[tobinfricke]

> The Makani "kite" turbine was 2000 lbs.

Essentially the same code could run Makani's smaller machine, the 20 kilowatt "Wing 7", with a 7.8 meter wingspan and a mass of 60 kg. Many of the existing kite power companies are working on machines of this scale.

But we did have the luxury to design and build the system from the ground up, whereas scrappier startups might have to cobble together existing components. Hopefully they will be able to utilize some of the materials we've just released.

[londons_explore]

So what's to stop me cobbling together something like the Wing 7 and just leaving it unattended in a field to launch and generate whenever the wind conditions are suitable?

If I did, and I got typical government subsidies for wind power, I might earn $10k/year. That ought to pay for all the machines parts if I buy everything hobby grade from AliExpress. The 2nd year is pure profit assuming the craft lasts that long.

So that leads me to suspect the key issue is the various control algorithms can't be made reliable enough to run for years and years without crashing under any combination of gusts and wind conditions. Am I along the right lines of the issues?

[317070]

The issue is the tumbling cost of regular wind turbines, even offshore. If you have such a field, you would build a turbine, not a kite.

So yes, you could make a profit. But there is an alternative source of technology that makes the same power and has become really profitable in the last 10 years.

[krisoft]

The FAA (or your local alternative) might want to check your paperwork and licensing too.

[londons_explore]

While it stays tethered to the ground, I don't believe the FAA would be interested? Am I mistaken?

[tobinfricke]

Makani engaged early with FAA and we had a great working relationship. This enabled us to move out of China Lake (where we were using the military's restricted airspace, which didn't require FAA approval) and out into the public airspace in Hawaii. We did several test flights in close collaboration with FAA observers, developing a color scheme for the tether and a lighting system for the kite and ground station that were deemed adequately conspicuous. We also held a round-table with local pilots to get their input. Ultimately we operated under a "determination of no hazard" that classified the Makani system as an obstruction, something like a large radio tower.

Our COO gave a talk on the FAA approval process at the Airborne Wind Energy Conference (AWEC) a few years ago: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:ea8256a2...

[desdiv]

A tethered unmanned aircraft is still considered an aircraft by the FAA and subject to FAA regulations:

https://plane-lyspoken.foxrothschild.com/2017/12/03/tethered...

[pas]

It depends on how high it gets, because even high buildings/structures can be problematic. (They need a blinky light of course, but maybe more importantly a radar reflector.)