Slashdot Mirror
A Flying Leap for Cars?
pillageplunder writes "Businessweek has a story about flying cars and how they could be an actual viable thing in less than 10 years. First flying taxis, then, like the Jetsons, personal flying cars. Several are already on the board, with Honda and Toyota already having prototypes of small flying devices. Even General Electric is getting in on the deal, developing a small jet engine for Honda. So...would you buy one?"
will it fold up into a breifcase?
Damn, I'll never get that date!
Hmmm.
The last thing we need is flying SUVs.
Given how many people never bother to check water, oil etc until they break down at the side of the road, I really hope these cars will run full diagnostic checks before they let you start them...
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
I live in Boston. Drivers here have more than enough trouble coping with travel in two dimensions. Adding a third is a recipe for disaster.
most human beings are dangerous enough driving in a 2d environment. imagine how dangerous they'll be in a 3d environment!
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
Not to be a pessimist, but just imagine what some terrorists with flying cars could do?
I can't even imagine how to control personal flying machines. Have carports where people leave their cars, and must go through some sort of bomb / weapon detection before allowed in the air? Limit licenses to upstanding wholesome citizens?
Don't think this idea will ever 'fly' (pun intended) until the world is a nicer, happier, less terrorized place.
Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
Oh great. Right now, you can stay away from drunk drivers by staying off the roads. Once we have flying cars, some Jim Beam behind the wheel can clobber you in your 2nd floor bedroom.
Yeah, in a heartbeat. As long as the licensing process for driving these suckers was long, expensive, and difficult. And that the minimum driving age was over 21. And that nobody over the age of 65 was allowed to drive these without rigorous yearly examinations. Last thing we need is old folks dive bombing farmers markets too.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Will we have to use use "roads" in the air, or can we go as the crow flies? (going around military installqtions and so forth.
All the effort, fuel and pollution required just to get a hunk of metal off the ground and keep it there with the current technology is wasteful and unsustenable.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Now instead of getting all our cars to drive environmentally friendlier and less expensive (keywords: electrical, hybrid, bio-fuel), we drop the effort and start producing a new kind of vehicle that flies.
And ofcourse it uses kerosine for that (ever seen an electrical plane, man-sized ?).
This gives us a whole new excuse to soup up more oil and pollute even more..
What's next ? Real personal rockets ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
moller.com
he's got it for sale now as well. Looks kinda cool.
Wish I had the cash to go out and buy one
No matter how fast computers get, you'll always be waiting - Matt Klem
I really think it's safer to have 4 tires on the ground (or two). The idea of flying cars is a cool concept, but think of how many more fatal crashes we'd have. Gives a whole new meaning to "fender bender". You put that many people (or cars) in the air.. it's going ot happen. What about casualties on the ground when these things collide in the air???
-Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat-
What would Dante do for a Flying Car? Click Here to find out. /Kevin Smith fan
I can see the headlines now: "200 people killed when drunk driver collides with office building". If we have problems with people staying on the road in a car, what will it be like if they can fly?
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
I see complaints that people are too irresponsible to drive in two dimensions, let alone three, and so forth. I don't think that this will be a problem. Considering how much space each individual car will be able to have if we extend to three dimensions, allowing them to get tens of metres into the air, there'll be even more room than usual and so less likelihood of collision. Yes, terrorists could crash the flying cars, but that can be done anyway. Besides, they could always use light aircraft instead.
How many miles per gallon will a flying car get?
yeah, i'll get one right after i buy my Segway
unfortunately i'll not be able to eat for the next 13 years while i pay off my toys
We have been fantisizing about flying cars for generations, but in reality, are they ever going to be practical? Sure, you can go faster without all the resistance from the tires, but it takes a hell of a lot of energy to keep such a heavy object in the air. In the Jetsons, we had this notion that somehow we'd be able to overcome gravity and the cars would just float, but to date there's no evidence for such technology. For now, we have to blow a bunch of air down and the corresponding reaction is that the car stays up. Not very efficient for travelling.
I hate to be the skeptic, because I would love to be able to fly to work, but I don't see it being practical in our lifetimes.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
This?
does anyone honestly think that the government is going to allow flying cars in metropolitan areas?
I don't think this is a Democrat or Republican issue, I think it's a safety issue. Can you imagine a truck-sized flying car loaded with fuel flying into or even exploding next to a skyscraper? Legislators on both sides of the aisle are going to take a dim view of flying cars.
They definitely won't be allowed in DC until there is a way to bring them down with minimal damage to government structures.
The technology may be less than ten years away, but the legalization of them is probably 25 or 50 years away.
Not to burst anyone's bubbles, but just looking at the fuel efficiencies of current cars, after 100 years.. is this even feasible with the oil crisis as it is?
I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
Last I heard, he was still at it. Unfortunately, his final design is woefully underpowered, and has several stability problems he's trying to solve.
Speaking of which, that's a big problem I see with giving people flying cars. Flying (in the sense of using wings to generate lift) is VERY different from driving. For example, most people don't know that you have to nudge the stick, then move it back into a straight position to properly execute a bank. The bank will continue until you nudge the stick back the other way, and force the plane to level.
Even worse is the shear number of control surfaces that are completely unnatural to a driver. You can't just move the stick. That will cause the plane to slide. You have to give it some rudder. I'm not even going to go into how queasy bouncing on thermals is going to make most people.
To make an aircraft stable enough for the average driver, you're going to need something with a LOT of thrust. (i.e. Apply enough thrust to a brick, and it will fly.) Maneuvering would need to be handled by computer control to simplify the procedure.
Of course, we could just get everyone to obtain a pilot's license. But then I'd truly FEAR for the safety of the skyways.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Now they just need to start working on Mr. Fusion....
There's never enough when you have too little
The thing that caught my eye in "I, Robot" was will smith's Audi. Instead of having regular wheels it had spheres for wheels. this allowed him to basically travel in any direction in any heading. Pretty dang slick.
You would be doing away with conventional steering hardware, probably for a bunch of electronics to "run" the wheel in any direction you like in conjunction with the other wheels. My question is, how would you do it? Would it be just like an AC motor wrapped in rubber, with the rest of the motor surrounding the sphere wheels?
That would make parallel parking a cinch.
lie:
printf("This product will be availiable in 5-10 years.")
Sleep(10 years);
goto lie;
There will never be anything but autopilot in the civilian models. Also because of that there will be no licensing in the sense we have today. If you are rich enough your children will be able to use it for pre-programmed routes to school, the cinema, and the like.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I think I will stay on the ground, after all.
Do you constantly live in fear? Your life must be so pathetic.
Terrorists crashing things into buildings? Car-sized things? WHO CARES!
Or do you not remember the kid who proclaimed "solidarity with Osama" and crashed his small plane into the skyscraper in Tampa? Result: 1 dead kid, 1 wrecked small plane, 1 building that needed to be hosed off (no damage, though).
As for people not being able to fly without crashing into your house, look on the bright side. Flying accidents are bound to have a much higher mortality rate than car crashes. The people who think they can fly while eating, putting on makeup, reading, drinking, etc. will soon be taken care of by natural selection!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
People have a tough enough time driving in 2-D. How we can expect somebody to execute an Immelman while talkking on their cell and changing the radio station?
Also, how will people signal for a barrel roll vs. a Cuban eight? What about a split-S?
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
There is a track on the GameCube game F-Zero GX called Mobius Strip and its a great level to drive/levitate on. You build up hellish speeds on a quietly undulating track, that just happens to be, you guessed it, a Mobius Strip.
To date there are basically two classes of "flying cars" - light aircraft that look like cars and fold up to drive (similar to the Aquacar and other novelity cars), and scams like anything Moller puts out under his Skycar company.
Moller is actually "making" real commuter flight vehicles, 400 mph, mpg roughly equal to a car, park in a garage, take off from the driveway (or helipad if the FAA never allows driveway flight). The only problem is, his test flights have been happening for decades, commercial models for sale have always been a "year or two away", and all test flights (until a couple recent ones) have all been tethered and a dozen feet above the ground.
Unlike fusion, which is always a decade away because there needs to be a breakthough, Moller says he has it working and ready. But he's been saying that for a long, long time.
The "planes that convert to cars" (and their cousins, one of which is mentioned in the article, "helicopters that convert to cars") have been around commercially since the 1950s, and they generally work fairly well. They aren't very efficient, but they fly, drive and a new model comes out from somebody every five years or so (until the chilling effect from lawsuits slowed small aircraft production recently).
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
On the other hand, I hop right into my mercedez and take off for work. If something does't feel right or sound right or if I am really low on gas, I figure "hey I'd better do something about that sometime soon", and drive off. I can always pull to the side of the road. I can't do that in my plane. If something goes wrong and I need to "pull to the side of the road" I'm in a bit of a pinch. I have a ballistic parachute installed but I'd really hate to have to use it.
