Slashdot Mirror

Well according to Back to the Future II, Max Headroom is still supposed to be around hawking Pepsi!

And one would think that the skyway system for our flying cars would be in place by now as well.

And if my 2015 World Series bet on the Cubs falls flat, Spielberg is going to have a lawsuit on his hands.

Flying Cars? look right here

• Same model as my first computer: Down from $2500 to a mere $20 or less.
• Book: Hardware interfacing for the (Apple, 8080, Z80, 6502, 6809, 8088, 8086, etc...): $2 on ebay or a computer show.
• Chips, resistors, led's, relays and everything else your heart desires: About ten seconds of salary apiece for salvage, $5 for the ones I can't live without.

• The freedom to try anything I want, 'cuz now I can afford to replace it if I let out the magic blue smoke?

  Priceless.

We're not all building Ham radios and grinding our own telescope lenses, but that's because we're so busy building our own aparatus for whatever interests us using the building blocks of the digital generation. 90% of my projects have nearly nothing to do with pre-1970's devices.

And when something DOES?-- well, ten seconds after I got my first Dobsonian 'scope, I began thinking how cool it'd be to rig it up with photocells, servos, a database and a real-time webserver so I could stargaze last night's sky any time I wanted (like at lunch!?). And two-thirds of how I'd do that isn't available from Edmunds. What's more, ten more seconds of searching on google (webcam astronomer) got me two such devices already implemented.

Folks are building their own fuel cells and hooking 'em to bikes, making wireless network antennas, turbocharged generators, stereo-to-PC integration devices, in-car-computers, personal VTOL aircraft, and more!

We're all still experimenting. That's what hacking is, in my book. We're just caught up in 'new' areas of discovery.

Oh, and Open Source has little to do with the urge to experiment. They may coincide, but either can live just fine exclusively of one another.

You could wait until the sky car comes out... or just hold the Moller Engineers hostage with a large salmon until they give you a prototype...

Flying cars? www.moller.com.

Of course, we'll never be able to buy one given the recent terrorism scare....

Max

I'm afraid that, cool as we all think it would be to print out electronics (and boy would it), that printable electronics is going to show up about a week before the flying car, if at all. Rolltronics was RSN on its product about a year ago, too.

George Jetson had items like a videophone, flying car, and a robot.

The surrounding information also make it apparent that a Skycar society would use automated air traffic control and the Skycars would talk to nearby Skycars to fly in an orderly manner.

For several reasons, implementors would probably create highways, although they might arrange themselves automatically rather than being printed on maps. Vehicles in or near Des Moines which are headed toward Chicago might tend to be gathered into a pipe-shaped area (a "highway") and there may be similar standard air routes for moving around Chicago, with slower and vertical flight taking place at altitudes below the air routes. Direct travel would also be possible, but grouping traffic simplifies the navigation problems for all craft. Particularly around the borders of the various restricted airspaces, where traffic going around could get concentrated. Doing the geometry, it's apparent that whether routes are defined by maps or by calculations based on following standard rules, they're likely to appear in some form.

I want my flying cars

In case you haven't noticed yhe skycar is here.

It is supposed to run at 350mph and take off and land from the same spots helicopters do, so in principle from the top of one's building/dorm/etc...

It is awaiting AFA approval I believe

Blender (not only has it been done, you can buy them commercially - 5hp B&H I think)

Go look at what Moller is doing. Other people have suggested hovercraft, but you have four engines. Moller is using them with a ducted fan to make something that hovers and flys about at higher altitudes.

Hovercraft (not much to that)

Lawnmower - Think I'm silly? You're making it, do it the geek way. How about creating some sort of generator, putting an old motherboard in there, add some electric motors and make the whole thing robotic?

I think a lawnmower engine is a little poorly suited, but the Wheelman is too cool, and begs to be copied.

The world's most nausiating Sit 'n' Spin.

Van De Graff generator

Bicycle motor. Just add a rear bike rack. Attach the motor to the rack, and attach a small wheel to the shaft of the motor (actually, some kind of gear reduction box is probably needed) allow the small wheel to engage the rear tire of the bike.

Launcher. Like a scaled up version of a tennis ball server. You could fire nerf footballs or something... Good luck, and be safe!

Finally, Back to the Future 2 may not be too far off! I want to be the first with a hoverboard. Seems that the Skycar is already on it's way though.

-Shade

Your Moller flying car is being tested in the lab now. (Notice the "update" link at the top of the page)

A few more years and everyone will be flying to work and landing on sky scrapers.

A few more years and everyone will be flying to work and landing on sky scrapers.

This is why movies 30 years ago have flying cars 30 years in the future...people like to dream.

