The World's First Commercially Available Jetpack

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The World's First Commercially Available Jetpack

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 9, 2010 @12:33PM from the quieter-in-version-2 dept.

ElectricSteve writes "It's been a long time coming. While Arthur C. Clarke's geosync satellites have taken to space, and James Bond's futuristic mobile technology has become commonplace, still the dream of sustained personal flight has eluded us — until now. At $86,000, the Martin Aircraft jetpack costs about as much as a high-end car, achieves a 30-minute flight time, and is fueled by regular gasoline. A 10% deposit buys you a production slot for 12 months hence." Here's a video of some indoor test flights. This isn't Buck Rogers's jetpack — it's about 5 by 5 feet and weighs more than the average human. You won't be able to commute with it (the FAA has not certified this class of device) so it's recreational only for now.

303 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That's fine but... by Wizard+Drongo · 2010-03-09 12:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Where's my god damned flying car?!!
/ Also Duke Nukem Forever. Still waiting here...

--
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
1. Re:That's fine but... by sopssa · 2010-03-09 13:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If these things go fast enough, why would you actually need a flying car? Everyone could just move with jetpacks.
2. Re:That's fine but... by icebike · 2010-03-09 13:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Exactly.
  This is one of those things that is seemingly announced annually, and never seems to get any closer than a few prototypes.
  Flying is dangerous. A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary. Luckily the price tag is high, probably to fund the lawyers they will need.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:That's fine but... by edumacator · 2010-03-09 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Where's my god damned flying car?!!
  Please, we've had flying cars since the 1930s. Duke Nukem Forever, I can't help you with...
  
  --
  An important change for education.
4. Re:That's fine but... by Jurily · 2010-03-09 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary.
  I wonder what those regulations would look like.
5. Re:That's fine but... by neight108 · 2010-03-09 13:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If these things go fast enough, why would you actually need a flying car?
  Cup holders
6. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  Coming soon to MTV: "PIMP My Jetpack!"
7. Re:That's fine but... by Darkness404 · 2010-03-09 14:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Flying is dangerous. A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary. Luckily the price tag is high, probably to fund the lawyers they will need.
  
  Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving. With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
  
  Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
8. Re:That's fine but... by Asclepius99 · 2010-03-09 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  You'll get Duke Nukem Forever when you strap in a pig onto one of those.
9. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:36 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It's right here: http://terrafugia.com/ and you can make an escrow deposit on one now for delivery starting 2011.
10. Re:That's fine but... by Asclepius99 · 2010-03-09 14:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think they meant dangerous as in when you're car's fuel injector breaks and the car stops your biggest risk is getting hit by the car behind you, with a jetpack you just fall out of the sky. In fact, with almost any failure you just fall out of the sky. So if these things start going like 20 or 50ft up, you're gonna miss for just a plain old car accident.
11. Re:That's fine but... by bertoelcon · 2010-03-09 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down..
  Not the way I drive.
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
12. Re:That's fine but... by Av8rjoker · 2010-03-09 14:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I can barely understand how some people are allowed to drive vehicles on a 2D plane. I don't even have my certificate, but I've had two near misses in a Cessna 172 because one pilot, not announcing his intentions on the radio at a small airport, decided to fly in at about 500 feet and cut me off in the pattern on my final; and another helicopter pilot who flew about 50 feet under me just as I took off. Both times I was flying alone and as a student. It was absolutely terrifying. There is no possible way that any of this technology will be standard. If people can't drive cars, they sure as hell can't fly.
13. Re:That's fine but... by countertrolling · 2010-03-09 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary.
  As long as they're not incontinent...
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
14. Re:That's fine but... by HBoar · 2010-03-09 14:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The martin jetpack has a ballistic parachute system for such eventualities.
15. Re:That's fine but... by pspahn · 2010-03-09 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us prefer the ol' in-out.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
16. Re:That's fine but... by Ethanol-fueled · 2010-03-09 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a good point, what happens to all the road-ragers who take to the skies and transfer their angry unsafe operation to the skies? It'll be a whole new meaning to "flipping the bird*"!
  
