Atlas of Urban Air Mobility by Andrew Witt

Andrew Witt / Hyojin Kwon / Eunu Kim / Gavin Ruedisueli

An Atlas of Urban Air Mobility

Andrew Witt / Hyojin Kwon / Eunu Kim / Gavin Ruedisueli

An Atlas of Urban Air Mobility

An Atlas of Urban Air Mobility As aerial transport is more deeply integrated into the city itself, urban planning will include negotiating interrelated spatial demands of air transport equipment, infrastructure, and the physical dimensions of the city itself. This Atlas is a collection of the dimensional and spatial parameters that establish relationships between aerial transport and the city. Each of these interact with the others, and as aerial applications expand, their interrelationships will inform the structure of the city itself. This Atlas, as an inventory of these parameters, aims to establish a “kit of parts” for the aerial city of the future.

Primary Investigator: Andrew Witt Faculty Researcher: Hyojin Kwon Researchers: Eunu Kim Gavin Ruedisueli

The Future and Past of Aerial

114

Regional Futures

168

Architectural Futures

178

Conclusion

180

Contributors

Urbanism 12

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Building Blocks

Tools

The Future and Past of Aerial Urbanism

Andrew Witt

Today, the world’s cities seem poised for a broad reimagining of their relationship to flight. As a new generation of aerial technologies—autonomous drones, new propulsion methods, quadcopter taxis, to name a few— are introduced in urban spaces, cities must not only embrace the opportunities of aerial urbanism but also its challenges and unintended consequences. At the same time the conventional place of the airport vis-àvis the city is due for re-examination. This report attempts to confront both the future and the imagined past futures of aerourbanism from historical, technological, spatial, and simulational perspectives. To cover a breadth of dimensions related to aerial mobility, this report is divided into five major sections, each of which frames aerial urbanism in a distinct way. The first section, “Histories,” examines the long interaction of aerial devices and infrastructure and the imagination of the city. It serves as a preface and a recognition that while today’s aerial possibilities seem unbounded, in fact ambitious visions of urban air mobility are as old as flight itself. The second section, “Building Blocks,” inventories contemporary developments in aerial urbanism, including a range of new drone technologies, and the parameters and dimensions of specific ground infrastructures necessary for their operation. These parameters drive the development of a new software configurator documented in section three, “Tools.” In section four, we consider what impact aerial urbanism might have for connected regions, examining a possible future of regional air networks in Florida. Finally, in section five, “Architectural Futures,” we speculate on the architectural futures of the droneport and airport in the heart of the city. Collectively these studies should suggest threads for rethinking the future of air travel at the scale of cities and regions.

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Andrew Witt

Our contemporary moment is a time of considerable optimism for the possibilities of flight for the transformation of urbanism. Yet in certain ways this current situation mirrors the advent of powered flight at the dawn of the twentieth century. New technologies are catalyzing rash new optimism. Mass media are awash with ambitious visions of future cities, their skies thick with flying machines. The location and scale of airports is reconsidered. In all these ways, our time echoes the first great expansion of airports in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact we have much to learn about the future of air travel through past visions of possible futures. Many of these visions, both fanciful speculations or failed experiments, were promptly forgotten. Yet some have uncanny relevance for how we think about flight and the city today. In this chapter, we offer both a chronology and a catalog of past futures of aerourbanism. In part, we look back at the speculative technologies of the past. Yet at the same time, we revisit visions of how people and cities might have interacted with flight that may have been simply ahead of their time. In both cases there is much to ponder in the histories of aerourbanism, and their implications for the future of our own cities.

1970

Double Eagle II GA-42 Double Eagle V Skyship 600

1970

The Future and Past of Aerial Urbanism Timeline 1980

1980

Hyojin Kwon

1990

2000

AS-300

Zeppelin NT Breiting Orbitier

American Blimp MZ-3

2010

Peter J. Bowler, A History of the Future: Prophets of Progress from H. G. Wells to Isaac Asimov

2020

Air Balloon & Airship Montgolfier Brothers, First Unmanned Hot Air Balloon Demonstrated Jacques Charles & Robert Brothers, First Unmanned Hydrogen-filled Balloon Launched

Fixed-Wing Aircraft

1780

Thomas Baldwin, Airopedia 1790

1790

1800

1810

Henri Giffard First Blimp Launched

1820

1830

1820

William Heath, The March of Intellect

1830

1840

John Stringfellow, Aerial Steam Carriage 'Arial'

La France

1850

George Cayley, First Manned Glider Flight - Governable Parachute

1860

1850

1860

Jean-Marie Le Bris, First Heavier-Than-Air Flying Machine 'Albatros II'

1870

Jules Verne, Around the World in Eighty Days 1880

1870

Felix Du Temple, Monoplane Louis Pierre Moullard, The Empire of the Air Book

Guillau 1880

Zeppelin LZ-1, First Airship 1890

Albert Robida, Electric Life Fred Jane, Guesses at Futurity

Ballooning was a popular sport in the early 1900s.

1900

Jean Marc Cote, En L'An 2000

Otto Lilienthal, First true aviator made over 2,000 glides routinely Hiram Maxim, First Steam Engine Biplane Louis Pierre Moullard, Means of Aerial Flight Patent

1900

Albert Robida, La Sortie de I'opera en I'an 2000

Airship LZ-2 Nulli Secondus Atra Torres Airship

Piccard Helium Balloon

Harry Grant Dart, The Explorigator

1910

1890

Wright Brothers, The Wright Flyer

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Balloon Explorer 2

Simnon's Helium Balloon

Double Eagle II GA-42 Double Eagle V Skyship 600

AS-300 Zeppelin NT Breiting Orbitier American Blimp MZ-3 2010

2010

Peter J. Bowler, A History of the Future: Prophets of Progress from H. G. Wells to Isaac Asimov 2020

2020

H.C. Ireland, Pointing Toward A New Technological

Étienne

1970

1980

Our timeline exploration is categorized into four thematic areas – airship, fixed-wing aircraft, multirotor aircraft, and airport. Each thematic area acts as a lens through which to reassess the speculative and technological imagination of aerourbanism. Here, we simultaneously trace the technical innovations and speculative visions for past futures that offered distinct design futurism around city, sky, and society. 1990

1990

Bell Helicopter Textron, Compact Inner-city Airport

2000

2010

2020

2000

Multi-Rotor Aircraft

Airport & Infrastructure

1780

1790

1800

1810

1820

1830

“Airport” and “Air port” first appears in the Oxford English Dictionary 1840

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

George Cayley, Aerial Carriage

Mortimer Nelson, First Patented Helicopter Idea

ume Joseph Gabriel de la Landelle, Flying Machine Design Wilheim von Achenbach, Sideward Thrusting Tail Rotor

1900

William James Wintle, “Life in our New Century”

1900

Paul Cornu, Cornu Helicopter

lly Advanced Age

1910

Edmond Oehmichen, Experimental Helicopter “Hélicostat”

1930

Igor Sikorsky, VS-300

Stanley Hiller, Hiller Hornetn

1920

1940

Frank R Paul, Rooftop Airports in NYC Lehigh Airport Competition D.H. McMorran, Future Airport Competition Winning Design “Airport” and “Air port” first appears in the Oxford English Dictionary

1950

Stanley Hiller, Aerial Sedan

1930

1940

1950

James Dartford, Skyport One 1960

1960

1970

1980

1990

Bell Helicopter Textron, Compact Inner-city Airport 2000

2000

2010

2020

Air Balloon & Airship

Hyojin Kwon

The history of ballooning spans across many centuries. As we can see from the timeline study, the history of ballooning includes many firsts in human history, including the first unmanned and human flight, the first transcontinental flight in North America, and so on. In addition to making many breakthroughs in aviation history, airships have captured our collective imagination and influenced our vision of the future for centuries. Air balloons and airships are categorized together into the lighter-than-air craft. A balloon is an unpowered aerostat which does not have means of propulsion and therefore is non-steerable. An airship or dirigible balloon is a powered, free-flying aerostat or lighter-than-air aircraft that can navigate through the air. In the late 18th century Europe, ballooning became a major ‘fad’, providing the very first stage understanding of the relationship between the atmosphere and altitude that simultaneously catalyzed developments of travel technology and cultures. Airships were most commonly used until the 1940s and their use decreased as their capabilities were surpassed by those of aeroplanes. We conducted a broad survey of ballooning in these periods that maps the trajectory of technological inventions as well as its shifting cultural engagements and fantasies in the past futures of air travel.

Following page: Unknown author, Dirigible airships compared with related aerostats, from a turn-of-the-20th-century encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#/ media/File:Brockhaus-Efron_Aeronavtika.jpg.molorio.

Firstname Lastname

The First Hot-Air Balloon Flight, Montgolfier brothers, 1783

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

The first ‘unmanned’ and ‘manned’ flights in history were experiments conducted by Joseph and Étienne Montgolfier in France. On 19 September 1783, the Montgolfier brothers publicly demonstrated their invention before the crowd at Versailles’s royal palace. The balloon, Aerostat Réveillon, was flown with the first living creatures: a sheep, a duck, and a rooster which were believed to have reasonable physiological semblances to humans. The flight covered

two miles and lasted about eight minutes, and the craft landed safely after flying. After experimenting with unmanned balloons and flights with animals, the first free flight by humans was made on 21 November 1783. It flew about 3000 feet above Paris for a distance of five miles for about 25 minutes. A new page in the history of humankind had been written. The pioneering work of the Montgolfier brothers in developing the hot air balloon was recognized by this type of balloon being named Montgolfière after them.

Top: 1786 description of the historic Montgolfier Brothers’ 1783 balloon flight. Courtesy of the United States Library of Congress, http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.02447/.

Pioneering Ballooning Events in 1783 - 1846

Hyojin Kwon

1783 was a milestone year for ballooning and aviation. Five aviation firsts were accomplished in France, including the Montgolfier brothers’ balloon inventions. Since then, ballooning became a major ‘fad’ in Europe in the late 18th century, affording the first detailed understanding of the relationship between the atmosphere and altitude. This phenomenon led to dramatic changes in cityscape and urbanism. By the mid-nineteenth century, balloons were a

common sight in Europe. They were especially prevalent in France because major developments in ballooning were thought to be invented there. The collecting cards were produced in the late nineteenth century to commemorate with pictures of dramatic events in ballooning history from 1783 and 1847.

Top and Bottom: Collecting cards with pictures of events in ballooning and parachuting history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ballooning#/media/File:Ear-

Airopaidia, Thomas Baldwin, 1786

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

New innovations showed a view of the world that had never been seen before—the image below is a drawing of one of the first aerial views of Earth in “Airopaidia by Thomas Baldwin.” Airopaidia shows a remarkable insight into the early days of ballooning. The book wonderfully accounts for details of Baldwin’s one-day excursion in the air over Chester in England in 1785. Uniquely in this period, it depicts his experience verbally and via images:

three comprehensively produced plates delineating views from the balloon, the balloon in view, and the projected passage of the trip over the landscape. Coming in at almost 400 pages, together these illustrations can be seen as the first-ever ‘real’ overhead aerial views. The resulting plates capture the romantic fascination with scientific innovation and its aesthetic potential with hyper-sublime views.

Top: Baldwin, Thomas, aeronaut. Airopaidia. Printed for the author, by J. Fletcher; and sold by W. Lowndes ... London; J. Poole, Chester; and other booksellers, 1786. doi: https://doi. org/10.5479/sil.252299.39088000222026

The March of Intellect, William Heath, 1828

Hyojin Kwon

In 1824, industrialist Robert Owen coined the term “the march of intellect” to reflect the progress made in human knowledge after the Industrial Revolution, highlighting the benefits of technological stride that could lead to extensive social changes. Cartoons popularly deployed in the nineteenth century to depict current events and became increasingly accessible during the peak of the March of Intellect. William Heath’s collection of cartoon

prints published between 1825 and 1829 became central representations of the excitement. Heath suggested various future transport methods machines, including a variety of flying machines, steam-powered vehicles, and other forms of technology in his work, offering a new vision of society progressing into the future.

Top: William Heath, March of Intellect, 1829, Etching with hand coloring, Wellcome Library, https://wellcomecollection.org/works/re2aprgu.

Bottom: William Heath, March of Intellect No. 2, 1829, Etching with hand coloring, Graphic Arts Collection, Princeton University Library.

The First Airship Flight, Henri Giffard, 1852

propeller and flew through the air at a top speed of five miles per hour for seventeen miles.

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Early balloons were not accurately navigable. Attempts to achieve maneuverability included elongating the balloon’s shape that tapered to a point at each end and using a source of propulsion to push it through the air. Thus the airship or dirigible—a lighter-than-air craft with propulsion and steering systems—was born. Credit for constructing the first steerable airship belongs to a French engineer, Henri Giffard, who attached a small, steam-powered engine to a big

Top: Henri Giffard’s steam-powered airship flew in 1852, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

Bottom: Mike Young, A model of the Giffard airship at the London Science Museum, distributed under a CC-BY 4.0 license.

Dyer Airship, Micajah Clark Dyer, 1874

between 1872-1874.

Hyojin Kwon

After Henri Giffard’s first airship, airships would develop significantly over the next two decades. Among many innovative projects, Micajah Clark Dyer’s “Apparatus for Navigating the Air” proposed a technology to improve navigation by attaching wings. The image below shows his 1874 patented design that implemented a combination of wings and paddle wheels for navigation and propulsion. It is believed trial flights were made successfully

Top: 1874 patent drawing of Micajah Clark Dyer’s apparatus for navigating the air.

First Fully Controlled Free-Flight, La France, 1884

to its starting point. La France was a powered, steerable gas airship, approximately 167 feet long and 27½ feet in diameter.