For the most part, I agree with you on the (on topic) subject. However, I have to point out that flying cars actually exist, despite Capt Sisko's IBM commercial.

for the Moller Skycar...

it's not up and flying yet... but ya never know...

where are our bloody rocketpacks is what I want to know...

and atomic toasters...

It's embarassing, because the AvroCar in the 1950s used the same idea and actually flew. But it wasn't stable. The AvroCar guys knew they needed automatic stability augmentation, but early 1950s control technology wasn't up to doing that. The stability problem should be solveable today, but the fundamental inefficiency problem of pure-thrust VTOL craft remains.

There was lots of enthusiasm for vertical takeoff craft in the 1950s, and quite a few flyable prototypes, some very wierd, were built. Many of them ended up in the Hiller Aviation Museum.

Other than helicopters, the only VTOLs made in any quantity were the Harrier and the Osprey, both of which are used by the USMC. Both operate as pure-thrust aircraft only for takeoff and landing; they're ordinary winged aircraft in cruise.

I am sure a lot of /.'ers know about Moller International, but Moller actually built a functioning flying saucer like machine back in the late 60's/early 70's that flew to a height of 20 feet or something. Now his designs are very different, but he is currently trying to get together enough money to start production of a flying car...a la George Jetson.

Well, while there are certainly military applications of this technology, there are also genuine humanitarian ones - such as the claimed fire disaster area survey. Each year many firefighters lose their lives, particularly trying to combat forest fires and trying to rescue people - or whole towns - from such areas.

Some people have suggested other flight platforms, particularly from Moller, but while the Aerobot looks nice it is somewhat expensive, and the Skycar looks unsuited to perform an tasks for which the system was intended. What is really important, though is the control electronics, vision system, etc.

The German system seems to do a nice job with this (note also that Germans, at Mercedes-Benz, are the farthest along - at least in public - on autonomous robot land vehicles). What would be an interesting next challenge would be to try to scale-up from small helicopters to, say, a full-blown bell with stretcher pods and have the system be able to perform rescues of humans whom can be determined to still be mobile enough to get themselves onto the craft.

Regarding detecting the difference between dead humans, unconscious humans, and alive but not breathing humans - first of all, those are distinctions that are hard for humans to make from a helicopter, so it's an awkward comparison. Furthermore, using infrared technology, the system would be better at detecting humans who died long enough ago that they were starting to get cold from others - something a human can not do while airborne.
If you want to distinguish the unconscious, dead, and almost-dead you need to send in a land-based robot with some medical technology for making the distinction (but how do you TEST that system?)
Right now, I think humans will be used for this.

Also interesting would be to test the system for ability to deliver payloads (yeah, it could be bombs, but it would be interesting to test its accuracy in dropping medical supplies to those in a disaster area who are still mobile enough to use them...)

Check out the aerobot. This VTOL aircraft uses ducted fans insead of a conventional rotating airfoil, and is capable of autonomous take-offs and landings. Also check out the wankel-powered Skycar.

--

Check out the aerobot. This VTOL aircraft uses ducted fans insead of a conventional rotating airfoil, and is capable of autonomous take-offs and landings. Also check out the wankel-powered Skycar.

--

Check out the aerobot. This VTOL aircraft uses ducted fans insead of a conventional rotating airfoil, and is capable of autonomous take-offs and landings. Also check out the wankel-powered Skycar.

--

The SoloTrek stands on its own feet, not the operator's, which is a big improvement. On the other hand, the SoloTrek prototype doesn't appear to have much give in its landing gear. Controlling the rate of descent of this thing will be tough, because it's done with the throttle alone. The blades are fixed pitch. This implies a control lag that the pilot must compensate for. That's a tough piloting job.

On the stability and control front, this thing has no automated stability augmentation, which is suprising. Helicopter and VTOL craft are far tougher to fly than ordinary aircraft; they have less intrinsic stability and more control inputs. I would have expected more smarts in this thing, to make the piloting task manageable by mere mortals. Enough marginally stable VTOL craft were tried back in the 1950s that it's clear the pilot needs help. At least attitude stabilization seems indicated. A radar altimeter system to help control vertical speed at landing is probably needed, too.

The Moller Skycar supposedly has stability augmentation, but those guys have been hyping their vehicles since 1968 (yes, 1968) without producing anything flyable. I have their 1974 brochure, and it was Real Soon Now back then. Their web site has had the same Real Soon Now hype for a year now.

See the Popular Rotorcraft Association for ultralight gyrocopters and similar air vehicles you can buy and fly right now. Less hype, and those things fly just fine.

