I understand what you are attempting to argue, but an AUV does not have a Command Center. An ROV does.
An AUV is pre-programmed of what to do and where to do it.
If you read ALL they have said, including Tinkerbell 2.0 needs the aid of divers then you might come to understand this theory is in it’s infancy. If you understand a little bit about physics you’ll understand they are full of it and will likely NEVER be proven to work.
They claim they have the industry leading salvage method, but what have they ever salvaged? Please provide a detailed list.
There is a guy on Facebook, I think its Jp that is asking SFRX most of the right questions, but he doesn’t quite understand how these vehicles work. He is however reminding them they are talking in circles.
But as he said, it’s way past time for a video demonstration.
You are trying to argue what is written on the website as if it’s Gospel. There is no evidence it’s autonomous, nor is there evidence it even works. But how many times have they said it does?
One of the STUPIDEST things they said was when Melbourne was scanned the divers would go investigate targets and Tinkerbell 2.0 would go on to scan Juno.
If Tinkerbell 2.0 can see all and tell all, what is there to investigate?
They should take the (ahem) proof to the Bureau and get a Recovery Permit.
A Recovery Permit won’t happen and Kyle won’t even lay out a strategy to go and get one. They’ll milk this idea of finding treasure for as long as they can while novices attempt to carry their water.
Autonomous vehicles have been around for the past decade, along with their abilities to add various sensors, including 3D sub bottom profilers and non ferrous metal detection systems.
Most autonomous underwater vehicles rely on sophisticated inertial navigation systems and acoustic positioning and communications.
Tinkerbell 2.0 tows a buoy making it highly inefficient and limited.
Regardless, nothing that you've posted even suggested of any game changing or new technology. Tinkerbell 2.0 would be useless over 100’, even if it worked at all.
An AUV is pre-programmed of what to do and where to do it.
If you read ALL they have said, including Tinkerbell 2.0 needs the aid of divers then you might come to understand this theory is in it’s infancy. If you understand a little bit about physics you’ll understand they are full of it and will likely NEVER be proven to work.
They claim they have the industry leading salvage method, but what have they ever salvaged? Please provide a detailed list.
There is a guy on Facebook, I think its Jp that is asking SFRX most of the right questions, but he doesn’t quite understand how these vehicles work. He is however reminding them they are talking in circles.
But as he said, it’s way past time for a video demonstration.
You are trying to argue what is written on the website as if it’s Gospel. There is no evidence it’s autonomous, nor is there evidence it even works. But how many times have they said it does?
One of the STUPIDEST things they said was when Melbourne was scanned the divers would go investigate targets and Tinkerbell 2.0 would go on to scan Juno.
If Tinkerbell 2.0 can see all and tell all, what is there to investigate?
They should take the (ahem) proof to the Bureau and get a Recovery Permit.
A Recovery Permit won’t happen and Kyle won’t even lay out a strategy to go and get one. They’ll milk this idea of finding treasure for as long as they can while novices attempt to carry their water.
Autonomous vehicles have been around for the past decade, along with their abilities to add various sensors, including 3D sub bottom profilers and non ferrous metal detection systems.
Most autonomous underwater vehicles rely on sophisticated inertial navigation systems and acoustic positioning and communications.
Tinkerbell 2.0 tows a buoy making it highly inefficient and limited.
Regardless, nothing that you've posted even suggested of any game changing or new technology. Tinkerbell 2.0 would be useless over 100’, even if it worked at all.