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

La France was a French Army’s non-rigid airship launched by Arthur Constantin Krebs and Charles Renard on August 9, 1884. They piloted the first fully controlled free-flight with the La France over approximately five miles and returned to their starting point. It was the first complete round-trip flight with a landing on its starting point. On its seven flights between 1884 and 1885, the dirigible returned five times

Top: La France airship. 1885 photograph. The airship’s creation was led by Charles Renard and Arthur Krebs. 2001 National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

Electric Life, Albert Robida, 1892

Hyojin Kwon

Albert Robida conceived the life of the future in his book, Electric Life, presenting various kinds of fantastic devices for the lives of users. Robida was one the most significant science fiction illustrator of the nineteenth century and was known for his trilogy of futuristic novels. He imagined the future and made startling predictions in these books, describing the technical wonders of the coming years. He imagined inventions integrated into mundane

life and envisioned the social impacts that could arise from them, such as social advancement of women, development of leisure and tourism, air pollution, etc. A series of his prints depicted a futuristic view of air travel over Paris. Many types of aircraft in varying sizes and purposes are introduced, including personal flying machines, public flying buses, limousines, and even police vehicles.

Top: Robida, Albert. Le vingtième siècle. Librairie Illustrée, 1880. doi: https://doi.org/10.5479/ sil.538277.39088008658270

Guesses at Futurity, Fred Jane, 1894

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Fred Jane was hired by the Pall Mall Magazine in 1894 to draw a series of futuristic illustrations for ‘Guesses at Futurity. Combining poetic and romantic signatures with a high level of architectural detail along with fantastic predictions, his illustrations offer a detailed peek of life in an imaginary city of the future. His eight drawings predicted more everyday life changes, such as floating street lights and public transportation systems. ‘No. 3: Street Lighting,

Anno Domini 2000’ describes floating spotlights that light the city and streets from above. This illustration is unique in that it conceives the flying vehicle as an urban infrastructure beyond a means of air travel.

Top: Fred Jane, Guesses at Futurity, Pall Mall magazine, 1894.

En L’An 2000, Jean Marc Côté, 1899

Hyojin Kwon

In the 19th century, the rapid advancement of technology was a catalyst for visualizing the future. A group of French artists led by JeanMarc Côté were asked to envision the year 2000 by illustrating scientific and everyday design advances imagined as achieved by then. As a result, a series of nearly retrofuturistic vignettes called En L’An 2000 (In the Year 2000) was produced. Unsurprisingly, flight and flying machines predominantly were presented throughout the

series, and Côté envisioned numerous uses of air-based transport: personal air vehicle, public dirigible, flying mail carrier, etc. En L’An 2000 series reflect the artists’ visions that flight would become standard in the future, and people would take full advantage of air travel.

Top: Jean-Marc Côté, France in 2000 year (XXI century), paper card, 1899.

Fixed-Wing Aircraft

Hyojin Kwon

From the inventions of the early kites to gliders to powered models, the fixed-wing aircraft has changed the way we see and relate to the world. It has made many developments related to passenger air travel in the history of aviation and is still the most commonly and closely engaged type of aircraft in our mundane lives. A fixed-wing aircraft has the advantages of long endurance, large area coverage, and fast flight speed, but has the disadvantage of requiring a lot of space for landing and take-off which entails specific architectural programming and design.

Following page: The 1911 Wright glider over the Kill Devil Hills,1911, Photographs, Library of Congress Wright Collection

Firstname Lastname

Flying Machine Drawings, Leonardo Da Vinci, 15c

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

In the 15th century, more than a hundred years before the practical flights were achieved, Leonardo da Vinci’s studies predicted many principles of aerodynamics and flight. He produced vast sketches and written descriptions of over 500 images on flying machines, including helicopters and gliders, and a dedicated codex called “Codice sul volo degli uccelli” (Codex on the Flight of Birds). Most of them were impractical

and unrealized, yet they denote various scientific visionary notions from crucial technical concepts of gravity and lifting pressure to the understanding of the fundamental design of wings, highlighting the importance of lightweight structure and optimal curvature design.

Top: Leonardo da Vinci, Drawing for a gilder with bat’s wings, circa 1490.

Aerial Steam Carriage “Arial”, William Samuel Henson and John Stringfellow, 1842

Hyojin Kwon

In 1842, William Samuel Henson and John Stringfellow designed an aerial steam carriage named “Ariel” and received a British patent for a flying machine. It was invented with the desire to carry 10-12 passengers up to 1000 miles but failed to launch the flight due to insufficient power to support the weight of the steam engine. The 1848 model succeeded in flying some distance in the hanger. Despite the lack of significant practical

success, these attempts are remarkable in that they led to the transition from glider experimentation to powered flight trials. The image below is an artist’s imaginary representation of the plane “Ariel” flying over the Nile river, with the pyramids in the background.

Top: Drawn by illustrator Frederick Marriott, William Samuel Henson, and the Aerial Transit Company’s publicity engraving of the “Aerial Steam Carriage”, 1843.

Flying Machine “Albatros”, Jean-Marie Le Bris, 1868

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Jean-Marie Le Bris was a French sailor and sea captain. While he sailed around the world, he observed the flight of albatross and was inspired to design a flying machine by studying the flight of the bird. His study began with identifying and prototyping albatross’ behaviors and shapes. After varying success, he built the first version of his flying machine named ”L’Albatros artificiel”(The artificial Albatross) in 1856 and made a successful

flight with it on a beach in France. The glider was placed on a wooden cart towed by a horse to launch. This was the first to recognize the concept of lift, which he called aspiration, and marked the first heavier-than-air craft flight that flew higher than its start point. The flight covered a distance of 660ft, reaching a height of 330ft. The image below is the first-ever recorded photograph of a flying machine, and it depicts Le Bris in the seat of his second flying machine “albatros II” on a cart.

Top: Nadar, Le Bris and his flying machine “Albatros II”, photograph, 1868.

The Empire of the air, Louis Pierre Mouillard, 1881

Hyojin Kwon

Louis Pierre Mouillard was a French artist and innovator who was a visionary of aviation in the late 19th century. He strived to develop and disseminate the theoretical perspectives of aviation via publication. He also conducted technical glider experiments derived from the observation and appreciation of bird flights in Algeria and Cairo. His most famous work, The Empire Of The Air (l’Empire de l’Air), delineated various

fixed-wing glider proposals and became widely recognized soon after its publication in France in 1881. Through his lifelong study of flying machines, he is considered the father of aviation, who provided significant insight and thoughts of his time.

Top: Louis Pierre Mouillard book cover of L’Empire de l’Air, 1881.

Means of Aerial Flight Patent, Louis Pierre Mouillard, 1897

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

With the recognition of the importance of wings in aviation, Louis Pierre Mouillard interrogated ornithology to apply the requirements of gliding flight in birds flights, especially in that of vultures, to aviation. He invented the machine, “Means of Aerial Flight”, for navigating the airspace and the design was patented in the United States of America in 1897. The patent depicts his aspiration to imitate the soaring of large birds via skillful utiliza-

tion of the power of the wind. The design was meant to develop a means of not only soaring but also sailing comfortably with pleasure, circling and rising up to great altitudes in any direction, and coming back safely to the original departure point. A powerful motivation of his work and inspiration to many of his time was a utopian vision of aviation where flight would unify the world, reducing the need for borders and offering an open air empire for all of humanity.

Top: 1897 patent drawing of Louis Pierre Mouillard’s means for aerial flight.

Du Temple Monoplane, Félix du Temple, 1874

Hyojin Kwon

The du Temple Monoplane was the first successful powered aircraft of any kind in history, a fixed-wing model plane that was able to take off and land by its own power. It was designed by a French naval officer, Félix du Temple, and named after him in 1874. The aircraft deployed a very compact, high-speed circulation steam engine, which allowed the plane to lift off and glided for a brief time. Despite its short flying time, the aircraft returned safely

to the ground under its own power, marking a colossal accomplishment in aviation history and serving as inspiration for subsequent flying machines’ design.

Top: 1857 patent drawing of Félix du Temple’s flying machine, the “Canot planeur”.

First Steam Engine Biplane, Hiram Maxim, 1894

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Hiram Maxim was an American-British inventor who created numerous mechanical devices, such as the first machine gun. Maxim had a great interest in powered flight and conducted various aerial experiments in the late 1880s in England. The most prominent aerial work was the construction of his enormous biplane test rig in 1893, which weighed about 7,000 pounds and was over 40 feet long. Before building the actual flying machine, he constructed his own wind tunnel and an arm test

rig to conduct experiments on propeller and aircraft devices. After the experiments, the biplane with twin propellers powered by two steam engines was built with a 110 feet long wingspan. The aircraft was intended to be a test machine, and it ran on a rail track to prevent it from rising with aerodynamic lift. On the test run in 1894, it became airborne for about 200 yards reaching an altitude of two or three feet, but unfortunately, the lifting force broke it from the rail and damaged the airplane significantly.

Top: Illustration of Hiram Maxim’s First Steam Engine Biplane, 1894

The Wright Flyer, The Wright Brothers, 1903

Hyojin Kwon

The Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wright, were the pioneers of the aviation age, who invented the world’s first successful motor-operated airplane. After years of building and testing full-sized gliders, the brothers created a truly practical powered aircraft, the Wright Flyer III, and it successfully flew at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17, 1903. The first flight made a 12-second flight, covering 120ft, and after a few trials on the same day, it

traveled over 850 ft for about a minute. This was a groundbreaking innovation in the history of humankind beyond the history of aviation, which realized the long-standing dream to fly became true.

Top: John T. Danielsm, The first flight of the Wright Flyer, December 17, 1903

Multi-Rotor Aircraft

Hyojin Kwon

In the early aviation history, there were exuberant experiments on rotor aircraft in its design and technology as well as fixedwing aircraft. Until recently, the helicopter was the most actively used type, but with the advent of autonomous aerial vehicle and drone technologies, various types of rotorcraft are thriving, prompting a new golden age of rotor aircraft experimentations. The most significant advantage of rotorcraft is the vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) feature that allows the aircraft to hover, take off, and land vertically. Electric and hybrid-electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft technology are setting a milestone in the development of fully autonomous passenger air vehicles. With the VTOL technology, unlike a fixed-wing aircraft, a rotorcraft airport requires a relatively simple space as minimum as the standard heliport size, making it easy to install at various locations in the city. Early critical experiments are reviewed here to help us glean from them.

Following page: Etienne Oehmichen’s experimental helicopter, 1921, https://imechearchive.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/ experimental-helicopters/

Firstname Lastname

Precursor of Helicopter “Aerial Screw”, Leonardo da Vinci, 1483

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Leonardo Da Vinci imagined an early precursor of the modern helicopter, and the “Aerial Screw” is considered one of the earliest sketches for flying machine prototypes. Unlike his other sketches of fixed-wing aircraft that mimicked bird’s shapes and behaviors, the “Aerial Screw” conceived an unprecedented flight mechanism that deploys human-powered vertical lift. The aircraft was intended to expel compressed air

downwards with a rotating screw similar to a modern propeller. Unfortunately, the technology to generate power was not available yet, which made it impractical. Still, it is remarkable in that it devised a method almost identical to that of a modern helicopter.

Top: Leonardo da Vinci, Designs for flying machines, circa 1490.

Aerial Carriage, George Cayley, 1843

Hyojin Kwon

Sir George Cayley was an English inventor and aviator. He is regarded as the “father of the aeroplane” who first truly understood the underlying physics and forces of aviation principles. During his lifetime, he conducted rigorous research on flight physics and designed numerous modern heavier-than-air craft. He invented the first successful human glider and discovered the four aerodynamic forces: weight, lift, drag, and thrust. He also proposed an innovative

multirotor aircraft, “Aerial Carriage,” in a scientific paper published in 1843. It integrated four circular blades that are designed to lift the plane vertically. Although the design was never built, it remains a case model of his remarkable vision and understanding of aviation principles.

Top: George Cayley, Aerial Carriage Model, 1843, http://flyingmachines.ru/Images7/Putnam/FlyingMachine/45-1.jpg

Bottom: George Cayley, Aerial Carriage Illustration, 1843, http://www.aviastar.org/foto/cayley_1.gif

First Patented Helicopter Idea, Mortimer Nelson, 1861

rial suggestion to implement aluminum instead of iron was widely adopted as it is a lighter but stronger material.

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

In 1861, the first recorded patent of the helicopter idea was granted to Mortimer Nelson, who proposed an “aerial car” that used a propeller to lift the aircraft vertically. The design suggested mounting fans in pairs to counterbalance the torque that engines generate. Remarkably, he also envisioned methods for changing the driveshaft angle that allows shifting from vertical to horizontal flight. Nelson’s mate-

Top: 1861 patent drawing of Mortimer Nelson’s helicopter.

Flying Machine Design, Guillaume Joseph Gabriel de la Landelle, 1873

Hyojin Kwon

Guillaume Joseph Gabriel de la Landelle was a French naval officer, journalist, and inventor who was also one of the aviation pioneers. He coined the term ‘aviation” for the first time in his 1863 book Aviation and Air Navigation. His flying machine design provides an imaginary view of a steam-powered helicopter design. During the 1860s in France, several helicopter prototype models were created by individuals, including Landelle. He also founded the

“society of encouragement for the aerial locomotion by means of apparatuses heavier than the air” and published several books on the history of aeronautics. Despite their scientific impracticality and flaws, these inventions inspired Jules Verne’s 1886 novel Robur the Conqueror or The Clipper of the Clouds. In particular, in figure 112, the airplane similar to Landelle’s design is vividly depicted, which is an excellent example that shows scientific invention’s impacts on the rich imagination of literature and culture.

Top: William Ballingall, Flying machine designed by M. de la Landelle, 1873, Print, The Royal Society, https://pictures.royal-society.org/image-rs-10226.

Sideward Thrusting Tail Rotor, Wilheim von Achenbach, 1874

system, a pipe from the steam engine to carry steam to drive the rotors and a handle for rudder operation.

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Wilheim von Achenbach’s helicopter prototype was assumed the first design to introduce a single rotor, which is now the standard in helicopter design. It suggested a huge main rotor that is almost as double as the craft body size and introduced the concept of a sideward thrust tail rotor to counteract the main blade’s torque. A model was fabricated later in the late 19th century in France that depicts the rotor

Top and Bottom: Wilheim von Achenbach, Flying machine drawing and model, 1874, https://www.christies.com/en/ lot/lot-5480158.