  * Because birds fly. Man, I'm so writing that one down for later.
17. Re:That's fine but... by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2010-03-09 15:05 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Also, teenagers.
  GP is very naive in saying that people self-regulate with safety. NORMAL people do. Some people want to know exactly how far they come before they hit that point of no return, and jetpacks are a little more dangerous to play with than skateboards, motorcycles, ATVs, or whatever else.
  They're also VERY likely to try landing places where they absolutely (by law or by sanity) shouldn't. If these things were readily available, expect to see people landing places that do not YET have security (cameras, locked doors, etc) but will soon. And god help us ALL if Homeland Security catches wind of the idea. Good LORD.
18. Re:That's fine but... by Opportunist · 2010-03-09 15:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  But ... but that's like walking! How should I show off my wealth while walking? Sure, I could put on nice, expensive Italian slippers, but nobody would see that. That fat limo, OTOH...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
19. Re:That's fine but... by wjsteele · 2010-03-09 15:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Your flying car is over at Terrafugia.
  
  Bill
  
  --
  It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
20. Re:That's fine but... by sopssa · 2010-03-09 15:25 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Sure, I could put on nice, expensive Italian slippers, but nobody would see that. That fat limo, OTOH...
  I see you don't know what girls look first thing when they meet a guy.
21. Re:That's fine but... by Sulphur · 2010-03-09 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Not the way I drive.
  Centauri is that you?
22. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  If your fuel injector(s, plural, you have more than one to fail before the engine will completely die, if one dies you will just have rough degraded performance) your car will coast to a halt (or coast to a stall if you drive stick, but you would then know to just clutch in and coast to a stop). You are unlikely to be smacked by the car behind you unless they are completely asleep. Traffic comes to a standstill regularly, drivers know how to apply their brakes when a car slows down.
  I'm amused how little Slashdotters know about cars despite using the analogies so often.
23. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 15:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  you'd be surprised at how many gold diggers are out there.
24. Re:That's fine but... by Wizard+Drongo · 2010-03-09 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  At $86,000 I'd say you can already check off the "stupidly wealthy"...
  
  --
  The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
25. Re:That's fine but... by Nefarious+Wheel · 2010-03-09 16:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Just try getting it on with your girlfriend in the back seat of a jet pack. The population would plummet.
  Oh, hang on...
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
26. Re:That's fine but... by Av8rjoker · 2010-03-09 16:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "when done properly" is the key phrase there. Flying is HIGHLY regulated by the government. For one, you need a medical certificate to fly which needs to be updated every few years (depending on what class it is). Also, you need a certified AP mechanic to sign off on your aircraft. With a car, your drunk neighbor can basically build a car for you, and as long as you acquired a driver's license.... even 50 years ago.... you can drive it. As long as you are 18 (in Wisconsin at least), you don't even need a driver's education course. All you need to do is pass the test, which is ridiculously easy, and you get a license for the rest of your life. Now, I have flown in a few aircraft that were slightly "questionable", but they were definitely airworthy. It is a bit scary pulling out the throttle and having the knob immediately pop off hehe. Also going into the clouds for the first time and having your VOR about 15 degrees off (I think I got a few more gray hairs on that one). My point is that the reason why flying is so safe is because it is extremely regulated. If everyone's car went through the same maintenance procedure as a Cessna 150 built in the mid 50s, then we would have almost no broken down cars on the highway. If the drivers were put through the same sort of training as pilots, we would have far fewer accidents.
27. Re:That's fine but... by Opportunist · 2010-03-09 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  But nobody knows that it's expensive. That's like having the black AmEx. Sure, it's great to have it but none of the stupid chicks will realize who they're dealing with!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
28. Re:That's fine but... by show+me+altoids · 2010-03-09 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Wind and weather are going to be huge problems.
  
