The Truth About New Jet Pack Hype

An anonymous reader writes "This week a sub-$100,000 rocket belt was unveiled and will be on sale this summer, but that's the sad thing: it's still not a real jet pack. Here's a fascinating inside look at the human-flight industry, full of law-suit scandals, technical difficulties, fuel-economy woes and endless delays. The good news? It all points to the next generation of rocketeer research, with real applications for medical rescue and military technology actually coming on the horizon. From the article: 'With a little patience, and a little funding, we could actually have the pleasure of grumbling over regulatory issues we never dreamed possible. Like being limited to specific kinds of air strips, because the jet strapped to your back is classified by the FAA as an ultralight. Or being required to wear a ballistic parachute, because Amarena's Thunderjet design could reach altitudes as high as 10,000 feet (and, for the record, speeds of up to 160 mph, provided someone can solve wind-resistance issues).'"

Comments

Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[elrous0]

The problem with the "Jet pack" is that it is an inherently foolish and inefficient idea. That much power, in that small a space, with that many stability issues makes for a nasty combo. Lifting ANY aircaft straight up off the ground and landing if softly in the same way is VERY tricky, even for a well-trained human operator (ever wonder why helicopter autopilots are so rare?). Trying do do that with a small mechanism that can fit on or be carried around by a single human is even more tricky. With tolerances that tight, the slighest windgust or miscalculation could send your jetpack spirally helplessesly out of control as you plummet to the ground.

Just because it looks cool in a Bond movie doesn't mean that it will ever be practical in real life.

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[morgan_greywolf]

Stuff that's really, really cool is only occasionally very practical.

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[starfishsystems]

Yep. Anything short of nicely modulated antigravity is a non-starter for me. Let's see, why is that? Because even the kinetic energy of my own body falling from my own height can be enough to cause permanent injury? Or because superheated gases sufficient for lift are being generated immediately next to me?

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[veganboyjosh]

I wonder how different the parent post is from what people had to say when they first heard internal combustion engines...

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[192939495969798999]

Yeah, ever play that game "Lunar Lander"? Now imagine that if you land wrong, you actually die on the first try. I don't know anyone that landed that thing on the first try, and all it has is dumb little 2-d zigzag mountains. Imagine high-voltage lines, trees,etc. and this thing is a one-way trip to the rube goldberg/darwin award winner's list... the most scientifically advanced way to do something extremely risky.

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[jdigriz]

>Just imagine a city full of these devices. People wouldn't need ground garages anymore. Streets could be dug up and replanted to reverse global warming and beautify the city (but >leave enough for bike lanes). No more stoplights, no more running over pedestrians.

Don't be ridiculous, how are people going to bring home groceries with a jet pack? Or a new flatscreen tv? Or a sheet of plywood? Where would you fit the baby seat for taking the little ones to the grandparents? Commuting to work in a thunderstorm would either suck or be really really dangerous with a jetpack. And don't get me started on starling season or bird migrations in general. We'll always need ground streets unless you've got a skytruck/skycar to go with your jetpack. Yes, being able to fly around would be very cool, and I'd probably buy one if they could be made relatively failure resistant and reasonably priced but they can't replace the automobile in all cases any more than motorcycles/bicycles can. So we still need roads.

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A lot of people aren't liking the noise of jet aircraft, which is still pretty loud despite advancements in noise reduction. I can't imagine a whole lot of people liking to wake up to the rumble of a 130+ dB jet pack being fired in their neighbor's driveway.

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[trolltalk.com]

>>"Plus that stupid lander couldn't even land 10 degrees off the normal or it would crash, but humans tend to be able to move their legs around to compensate for that kind of thing. "

Nobody ever broke a leg when parachute jumping - they all did it when hitting the ground | tree | whatever.

Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea

[cayenne8]

"You could move so that you work someplace reasonably near where you live. I put a dollar value (tens of thousands a year) on that, plus the commute time."

Some of us prefer to live in nicer/safer neighborhoods. And people that have kids...often want to live where their kids are in the better school districts (if not in private school). That and some others...like having some 'elbow room' where they live, and don't wanna be cramped up next to someone else....a nice yard or even a good plot of land is nice to many. Most of us don't like living in urban apts...

old school jet-pack movies

[fifedrum]

Two fun facts about this project that were glossed over in the old school movies of these things in action are the NOISE and the short flight times.

The TV series Wings covered the first generation of these jet packs and broke my heart when they revealed the true story behind the promotional movies. The pilot wasn't flying for the whole movie, of course, the film crew filmed a few seconds of flight, the pilot would land, refuel and the whole process was repeated and pasted together in post-production. They also dubbed new sounds over the outrageous screech/howl the original packs made.

Watching the film as a kid, I clearly remember thinking there's no way the thing could fly for that long, but the excitement of seeing a guy fly through the woods overcame my skepticism. Clearly though, even with the new films and fuels, we have the same jet pack, the same limited range, the same ear shattering exhaust note. Nothing new IMO.

Damn the parachute?

[fahrbot-bot]

Or being required to wear a ballistic parachute, because Amarena's Thunderjet design could reach altitudes as high as 10,000 feet.

Or any "reasonable" height for that matter. Jet pack use does not fail gracefully. No glide ratios or gyroscopic descents, just Ahhhhhh... splat. A parachute sounds like a fairly good idea here.

Re:Damn the parachute?

[rwyoder]

Or being required to wear a ballistic parachute, because Amarena's Thunderjet design could reach altitudes as high as 10,000 feet. Or any "reasonable" height for that matter. Jet pack use does not fail gracefully. No glide ratios or gyroscopic descents, just Ahhhhhh... splat. A parachute sounds like a fairly good idea here.

To restate what he is saying:

• What is the powerplant failure mode of a fixed-wing a/c? It becomes a glider.
• What is the powerplant failure mode of a rotary-wing a/c? It becomes an auto-gyro.
• What is the powerplant failure mode of a jet pack? It becomes a large rock.

The flying car concept (based on ducted fans) has the same fatal flaw.

Wait, solving what?

[jesdynf]

"Solving" wind resistance? Golly gee, that sounds like a great idea. Maybe after that's in the bag, we'll "solve" the energy it takes to boost an object into orbit, or we'll "solve" the atmosphere lowering the power yield of terrestrial solar panels.

Re:You Said It

[smussman]

>You can only store so much energy in a package that is liftable by a human being.

Show me in your physics book where it says there is an upper bound on the amount of energy you can put into a system.

E = mc^2