Cornu Helicopter, Paul Cornu, 1907

Hyojin Kwon

Paul Cornu is a French engineer who made a historical breakthrough by inventing the world’s first successful manned rotary-wing aircraft in 1907. The Cornnu helicopter was a full-scale experimental helicopter with two oversized bicycle wheel rotors mounted one in front of the other. It has a record of achieving hovering and vertical lift rather than flying. With the pilot on board, it floated 5-7 feet in the air for 20 seconds.

Top and Bottom: Unknown Author, Paul Cornu’s Helicopter, 1907, Photograph, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ varese2002/26240460728

Experimental Helicopter “Hélicostat”, Étienne Edmond Oehmichen, 1921

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Étienne Edmond Oehmichen was a French engineer and helicopter designer. In 1921, he invented a type of blimp called the “Hélicostat” that integrated four movable propellers, which allowed controls on its own for hovering, take off, and landing. It is a hybrid model of helicopter and blimp with an elongated balloon placed on the frame to ensure stability and propellers to control navigation and generate thrust. Through

improvements of Hélicostat, Oehmichen created the first reliable flying quadcopter capable of carrying a passenger in 1922 that operated solely with rotors and achieved a true VTOL (vertical take-off and landing).

Top: Unknown Author, Etienne Oehmichen’s experimental helicopter, 1921, Photograph, https://www.flickr.com/ photos/amphalon/6099855999.

Bottom: Unknown Author, Etienne Oehmichen’s experimental helicopter, 1924, Photograph, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97905066/f9

VS-300, Igor Sikorsky, 1939

Hyojin Kwon

Igor Sikorsky was a Russian-American aircraft designer and aviation pioneer in both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. He is known for inventing the first successful mass-produced helicopter. Among his numerous aircraft designs, the VS-300 (Vought-Sikorsky) was credited with the first successful single lifting rotor helicopter in the United States. It was also the first successful helicopter to use a single vertical plane tail rotor configuration which remains

the standard in modern helicopter design. The VS-300 model was modified over years of period and later evolved into the R-4 model, which was the world’s first mass-produced helicopter.

Hiller Hornet, Stanley Hiller, 1950

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Stanley Hiller was an American pioneer of vertical flight. The late 1940s and early 1950s were a fertile period for exploring Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) concepts of all kinds of aircraft. Hiller also developed a number of innovative helicopters with great success and his company, Hiller Aircraft, became the industry leader. He envisioned personal use of helicopters in everyday life and invented mini-copters, including Hiller Hornet, with an aspiration to

offer an affordable helicopter that everyone can fly with their own one. February 1951 Popular Mechanics shows an imaginary illustration of his idea by depicting a suburbanite parking a bright yellow helicopter into his garage.

Aerial Sedan, Stanley Hiller, 1957

Hyojin Kwon

Stanley Hiller’s company explored implementation of ducted fans to replace propellers and proposed one of its designs for the Army “Flying Jeep” competition. Hiller’s desire to develop personal aerial vehicles continued, and he introduced a civil version of the “Flying Jeep” as the “Aerial Sedan” in 1957. The design intended to remove thrashing rotor overhead and no propellers and advertised the sleek design for a future vehicle that resembles an automo-

bile with two horizontal ducted fans for flying. The cover illustration of the July 1957 Popular Mechanics magazine offered a glimpse into our aerial future— A young couple cruising and hovering over a suburban town. The magazine describes this would like “a flying carpet” and billed on the cover as “Your Flying Car for 1967.”

Airport

Hyojin Kwon

The airport as an archetype has evolved symbiotically with the relationship to the city. During the first significant expansion of airports in the 1920s and 1930s, the airport appeared as an imaginative archetype in provocative proposals and diverting fantasies. Architects conceived the possibilities of integrating the airport into the city in a unique urban context locating it at every level of the city. This intimate relationship between the airport and the city was explored in varying scales, from the landing device on the roof to the single megastructural metropolis, generating perspectives of new urbanism. Various imaginations and visions for air travel appeared simultaneously, and unique design futurism for the city, sky, and society was formulated. Also, new urban concepts such as airspace regulation, networks, and traffic management have emerged, shaping our current regulation and standardization of the territorial relationship. Today, the advent of autonomous aerial vehicles and drone technologies are prompting similar speculations with optimism and ambition for new aerourbanism once again. Here we trace the technical innovation and social imagination of the early airport designs.

Following page: Carl Diensbach, “Roosts for City Airplanes”, The Popular Science Monthly (1919, June): 74.

Firstname Lastname

Future of Flight, George Cruikshank,1836

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

This image of the possibilities of future aerial flight was made by the celebrated caricaturist and illustrator George Cruikshank, and was printed in 1836. The aircraft at top is a massive affair (the selling of the “beautiful Castle in St. Cloud”) offered great possibilities along with “no ground rent”. It is absolutely a castle int he sky, literally and figuratively.

Top: E. Seton Valentine, Travels in Space, a History of Aerial Navigation, 1902. https://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/12/future-of-flight-1836.html.

“Life in our New Century”, William James Wintle, 1901

Hyojin Kwon

In the “Life in our New Century” published in the Harmsworth magazine in 1836, Wintle forecasted the near future tendencies of society lead by advances and improvements in technology. It is not based on speculative imagination but rather predicts how the 20th century’s future society would change based on existing mechanical inventions that were in the early stages of development yet proved potentials to

become an inevitable reality. In the 20th century, the author predicted the flying machine would become a practical reality, and airplanes would be accessible as everyday means of transportation. The illustration depicts his vision of a city transformed by air travel. It shows highrise buildings having rooftop terminals and aircraft flying overhead, animating the city’s ground and airspace.

Top: William James Wintle, “Life in our New Century”, 1901, The Harmsworth/London Magazine, volume 5 #30, pp 531-538.

Rooftop Airports in NYC, Frank R Paul,1928

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Frank Rudolph Paul was an American illustrator known for his unique science fiction illustrations for various SF magazines, including Amazing Stories. Paul’s elevated airports appeared in Amazing Stories Quarterly for 1928. as an illustration of the city in the science fiction, The Moon Doom by Earl L. Bell. Amazing Stories is a science fiction magazine that introduced amazing visionary imaginations with innovative ideas and is credited with publishing many of the

early greats in the field, including Jules Verene. The Moon Doom also conceived urbanism where the standard flying service facilitated travels in a city and between the cities. The combination of elevated inner-city airports, levitating walkways, and roads shows the city’s vertical expansion via physical materials and immaterial occupation such as regular flying routes.

Top: Earl Bell, Illustration in The Moon Doom, 1928, Amazing Stories Quarterly v1 01 1928, https://longstreet.typepad. com/thesciencebookstore/2011/11/underground-and-milehigh-airports-of-the-futures-past.html.

Future Airport Competition Winning Design, D.H. McMorran 1929

Hyojin Kwon

In 1929, the Royal Institute of British Architects held a design competition for the London airport of the future, accommodating 300 airplanes, with a hotel of 200 bedrooms. It was the first-ever design competition for the airport in history. The objective of the competition was to develop new models for the ideal airport designs setting up guidelines for air traffic regulations and necessary facility buildings. Besides

the design aspects, this competition promoted architect’s roles as airport planner. Three prizes were awarded among twenty-three submissions. The image below is D.H. McMorran’s winning scheme that illustrates the configuration for separating arriving and departing aircraft and passenger circulation.

Top: Dh Mcmorran’s Design For Royal Institute Of British Architects’ Competition To Design An Aerodrome Which Shared Second Prize, 1929, Image used under license from Shutterstock.com.

Lehigh Airport Competition, 1929

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

By the end of the 1920s, hundreds of airports were scattered across the United States; despite the explosive public zeal in aviation, they were nothing more than flying fields with temporary structured hangars. The Lehigh competition was the first national airport competition held by the US aviation legislation, sponsored by Lehigh Portland Cement Company. Similar to the 1929 London airport competition, the primary purpose of the competition was to establish the new

ideal standard of the airport design with proper architectural edifices and aviation facilities for the airports for the future. Among the 257 design proposals, some give a glimpse of bold imaginations differentiated from the current standardized airport design, ranging from a dome style to Beaux-arts confections to megastructural aerial skyways. The image below is the first prize-winning scheme, “quadrant airport,” by A.C. Zimmerman and William H. Harrison.

Top: A.C. Zimmerman and William H., Quadrant airport, 1929, American Airport Designs, New York: Taylor, Rogers, and Bliss, 1930.

Aerotropolis, Nicholas DeSantis, 1939

Hyojin Kwon

Some proposals hybridized the demands of the airport with existing typologies, for example, converting office towers into layered airports. One 1936 version of the stacked air terminal was imagined as a multi-story building where the top 50 floors offer hangars and parking for commuter’s private aircraft. The proposal was conceived by American artist, Nicholas DeSantis, who also coined the term “aerotropolis” presented in the November 1939 issue of Popular Science. It rep-

resents the tight integration of airport and city where the airport functions as a megastructural metropolis at the city’s core.

Floating Airports in The Late 1920s

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Crossing continents was one of the dreams of early flying, yet it was impossible to make the non-stop flight over the Atlantic ocean in the 1920s. Various floating airport ideas were proposed as means to provide places to make emergency or refueling stops while crossing the ocean. Two approaches were proposed: aerial and ocean landing fields. The November 1929 Popular Mechanics cover illustrates an airborne platform on an airship carrier hovering in the

sky. “Akron” and “Macon” were actually constructed in the early 1930s as airborne aircraft carriers, which could launch and retrieve by means of a trapeze and carry 4-5 airplanes. The later models were designed to carry up to 22 airplanes. For the floating ocean airports, a proposal for an elongated vessel landing platform with runways as a floating island-type airport, published in Popular Mechanics in 1925. It consists of a hangar for maintenance and refueling planes and hotel facilities for travelers, and to cross

Top: Cover illustration, Popular Mechanics, November 1929.

airports that may be relevant in realizing landing pads for UAVs.

Hyojin Kwon

the Atlantic Ocean, a total of four were required at the time. The image below features Edward R. Armstrong’s proposals for floating airport platforms, “Langley” and “Seadrome”. It was designed to be a floating landing strip anchored to the ocean floor by steel cables. It passed several practical tests for production successively, receiving media attention and massive funding, but the idea was unrealized and became obsolete as aircraft fuel efficiency, speed, and range increased. Even though they were not realized, we can glimpse the imagination of floating island

Top: Edward R. Armstrong’s floating airport platforms,1925, Popular Mechanics, July 1925, pg 12.

Skyport One, James Dartford, 1957

London and have offices, hotels, and a sky-top restaurant with an extensive view of the city.

Historical Approach to “Everyday Air”: Archeology of AeroUrbanism

Skyport One is a design proposal of an airport conceived by James Dartford for Pilkington’s Glass Age Development Committee. Although it was intended as a vision of city living in the year 2000, it intentionally didn’t look just futuristic - it was supposed to be realistic and use technologies available in the 1950s. Planes and helibuses would use the loft heliports atop the three elevator shafts. The building was envisioned to be located in St.George’s Circus in

Top: Photo-illustration of Skyport One via Getty Images.

Compact Inner-city Airport, Bell Helicopter Textron, 1994

Hyojin Kwon

The image shows Bell Helicopter Textron’s concept design for a small inner-city airport in 1994. At this point, when the development of the flying industries using the sky, such as air taxis and drone delivery, is once again passionately conceived, Bell Helicopter Textron’s compact urban airport concept is relevant once again. Deviating from the previous mega-structural approach covering multiple buildings, this design

proposed a compact version placed at the city’s core. It seems a reasonable scale for negotiating the urban constraints and regulations. And it appears to find a niche placed on the railroad occupying empty aerial space in the city and providing a multimodal transportation model.

Top: 1994 concept for small inner-city airport, Courtesy of Bell Helicopter Textron, Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum. Used with permission of National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution Copyright © 2022. All rights reserved.

Building Blocks

Andrew Witt

Air travel is made possible by a collection of disparate technologies, spatial regimes, policies, and hard infrastructure. Simulating aerial futures thus entails the parameterization and coordination of all these various factors. In this section, we present a partial but indicative catalog of this wide array of factors. Drones, landing areas, docking systems, and more all become the building blocks of more complex aerial networks, and here we itemize a few of those building blocks.

Aircraft

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Eunu Kim

From planes to blimps, from drones to helicopters, each type of aircraft that may be used in an urban context is suitable for specific applications dependent on parameters such as range, load, speed, and fuel efficiency. They each also, in turn, demand different types of infrastructure for landing, charging, and support. The ways in which the city must be retrofit for aerial applications ultimately depends on the parameters of the aircraft themselves. The following section inventories key parameters of current and future urban aircraft.

Following page photo: The concept of the future unmanned air taxi. 3D Rendering, Retrieved September 30, 2021, from: https://depositphotos.com/319149400/stock-photo-pilotless-passenger-drone-makes-a.html.

Firstname Lastname

Multi-rotor Drones

Aircraft

Multi-rotor drones have proliferated in recent years due to their control, maneuverability, and reliability. These medium-duty drones vary in range but can usually accommodate small payloads of about ten pounds. Even on a relatively limited range such a drone could cover most metro cores.

Left: Top/front view and specs of Harris Aerial Carrier H6 Hydrone (Source: Harris Aerial)

Right: Top/front view and specs of DJI Matrice 600 (Soruce: SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.)

Fixed-wing Drones

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Eunu Kim

Fixed-wing drones operate at faster speeds and longer ranges but are less maneuverable and may not be ideal in urban contexts. Larger drones are comparable in many ways to manned aircraft.

Left: Top/front view and specs of Harris Aerial Carrier H6 Hydrone (Source: Harris Aerial)

Right: Top/front view and specs of Predetor MQ-1B (Soruce: General Atomics)

Single-rotor Drones

Aircraft

Single-rotor drone aircraft are most similar to existing helicopter designs and differ mainly in their control systems. In principle. They could readily be accommodated with existing helicopter infrastructure.

