In addition to my previous comments, if there's actual demand this means that the NHS is currently paying a higher fee per delivery which should allow a private competitor to step in, undercut the current system (whether via drone deliveries or otherwise) and make a profit. It doesn't have to be limited to the NHS even - there are plenty of other applications that would benefit from faster & more flexible logistics powered by drones. Yet it isn't happening, suggesting the current system is already in its optimal state.

>Yet it isn't happening, suggesting the current system is already in its optimal state.

I don't follow. A gap not filled is not evidence of no gap.

I can think of several companies/industries/products where people said "It's as optimal as it gets!" and then Netflix/Dropbox/Uber/Pick-X-Tech-Company gets invented and makes things more optimal or changes the game completely. They also make all the people who say "our current system is in it's optimal state" look silly.

The Netflix/Dropbox/Uber/Pick-X-Tech-Company tried and failed too - Amazon and others did a big push for drone delivery at larger scales a few years ago with a huge bankroll and tech light-years away from a government-sponsored project and even they couldn't make it work.

A classic, classic move in the UK when you want to get govt money to do something of marginal or negative social value is to find some way of 'helping the NHS'.

Take a look at Greensill Capital. They were running a politically exposed shadow bank with terrible risk controls. They hired a former Prime Minister to sell a project which would 'lend NHS staff their salaries mid month'.

Not vaporware, however, not ready for scaling up on to an industrial scale. The main concern remains safety in case of a malfunction. Until that has been addressed, the main benefit seems to be delivery of essentials (e.g. cancer medications) to remote areas where the drone can fly mostly over uninhabited areas.

we already have motorcyclists for this - there are Blood Bike volunteers in most counties. They carry blood, organs, samples, supplies, etc much faster than even a car on blue lights. And it's cheap :)

Vapourware is when someone promises to meet a need with no intention of doing so. The fact there might be at least some need for this doesn't mean it isn't vapourware.

I'm not sure about that definition. I think it includes people who genuinely believe they will meet the need, but it's obvious to a knowledgeable observer that they won't succeed. E.g. Elisabeth Holmes, Elon Musk (self driving and mars colonization, not landing rockets).

> There is a demand for fast transportation of medical supplies [emphasis mine]

Is there really?

I understand that for non-fungible, perishable goods such as organs or test samples there might be a need (though a helicopter would do just as well), but when it comes to supplies, it will be significantly cheaper to just make more of them and stock up on them at each hospital rather than moving them back & forth (not to mention that this particular trial only ranged for 40 miles - this is something a car can easily do).

It won't work unless it's cheaper than the alternatives, and I can't see it being cheaper than just optimizing logistics elsewhere to ensure you have a big enough stock of medical supplies to not need regular drone deliveries (and when you do, a helicopter is an adequate backup plan).

> though a helicopter would do just as well

It's very very easy to be cheaper than a helicopter. Drones can require zero or minimal labor, move fast, and run on electricity.

If we can have them carry a decent weight and have good reliable ways to get them from and to where they need to go, they will revolutionize delivery. Door dash will be obsolete.

Ad-hoc drones being able to take off, fly and land anywhere? Sure, at least in theory. In practice, even Amazon and various well-funded, profit-driven players couldn’t make it work (drone delivery was very hyped up ~5 years ago) so I have no expectation that an incompetent government will achieve anything other than getting fleeced by consultancies.

In addition, the Amazon/DoorDash model isn’t even what we’re talking about here - this is a predefined, specific route with the last mile still handled by conventional vehicles, so it is even worse.

What if my house is inside restricted airspace (like most of the urban population)?

That's where predefined corridors are important. Let drones fly over restricted airspace with some registration and along "air roads".

Sure, but I’m referring to the notion of last mile delivery. It won’t work except in rural areas.

Why wouldn't it work? A drone can just fly right up to your doorstep. Getting it right is a tough job, but nothing about it is impractical.

So your 'predefined corridors' up-thread are going to lead to every doorstep?

Maybe the drones operate along aerial highways, and use a Wile E. Coyote-esque claw to release their payload on a parachute?

Over every home enough that the only worry of the drone is dodging yard stuff (trees, and buildings, mostly?), at least.

If we could all have landing pads like we have mail boxes, something with a fence, it would be much better.

So major cities are just one big pre-defined 'corridor'? What's the point, may as well just un-restrict it at that point?

You are generally want to have corridors so that you know where the drones are going to be, so you wouldn't just unrestrict everything, you'd have specific paths that the drones need to take to and from their destinations, like roads on the ground.

You don't leave it free space because then you have all sorts of drones whizzing around in all sorts of random and uncontrolled directions and that creates a lot of clutter that will cause crashing.

Zipline (https://www.flyzipline.com/) seems to be doing this well in their specific market niche.

In an area with unpaved dirt roads.

Indeed. Seems little sense for this in mainland England. The sensible applications are Highlands and Islands.