I can't ever imagine what flying would be like if everyone just hopped into their flying cars and took off (after cocktails, in a hurry, low on gas, in a poorly maintained vehicle, without a license, in bad weather, etc). What a nightmare!
Don't get me wrong, I think flying is wonderfull and that everyone should be able to do it, after rigorous training and certification, in a well maintained vehicle, clearly understanding when conditions are right to fly!
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Moller Skycars
They're not quite for sale yet. They have built one prototype for testing but won't start extensive testing until a second one is near completion. They've been moving pretty slow over the past several years but have been making steady progress. They are taking preorders, but nothing will ship for several years at least.
Mike Scanlon
There are several factors that will need to be addressed before flying cars arrive:
Flight takes more energy than ground travel, so given the current and future high energy costs the economics aren't here yet.
Air traffic control is another big issue. There will have to be an intelligent air traffic control network capable of directing such a large number of aircraft safely.
Maintenance. Current aircraft require a huge amount of time being maintained compared to cars. People do a poor job of keeping up with car maintenance as it is.. which is not such a large problem. If the engine quits you pull off the side of the road.
No, until we figure out how to make cars fly on a maintenance free cusion of blue light that uses something other than fossil fuels for power we'll all still be stuck driving around in our Porsches and GMC's.
Three dimensions, how cute. On the moon we have 5... thousand. Your puny little minds can't comprehend that.
No, the last thing we need are flying taxis.
Taxi drivers violate enough traffic laws already. Can you imagine what they will do given the ability to fly?
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
Everyone automatically pictures cars flying WAAAAY up in the air, but how feasible is that? Traffic control would just be a nightmare to deal with. Getting stuck in bumper to bumper traffic in mid air can only lead to problems. Say you run out of fuel, do you just drop out of the sky?
I say we make the flying cars just like the Landspeeders. It's still flying, and in the worst case scenario we only fall 2 feet!
Live forever, or die trying.
What do you think are the chances that some redneck is not going to take out that autopilot and replace it with a aftermarket hotrod conversion?
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Here's something I have yet seen mentioned: What about law enforcement? Unless the cops have these, I don't see how they'll let the general population drive them. It'll be pretty difficult for a cop in a standard cruiser to pull you over if you can just lift off and escape him. Even with radios and helicopters, by the time they can dispatch a chopper, you could be outta there.
Everyone seems to talk about successful personal air transport as a 100% replacement, and consequently see it as unfeasible or unlikely. TV doesn't kill radio, Internet doesn't kill TV, and flying cars don't need to kill conventional ground transport to be a success. They will become a new, useful and probably small part of the transportation ecology. But it won't stop walking, biking, trains and conventional driving.
Promote civility: mod down any post starting with 'ummm'.
Very low, as methods of detecting deviations from flight paths will immediately notify authorities if they do not correspond to what was issued. There may be some places over water that they could do it. I would presume that is where drag racing like activities would take off.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
That's why it'll be highly computer controlled. Current planes are like ancient DOS systems, where you have to type in huge commands, and any mistake is catastrophic. Much better to have something where you tell it via some 3D joystic, "Go up, down, left, right, forward, backward", end of story. You don't worry about stabilization, the computer does.
Better yet, you just program the destination and sit back.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The energy economy of a personal flying vehicle whould make a suburban look like a prius.
Airplanes do alright, but they don't have the ability to hover which would be a necesity for any urban personal air transit. Until an energy efficient way of maintiaing a position in 3 dimensions is developed I really don't think personal flying vehicle will be adopted on an appriciable scale...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I'm amazed at how much Fear and panic there are in these comments.
It's attitudes like this that stifle progress.
Yes, there's a danger but that's the nature of progress. The danger will be curbed by technology and beaurocracy(sadly)...
I say, bring it on.
00101010
Are we sure this article wasn't some sort of belated April Fool's joke? Come on, this is BUSINESS WEEK. It looks more like a paid advert from Honda to sell a few hundred thousand shares of stock to bandwagoners. I'll consider the idea once I see it in a vetted professional journal.
90% Professional Slacker
Quite late in the thread, so this probably wont get read, but this was the flying car argument I had the other night.
The "flying car " (moller, honda et al) should not be seen as a replacement for a car. The driving/ piloting restrictions will (and should) be very stringent. Not as hard to get as a commercial flying license, but harder than a driving test.