Payload 5 Passengers

Endurance 15 mins

Left: Top/front view and specs of Jaunt Air Mobility Rosa (Source: Jaunt Air Mobility LLC.)

Right: Top/front view and specs of DJI Matrice 600 (Soruce: SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.)

Hybrids

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Eunu Kim

Various fixed wing / rotor hybrids exist, often for their vertical takeoff and landing benefits. They tend to be more complex than either fixed wing or rotor options but can offer the benefits of both as well.

Top: Top/front view and specs of ASX Mobi-One (Source: Airspace Experience Technologies)

Aircraft Infrastructure

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Aicraft infrastructure, including ground-based structures for landing, loading, charging, control, and support, comprise a key spatial demand for the aerial city. In some cases structures within the city might be retrofit for these demands, while in other cases entirely new structures must be provisioned. The following instances are not intended as an exhaustive catalog but instead as indicative samples of the types of spatial demands of current and future areal technologies.

Following page photo: Chihaya Sta, Shinjuku Green Tower Building Heliport, distributed under a CC-BY 4.0 license.

Firstname Lastname

Heliport Takeoff/Landing Areas

Aircraft Infrastructure

The US Department of Transportation / Federal Aviation Administration publishes standards for heliport design. Design of heliports requires attention to numerous parameters and these drawings are only general diagrams of the wide variety of configurations possible. Parameters are defined partially by the specifications of a “design helicopter,” shown below with various dimensions called out by letters. Since dimensions depend on parameters, the scale of elements varies considerably. Particularly relevant to the design of landing areas are “D” and “RD”. You will see on the plan diagrams and tables below that many of the key dimensions of a heliport are multiples of these dimensions. On the left is a general aviation heliport, and on the right is a hospital configuration. Key aspects of both are the “touchdown and liftoff area” (TLOF), the “final approach and takeoff area” (FATO), and the “safety area”. In the case of rooftop heliports, the safety area may sometimes extend over the outer walls of the building.

UCW

UCL

APPROACH / DEPARTURE SURFACE

1.5 D

TLOF PERIMETER

see table

1.5 D

see table

1 RD

spital Heliport

WIND CONE

1 RD, min 12m

1 RD, min. 12m

1 RD

1.64

LIGHTED WIND CONE

HELIPORT BEACON

RAISED TLOF SAFETY NET IN-GROUND FATO EDGE SAFETY AREA

SAFETY AREA

APPROACH / DEPARTURE SURFACE

Diagrams Source: AAS-100, Office of Airport Safety & Standards - Airport Engineering Division, AC 150/5390-2C - Heliport Design § (2012). https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentFederal Aviation number/150_5390-2. Accessed 08/13/2021.

Administration

Federal Aviation Administration

Heliport Parking Areas

73 APPROACH / DEPARTURE SURFACE

SURFACE

TLOF PERIMETER MARKING

FATO EDGE MARKING

TLOF PERIMETER MARKING

SAFETY AREA

APPROACH / DEPARTURE SURFACE

APPROACH / DEPARTURE

FATO EDGE MARKING APPROACH / DEPARTURE SURFACE

SAFETY AREA

TAXI ROUTE WIDTH

1 RD

TAIL ROTOR ARC

TAXI ROUTE WIDTH

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

The FAA’s heliport design specifications also govern the design of parking and taxi areas for helicopters. Like the landing areas, dimensions are parameters that are dependent on multiple factors including the specifications of the design helicopter. Since dimensions depend on parameters, the scale of elements varies considerably. Two key types of configurations for parking areas are “taxi-through” (left image below) and “turn-around” (right image below).

1 RD

Patent US 9387928 B1: “Multi-Use UAV Docking Station Systems and Methods”

Aircraft Infrastructure

A patent filed by Amazon for drone docking stations that would be mounted on tall structures such as lamp posts, cell phone towers, and churches where delivery drones could land and recharge, wait for inclement weather conditions to pass, or pick up and deliver packages. A central control system would help direct individual drones to their docking stations, calculating the best route based on factors such as prevailing wind conditions.

Above: Amazon Technologies, Inc., “Multi-Use UAV Docking Station Systems and Methods.” US 9387928 B1, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Jul. 12, 2016

Patent US 9777502 B2: “Multi-level fulfillment center for unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Today, Amazon’s massive ground-based delivery networks are built around large warehouses called fulfilment centers, usually located on the outskirts of cities. But these centers would be too remote for drones to reach the company’s urban customers. To work around the issue, the company has patented a concept for high-rise drone delivery fulfilment centers that would be located within cities and other densely populated areas. These towers, which may be staffed primarily by robotic systems, would feature multiple take-off and landing ports to allow increased drone traffic, and may be large enough for the drones to fly around inside.

Above: Amazon Technologies, Inc., “Multi-level fulfillment center for unmanned aerial vehicles.” US 9777502 B2, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Oct. 3 2017

Patent US 9778653 B1: “Systems, Devices and methods delivering energy using an uncrewed autonomous vehicle.”

Aircraft Infrastructure

A patent filed by Amazon, for delivering energy from an uncrewed flying drone to a moving vehicle. Such systems would allow for vehicles to remain driving down the road while receiving energy, obviating the need for refueling/recharging breaks. Energy might be in the form of electrical or chemical (i.e. fossil fuel). The diagram on this page illustrates the docking mechanism that would allow a drone to connect to a vehicle. The docking mechanism would allow the transfer of electricity or fuel to the vehicle.

Patent US 9718564 B1: “Ground-based mobile maintenance facilities for unmanned aerial vehicles” A patent filed by Amazon for mobile maintenance facilities for UAVs. The basic concept is of a maintenance unit that can shift between modes of transport, such as a shipping container with maintenance facilities inside, which can be loaded onto trains, trucks, or ships. Containers would be able to service and launch UAVs while in motion. Maintenance units would be concentrated in areas of high UAV traffic.

Top: Amazon Technologies, Inc., “Multi-Use UAV Docking Station Systems and Methods.” US 9387928 B1, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Jul. 12, 2016

Bottom: Amazon Technologies, Inc., “Ground-based mobile maintenance facilities for unmanned aerial vehicles.” US 9718564 B1, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Aug. 1, 2017

Patent US 9305280 B1 “Airborne fulfillment center utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles for item delivery.”

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

A patent filed by amazon for an airborne fulfillment center. Whereas fulfillment centers are typically located outside of urban areas in warehouses, this would bring the fulfillment center into urban areas, mounting it onto very large airships at very high altitudes (45,000ft, for example). This would of course result in drones and packages passing through many different classes of airspace, including cruising altitudes of commercial aircraft, not to mention the safety concerns of suspending a warehouse over inhabited areas.

Another diagram from the airborne fulfillment center patent, showing general flow of goods. Goods are loaded onto large shuttles (350), which ferry goods up to the fulfillment center (302). Smaller drones (312) travel from the fulfillment center to customers below. To conserve power resources, drones would likely have wings to allow for horizontal travel and gliding to a lower altitude, where it would enter the UAV network (300), engage motors, and communicate with other UAVs. After delivery is completed, drones would likely return to a materials handling facility (330) or shuttle. Drones would return to the fulfillment center on a shuttle.

Top and Bottom: Amazon Technologies, Inc., “Airborne fulfillment center utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles for item delivery.” US 9305280 B1, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Apr. 5, 2016

Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

Certain elements of existing city infrastructure might be profitably adapted to support aerial applications. Many raised horizontal surfaces, such as rooftops or ledges, could provide landing or charging ports, for example. The key challenge is matching aerial infrastructural requirements to urban infrastructure requirements. Masts provide a particularly promising class of urban infrastructure for aerial adaptation. The following catalog suggests a few types of typical masts - some typically urban, others more ex-urban - which might be adapted for aerial infrastructure.

Following page:Adaptation of existing utility poles for drones

City Infrastructure

Urban Infrastructure

Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

Various parts of the urban fabric may be adaptable for drone landing zones. Some examples include a modified pylon for high-tension power lines, and the vertical supports of bridges. Types of drones that land in these locations would probably be unmanned and smaller than those that carry people.

Medium Unmanned Drones

Large Drones

Medium Unmanned Drones

Communications Infrastructure

City Infrastructure

Mast structures such as cell phone towers could be adapted for small drone landing zones. These would not be able to support manned drones.

Medium Unmanned Drones

Above: Adaptation of existing telecommunication towers for drones

ndustrial Infrastructure

Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

Existing industrial buildings could be adapted to become drone ports. Perhaps a disused oil platform could become a transit stop that people use to transfer between routes, or maybe a node in a network of delivery drones.

Large Drones

Medium Unmanned Drones

Above:Adaptation of existing off-shore oil platforms for drone use

Airspace

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

While infrastructure demands constrain how cities may be retrofit on the ground, a constellation of airspace regulations shape how aerial devices can operate within the city. Airspace conditions interact with aerial devices in two ways. First, they restrict where a a device might legally fly. Primarily regulated by the FAA, these zones are discrete and rigid. Second, the space demanded for takeoff and landing within the city restricts where a device might operate. The following pages illustrate the overlapping policy and technical demands that shape urban airspace.

400 400 400 400 400 400

400 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 50

0 150 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 300 300 300

0 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

0 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 300

300 300 300 300 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 150 200 83

Firstname Lastname

400 150 150 400 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 250 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 100 150

400 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 250 200 150 100 100 50 50 50 50 100 150

400 400 400 400

300 300 250 200 150 0

50 50 100

300 300 250 200 150 100 0

50 50

0 100 0

300 300 250 200 150 100 100 100 100 0

300 250 250 200 150 100 100 0

50 50 50

300 300 250 200 150 0

300 300 250 200 150 150 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 100

300 300 300 250 200 150 150 100 100 100 100 150 150 150

300 300 300 250 200 200 150 150 150 150 200 200 200

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

400 400 400 400 300 200 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 400 400 400 300 200 0

0 200 300 50 200 400

400 400 300 200 0

400 400 400 300 200 0

0 100 200 400 400 400

0 100 200 400 400

400 400 400 400 300 200 200 100 0 200 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 200 200 0 400 400

Airspace Descriptions Airspace in the US is divided into different classes under tha main categories of “A” “B” “C” “D” “E” and “G”. Airspace classifications follow a set of typical rules with variations in certain circumstances. Elevations follow some different terminologies: AGL (above ground level), MSL (mean sea level), and FL (flight level). Classes A-E are “controlled airspace” and G is “uncontrolled”. Very generally speaking, Class A airspace extends over the entire contiguous US above 18,000ft MSL. In simple terms, Class D occurs around very small airports, C around mid-sized airports, and B around the largest airports. Classes B-D are generally cylindrical or “upside-down wedding cake” in shape although their exact shapes vary depending on needs. The cylindrical and upside-down wedding cake shapes are idealized versions of airspace. Class E airspace is irregular in shape and fills in the gaps between ABCDG airspaces. Finally G airspace is always bounded on the bottom by the ground and 84

Airspace

<Class B: Major Airports> - Drones require air traffic authorization - Shape/Altitudes vary (Stacted cylinders shown form simplicity)

BOT OF CLASS E (14,500 MSL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED) TOP OF CLASS G (14,500 MSL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED)

BOT. OF CLASS E (VARIES, TOP OF G) (AMAZON PROPOSAL) TRANSIT DRONES 200-400 AGL

(AMAZON PROPOSAL) UNMANNED DRONES 0-200 AGL

Sources: Airspace 101 – rules of the sky. Federal Aviation Administration, October 30, 2018. https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101/. Accessed 08/13/2021. Pilot’s handbook of aeronautical knowledge. Federal Aviation Administration, August 24, 2016. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/. Accessed 08/13/2021. “Amazon’s Top Prime Air Executive Outlines Plans for Delivery Drones to Navigate Skies.” Supply Chain 24 7. Supply Chain 24 7, July 29, 2015. https://www.supplychain247.com/article/amazon_outlines_plans_for_delivery_drones_to_navigate_skies. Accessed 08/13/2021.

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

<Class C: Medium Airports> - Drones require air traffic authorization - Shape generally is 2 stacked cylinders, but can vary

<Class E> - Drones require waiver - Lower limit varies - May extend to ground level for airports without control tower

BOT. OF CLASS E (FL 600) TOP OF CLASS A (FL 600) BOT. OF CLASS A (18,000 MSL) TOP OF CLASS E (18,000 MSL)

CLASS E SURFACE EXTENSION

<Class D> - Drones require traffic authorization

AIRPORT WITHOUT CONTROL TOWER

goes up to a certain elevation above which there is a transition to E. There are other forms of airspace that are not noted here such as “special use airspace” which itself contains many possible uses, such as military use. Companies such as Amazon are eager to make variations to airspace rules to benefit their delivery businesses. One such proposal (Amazon) is included in the diagram below. In terms of drone activity, it is likely that the majority of traffic would occur in Class G airspace with some exceptions allowing travel into Class E when necessary, or perhaps into BCD airspaces when a droneport is part of a transit hub at an airport.