  --
  I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
29. Re:That's fine but... by Opportunist · 2010-03-09 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I really don't...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
30. Re:That's fine but... by tlhIngan · 2010-03-09 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving. With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
  Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
  Never underestimate the idiot. The only good thing at the moment is that the people using this will be rich, and probably can afford lessons and proper flying technique.
  Once it becomes cheap, people will jump in, get a few lessons , and then on their second flight start talking/texting on their cellphones.
  The only good thing is the Big Sky Theory works quite well, except during lowlevel flight and people start smacking into buildings. Unfortunately, time "to do the right ting" might not be present to avoid flying into that brick wall.
31. Re:That's fine but... by solafide · 2010-03-09 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  And your bodily fluids somehow get into them, and suddenly you're struck with paternity and a claim on your wealth.
32. Re:That's fine but... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2010-03-09 17:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  On what _possible_ basis do you make this claim? With home jetpacks, (or more likely the jetwings at www.jet-man.com), you open the world to a lot of poorly maintained one-man craft that can drop out of the sky onto _anything_. And while there may be "no roads", there are a relatively limited set of common destinations.
  Your belief that "people are self-regulationg when it comes to life and death" is also founded in, I'm sorry to say, complete fantasy. Take a good look at the number of people who smoke, overeat, engage in unsafe sex, are under-insured, and text while driving for examples of very porly regulating the risks of life and death.
33. Re:That's fine but... by joe_frisch · 2010-03-09 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  Light aircraft are considerably more dangerous than cars per mile flown. Around 1 fatality / 100,000 hours (or 1 per 15 million passenger miles). Cars are about 1/200 million passenger miles (NTSB statistics).
  I don't see any reason to thing the jet pack would be safer than a general aviation aircraft, and it would probably be a lot more dangerous.
34. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  So, $86,000 jet pack doesn't a good enough job showing off your wealth?
35. Re:That's fine but... by wisty · 2010-03-09 18:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's because people are more afraid of risks they can't control. They are *especially* afraid of risks that are in other people's hands.
  Pilot error (or driver error if you are driving) wind gusts other drivers.
  Everyone believes they are an above average driver.
36. Re:That's fine but... by julian_t · 2010-03-09 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  ... With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down.
  I'm currently commuting to work through the rush-hour traffic in Mumbai, and I cannot tell you how scary this idea is. The thought of adding a third dimension to Mumbai traffic quite takes my breath away.
  
  People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
  That may be true, but many times a day it isn't the impression I get. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedos doesn't begin to describe it.
37. Re:That's fine but... by GooberToo · 2010-03-09 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Light aircraft are considerably more dangerous than cars per mile flown.
  Most argue that's a poor statistic to compare for aviation but that's not the primary reason I'm responding. GA, on average, is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. Keep in mind this includes even the most dangerous categories of general aviation. Realistically, statistically, once you exclude things like acrobatics, you're almost as safe as riding in a car (between motorcycles and cars). If you excluding stupid pilot tricks like flying into IMC (bad weather) without an instrument ticket, lack of currency, lack of flight planning, etc, you're actually slightly safer than riding in a car. If you exclude poorly maintained aircraft, which is common with low end rentals, your safety improves yet again.
  Realistically, as long as you are a conservative pilot, and especially if you own your own plane (assuming that means its well maintained), you're far safer flying in a plane than riding on the roads. And if you fly commercially, your safety drastically improves beyond that. But worst case, statistically, if you are willing to ride a motorcycle on the roads, then you shouldn't blink at riding in most any certified aircraft.
  As a side note, contrary to what even most pilots will tell you, statistically, if a pilot flies less than 100-150 hrs/year in a multi-engine aircraft, you are in a more dangerous category than acrobats. So don't even let the dual engine "safety" rhetoric lull you into flying in a twin, thinking its far safer than a single, if the pilot doesn't regularly fly a lot! Twins have very dangerous single engine failure scenarios which can be a big handful in even the most experienced of pilots. And in these failure scenarios, current experience absolutely matters.
38. Re:That's fine but... by icannotthinkofaname · 2010-03-09 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  I can't move around with one of these jetpacks. According to TFA:
  