This creates a new niche market for corporates to have a fleet of cars & pilots where it will be cheaper than flying its execs all over the country, where we can get flying taxis, or the well to do will have a chauffer who can both drive their limo, or fly their moller.
Car companies will not be the ones effected, but instead the short haul flights business will see a dramatic drop in sales; if anything these companies should invest in flying taxis, the planes will become flying coaches instead
Mr Moller had major problems with testing - nobody would insure him for an untethered flight!
Then there's the matter of airspace and where you can fly. Air Traffic Control would have to make sure nobody flew into populated areas, military airspace, each other etc. This means a massive overhaul and spending on ATC to handle the millions of vehicles in the air simultaneously.
Moller said in the article I read that the amount of airspace around our planet is so large, it was unlikely that you would come across another SkyCar on your journey, even if every family in the world had one.
I doubt if people will be allowed to land in the middle of populated areas, we're more likely to have skyscraper car parks.
I should think Moller has the patent on SkyCars and that he'll make a bundle from car manufacturers (if he's still alive by the time they're mass produced!). I'd say we're looking at 50 years minimum until they become commonplace. Then instead of paying road tax we'll be paying air tax :-(
As a private pilot, I don't think this pig will fly. Yes, planes could be made that would allow nearly anyone to fly, but then there are all kinds of additional complications. You have to teach people about controlled airspace, emergency procedures, and where exactly does the TSA inspect the baggage?
Someone above stated that flying vehicles wouldn't be any more of a problem then ground traffic. I'd have to disagree. Light aircraft have a small radar signiture, and can slip by relatively easily. You might recall the German kid who flew a small plane right into Red Square in Moscow, or how the private pilot crashed his plane into the front of the White House. Yes, transponders are supposed to help, but if the pilot turns it off, he's unlikely to be seen. And, even when it's on, I've been told by ATC that they couldn't see me because I was at 1800 ft. ASL...too low for them. Now pack that thing with 500lbs of C4, and tell me that it's not a risk!
Now, try multiplying the number of planes in the sky by an order of magnitude, and tell me how we're not going to have a bunch of mid-air collisions too?
Just another day in Paradise
We have enough car accidents where only forward motion is involved. Let me put it this way. Would you want one of these things flying over your neighborhood, piloted (yes, piloted, not driven) by someone who could be a total moron, yakking on his cell phone, or maybe just drank a six pack?
Yeah, I'd sure like one of those things falling through the roof of my house, I can tell you right now. Not.
Roads aren't just to make wheels work. They also provide boundaries of where you can't go.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I believe there will be a reversal of urbanization if & when fast, efficient long distance trasportation comes to market. Many people- myself included- prefer lots of space, but live in the city or suburban areas because they like being close to things like grocery stores, friends, church, etc. The faster you can get to these places, the further away you can live from them.
May not seem that profound, until you consider things like the last election map. An exodus from the city would no doubt have interesting social consequences.
I wouldn't mind licensed pilots being able to do this, but adding another axis to most licensed drivers' spatial coordination is a recipe for disaster. Confer cellphones, fast food and road rage.
Snickersnee3: Build your own 3-watt Luxeon Star headlamp from scratch
myself, I've become convinced that many pilots are incompetent much of the time and all pilots are incompetent occasionally. And this is after a rigorous training program. Real aircraft are much more difficult to fly in real time than MS Flight Simulator (or *any* simulator).
The idea of "an airplane in every garage" has been around at least since the 1940s judging by my recollections of Popular Mechanics articles alone. But it never got closer than the 1950s. I can remember airports with hundreds of private aircraft (Stinsons, Luscombes, Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcrafts, etc) tied down in lines. Those lines of airplanes are conspicuously absent at the few airports left which cater to private flyers. A testimony to the expense of building, maintaining and operating even the simplest flying machines.
The ubiquitous "air-car" could only work if there were strict control over both the air-car and the pathways it travels combined with fail-safe recovery techniques in the event of mechanical failure. In other words, give the "pilot" control only over what time he leaves and his destination. Everything else - altitude, speed, course - is controlled by a common system that can keep theat vehicle - and every other vehicle - on the path it's been assigned to.
The air-car would also have to be able to stop and maintain altitude and position in mid-air in order to reduce the chances of collisions.
This combination of control and mechanical reliability would be *very* expensive not even including the cost of fuel. It would take a society that was dedicated to the premise that some very rich people could free themselves of ground transportation while the rest of us paid for the infrastructure.