LAANC for Unmanned Aircraft Systems LAANC is the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability. It allows the FAA to work more directly with the private drone sector to authorize and monitor Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) flights. It provides a collaborative service between FAA and Industry to facilitate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) integration into the airspace. “Drone pilots planning to fly under 400 feet in controlled airspace around airports must receive an airspace authorization from the FAA before their flights.”1 LAANC provides automated services for the airspace authorizations application and approval process, and the pilots can receive the authorization instantly. The system filters the applications against several “airspace data sources in the FAA UAS Data Exchange such as UAS Facility Maps, Special Use Airspace data, Airports, and Airspace Classes, as well as Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs).” 2 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 0 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 50

0 150 400 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 150 0

0 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

400 400 400 400 150 0

0 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 300 300 300 300 400 400

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

400 400 400 400 400 100 400 150 150 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 150 200 250 300 400 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 250 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 100 150 250 250 300 300 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 250 200 150 100 100 50 50 50 50 100 150 150 200 250 300 300 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 250 200 150 0

50 50 100 100 150 200 200 250 300 400 400

300 300 250 200 150 100 0

50 50 50 100 150 200 200 250 300 400

0 100 0

50 50 100 150 150 200 250 300 400

300 300 250 200 150 100 100 100 100 0

50 50 100 150 150 200 250 300 400

50 50 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 400 400

300 300 250 200 150 0

UAS Facility Map

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 0 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 250 250 200 150 100 100 0

400 400 400 400 400 400 50

0 150 400 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 150 0

0 400 400 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 150 0

0 400 400 400 400 400

400 400

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300200 300 300 300 300 300100 300 30050 300 300 300 300 300 300 250 150 150 50 50 50 100 100 100 150 150 200 250 250 300 400 300 300 300 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 300 300 300 300 400 400

300 300 200 150 100 100 100 150 150 150 200 200 250 250 300 400 400 300 300 300 300 300 250250 200 200 150 150 100150 100 150 200 250 300 400 400100 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 100 400 150 150 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 250 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 100 150 250 250 300 300 400 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 250 200 150 100 100 50 50 50 50 100 150 150 200 250 300 300 400 400

300 300 300 250 200 200 150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 250 250 300 300 300

400 400 400 400 400 400 400

300 250 200 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 100 100 150 200 200 250 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400300400 400 300 300 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 250 200 150 100 0

50 50 50 100 150 200 200 250 300 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 250 200 150 400 0 0 400 100 0300 0 300 0 0 300 0 0300 50 50 100 150 150300 200 250 300 400 300 300 250 200 150 100 100 100 100 0

50 50 100 150 150 200 250 300 400

400 400 400 400 300 200 300300400 400 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 250 250 200 150 100 100 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 400 400 400 400 400 300 200 0

400 400 300 200 0

300 300 250 200 150 150 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 150 150 200 250 250 300 400

0 200 300 50 200 400

300 300 300 250 200 150 150 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 200 200 250 250 300 400 400 250 200 200 150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 250 250 300 300 300 0300 3000300 100 200 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 300 300 300 300 300

400 400 400 300 200 0 400 400 0 400 0400 400 100 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 200 300 300400 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 400 400 400 400 300 200 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

400 400 400 400 300 200 200 100 0 200 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 200 0

0 200 300 50 200 400

400 400 300 200 0

400 400 400 300 200 0

0 100 200 400 400 400

0 100 200 400 400

400 400 400 400 400 300 200 200 0 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 200 200 100 0 200 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 300 200 200 0 400 400

8 PM

er Fixed Sites

Airspace

UAS Facility Map

FAA UAS Facility Map Data

8/2/2019, 3:36:28 PM

Recreational Flyer Fixed Sites 1

100 10 1,000

FAA UAS Facility Map Data

[1] LAANCTrue Ready: True [1] LAANC Ready: 100

[0] LAANC Ready: False

[0] LAANC Ready: False 1,000

National Security UAS Flight Restrictions National Security UAS Flight Restrictions

400' AGL

400' AGL Class B

Class B

Class D

1:288,895 0

2.5

4.25

8.5

2.5

4.25

10 mi 17 km

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS City of Boston, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Mission Support Services, Aeronautical Information Services. |

Class D

Sources: Esri, HERE, Ga NRCan, Esri Japan, METI (Thailand), NGCC, (c) O User Community

City of Boston, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Mission Support Se

Above: FAA Regulations in Controlled Airspace (Source: FAA, UAS Data Exchange (LAANC). 2019, July 22).

1. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). UAS data Exchange (LAANC), August 13, 2021. https://www.faa.gov/ uas/programs_partnerships/data_exchange/

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

The UAS service suppliers provide the websites and apps for the LAANC service where you can monitor air traffic in real-time with visibility into drones operating. Through the map with planning tools, you could simulate your flights before applying. It provides required and advisory rules to support your flight plans by ensuring safety and reducing in-air conflicts. The images below show the Boston air map with the Airspace classes and the altitude ceiling limit overlayed. Some examples of advisory rules set by AirMap for US drone flights. - AirMap recommends avoiding hospitals/prisons/schools/ power plants when planning your flight. - AirMap recommends flying cautiously within 5 miles of any airport. If you need to fly above the altitude ceiling limit, applicants may request approval manually through the FAA.

AREAS OF INT Advisories

Flights My Aircraft Profile

Settings

Support

42° 22′ 1.628

Log out

Top: Boston Airspace Maps (Source: Airmap and OpenStreetMap)

Bottom: Boston - Logan International Airport Composite of Critical Airspace Surfaces. Surface elevations above mean sea level. (Source: Massachusetts Port Authority)

Helicopter route chart

Airspace

To study how to design an effective airspace route and network for the realization of Urban Air Mobility, we reviewed existing flying routes of helicopters. By examining the urban planning policies related to the existing flight routes simultaneously, we intend to explore their adaptability and implications for future Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Helicopter Route Charts are provided by FAA and updated every three years to accommodate major changes. These maps illustrate aeronautical information to support helicopter flight navigation. They include helicopter routes, heliports with related frequency and lighting specs, and geographical landmarks and features. Most of Boston’s helicopter routes are designed to fly over existing infrastructure such as highways, railroads, and waterways. Designing the paths over this existing infrastructure

United States National Ocean Service. Helicopter route chart, Boston. [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 2000] Map. https://www.loc.gov/

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

is beneficial in that it can minimize the adverse impact on the underlying community. However, in terms of mechanical efficiency, since the latest UAV aircraft will be electric, a hub-oriented network that uses the shortest distance using straight routes can efficiently minimize their energy consumption, time, distance, etc. An eclectic air route network design is required that considers the existing infrastructure and the new infrastructure, such as charging stations, and various urban factors.

Approach/Departure Airspace for Heliport

Airspace

Current heliports and related spatial regulations are reviewed to explore how this infrastructure might be tailored to the future design of UAV takeoff/landing infrastructure within the metropolitan area. Each heliport must have unimpeded approach and departure paths to ensure a safe environment to operate aircraft’s landing and takeoff. The FAA advises that at least two routes are required to allow entry and exit to the helipad under inclement weather conditions, and recommended separation angle between two paths is 135 degrees. The heliport approach path is categorized into two airspace surfaces: the “Approach Surface” and the “Transitional Surface.” The Approach Surface extends 4000 feet outward from one side of the heliport’s primary surface that begins as wide as the heliport and reaches 500 feet. It can be either straight

Heliport Protection Zone 280 ft at Ground Level

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli Firstname Lastname

or curved as long as the entire path has no obstructions. The slope should be 8 to 1. The Transitional Surface stretches outward and upward from the Approach Surface at a slope of 2 to 1 to a distance of 250 feet horizontal to the centerline of the approach surface and from the primary surface’s side boundaries. The visual description is provided via the diagram below.

500 ft

4,0

Transitional Surface Approach / Departure Surface

Constraints

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Beyond the technical and policy parameters related to aerial mobility, there are a number of external constraints which shape or restrict how air vehicles might be used in the city. These constraints may also have specific spatial implications, such as separation distances, noise levels, or pollution impacts. The following describes the spatial parameters implied by these constraints, and their relationship to specific types of vehicles.

Separation Standards In order to safely accommodate the increasing demand of new air vehicles in the airspace system, a systematic air traffic management system is required. As one of the critical parameters, we review the separation standards. In air traffic control, “separation” means keeping an aircraft outside a minimum distance from another plane to lower the risk of those aircraft collisions and prevent accidents due to other factors. In general, airplanes in the air must be separated vertically or horizontally. Different separation rules apply to aircraft operating under two conditions: instrument flight rules(IFR) or visual flight rules(VFR).

Visual flight rules (VFR) apply to most light aircraft and helicopters. For general aviation aircraft outside of controlled airspace, separation can be as close as 500ft laterally and 500 ft vertically.

Lateral Separation

Vertical Separation

General Rule (Above 10,000 ft.)

3 mi.

1,000 ft.

10,000 ft - 29000 ft.

5 mi.

1,000 ft.

29,000 ft. - 41,000 ft.

5 mi.

1,000 ft. (under RVSM regulations) 2,000 ft.

Above 41,000 ft.

5 mi.

2,000 ft.

Instrument flight rules (IFR) apply to all large passenger aircraft. For a commercial airliner, separation will usually be at least 3 miles horizontally or 1,000 feet vertically. There are exceptions: see the below chart.

Noise

Example

Noise Level (dB)

Description

Aircraft carrier deck

140

Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB)

130

Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB)

120

Painful. 32 times as loud as 70 dB

Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB)

110

Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB

Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft (100 dB)

100

8 times as loud as 70 dB. Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure

Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB). Newspaper press (97 dB)

4 times as loud as 70 dB. Likely damage in 8 hour exposure

Dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). Car wash at 20 ft (89 dB); propeller plane flyover at 1000 ft (88 dB); diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft (84 dB); diesel train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB). garbage disposal (80 dB)

2 times as loud as 70 dB. Possible damage in 8 hour exposure

Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 10 a.m. (76 dB). Living room music (76 dB); radio or TV-audio, vacuum cleaner (70 dB)

Arbitrary base of comparison. Upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people. WConversation in restaurant, office, background music, Air conditioning unit at 100 feet

1/2 as loud as 70 dB. Fairly quiet

Quiet suburb, conversation at home. Large electrical transformers at 100 feet

1/4 as loud as 70 dB

Library, bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit of urban ambient sound

1/8 as loud as 70 dB

Quiet rural area

1/16 as loud as 70 dB. Very Quiet

Whisper, rustling leaves

Breathing

Source : Comparitive Examples of Noise Levels. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/ comparative-noise-examples.htm

Constraints

For urban air travel to thrive, the vehicle noise emission can be a significant factor in determining whether air transportation is acceptable to communities. Therefore, achieving low enough noise levels plays a vital role in effectively blending into the background noise. To suggest a more sophisticated measure of noise to properly characterize the impact of vehicle sound on a community, we reviewed comparative examples of noise. 70 dB is the arbitrary base of comparison, and it is believed that upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people.

VTOL Aircraft Noise

Aircraft

60 % of people highly annoyed

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

In order to conceive the construction of regional sky transportation that provides high proximity aviation to numerous small areas close to where people live and work, various factors associated with the aircraft noise emission are reviewed. According to US EPA, 1987, the average ambient outdoor noise level is different for each residential area classification1: Wooded residential area is 48-51 dB, old urban residential area is 59 dB, and urban high-density apartment area is 78 dB. That shows the acceptable VTOL aircraft noise emission near suburban residential areas would be much lower. As shown in the chart below, a continuous noise level of 48 dB yields an in Lden of 54.7 dB, which would produce a 10% highly annoyed reaction, and FAA guidelines suggest this is the allowable limit. The aircraft noise must be acceptable to 90% of residents near the landing infrastructure, which requires that the aircraft take-off noise be lower than 48 dB. Noise Comparison by Design

Road

50 40

Rail

30 20 48 dB continuous gives 54.7 Lden

10 0

55 60 65 70 Lden sound pressure level (dB(A))

60m. diameter Public Safety Area 35m. diameter Final Approach And Touchdown Area

15m. diameter Level Landing Area

Propeller axis +12 dBA +20 dBA 12 no 0° pe ise ak azi mu th 10% of people highly annoyed

pavement circle

Top:: Noise/Thrust Ratio (Source: Aeeley, B. A. (2017). Regional Sky Transit III: The Primacy of Noise. 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. doi:10.2514/6.2017-0208)

Constraints

Brien A. Seeley has conducted research on the primacy of noise for regional sky transit. As shown in the two diagrams below, his work in 2017 explains the correlation between the landing area and the noise according to the distance. Diagram 1 below shows the standard helipad design with the size of the designated areas. The central ‘Level Landing Area’ is 15 m in diameter. This can be considered the minimum pavement area necessary for VTOL operations that carry passengers. Diagram 2 compares the ‘Noise to Pavement Ratio’ (NPR) that describes the land area required to bound a VTOL aircraft’s calculated acceptable noise emission footprint. The butterfly shape visualizes the general contours of a noise footprint. Aircraft noise must be acceptable to 90% of residents near the airpark. A 48 dB continuous aircraft noise level will produce a 54.7 dB Lden and fulfils this standard.

Aircraft Variant

Properller diameter, Main Props, m

0.457

3.05

3.66

2.44

1.219

Propeller diameter, wingtip props,m

0.813

N/A

db of a main prop or rotor, dB@40m, 1.6 kph

db of a wingtip prop or rotor, dB@40m, 1.6 kph

N/A

Total noise, all props, dB @40m, 1.6 kph

65.34

76.02

87.03

Noise radius for 48 dB, m, 1.6 kph

294.5

5.04

3.18

1007

3577

db of a main prop or rotor, dB@40m, 80.5 kph

55.5

73.5

db of a wingtip prop or rotor, dB@40m, 80.5 kph

N/A

Total noise, all props, dB @40m, 80.5 kph

71.33

79.5

88.03

Noise radius for 48 dB, m, 80.5 kph

586.7

5.66

1506

4014

Top: Take-off Noise Comparison by Design (Source: Aeeley, B. A. (2017). Regional Sky Transit III: The Primacy of Noise. 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. doi:10.2514/6.20170208)

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

This standard helipad diagram shows the size of the designated areas. The central gray “Level Landing Area” is 15 m diameter. This can be considered the minimum pavement area necessary for VTOL operations that carry passengers. The “Noise to Pavement Ratio” (NPR) compares the land area necessary to enclose a Sky Taxi’s calculated community-acceptable noise footprint (rainbow circle) to the minimum pavement area necessary for its take-off (gray circle). The gray circle shown is for an aircraft with a 60 m pavement radius, comprised of 10 m of aircraft length plus 50 meters of take-off ground roll. The concentric black, blue, and dark green circles, respectively, represent the radii at which 50%, 30%, and 10% of residents living near the airpark would be highly annoyed, according to the “EU curve”. The rainbow circle shown is of 40 m radius. This NPR is thus 0.444. The butterfly shape represents the general contours of a noise footprint calculated by the Gutin formula and indicates its use to create this footprint. By convention, the propeller axis is 0° and the peak noise azimuth is typically at about 120°, when using the Gutin formula.

