Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Truth About New Jet Pack Hype

Posted by Zonk on from the up-in-the-sky-it's-a-bird-it's-a-plane dept.

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).'"

4 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea by veganboyjosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

    All that tension, stress, and road rage, not to mention the speed traps. It is so dangerous and inefficient. Absolutely correct. All you should really need for jetpack commutes in busy airspace is a jousting pole, a good helmet, and perhaps some air to air missiles
    --
    which is totally what she said
  3. Re:Jetpacks are just a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how different the parent post is from what people had to say when they first heard internal combustion engines...
    As seen on the bulletin board in a small English town:

    > First!!1!

    > I, for one, welcome our new internally combusted overlords.

    > The problem with the "internal combustion engine" is that it is an inherently foolish and inefficient idea. That much power, in that small a space, with a highly inflammable fuel makes for a nasty combo. Creating that many small controlled explosions can be very tricky, even for a well-trained human operator.

    > And there is the noise. I've been within 100 yards of one in operation, and conversation with the person next to me was impossible. They really are not fit for urban areas.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion