Discussion: Analysis on the Future of UAS

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Discussion: Analysis on the Future of UAS
 
 
 
UAS development and application are occurring at a rapid rate, influenced by regulatory changes, technological advancements, and new adaptation for various industries and users. For this discussion, investigate and address the following:
1. Recent regulations affecting potential UAS operations (at Federal, State, and/or local levels); see: Current Unmanned Aircraft State Law Landscape (Links to an external site.) for examples. Here’s the link: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/current-unmanned-aircraft-state-law-landscape.aspx
 
2. Changes to the industry, including availability of new technology, systems, and users.
3. Potential effects (i.e., implications) these factors may have on further proliferation, adoption, or use of UAS technology.
 
Info: Discussion Specifics
· Make sure to locate and reference current industry/economic/government reports (from within the last three years).
· Search for examples where regulatory/legal “preemption” may be an identified concern.
· Consider technological growth areas that may assist to address common constraints or concerns.
· Extending endurance
· Increasing interoperability
· Increasing detection/sensing capabilities
· Ensuring safety
Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.