Tools

Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

With the development of unmanned flight control technology, governments are moving towards approving both delivery and taxi-like drones. A number of established aircraft vendors such as Airbus and Boeing as well as new drone-specialized manufacturers have already demonstrated unmanned vehicles for passengers and freight. Many cities have established milestones to enable operations of drones. Government agencies such as FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) have been aligning policies, rules, and standards to allow for drone activity in our skies. Safety is of utmost concern in the realm of drone transport and delivery, but is not the only consideration. We must also consider other myriad externalities, such as the impact of drones on the quality-of-life, health, and welfare of the residents, such as: noise, privacy violation, energy consumption, air pollution, and exacerbating gentrification, to name a few. Airspace is an exceedingly complicated multidimensional fabric that covers the entire planet. Tools can help people with varying domains of expertise understand this invisible fabric. The list of available tools to understand this fabric is limited and they are not always easy to work with. We propose a tool (simulator) that enables people who are relatively unfamiliar with airspace to understand the myriad requirements and impacts of drones on urban space. This tool has two major components: (1) an agent-based system that enables individual drones to behave like independent actors, and (2) an urban configuration tool that allows the user to see the effects of drones on urban neighborhoods and regions.

100

Agent-Based Drone Simulation

Eunu Kim Gavin Ruedisueli

There are two main components to our simulator: (1) the agentbased system and (2) the city configurator. By employing an agent-based system, the simulator emulates the behaviors of drones and analyzes the impact on different parts of the city. These technique models the behavior of each simulation object (drones, droneports, and parking structures). As simulation frequently involves a large number of agent instances, we use simple state machines that have very low computational overhead. Simulation objects: • “Drones” are autonomous aircraft that may or may not carry passengers • “Droneports” are stations where people can board/deplane from drones. Droneports are the nodes of the transport system that people travel through. The droneport itself is unlikely to have charging infrastructure but if a parking area is attached, that is where charging would occur, unless charging can happen extremely quickly. • “Parking Structures” are where drones go when not in use. Think of these as similar to tarmacs or hangars where planes go when they are not carrying passengers. They would be integrated with charging infrastructure. • “Corridors” are predefined pathways that drones are allowed to travel through. Think of these as streets and highways in the sky. They are one-way and have other movement restrictions associated with them. Corridors follow known pathways that are free of constructed obstructions.

Following page: Structure of Agent-based Drone Urbanism Simulator.

101

User Interface

Simulation Core

(Asset instantiation, Random destination generation, Deconfliction)

Analyzer

Building/Terrain Database

Route Generator

Traffic Control (2 Types)

Drone Agents (3 Types)

Airspace Database

Infrastructure Database

Drone Database

Online GIS Database

Pre-modeled 3D objects and specifications

Add Parking Structure Opens up dropdown menu with parking structures

Landing Corridors

Agent-Based Drone Simulation

Add Droneport Opens up dropdown menu with drone ports

102

Visibility Layers Controls information overlay layers

Corridor Drones

Buildings Affected by Noise

Low Altitude Drones

Noise Sphere Visualizes the volume affected by the noise of each drone

Above: Drone Urbanism Simulator.

Building Affected by Noise Visualizes the buildings affected by the noise of each drone (Yellow = Moderate, Red = Severe)

Simulation Info Shows general information about the current simulation

103

Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

Add Restriction Zone Opens up dropdown menu with restriction zones

Drone Corridor

Drone Info Shows the real-time information of the selected drone

Agent-Based Drone Simulation

104

Noise Impact of the Drones

Congested Corridors

Above: Simulation Features.

Deconfliction Strategies and Flight Trails

Restriction Zone Avoidance

predefined take-off corridor. When it reaches the end of the take-off corridor, it enters another corridor that leads to the current destination. Moving along the corridor, it flies towards the destination. Approaching the destination, it checks to see if a drone in front of it is waiting to land. When it detects another drone that is waiting to land, it registers itself to the queue of the destination and waits, maintaining distance from other drones. When the drone reaches the front of the 105

Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

To accurately emulate the behavior of real drones, our drone agents have six states: “Idle”, “Take-off”, “Move”, “Pending”, “Land”, and “Wait”. When a drone is parked in a parking structure, it is in Idle state. When a drone receives a set of destinations from the simulation core, it registers itself to the queue of the parking structure. When it reaches the front of the queue, the drone receives a take-off granted signal from the parking structure, its state switches to take-off state and begins to move out of the spot where it was parked. It takes-off following a

repeats these states until it visits all the destinations assigned to it and finally lands at a parking structure. The state machines for droneports and parking structures are relatively simple compared to that for drones. They only consist of the two states: Idle and Busy. Think of these structures as having miniature control towers that govern behavior of drones around the structure. In Idle state, the queue is empty and there is no drone taking-off or landing at the moment. When a drone begins landing or taking off, it Agent-Based Drone Simulation

106

queue, it can move to the start of the destination’s landing corridor. When it receives a Landing Granted signal from the destination, it changes its state to Land and starts to move along the landing corridor. As soon as it reaches the exact landing spot, it changes itself to Wait state. Wait state represents the time consumed for boarding/ unboarding or other miscellaneous drone behavior that happens on the ground. When the Wait timer expires, it then goes into Idle state and registers itself to the queue. The drone agent

107

Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

switches to Busy state, preventing drones other than the one that is landing/taking-off from entering the take-off/landing corridor.

108

A City Configurator for Air Travel

Hyojin Kwon, Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

There are two main components to our simulator: (1) the agent-based system and (2) the city configurator. The city configurator is a custom software tool developed by the Laboratory for Design Technology as a simple tool for configuring airspace in regions and cities while studying the impacts on these areas. The configurator allows the user to work with existing FAA airspace configurations as well as hypothetical modifications of this airspace. It allows viewing of airspace in 3 dimensions, providing a more accessible way for users to understand a space that is typically represented using 2 dimensional maps in combination with esoteric graphics that create a barrier to entry for learning about this fascinating invisible dimension of our physical environment. The airspace configurator seeks to dramatically simplify the understanding of airspace and presents a palette of easy-to-understand tools for modifying this airspace and seeing impacts in real-time. Impacts can include behavior of air vehicles, but also impacts on the environment, including factors such as noise, privacy, safety, travel time, and accessibility. The software should be accessible and open to different stakeholders including city planners and community leaders with a goal of providing unbiased information. It provides two main scales of interaction: “region” and “city” scale.

At the region scale, the configurator shows an overall region of several hundred kilometers in length and width, within which there may be one or more cities, smaller towns, rural areas, etc. It also shows airspace. The user can mark certain areas of the map where they want to zoom in and configure airspace at the “city” scale. It is important to note that these marked “cities” are more neighborhood in scale due to processing constraints. It is not feasible to load up 3d buildings for an entire large city all at

Following page: View from “region” setup view in the configurator.molorio.

Firstname Lastname

109 © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap

once so these cities need to be broken down into

110

A City Configurator for Air Travel

smaller chunks. Other aspects of the “city” such as its population can be configured here as well, the goal being to incorporate this information into the simulation (at a further date). At the city scale, the user can see existing airspace, place parking structures for drones, place drone ports, and add restriction zones, which are additional airspace elements, excluding drones from traveling there. They can play the simulation to see drones flying around

able especially with regards to new layers of information, new types of drones, new parking and port structures, and drone behaviors. The input of users is critical in understanding what features should be included. The configurator is custom software built on the Unity platform, a common gaming engine with powerful 3d rendering capabilities that make it useful beyond the gaming industry. Most functions are custom-built on top of this platform, including the agent-based simulator, the basic interface, drones, droneports, parking structures, behaviors, and user

the city, querying them and viewing current stats such as current task, noise, emissions and so on. A data layer for drone routes displays predefined main routes that drones will try to adhere to. The collective impacts of drones are separate layers of displayable information, such as noise and privacy. The types of information that could be displayed are virtually limitless. Some information could be generated on the fly by the simulation and other information could be imported from GIS datasets. The configurator can switch back and forth between city and region views so the user can see airspace in both contexts, add new cities, and so on. Save/load functionality exists. The configurator ultimately could behave like a miniature city, drones and other aircraft traveling from one spot to another in intelligent ways that reflect the input parameters of the simulation and existing state of the simulation. The LDT expects this tool to be easily extend

interface. Geographic information is hosted on Mapbox, a cloud-based mapping tool that drives many of the map tools you are familiar with on websites and phone apps. Mapbox also offers a Unity software library that the configurator uses to access datasets and turn them into visible objects. Mapbox allows users to add their own custom datasets and styles, which the LDT has done with this configurator. Airspace is extracted from a publicly-accessible FAA GIS dataset that the LDT has downloaded and uploaded to an account on Mapbox. Other satellite imagery, 3d buildings, and other layers come directly from Mapbox. Files are saved in Json format and read/ written using the NewtonSoft Json c# library.

111

Hyojin Kwon, Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

Noise Impact Simulation

A City Configurator for Air Travel

112

Noise is a critical aspect of the ambient urban environment and can impact the well-being and even health of citizens. If air mobility is to reach its full potential, the impact of noise generated by aerial vehicles must be analyzed and addressed. Our tool addresses these issues through the dynamic simulation of noise intensity across flight paths. By integrating unique parameters of noise volume and decay and identifying the buildings and zones most impacted by noise, we can address the challenging and interdependent issues of flight path and urban form.

113

Hyojin Kwon, Eunu Kim, Gavin Ruedisueli

Regional Futures

Andrew Witt

115

The newest generation of electrical aerial vehicles has a relatively limited range of around 100 miles. Even with this range, they offer a promising way to stitch together not only cities but also wider regions. In particular, they could provide a compelling way to connect regional airports to each other and create larger regional air ecosystems. The following introduces the notion of a clustered network, or a network of airports in close proximity that, with close and seamless connections, could begin to operate more like a unit. We identify 10 “superclusters” which connect larger connurbations in aerial mobility ecosystems.

116

Clustered Networks and Superclusters

Hyojin Kwon

117

To identify a network of airports within the range limits of an electrical aerial vehicle, each distance between 509 US airports was measured, and only air routes within 100 miles were selected and clustered. The clusters shown in gray are mostly distributed along the coast.

Three “Megaclusters”

Clustered Networks and Superclusters

118

Among the clusters, what we call, three megaclusters and ten superclusters appeared. Megacluster appeared in the form of including several hub airports based on major cities in the east, west and south. The sporadic distribution of airports over a wide scale and the often-partially weak connectivity did not meet the criteria of the regional network we seek.

Ten “Superclusters”

119

Hyojin Kwon

The patterns of 10 superclusters were analyzed. There were various overall patterns, such as linear, annular, and condensed shapes. In addition, the network types between airports within the cluster were analyzed whether each airport has a single or a multilateral connection. Various locational and regional characteristics in cities surrounding and within the group were also subject to review.

US Air Passenger Traffic

120

Rather than simply determining a cluster using distance restrictions, we investigated the annual traffic of passenger, cargo, and mail in order to understand the amount and relationship of exchanges occurring through air network routes. The thicker and darker the connection between each airport, the greater the volume of exchanges.

121

US Air Freight Traffic

122

123

US Air Mail Traffic

124

125

126

The Case of Florida

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Of the 10 superclusters we have identified, South Florida has a number of particularly interesting properties. First, it has two distinct tourist regions within around 150 miles of each other - Orlando and Miami. Second, its east and west branches are separated by a major barrier: the everglades. Third, the organization of this cluster is naturally ring-like, creating a complete circuit that covers a populous and affluent area. We believe South Florida may be a promising region for the innovative deployment of urban aerial strategies, and that the region as a whole could benefit substantially from more integrated mobility.

CITY

TECH INFRASTRUCTURE

CITY INFRASTRUCTURE

APPLICATION

BUILDINGS PNS

VPS

AIRPORTS

JAX

ECP

NETWORK

SFB MCO

TPA PIE SRQ

PGD RSW

PBI FLL

Large Hub Airport

MIA Medium Hub Airport

Small Hub Airport General Aviation Airport Heliport

EYW

REGULATION AIRSPACE

NOISE

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

EMISSION

127

TECHNOLOGY

Airport Categories Since the concept of an airport was first introduced in the 1920s, the airport as an architectural type and as an air transport hub has come a long way. According to the FAA, the law categorizes airports by type of activities, including commercial service, primary, cargo service, reliever, and general aviation airports, as shown in the table below:

a. Non-primary Commercial Service Airports are Commercial Service Airports that have at least 2,500 and no more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year. b. Primary Airports are Commercial Service Airports that have more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year. Hub categories for Primary Airports are defined as a percentage of total passenger boardings within the United States in the most current calendar year ending before the start of the current fiscal year. General Aviation Airports are public-use airports that do not have scheduled service or have less than 2,500 annual passenger boardings (49 USC 47102(8)). Approximately 88 percent of airports included in the NPIAS(National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) are general aviation. 1 The International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA) includes the following definitions for General Aviation aircraft activities:[3]: Corporate Aviation: company own-use flight operations, fractional ownership operations, business aviation (or travel), personal/private travel, air tourism, air taxis recreational flying (powered/powerless leisure flying activities), air sports (aerobatics, air races, competitions, rallies, etc.). General aviation thus represents the ‘private transport’ component of aviation. 2

Airport Classifications

Commercial Service: Publicly owned airports that have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calendar year and receive scheduled passenger service §47102(7)

Primary: Have more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year §47102(16)

Non-primary

Hub Type: Percentage of Annual Passenger Boardings

Common Name

Large (1% or more)

Large Hub

Medium (At least 0.25%, but less than 1%)

Medium Hub

Small (At least 0.05%, but less than 0.25%)

Small Hub

Nonhub (More than 10,000, but less than 0.05%)

Nonhub Primary

Nonhub (At least 2,500 and no more than 10,000)

Nonprimary Commercial Service

Not Applicable

General Aviation

1. The International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA). “What Is General Aviation.” https://www. iaopa.eu/what-is-general-aviation. Retrieved August 25, 2021. 2. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “Airport Categories.” Airport Categories – Airports, March 18, 2021. https://www. faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/categories/. Retrieved August 25, 2021.

