I have few questions about technical conversations in Dronecode — where are they go? The mailing list have only one message for this month in archive. If there is some TSC members only conversation, is it possible to participate?
Dear Dronecode members,My name is Andrey Korigodsky, I'm CTO of Copter Express Ltd.
We specialize on multirotor UAVs. There is a large ongoing discussion on UAS standardization here in Russia and, while there is an option to develop our own local standard, we do not see any sense to create competing standards. We believe Dronecode already made a great job to unite the leading manufacturers and developers who are able to shape the UAV industry and we would like to participate in the standardization process.
We are currently working on some projects and issues, including:
— drone education. As federal tutors and authors of the State Educational Standard, we already started to teach in some schools and colleges to make UAVs, flight them and code. We are developing modular UAV system and are interested to use standard hardware that is suitable both for education and for commercial usage. Our goals are to make state-of-art technology available for many, ensure the safety, popularize UAV hardware and software engineering and allow people not involved in hardware engineering (as university researchers etc.) to participate in software development. The project includes large amount of different modules from simple sensors to computer vision system and swarming/local navigation module;
— connectors for elimination of soldering and standard hardware module mount system;
— UAV delivery. We already successfully finished several small-scale drone delivery projects in Russia and now are preparing large-scale federal pilot delivery project. We have a partner which is responsible for airspace management system but protocols and collision avoidance are definitely in our scope, as well as UAV itself, navigation and landing;
— automated solutions for monitoring (security, construction — in partnership with Autodesk, etc.);— automated docking stations, UAV–station open communication protocol and precise landing.
Our interests also include:
— precise swarming and indoor navigation;
— computer vision and TOF cameras for obstacle avoidance and object recognition;
— usage of modern FPGA and GPGPU for signal processing and tools to simplify the programming;
— high speed onboard bus. I do like the whole dominant/recessive thing of CAN bus but open-drain design imposes certain restrictions on the communication rate. However, CAN would be great robust redundant bus for critical devices.
How are TSC decisions issued? Are there any documents besides wiki pages, where decisions like communication buses, protocols, connector standards are described and justified?
Do you have any contact with ISO/TC 20/SC 16 committee?
We believe our membership could be beneficial for Dronecode because in many respects we are working on the same issues and our expertise could be useful, and it would be much easier for us to promote Dronecode standards being a member of the foundation and technical committee to assure colleagues that we have some impact on standardization decisions. Moreover, if we use Dronecode standards in our country, it will involve a quite large number of new developers in universities, institutes and other organizations for Dronecode compliant hardware and software stack.
CTO | Copter Express