  The pilot must also weigh between 140-240 lbs.
  It'll take a bigger person than me. I'm currently just under 140 lbs. Maybe with the safety gear, I might just be able to use it, but just regular clothes don't do it.
  Also, I encounter people who weigh less than me on a regular basis. This mode of travel is currently inaccessible to some (probably) significant portion of the population for reasons that aren't financial. Come to think of it, with American stereotypes being what they are, there's probably a significant portion of people too large for this thing, too.
  And I'm 20 years old. I just happen to be one of those skinny nerds with the fast metabolism
  
  --
  Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
39. Re:That's fine but... by ozmanjusri · 2010-03-09 19:16 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  why would you actually need a flying car? Everyone could just move with jetpacks.
  And if Toyota made them, they'd very quickly move a long way up.
  You may think it'd be funny to watch a hailstorm of frozen ex-Segway driving yuppies pelting down, but if one of them hit you, you'd soon be laughing on the other side of your face.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
40. Re:That's fine but... by dropadrop · 2010-03-09 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you have a Prius...
41. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 19:36 · Score: 0
  
  Where's my god damned flying car?!!
  Here
42. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 20:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Where's my god damned flying car?!!
  I know you must mean this is jest, but...
  The limiting factor in flying cars (and in sure in this jet-pack thingy) is the pilot. People can hardly keep their shit together in a regular car. Folks don't even use their parking break, can't drive a standard, can't use turn signals, drive around drunk or stoned... it's just not feasible for the average dork-in-the-street. Sending them airborne is not going to help.
  That being said, amateur pilots have their problems too. My Dad, a mechanical engineer, was an avid amateur pilot. He built himself a gyrocopter, also known as an autogyro. (See Mad Max 2) He never had any severe problems. However, metal eventually fatigues, and engines eventually quit, no matter the maintenance schedule. He did do a number of emergency landings, which are relatively easy in a gyrocopter, especially considering he'd always fly over sod farms.
  However, my family have attended many funerals for my Dad's flying buddies. These were not stupid guys. They were competent, educated, level headed, and sober-minded. Most were of them were of the engineering persuasion. That doesn't me they can't make mistakes. Some of these mistakes, or gross mechanical failure, cost these guys their lives.
  Amongst the reasons why my Dad survived his piloting days was that he was grounded due to an unrelated medical problem.
  We'll build the flying car when we built the flying car pilot. Look not to the stars.
43. Re:That's fine but... by nscott89 · 2010-03-09 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  That's fine but.... Why is everyone complaining?!? Now I can fly like Superman!!! Up, up, and away! Well, err... not faster than a speeding bullet... Oh ok. I'll wait for the Mk II model.
44. Re:That's fine but... by NewtonsLaw · 2010-03-09 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  I see another Moller-like project here.
  The liability issues surrounding a machine like this are enormous -- apart from a promised ballistic parachute, there is no recovery mechanism for engine failure (unlike an airplane or helicopter). At altitudes of just a hundred feet or so, the ballistic chute won't have enough time to deploy but it's more than high enough to kill the unfortunate occupant.
  This jetpack has been hyped out of all proportion to its practicality and potential.
  In reality, it's little more than another version of the SoloTrek and, even after millions of dollars spent on development, we all know how that project turned out.
  If you really want a personal flying machine then there are other options such as the Mosquito one-man helicopter which are not only cheaper but a damned sight safer to boot.
  The fact that Martin are talking about big deals with unnamed foreign governments at this stage is bogus. After all, this thing's already had millions thrown at it and despite that, it's never gone higher than a few feet above the ground.
  The Martin jetpack is "one man's dream" and that man (Glenn Martin) was just lucky enough to convince a bunch of people to throw money at it and a gullible public to get excited about it.
45. Re:That's fine but... by wye43 · 2010-03-09 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  ... Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
  And in this spirit, ladies and gentleducks, we proudly present you the 2010 darwin awards.
46. Re:That's fine but... by Bitsy+Boffin · 2010-03-09 20:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Flying is HIGHLY regulated by the government. For one, you need a medical certificate to fly which needs to be updated every few years
  Don't be so quick to generalize there sonny. Lst time I checked you do not need a license to fly an ultralight aircraft in the United States of America. You do not need a medical. You are not even required to undertake any training. You can perfectly legally purchase a Part 103 ultralight aircraft, jump in, and go fly.
  You'll probably kill yourself if you did do that, but at least you'd be doing so legally.
  