Which is basically what we do with helicopters and personal jets now.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
1962 - Dr. Moller makes the XM2
1966 - Moller makes the XM3
1970 - Moller makes the XM4 which is probably the device you remember.
1989 - Moller makes the M200X. Between the XM3 and XM4 they did more engine work then flying car work.
Present - Moller has been working on the M400, a 4 passenger Skycar. This model has undergone significant changes in the past 8+ years and now is near a final design. They recently held a press conference where they demoed it flying and have videos of it on there site here. They are working on completing a second test vehicle before extensive flight tests are started.
They have in the recent past completed deals with other companies for the manufacture of the final product and also become a publicly traded company (not sure on the reasoning for this, but companies without products don't typcially go public). I hope this is helpful.
Mike Scanlon
anyone out there with the specs handy for how much helium/hydrogen(if you like to live dangerously) it would take to lift one 250 lb. person? i think it would be much cooler to have traffic floating around instead of the blast of a jet engine every morning when the neighbor takes off for work.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I can't believe the ignorance and ludditism I'm seeing here on slashdot. You would think this website was frequented by a congregation of the Amish, rather than self-proclaimed technophiles.
... if the automatics crap out for whatever reason one should be competent enough to pilot the device safely to the ground without hand-holding.
Your post is a breath of fresh air, being at least thoughtful (if perhaps not fully informed). Your point that pilot's licenses are far more difficult and rigorous than drivers licenses is a good one.
It's still a lot harder to get a license for and rental of a small aircraft than a car.
To get a driver's license in the United States, the chief requirement seems to be a pulse. To rent a car, you need a credit card in addition to the pulse.
Pilot's licenses--for good reason--are more difficult to get.
However, while "they" may call these new aircraft "flying cars," and these aircraft may even become easier to fly than current cars are to drive, I suspect one will be required to have a pilot's license to fly these aircraft just as one must have to fly any other aircraft. And well one should
As a pilot I would love to have a flying car. Being able to get from driveway to driveway in one vehicle, rather than taking a car to the airport, flying the plane to my destination, and then renting/borrowing a car at the far end (many FBOs have courtesy cars, but many do not, and getting one is always a crapshoot), would be a tremendous boon.
Let those who want to pilot flying cars jump through the necessary hoops to become competent pilots (ideally with an instrument rating), while those who get regular drivers licenses remain restricted to the planet's surface.
All the benefits of flying vehicles, all the air safety of the current licensing system, and additional flexibility for those who do like to travel and are willing to acquire the skills to fly.
As for the post wondering what to do if one has a midair in one county and plumets to the earth in another, that one is easy. The NTSB investigates the crash irrespective of where it lands (in the US). WRT international borders, the current norms for investigative aeronautical crashes would apply.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Current planes are like ancient DOS systems, where you have to type in huge commands, and any mistake is catastrophic.
Bullocks. A modern 777 will keep itself in the air, with or without you. It's airframe is designed such that it WANTS to fly. Try executing a deadly maneuver in X-Plane sometime, using nothing to correct your flight except thrust. The 777 will right itself without much problem. It will probably even climb until it reaches equilibrium.
You don't worry about stabilization, the computer does.
Airframes are usually *designed* to be stable. Especially something like a CS-150 with the wing tips for stabilization. Your real problems with any flight are:
1. Preventing midair collisions.
2. Getting on and off the ground.
The first will become a BIG problem if everyone gets their "flying car". The second one is a big problem, period. Getting off the ground usually isn't so big of a problem as long as you give yourself as much room as possible. Getting on the ground IS a big problem.
When you're flying through the air, your path is determined by the gasses through which you're passing. This can cause your path to skew, and can even result in some roll. The problem is that the ground is NOT moving. Thus you have to attempt to compensate. If you see a plane coming that looks like it's crooked, the pilot is probably NOT drunk. He's compensating. Yet even the best pilots occasionally have a hard landing. Go shopping for a plane sometime, and you'll notice that quite a few of them talk about replacing or repairing the firewall after a hard landing.
Much better to have something where you tell it via some 3D joystic, "Go up, down, left, right, forward, backward", end of story.
You can't go left or right. This isn't a car. You have to roll and execute a banking maneuver. A computer can simplify this, but you can't change the physics of flight. (Again, with "flight" defined as "obtaining lift by passing through the atmosphere" A hovercraft can obviously thrust in any direction it damn well pleases.)
You don't worry about stabilization, the computer does.
Keep in mind that you can only stabilize the craft so much. If it's light, it WILL bounce on thermals and downdrafts. There's very little the computer can do about this other than to make course corrections. The last thing we need is some guy freaking out at a thermal, accidently rolling his plane, getting disoriented, and taking her into the ground.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The Moller Skycar has been in the works for years. Popular Science has done several issues on them. Now suddenly Honda and the like are planning on making flying cars? Is everyone just waiting for his patents to expire or something?
what about the children in the playground the flying car crash lands in? either intentionally or unintentionally...
mechanical failure is a greater concern when they start making vehicles for the masses, and mass produce them. and seeing most people's attentiveness in maintaining their cars, i give it about 4 months before the first flying car crashes due to improper maintenance. and what happens when it runs out of fuel? that is what concerns me with regard to flyiing cars. people will always try to push their cars further...
Robert E. Fulton, a man who as a teenager was the first to ride around the globe on a motorcycle, already invented the flying car in 1945. He called it the Airphibian. In 1950 he flew it to Washington D.C. where he landed and then drove it to the Civil Aeronautics Association where it was certified for use. It traveled 110 mph in the air and 55 mph on the ground, and changed between car and plane in five minutes due to its simple system for removing the wings and propeller. Charles Lindhberg flew it and declared it "an improvement." It never did well commercially and sold only under 600 total. There is only one remaining today. It is in the Smithsonian. More Info: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/fult on.htm
History: http://travel.howstuffworks.com/flying-car1.htm
You will not get mass consumer flying cars any time soon.
We worry about how much fossil fuel cars use. Flying cars would be far worse.
We complain about the noise of cars. Flying cars will be far worse.
But most of all, cars kill people at an appalling rate, through mechanical failure and driver error. Flying cars would be far worse. Do you really want carloads of drunken students in mechanically unsound vehicles to be hundreds of feet above our cities and houses?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
One fallacy that many people in this argument seem to be making is that once flying cars become feasible, everyone in the country will instantly replace their ground cars with them. In reality (if I may even use that word here), adoption is going to be slower and more gradual. I wouldn't be surprised if the first customers are emergency services; wouldn't they snap up a vehicle that can be stored in a garage and driven on the ground by personnel without special training, and also bypass traffic jams and instantly reach the roof (or even any window of) a skyscraper? They already use helicopters anyway.
Yes, he's been at it for a long time. And it's always RealSoonNow(tm).
Anybody ever seen one of his things actually fly? Unmanned tethered hover doesn't count.
I agree completely.
Currently, the only methods for making things fly involve high velocities (rotors, props, turbines) and the associated noise from those moving things.
People already move next to the airport, then sue the airport management for excessive noise. Nobody is going to tolerate a jet-powered car next door.
Finally, it's just not practical to use that much energy to commute downtown. And if you find a destination for which this makes sense, it would probably be better served by an airplane anyhow.
I can see certain applications for the technology (search and rescue, surveillance, etc); but even those are served well by current technology.
As the parent implied, until we find an anti-gravity technology, flying cars will always be a lark.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Setting up rules to manage heavy congestion with vehicles that can't stop will be quite a challenge.
Indeed. As I see it not only are we going to need rules but some serious means of enforcement. A fender bender at 2000 feet would be a hell of a thing. I'd even guess it would have to come to the point where the machine would have to be built to the point that it can't break the rules even if it wanted to. A simple case of road rage could potentially leave scores dead.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
..."when pigs can fly."
--
Over the next 50 years, unless renewable, portable fuel (e.g. fuel cells together with solar or nuclear electrolysis plants) become insanely cheap, the name of the transportation game will be "efficiency". $40/barrel oil may seem expensive now, but in another few decades it'll seem insanely cheap.
Another means to lift and support mass other than aerodynamics MUST be developed.
Whether you use jet engines, piston engines, rotary engines, wings, enclosed fans or helicopter blades. You are still lifting mass by moving large quantities of air around. There is just too much that has to be just right to fly in this way, just one thing goes wrong and BOOM you just made a nice crater in the ground.
There has been some research in this area but many people and companies distance themselves from it the moment you use the term Anti-Gravity so call it whatever you want, Mass Reduction, Electro-kinetic lift or even Magnetic field lift. (In Star Wars they called it Repulser- Lift). The Point is there has to be another way to get in the air, its just waiting for someone to discover it.
::The Simpson's Pork roast gets thrown through the sky::
::They laugh and the roast flies in front of the plant's window:: ...So, should, I go write that check?