The Case of Florida

128

Commercial Service Airports are publicly owned airports that have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calendar year and receive scheduled passenger service. Passenger boardings refer to revenue passenger boardings on an aircraft in service in air commerce whether or not in scheduled service.

Primary Airports and General Aviation Airports in Florida

PNS

VPS

JAX

ECP

SFB

129

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

MCO

TPA PIE SRQ

PGD RSW

PBI FLL

MIA Large Hub Airport

Medium Hub Airport

Small Hub Airport

General Aviation Airport

EYW

General Aviation Airports

130

The Case of Florida

The FAA categorizes General Aviation airports into four categories based on existing activity levels and related criteria: national, regional, local, and basic. They also include heliports and seaplane bases.1 The chart below describes the categories and examples in each category defined by the FAA and the diagram maps the GA airports in Florida.

Local GA Airport Regional GA Airport National GA Airport Basic GA Airport

National (84)

Regional (467)

Local (1,236)

Basic (668)

1. General Aviation Airports: A National Asset. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 2012.

General Aviation Airports Network

131

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

As general aviation airports represent the ‘private transport’ component of aviation, they can be used for various types of localized air travel, including personal/private travel, air tourism, and air taxis. The GA and other secondary airports can activate local air networks and the diagram below depicts the conceived GA airport networks in Florida.

Local GA Airport Network Regional GA Airport Network National GA Airport Network General Aviation Airport

GA Network Connection to Primary Airports

132

The Case of Florida

Connecting the GA airport networks to the major primary airports allows the expansion of the air network into a more localized level and facilitates travel between more cities within the state.

PNS

VPS

JAX

ECP

SFB MCO

TPA PIE SRQ

PGD RSW

PBI FLL

MIA

Large Hub Airport

Medium Hub Airport

Small Hub Airport General Aviation Airport

EYW

Charging Stations

133

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

GA Airports could be staging areas for a regional UAV network, augmented by a mesh of charging stations.

Suggested UAV Charging Stations General Aviation Airport

Trusted Traveler Programs for Florida

(Domestic)

(International Only)

Arrival at Domestic Lounge

Arrival at International Lounge

Immigration Clearance

Passenger Facilitation or Porter Services

Baggage Trolleys

Baggage Claim

(int'l only)

Leave to Car or Mass Transit

Custom Clearance

The Case of Florida

134

A low-friction local air network could transform tourism, events, and business in an area like Florida. This system could leverage a local trusted traveler program. The figures below describe the typical departure and arrival processes at the domestic airport and international airport.

Outside Departure Lounge

Arrival at Airport From Car or Mass Transit

Passenger Facilitation or Porter Services

Baggage Trolleys

Entrance Security Screening

Custom and ANF Clearance

Airline Check-In (boarding pass issuance)

Briefing Area

Entrance Security Screening

135

(International Only)

Airline Check-In (boarding pass issuance)

Immigration Process

Departure Lounge

Boarding Aircraft

Departure Lounge

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

(Domestic)

Trusted Traveler Programs for Florida

136

Departure Process Flow Interstate Travel

Domestic Travel

International Travel

Arrival Time Before Departure

20 mins before

2 hrs before

3 hrs before

Ticket / Check-in

Online/app Trusted traveler program

Online Kiosk (10mins)

Online Kiosk (10 mins)

5-15 mins

15-30 mins

Walk through x-ray machine (3-5 mins)

Security line (15 mins) Full body scanner (10 mins)

Security line (30 mins) Full body scanner (10 mins)

Gate

3-5 mins

45-1 hr

1-2 hr

Boarding

3-5 mins

20 mins

30 mins

Total

20 mins

2 hrs

3 hrs

Baggage Check-in Security Screening Custon Clearance

15-30 mins

Arrival Process Flow

Landing

Interstate Travel

Domestic Travel

International Travel

3-5 mins

10-15 mins

10-20 mins

Immigration Clearance

15-60 mins

Baggage Claim

10-30 mins

Custom Clearance

15-30 mins 3-5 mins

Transfer Process Flow Interstate Travel Travel between Terminals

Domestic Travel

International Travel

10-30 mins

Await Boarding

5-20 mins

20-60 mins

1-3 hrs

Total

5-20 mins

30-90 mins

Hours

The Case of Florida

As the proposed scenarios represent in the figures below, the GA airports and the new UAV airports could benefit from a local trusted traveler program to facilitate air travel within the state with faster security screening and checking-in processes for tourists and local residents.

Travel Scenario with Trusted Traveler Program

Arrival: Orlando Int'l Airport

Ground Transportation

Arrival: Orlando Int'l Airport

Immigration Process

Domestic Check-in

Immigration Process

Baggage Claim

Security Check

Wait for Boarding

Custom Clearance

Wait for Boarding

Ground Transportation

Domestic Flight

Destination 1: Disney World

Baggage Claim

Ground Transportation

Destination 2: Everglades Nat'l Park

Domestic Flight

Destination 4: Miami Int'l Airport

Baggage Claim

Total Duration

Destination 2: Everglades Nat'l Park

UAV Check-in

Custom Clearance

UAV Flight

UAV Check-in

Destination 3: Key West

UAV Flight

Destination 3: Key West

UAV Flight

UAV Check-in

Destination 1: Disney World

UAV Flight

UAV Check-in

Destination 4: Miami Int'l Airport

137

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Travel Scenerio via Current Transportation System

138

Florida Tourism: Regional Leisure And Event Economies

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

The innovative deployment of urban aerial strategies can benefit the region as a whole substantially from more integrated mobility. As a large and diverse state, Florida has at least three distinct tourism ecosystems. Could air mobility make these three one seamless market? In locations such as the Orlando area (Central region) and the Miami area and the Keys (Southeast region), as well as smaller areas of various regions, tourist travel is an outstanding part of total travel demand. We can facilitate this travel by integrating localized air networks. More detailed data on tourism travel, regional leisure, and event economies can help us design Florida’s frictionless local air mobility system.

Following page: Murray Foubister, Aerial View of Miami Main Strip, distributed under a CC-BY 4.0 license.

139

Firstname Lastname

Three Regions

NORTH FLORIDA

CENTRAL FLORIDA

SOUTH FLORIDA

Florida Tourism: Regional Leisure And Event Economies

140

As a large and diverse state, Florida actually has at least three distinct tourism ecosystems. Could air mobility make these three one seamless market? Could local air networks activate new types of tourism? And also leisure and event economies?

Tourism in Florida

141

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Analyzing the characteristics of tourist travel is helpful to gauge transportation system performance and needs. The diagram below describes the information on the geographic distribution and facts of tourist travel in the two most popular regions in the state. Even though the two areas are the most popular tourism areas, there are limited means of transportation between the areas making it difficult to travel the two cities in a short period of time. Reviewing the geometrical distributions of visitors and tourist attractions provides insight about how tourism can benefit from more localized transportation and travel routes.

CENTRAL Total Visitors : Spending: Jobs: Value Added: Wages:

CENTRAL

79.1 Million $35.0 Billion 524,000 $27.8 Billion $17.0 Billion

SOUTHEAST Total Visitors : Spending: Jobs: Value Added: Wages:

SOUTHEAST

50.0 Million $35.5 Billion 463,000 $26.5 Billion $16.0 Billion

Source: VISIT FLORIDA®, 2017 Tourism Performance & Economic Impact by Region. https://www.visitflorida.org/ media/71465/2017-contribution-of-travel-tourism-to-theflorida-economy.pdf. Accessed 09/27/2021.

Tourism Attractions

142

Florida Tourism: Regional Leisure And Event Economies

Tourism locations are scattered throughout the state. They are often far from major airports and tourism centers. Although there are many tourist attractions in the state, their sporadic distribution and poor accessibility to major airports and tourism centers make it difficult to visit several places in one trip.

PNS

VPS

JAX

ECP NORTH FLORIDA

SFB MCO

TPA PIE

CENTRAL FLORIDA

SRQ

PGD RSW

PBI SOUTH FLORIDA

FLL

MIA

General Aviation Airport

EYW

General Aviation Airports in Florida

143

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

They are more accessible from the more distributed GA airports. The GA and other secondary airports can activate local air networks for tourism and the diagram below depicts the proximity between the tourist attractions and GA airports in Florida.

PNSPNS

VPSVPS

JAXJAX

ECPECP NORTH FLORIDA

SFBSFB MCO MCO

TPA TPA PIE PIE

CENTRAL FLORIDA

SRQSRQ

PGD PGD RSW RSW SOUTH FLORIDA

FLLFLL

MIAMIA

Large Hub Airport

Local GA Airport

Medium Hub Airport Regional GA Airport

Small Hub National GAAirport Airport General Basic GAAviation Airport Airport

PBIPBI

EYW EYW

Florida Cruise Ports

144

Florida Tourism: Regional Leisure And Event Economies

Florida’s 15 public seaports play a critical role in the lives of our citizens and continue to drive Florida’s economy. From what we wear to what we eat, from building materials to automobiles, almost everything we use in our daily lives flows through our ports. Cruises, offered by several cruise lines, depart year-round from Florida. They put to sea and ports of call from various Florida ports, including Port Canaveral, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. According to a Florida Ports Council’s facts report released in 2020, Port Everglades, PortMiami and Port Canaveral are the top three multi-day cruise ports globally. Cruises at JAXPORT, Port Tampa Bay and the Port of Palm Beach- as well as port-of-call visits at the Port of Key West - reinforce the statewide economic benefits of cruise tourism generated at Florida’s seaports. A direct, frictionless connection between cruise ports and UAV airports will facilitate statewide fluid travel of the traveler population coming through the ports.

JAXPORT

MCO PORT CANAVERAL

TPA PORT TAMPA BAY

PORT OF PALM BEACH FLL PORT EVERGLADES MIA PORT OF MIAMI

Florida Waterways and Seaplanes

145

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Florida also benefits from a unique aerial infrastructure: seaplanes. Orlando is one of the seaplane capitals of the US, and seaplanes readily access many of the state’s top tourism centers. Florida Intracoastal and inland waterways can be integrated into the UAV routes and networks to activate statewide travel via seaplanes and other means of travel by water.

JAXPORT

MCO PORT CANAVERAL

TPA PORT TAMPA BAY

PORT OF PALM BEACH FLL PORT EVERGLADES MIA PORT OF MIAMI

Seaplanes

Payload

Speed

Up to 14 passengers

130 mph

Endurance

Takeoff/Landing

Max. Flight Range

Flight Control Piloted

Payload

Speed

Max. Flight Range

Up to 19 passengers

185 mph

799 nmi

Endurance

Takeoff/Landing

Flight Control

6.94 h

1,200 ft

Piloted

Top: DHC-3 Otter Seaplane Redrawn by Gavin Ruedisueli. (Source: de Havilland Canada)

Bottom: DHC-3 OtterDHC-6 Twin Otter Seaplane Redrawn by Gavin Ruedisueli. (Source: de Havilland Canada)

Florida Tourism: Regional Leisure And Event Economies

146

The geography of Florida makes it especially well-suited for seaplanes. Orlando is one of the seaplane capitals of the US, and seaplanes readily access many of the state’s top tourism centers. The FAA Advisory Circular on “Seaplane Bases” (AC No.: 150/5395-1B) from 2018 outlines the requirements for seaplane infrastructure. The information in our document is intended to give a sampling of some of the concerns with locating seaplane bases and is not comprehensive. On this page are a couple very typical, popular models of seaplanes, both of which carry around 15 passengers, plus or minus a few. There are of course many other types and models of seaplanes including the following types: pontoon (as shown on this page), boat, and amphibious.

Seaplane Landing Plan

147

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Special consideration must be given to the siting of seaplane infrastructure beyond simply locating open water. Seaplanes are subject to certain environmental conditions that land-based planes do not have to contend with. Seaplanes have no brakes, and are always in motion when not tied down, as a result of wind, currents, and its propeller’s motion. Landing areas for seaplanes require extra margins of safety that account for these factors. When pilots come in for a landing with a seaplane, they must make extra judgments about the suitability of the landing area based on dynamic conditions, including waves and whether there are other boats or people crossing through the landing zone.

T CURREN

WATER CHANNEL

ANE WATER L

PREVAIL

D ING WIN

TRAFFIC PATTERN

OPEN WATER

Source: AAS-100, Office of Airport Safety & Standards - Airport Engineering Division, AC 150/5395-1B - Seaplane Bases § (2018). https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150_5395-1. Accessed 09/27/2021.

Seaplane Runway Design Seaplanes require more space for take-off than landing. Obstacle clearance must reflect these needs. The section view below shows some guidelines around clearing of obstacles. The plan view below is for a seaplane base with unmarked waterlanes. Bases may have marked or unmarked waterlanes. There are advantages to each. An advantage of unmarked lanes is the ability of the pilot to freely choose paths appropriate to current environmental conditions (wind, currents, etc.). The advantages of marking waterlanes include improvements to safety by explicitly marking out approach surfaces, departure surfaces, runway protection zones, and runway visibility zones. Markings also call out to other users in the area (boats, for example) that an area is reserved for a specific use and they ACCESS ROAD should steer clear.

ACCESS ROAD PREVAILING WIND ON-SHORE FACILITIES TURNING BASIN ON-SHORE FACILITIES

TAXI CHANNEL

TURNING BASIN SEA LANE (UNMARKED) TAXI CHANNEL OBSTRUCTION ON LIGHT POLE SEA LANE (UNMARKED)

OBSTRUCTION ON LIGHT POLE

Example of an Unmarked Water Lane and Taxi Channel

END OF WATER RUNWAY

1000 FEET (VISUAL RUNWAYS) 2000 FEET (INSTRUMENT RUNWAYS)

END OF WATER RUNWAY

1000 FEET (VISUAL RUNWAYS) 2000 FEET (INSTRUMENT RUNWAYS)

50 FEET

RE RTU EPA D AND URE CH ART ROA DEP P 1 : P 0 /4 AL A ACH VISU PRO URE 20:1 P A ART 34:1 DEP D AN URE ART ACH DEP PRO 1 : P 0 A /4 AL ACH VISU PRO 20:1 P A 34:1

Florida Tourism: Regional Leisure And Event Economies

148

PREVAILING WIND

Event Based UAV Airports

149

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Florida hosts cultural and intellectual events in the arts, leisure, entertainment and conferences, and regularly attracts a diverse range of travelers. Having event-based temporary mode of airports added to the fixed air network can facilitate travel of this specific period and help traffic management through flexible network changes.