For those of you out there, who want to see pictures here is the url to see the prototype pictures.

Personally, I think that within 20 years we could be ordering these from Thinkgeek. But for now, I am sure that the price will be a little too high.

Oh, and if anyone is waiting on their flying car, check this out. Again price here is the restricting factor $400,000 US for a car. The one stipulation is that you have to probably get some sort of pilot license.

Like Moller's skycar. Why do we have to do the equivalent of reinventing the flying wheel?

Flying cars

DB

I heard an interview with the founder of Moller International, he stated that although at the beginning the Sky Car would cost as much as a million bucks. He also stated that the technology is cheap enough that if there is enough sales, there was no reason that the cost couldn't come down to the price of a new Mustang.

The Sky Car also would not allow you to have control of the vehicle, it would be totally controled by the four computers onboard. So set your destination and kick back and pull up your notepad and read some slashdot before you get to work.

Another cool thing about that is that there would really be no need to purchase more than one Sky Car per family. One goes to work then sends the car back home to pick up the kids for school etc..

Anyhow I'm looking forward to the day I can cut my comute from the 2 hours it takes me now to get to work to well under half an hour.

I heard an interview with the founder of Moller International, he stated that although at the beginning the Sky Car would cost as much as a million bucks. He also stated that the technology is cheap enough that if there is enough sales, there was no reason that the cost couldn't come down to the price of a new Mustang.

The Sky Car also would not allow you to have control of the vehicle, it would be totally controled by the four computers onboard. So set your destination and kick back and pull up your notepad and read some slashdot before you get to work.

Another cool thing about that is that there would really be no need to purchase more than one Sky Car per family. One goes to work then sends the car back home to pick up the kids for school etc..

Anyhow I'm looking forward to the day I can cut my comute from the 2 hours it takes me now to get to work to well under half an hour.

Ever wish there was a delete post command? Ever have a cat run across your keyboard and post for you? Ever wonder why the filter accepts a post with nothing in it?

Anyway...the flying cars are here. Technologically that is. Have been for quite awhile. The FAA is the holdup. Moller International has the technological end worked out.

A recent wired story is here.

Specs on the M400:

• Cruise speed/ top speed: 350/390 mph
• Maximum rate of climb: 7800 fpm
• Maximum range: 900 miles
• Payload with max fuel: 740 lbs
• Fuel consumption: 15 mpg
• Operational ceiling: 30,000 ft
• Gross weight: 2400 lbs
• Engine power (8x120 hp): 960 hp
• Dimensions (LxWxH): 18' x 9' x 6'
• Takeoff and landing area: 35 ft dia
• Noise level at 500 ft: 65 dba
• Vertical takeoff and landing: yes
• Uses automotive gas:
• Emergency parachutes: yes

Estimate price, if the FAA approved today, would be about $400k. Once the volume of production is ramped up, Moller believes they could bring the cost down very quickly, perhaps coming to rest in the $60k range within a few years.

Ola

Oh, you want flying cars? Okay. The Moller Skycar.

Just in case anyone hadn't heard about it, another innovative car that should be out within a decade or so is the M400 skycar.

-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything

Don't forget the M400 Skycar, which also will be running on gasoline :)

-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything

Skycars will be here "real soon now". Take your pick. If you have the bucks you can buy a City Hawk - flying car Looks like a star wars speeder. There is the Xantus and the Moller Skycar. It actually looks like a Jetsons car. Cool Popular Mechanics cover here.

We do not need advanced technology to save lives. We just have to have the political will to stand up to the auto companies and demand that the road slaughter stops.

How many years did it take to get even seat belts/safety glass in cars? After people started using them lives were saved. Princess Diana might be alive today if she had worn her seat belt. She was in a very expensive Mercedes with all the latest safety equipment. The only person to survive the crash was the bodyguard who was wearing his seat belt. What was the cause of the crash? A drunk driver in an overpowered car. BTW air bags did not help in this crash. They are expensive and have probably killed more kids and short people than would have been saved with seat belts alone.

It is ironic that if a plan or train crashes, there is a big investigation and whole fleets are grounded until the problem is fixed yet flying/rail are the two safest methods of travel. The auto companies on the other hand are allowed to produce vehicles that are inherently dangerous. This is shown about the number of auto fatalities that kill more people in a long weekend then all the air planes crashes in a year.

The auto companies could make a safe car but would anyone buy it? They would have to if there were stricter govt regulations. Right now the government pays lip service to safety.

Here are some simple solutions that would save 10,000 lives a year:

If the govt was serious about safety, they would not allow cars on the road that can do 150mph when the speed limit is 60mph.

Put real bumpers at a standard height on all vehicles.

Make breath analysers mandatary to start a car or at least on known impaired drivers.

Annual drivers test for anyone over 65.

The other best solution for reducing fatalities is divided highways. Expensive but saves head on collisions.

BTW If you want to see the real 'Jetsons Flying Car' check out the Moller Skycar.

In other words, cars are not being developed to manuever in three independant dimensions. The engine of a car (cpu of a computer) is continually being refined. The console and driving instruments (UI of an OS) are continually being refined. The fact that the car travels on land is not being altered (the fact that an OS coordinates the hardware) is not being changed.

ACTUALLY - there are people out there working on alternatives to our current 2-dimensional automobiles. Check out the Solotrek and the Moller M400 velocitor - a couple of my favorite, root-for-the-underdog, hope-they-make-it concepts.

Now THAT's innovation.

Rotary engines rule...

Amen.

Seem to be getting a lot of interest from some in the aero industry, the AirCar for instance. There is a definate advantage to being able to answer the question 'How many moving parts does your engine have?" with the answer '2'. Compare that to 7 for the simplest four-stroke I have ever met (in a lawnmower). 2 strokes can be nearly as simple I suppose, but the rotary is jsut neat!

Things get much worse as you add more combustion chambers. Gowd knows how many moving parts in a modern v6/8, and a Honda Vtec, just pray the cambelt never snaps..


EZ
-'Press Ctrl + Alt + Delete to log on..'

The Hiller flying platform is a historical curiosity, and the Hummingbird is the current implementation (and is selling kits).

There's also cheaper (and larger) small helicopter produced since 1971.

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

The flights of our two-passenger experimental M200X in the early 1990's gave my staff and I great personal satisfaction. As the pilot, I really felt like a hummingbird moving up, down, forward and backward at will. Flying on a magic carpet was another apt description. This first year in the new millennium will see us achieving another significant goal with the flight of the 4-passenger M400 Skycar. The M400 is a production configuration, meaning that it is essentially the same as what you will use in the very near future. Right now our team is busily testing the components which will, working together, give our society an alternative to the automobile for personal transportation. No more hours spent sitting on the congested highways adding pollutants to our environment. Facing unsafe drivers, poor driving conditions and overcrowded roads will become a thing of the past.

BTW, check out Moller International. They've been prototyping a similliar type of sky car. I'd be willing to drop a million for one of these.

kwsNI

• Hummingbird flying platform
  
• The Moller
  
• Hiller Flying platform
  
• SkyRider
  

There are many different flavors of personal vertical takeoff and landing devices. A neat one that is more of a hovering-design called Hummingbird can be found here.

A company called Moller makes this EXREMELY cool looking model: Sky Car

There's another one I can't rememberr now - I submitted it to slashdot a week ago or so, but sadly, it was declined:)

Cheers,
signature smigmature

Some cars look different. Some are different.

--Clay

I suspect that we will see a lot more of the Wankel engine in the future...

Travel in style in the Moller Skycar. Of course, you're going to have to wait for all your options to vest before you'll be able to afford it.

Actually, sometimes "The Future" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The architect (I forget his name) who popularized rounded and wedge shapes on buildings with assorted protuberances (I actually first became acquainted with the shapes as the background of The Flash's visits to the future) had a strong influence on today's architects. Materials, functional requirements, and expense affects actual designs but the influence is visible.

Flying cars were popular in the future of the 1950's. The founder of Moller has been striving toward it ever since, and test flight of the four-seater Skycar prototype is scheduled this year.

Transit methods such as the Disney monorail have also been around for a long time. Personal Rapid Transit devices have assorted designs, of which Taxi2000 is my favorite. 3-4 passenger vehicles which take you from your station directly to your destination station. No schedules, and a tiny overhead track. These PRT technologies have actually greatly gained capabilities with microcomputers, as now automated guidance and control is much simpler and cheaper.

And I recently read of a cellular wrist phone...

"Of course, I'm still miffed that flying cars aren't in everyone's aero-garages yet."


They're working on it. :-)


Along those lines, I would have to believe that ours is a culture that will have something more exciting by then. We are intelligent, driven, passionate, and not constrained by buerocracy (usually).


I for one think that Linux 10.4.6 will be totally unrecognizable by today's standards. The technology will evolve suffeciently to have really cool stuff to write drivers for (transporter drivers for pizza, flying telnet coffee pot, whatever). We will create the technology. We will advance the kernel.


In short, the goal is, say it with me kids, "Total World Domination".

Yeah, but Moller isn't working with NASA.

I would bet a simpler personal air buggy will start working long before a more complex one

I think this guy beats Moller cold