Homer: It's only a little airborne! It's still good!
Mr. Burns: You know, I think I'll give a million dollars to an orphanage.
Mr. Smithers: Really? When?
Mr. Burns: When pigs fly!
Mr. Smithers:
Mr. Burns: No, I'd still rather not.
Here's another possibility:
When the flying cars first come out, they will probably be limited to law enforcement (and important government officials and their connected friends/donors, of course). After all, if only the police should have guns, why should anyone else be trusted with potential flying bombs?
After a while, a whole generation will grow up in a world where flying cars are exclusively limited to the government, and the "right" to own one will never trickle down to us peons.
Besides, how many civilian flying cars did you see in Blade Runner ? "You know the score; if you're not a cop, you're little people."
Note the transponder (just like a license plate)
Levy a fee
Revoke the license
Impound the vehicle
Put it on an APB
Flag it and give it a ticket
Charge the owner with civil/criminal offenses
GPL Deconstructed
I think a lot of these problems you've all been talking about will just go away if we just travel in *4D* instead. Imagine disappearing from your home at 10:00 and showing up at work at 08:00 on the same day. Of course, it might be confusing if you try to call home to check the messages before 10, but even that might have some uses...
You: "Hello, Dave speaking."
You: "Hi, it's you. Ummm, don't eat that two-week old yogurt in the fridge, or you'll regret it later. Oh god, I've gotta go..."
Hmmm, what a strange post, and I haven't even been drinking.
Randall and Dante discuss flying cars in a short that first appeared on Leno.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
About half the posts modded 4/5 are talking about people "driving" these things.
We already have the technology to fully automate this mode of transport - you use the car as normal on the ground, but to fly you change to computer-controlled mode before the car leaves the ground. Navigation, maneuvring and landing are all accomplished by the computer. The manual overide will call home and involve a HUGE fine if you use without good reason (storm coming up, unknown obstruction in path etc.).
European auto manufacturers have auto car control systems running dozens of vehicles around tracks and across intersections without human drivers - if this technology was mandated in, say, 2008 we would suddenly have shorter journey times, fewer crashes, better fuel economy etc. But you would never steer your own car again except in emergency.
The technology to do this is HERE, it's just not commoditised yet - as soon as there is enough financial impetus behind it, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will do it.
The last thing we need is a 400 mph vehicle to enable people to live even farther from where they work, waste more resources, and further alienate the rich from the poor.
My appologies to those who have seen Spaceballs.
"Spaceballs, the flame thrower. The kids love that one."
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
As someone living in one of the largest cities in the world (São Paulo, Brazil), in an eight-floor apartment and with recently bought sound insulating windows, my only concern is: How much noise do these creatures produce ? I don't want anyone flying under my window at 3am in the morning and waking me up.
Now, small blimps with eletric motors, that would be OK.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Back in the late 1940's or early 1950's, a magazine, either "Popular Mechanics" or "Popular Science" had an article about flying cars. The car was powered by a central jet engine, and one concept was to have the main "car" part be a separate assembly that could be detached from the aircraft wings and fuselage. The other concept envisioned folding wings that either became part of the car body or were concealed somehow. Now, some 60 years later, we have still not solved the problems of transportation using autos as the basis for a flying vehicle or using the airplane as a basis for a car. (No, I'm not that old, but an older brother did subscribe to them for years.)
What if the transponder was messed with?
(like people switching plates now)
How would you get them? you'd have to pull them over. And how do you pull them over at 900 feet? (assume the transponder/autopilot is off)
Do you shoot them down? (assume school or other meaty area below)
Can you fly 12 miles to international waters and thus escape jurisdiction?
I see a lot of obstacles...
"Piter, too, is dead."
Not in (some) modern aircraft, for 20 years or so now. In the F-16, centering the (side)stick applies the appropriate inputs to the control surfaces that the aircraft quits banking - no slight reverse stick is necessary. Pilots that transitioned from older aircraft were frequently seen stairstepping to get to a desired bank angle due to their habit of applying reverse stick pressure to stop the bank. Additionally, it's seldom necessary to use intentionally apply rudder force to correct for any flight path slid or skid in such aircraft, as the flight control system applied appropriate force automagically.
This sort of computer-assisted flight control is not at all difficult with modern systems.
Oh, really? What states have stopped honoring Californian driver's licenses to make such a thing safe? Californians can't drive in two dimensions, they don't need a third, particularly near me.