Art Basel, Miami

Ultra Music Festival, Miami

Hard Rock Stadium, Miami

Orange County Convention Center, Orlando

Florida Sports Venues

150

Florida Tourism: Regional Leisure And Event Economies

Florida has many sports teams and shows high attendance at every game. As the majority of spectators travel within the state or make short-distance interstate trips, the installation of an event-based UAV airport provides a convenient means of transportation and can help attract more spectators. Sports teams, including professional, semi-professional, amateur, and college teams, are mapped. Florida has three National Football League teams, two Major League Baseball teams, two National Basketball Association teams, two National Hockey League teams, two Major League Soccer teams, one Women’s Soccer team in professional sports.1 Florida college team games also draw much attendance, and the chart below shows the popular team’s average attendance of the year 2014.

Florida State Seminoles football

Jaguars

Florida Gators football

Orlando City Magic

Buccaneers

UCF Knights football

FIU Panthers Football Lightning

Rays

Florida College Football Teams Florida Professional Major League Teams

Team

Attendance Conference

Florida Gators football

85,834

SEC

Florida State Seminoles football

82,211

ACC

Miami Hurricanes football

52,518

ACC

UCF Knights football

37,812

American

South Florida Bulls football

30,694

American

FIU Panthers football

56,886

CUSA

Panthers Dolphins FIU Panthers Football Miami Hurricanes Football

Source: En.wikipedia.org. 2021. Sports in Florida - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_in_Florida. Accessed 09/27/2021.

Heat Marlins

Sports Venues Proximity to Transportation System

151

Hyojin Kwon, Gavin Ruedisueli

Major sports venues are closer to major airports, but college sports venues and some of the major sports venues don’t have direct transportation to and from major airports. This activation of localized air routes and airports will increase the proximity to air transportation and help draw spectators from around the state.

PNS

VPS

ECP

JAX Florida State Seminoles football

Jaguars

Florida Gators football

SFB Orlando City Magic

Buccaneers

MCO

UCF Knights football

FIU Panthers Football

Lightning TPA PIE

Rays

SRQ

PGD

PBI

RSW

FLL Panthers Dolphins

MIA

FIU Panthers Football Miami Hurricanes Football

General Aviation Airport

EYW

Heat Marlins

152

Strategic Intermodal System

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon

A frictionless local air mobility system has the potential to connect sub-regions, markets, and major airports to each other. General aviation airports may have untapped potential for significant capacity and convenience in providing a different type of air travel experience that complements the major airports. The integration of GA airports into Florida’s strategic intermodal transport system can help us design the strategies and connections that will be most impactful for a region. There are three key questions: How can everyday local air mobility integrate regional economies? How can local air mobility infrastructure integrate into a multi-modal transport strategy? What are the use scenarios for routine local air travel?

Following page photo: Unmanned air taxi. 3D Rendering, Retrieved 09/30/2021, https://depositphotos.com/319149454/ stock-photo-an-unmanned-passenger-drone-has.html.

153

Firstname Lastname

Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)

Facility Type

Eligible Facilities / SIS Component.

Commercial Service Airports

Airports with scheduled commercial and/or cargo services. Should be 0.25% of US total passenger or freight activity

General Aviation Reliever Airports

General aviation airports functioning as relievers to commercial service airports. Should handle at least 75,000 nonlocal flights per year and have a runway at least 5,500 ft long, have a runway capable of supporting 60,000lb dual wheel aircraft, serviced by instrument approach, and 0.05% of employment of industries dependent on air transportation located within 50mi radius.

Spaceports

Spaceport territory as defined in s. 331.304, Florida Statutes or by Space Florida. Should have regularly scheduled civil, commercial, or military launches resulting in suborbital or orbital flights.

Seaports

Deepwater ports as defined in s.311.09, Florida Statutes. Should have at least 500,000 home-port passengers, or be 0.25% of US total freight activity.

Interregional Passenger Terminals

Rail, bus, or multimodal terminals serving interregional or interstate passengers and providing on-site ticketing and support services, and should be 0.25% of U.S. total bus and/or rail interregional passengers per year (100,000 per year floor)

Freight Rail Terminals

Carload and intermodal terminals, should be 0.25% of U.S. total annual rail freight activity

Data Source: Summary of Adopted SIS Facility Types, Criteria, and Thresholds by Florida Department of Transportation

Strategic Intermodal System

154

Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) is an integral network of transportation facilities essential to the state’s economy and mobility. Since its establishment in 2003, SIS has developed policy plans to focus on the state’s long-range transportation vision via strategic interregional, interstate, and international travel systems. It identifies objectives and approaches to address changing trends and positions and seeks statewide and regional economic, tourism, and workforce development opportunities. The SIS facilities include three types - Hubs, Corridors, and Connectors. Hubs are airports, spaceports, seaports, rail terminals, and other types of passenger terminals in the state. Corridors are highways, passenger and freight rails lines, and waterways connecting regions within Florida. And Connectors link hubs and corridors. The chart below describes SIS facility types and their criteria and thresholds.

155

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon

Highway Network

Railroad Network

Road Network

Proximity to Trasportation Heatmap

156

Strategic Intermodal System

The heatmap studies represent the proximity to four major transportation systems in Florida: Roads, Highways, Rails, and Airports. Highways seem evenly distributed within the state, while roads, rails, and airports tend to run longitudinally along the coastline. This indicates that the connections between east and west are insufficient, and isolated island areas appear, showing where they lack proximity to each sys-

Roads

Highways

157

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon tem.

Rails

Airports

Florida Isochrone Map - Maps Based on Travel Times

158

Strategic Intermodal System

Orlando and Miami International Airports are two of the most popular airports in Florida. Based on passenger counts in 2018, more than 50 million passengers came through Orlando airport, making it No.1 for Florida airports, and Miami International Airports hit 45 million. Since these two airports are the main gateways for tourists to enter Florida, we analyzed travel times from these two airports for each transport mode. These isochron maps represent travel time maps and visualize all reachable locations within a given time limit.

Highways

Highways 159

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon

Florida Isochrone Map - Maps Based on Travel Times

160

Strategic Intermodal System

Rails

Rails 161

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon

Florida Isochrone Map - Maps Based on Travel Times

162

Strategic Intermodal System

Airports

Airports 163

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon

Strategic Intermodal System Travel Scenarios

164

Strategic Intermodal System

We generated a simulator that integrates the newly proposed UAV air networks and routes into Florida’s current multimodal transportation systems. This simulator allows calculating the travel times to travel from a point to a destination for combined transport modes and analyzes the most efficient ways of travel in terms of the number of transfers and time. Below are the three travel scenarios with depictions of routes and travel destinations.

Scenario 01 Family Vacation Trip

Scenar Seasonal E

Orlando - Everglades national park - Key west - Miami

College Football Game -

Traveling Tourism Attraction points in multiple regions via UAV drones and seaplanes

Traveling these events v networks/in

165

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon

rio 02 Events Trip

Scenario 03 Business Trip to Multiple Small Cities

- Art Basel Miami Beach

Lake City - Daytona Beach - Lake Land - Okeechabee

via temporarily activated nfrastructure

Traveling between small cities where you could have only accessed by car, quickly with the new air-travel network

166

167

Architectural Futures

Andrew Witt

169

Combining past visions of the airport, present technological parameters, and future simulations and possibilities we can begin to propose new options for the aerial infrastructure of the city. Some of these straddle the line between speculative fiction and urban planning. But the precise requirements of these new technologies can also drive an informed vision of new urban aerial infrastructure that is more than mere fantasy. In this section, we consider a specific case of a new vertical airport that conforms to the parameters of emerging aerial technologies but imagines the architecture that might engender. Returning to some of the imaginative intensity of the earliest days of air travel, we venture a new kind of architecture for tomorrow’s aerial city.

170

UAV Terminal

Andrew Witt, Hyojin Kwon

How does an advanced form of air travel infrastructure transform the way we travel and inhabit the city? To realize urban air travel by autonomous aerial vehicles, it is essential to integrate infrastructure for takeoff and landing. The conceptual seed of our proposal originates from the inspiration of UAV terminal‘s potential to play a bigger role in the city by increasing its public presence and combining community programs to connect people and places with an effective transit hub design and create a space that delivers an exceptional passenger experience. From UAV passenger terminals to multimodal interchanges, seaplane ports to delivery drone terminals, this project delivers a central transport hub building that integrates seamless operations and discrete yet effective security measures. The UAV terminal serves as a central transportation hub and an urban center designed to attract people with stores and restaurants. Each terminal includes charging and maintenance stations for UAVs and public programs such as boarding, lounge, and dining areas. It is designed in portal structure, separating each terminal by a 75-foot distance based on FAA’s heliport advisory on takeoff and landing area (TLOF) and final takeoff and landing area (FATO). This portal structure provides a safety and security barrier between the active UAV arrivals/departures and the customers and provides shelter from the elements. Our site is located by the waterfront in Boston that allows open airspace with no obstacles and mitigates safety and noise concerns. By being situated at the intersection of the existing ground transportations and urban promenade, the project aims to provide a seamless air travel journey that any passenger can embark on easily with minimal assistance and an intuitive and enjoyable passenger experience.

171

Firstname Lastname

Title

172 Typical Passenger Terminal Plan

Ground Transportation Terminal Plan and Seaplane Terminal Below

173

Firstname Lastname

Title

174 Elevation

175

Firstname Lastname

Passenger Terminal - Private

Passenger Terminal - Public / Rideshare

Delivery Drone Terminal

Ground Transportation Terminal - Subway & Bus

Seaplane Terminal

Section

Title

176

177

Firstname Lastname

Conclusion

Andrew Witt

179

What does the future of urban air travel ultimately hold? How will our cities be reshaped by new flight technologies? With the fantasies of ubiquitous everyday air travel be realized? Futuring is always one part analysis, two parts gamble. Yet though the outcome is far from certain, some of the forces and players are already clear. Cities and airports—at all of their scales—will continue to jostle, interweave, and hybridize in the decades to come. Smaller autonomous drones will begin to inflect how public and private airways are used and provisioned. Intermodal mobility will demand more sophisticated tools to integrate air travel. In all of these respects, it seems wise to take a scenario planning approach that compares many possible alternatives when anticipating the future. It is in this spirit that we share both the building blocks of future mobility and a simulation toolkit for modeling urban air scenarios. We hope that such tools can contribute to a more thoughtful, rigorous, and optimistic perspective on the future of air mobility and the cities that will be transformed by it.

180

Contributors

Andrew Witt

Hyojin Kwon

Andrew Witt is an Associate Professor in

M. Arch GSD ‘18

Practice of Architecture at the GSD, teaching

Hyojin Kwon is a Lecturer in Architecture and

and researching on the relationship of geometry

Research Associate at the Harvard Graduate

and machines to perception, design, assembly,

School of Design. More recently, she held the

and culture. He is author of Formulations:

Irving Innovation Fellowship at the GSD. In the

Architecture, Mathematics, Culture (MIT Press.

context of post-orthography and post-digital,

2021). He is also co-founder, with Tobias Nolte,

her recent research, teaching, and projects

of Certain Measures, a Boston/Berlin-based

focus on how digital media alters the internal

design futures and technology studio. The

working methods of the design fields but also

work of Certain Measures is in the permanent

larger cultural conditions. She has completed

collection of the Centre Pompidou, and has

installation projects for the Museum of Brisbane

been exhibited at the Pompidou, the Barbican

and Brisbane City Council in Australia, Tokyo

Centre, Futurium, and Haus der Kulturen der

Designers Week in Japan, CICA Museum, and

Welt, among others.

Seoul Foundation for Arts and Culture in Korea.

Eunu Kim, Ph.D.

Gavin Ruedisueli

M.Arch GSD ‘20, Ph.D. in CS Korea Univ. ‘16

M.Arch GSD ‘17, BSAD MIT ‘08

Eunu Kim is a Research Associate at the

Gavin Ruedisueli is a Research Associate at

Harvard Graduate School of Design. She is

the Harvard Graduate School of Design, as

an architectural designer and a computer

well as a registered architect (State of MA) and

scientist who specializes in computational

design technologist at the design futures and

design and development of its methodologies.

technology studio, Certain Measures. He has

Her expertise covers a wide range of fields

worked on projects ranging from the design of

including computer hardware design, software

large institutional buildings to designing custom

development, and architectural design.

software. He has expertise in developing software workflows for mass customization and configuration in cross-disciplinary contexts that range from the construction to medical device industries.

181

Colophon

An Atlas of Urban Air Mobility Primary Investigator: Andrew Witt Acknowledgments Faculty Researcher:

An Atlas of Urban Air Mobility is part of a multi-

Hyojin Kwon

year research initiative studying the Future of Air Travel under the auspices of the Laboratory

Researchers:

for Design Technology.

Eunu Kim Gavin Ruedisueli

Image Credits The editors have attempted to acknowledge all

Dean and Josep Lluís Sert Professor of

sources of images used and apologize for any

Architecture

errors or omissions.

Sarah Whiting Chair of the Department of Architecture

Harvard University

Mark Lee

Graduate School of Design 48 Quincy Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

publications@gsd.harvard.edu

form without prior written permission from the

gsd.harvard.edu

183

Firstname Lastname

Research Report Spring 2022

Harvard GSD Department of Architecture

Primary Investigator: Andrew Witt Faculty Researcher: Hyojin Kwon Researchers: Eunu Kim Gavin Ruedisueli

ISBN 979-8-218-01147-5

90000>

9 798218 011475