't aim below horizon, and then mount it 10-15 feet up to mitigate the risk of blinding.

View on HN

That sounds like a big risk to aircraft.

Shouldn’t be too hard to pull FlightAware data or similar and just not ever shoot within n degrees of aircraft… if it was really much of a concern to start with. Big sky theory.

Not all aircraft broadcast ADS-B positions.

And as a low-time pilot who’s been bit with laser beams from people’s Christmas decorations, I’d argue the big sky theory doesn’t apply here.

FlightAware doesn't show all airplanes that are flying, only ones with ADS-B receivers, which are not required.

If it has IR it should also be able to spot aircraft trails but either way if there is any risk of blinding a pilot then they should tread extremely lightly (or non-startup-ish, i.e. obvious potential for "move fast and kill people").

Flightaware’s api isn’t super cheap, that would add up if you’re calling the planes overhead API all day

How long of a pulse is required to disable an insect? How long to be a danger to airplane pilots?

Also, can we get a laser that's collimated badly enough that the beam is ~harmless at distances where an aircraft can be, while still collimated well enough to fry the insect? (In the spirit of "the best radiation shield is r squared".)

I think an aircraft flying 15 feet above ground is a big risk to your crops too.

That's a good point.

And birds

Reply on news.ycombinator.com