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"
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 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.
How many miles per gallon will a flying car get?
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?
So what is the essential difference between that and, oh, I don't know, say, a plane?
Anyone who wants to take a small light aircraft up (and has one/rents one and has a licence) can pretty much go for it.
Flying cars aren't going to raise your danger from terrorists (which is incredibly small anyway). Crap drivers crashing into your house - now that's a different matter.
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
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.
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.
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
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))
Personal aviation used to be a lot more popular than it is now. The thing stopping people is that insurance rates skyrocketed, insurance for the aircraft makers in particular. Basic planes that used to cost as much as a typical luxury car of the time would now cost four times that of a typical luxury car now.
Unless the cars run on autopilot and manage to pass FCC muster, I doubt it will work in an affordable manner such that anyone but those already flying with a pilot's licence and own their own aircraft will be able to afford to use them.
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
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Probably not as bad as you think. Why is a truck-sized explosion 400 feet up any worse than a truck-sized explosion (from, say, a truck) at ground level? We already deal with the threat of ground-level trucks. Two US skyscrapers have been hit with truck bombs in the last fifteen years. They make a mess, and people die. Making trucks airborne won't change that much.
In fact, people have crashed small planes into buildings, both before and after September 11th, and it doesn't do that much damage.
September 11th (clearly implied, if not mentioned, in your post) was different in that the projectiles were jumbo jets carrying thousands of gallons of fuel. Flying cars won't have thousands of gallons of fuel, won't weigh 100 tons, and won't do any more damage than cessnas or land-bound Ryder trucks do now.
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.
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.
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."
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.