Help us build a better map!
It's not that you can't build a small jet engine. It's that the price doesn't decline much with size. Engines sized for small aircraft aren't much cheaper than those built for business jets.
There was an effort at NASA to fix this problem, but it failed and was cancelled in 2002.
from the moller site:
We plan to begin untethered flights when we have at least one additional M400 nearing completion. All flights will occur over a specially constructed lake. This lake is part of the Milk Farm development (see www.milkfarm.net), a commercial 60-acre development underway near the city of Dixon in California on Interstate 80. The lake will have an area of 5 to 6 acres and will be approximately 10 feet deep with a silt, rock free bottom. Most flights will occur at less than 50 feet altitude and will incorporate flotation gear attached to the Skycar.
: While not mentioned on the site the scuttlebutt is that the untethered lake flight will be this summer. If you live near the Sacramento/Davis area keep an eye on his site. If possible I plan to be there for the first flight since I am only 50 miles from the test site.
Seriously--who will accept this level of control over our actions by "the government"? Universal mandatory autopilot will not go over well. Perhaps mandatory autopilot as you are entering a controlled space...but not absolute control 100% of the time.
They're not ultralights, but aircraft under a certain weight and performance limits, with reduced requirements for pilot certification and medical requirements. For example, you don't need a third class medical, just a valid drivers license. Airplanes have to be under 1320 lbs. gross weight. See http://www.sportpilot.org/ -- this actually has the potential for a revolution in aviation, even if cars don't fly.
Ask me about my vow of silence!
100 years in the past people were excited by horseless carriages. They made regulations for them to not exceed 30mph at all times because of the "tremendous danger" of the vehicle itself and the small sand storms each driveby sent down rural streets. To obtain a driving license you needed to know literally all or most of the technical details of your ride and you must have been able to accomplish not-so-minuscule repairs yourself on the spot. Several jurisdictions around the world even had a regulation on the books requiring each horseless carriage to have someone carrying a warning-flag before them, alerting horses and people of their coming.
And one by one these regulations were lessened. Most people around 1900 had barely ever seen a car, while people around 1920 surely had. In 1940 most people have had at least one ride in a car and by 1960 most who were old enough had driven one themselves at least once.
A large part of todays kids ride in their parents vehicle for many hours a month, learning from them and experiencing traffic, car handling, the feeling for speed, acceleration and braking and much more. That doesn't make them "responsible drivers" later on, even contrary giving them a sense of false security, but it surely has a huge positive impact on overall car handling abilities.
Long rant, short story: kids learn from experience with their parents. Was true for the horseless carriages evolving from 10mph snails to the 130mph cruise reached by almost everything now. And will be true for personal aircraft in the future. If you were driving as a small kid with mom and pop from your birth to your 18th birthday, you sure can handle 3-dimensional traffic much easier than todays commercial pilots. They may be highly educated, responsible, calm and professional - but they can never beat a generation of kids "educated" in airborne travel on every trip to the supermarket with their parents.
At first we will get severely restrictive rules, but as the experience and the technology matures, they will be lessened more and more. After all, airborne travel is IMHO much safer than land based as there is less to do, less pedestrians to run over, more visibility and clearly predictable vectors for other drivers.
Most accidents are caused by less-than-ideal ground friction, ice, water or leaves, speed differences between lanes, sharp turns, trees on the roadside, numerous maneuvers along winding roads and unpredictable traffic behavior. All eliminated with airbone vehicles. A clear course from A to B, autopilot assistance when needed, less control input without turns, intersections, lane changes etc and much more space to avoid road/air raging drivers and oncoming traffic. Never be stuck behind lame old grannies anymore. Never be bullied off the road by lunatics. Worst case: flying with zero visibility is safer than driving with zero vis, so I'm all for this.
To make personal air cars a reality it comes down to improving the air traffic control system. We need to implement a computerized system that sets aside air corridors for personal and commercial traffic. These sky highways are possible if we implement technologies like Voxel based HUD's for Air traffic controllers. You can see a three dimensional image of an air craft. Anyone see a little movie called Star Wars... remember the holographic projection of the Death Star? They are testing a system that uses a laser and a spinning helix to land air craft down in San Diego so mix in a super computer or 12 and these holographic displays to give an x, y and z axis to crowded airways and mix in a really good air bag and you have yourself a super highway in the sky. Oh now you need a good skycar check out http://www.moller.com/.
John Anthony Hartman