  --
  NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
47. Re:That's fine but... by totally+bogus+dude · 2010-03-09 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Realistically, as long as you are a conservative pilot, and especially if you own your own plane (assuming that means its well maintained), you're far safer flying in a plane than riding on the roads.
  Are you actually comparing the safety of a conservative pilot with their own well-maintained aircraft to the statistics for all motorcyclists, or was it just badly phrased?
  If you are, then is there any evidence that a conservative pilot in a well-maintained aircraft is "far safer" than a conservative rider on a well-maintained motorcycle? You've excluded a lot of "low hanging fruit" to boost the safety statistics for aircraft, but don't appear to have applied the same comb to statistics for motorcycle safety.
48. Re:That's fine but... by osu-neko · 2010-03-09 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  As an ultralight, this can technically only be legally flown over unpopulated areas. So, smacking into buildings isn't really an option, just smacking into trees, cliffs, your RV, etc. (And, of course, everyone always obeys the law, right?)
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
49. Re:That's fine but... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · 2010-03-09 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  It could be feasable if you treat the roads like multi-tier highways. Have say three or four "levels" above the surface, with cars automated to go to those levels for road driving. If tier 1 is slow, go to 2, and so on, with simple collision detection sensors to slow them down in case they get too close to each other. You could line each side of the road with beacons as well to keep the cars within the "tracks", or just use GPS and switch to "road mode". Keeping a maximum height for the whole affair of say 100 meters should be plenty, how many roads have 100m of anything above them? You wouldn't even need to adjust existing infrastructure much. Licensing could be varied, with the lowest level only entitled to drive on main roads on autopilot, basically punch in location A to location B and sit back, while higher level grades could offer greater autonomy, with the top level being equivalent to a commercial pilot's licence.
  
  The benefits would be massive, you could clear up traffic problems overnight, multiplying the capacity of your road network by four or more, you could have a seperate commercial delivery network running drop pods everywhere, it would transform civilisation as we know it.
  
  Now all we need is an electric car/hovercar, roadworthy for bad weather.
  
  --
  What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
50. Re:That's fine but... by g253 · 2010-03-10 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
  I doubt that very much. When faced with an imminent and life threatening potential car crash, people don't usually swerve or accelerate to try and avoid it, they completely panic and slam their breaks as hard as they can.
51. Re:That's fine but... by j00r0m4nc3r · 2010-03-10 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Just like the automobile replaced the horse, some sort of flying device will eventually replace the automobile. The trick is to not issue licenses like candy the way we do with driver's licenses in the US. Eventually we'll have two tiers of licenses, air and ground. The smart people will have air licenses, and the morons will have ground licenses.
52. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 01:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Nah, you just need one of those beer helmets filled with coffee instead of alcohol.
53. Re:That's fine but... by gparent · 2010-03-10 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  At their slippers?
54. Re:That's fine but... by DerekLyons · 2010-03-10 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  As long as you are 18 (in Wisconsin at least), you don't even need a driver's education course. All you need to do is pass the test, which is ridiculously easy, and you get a license for the rest of your life.
  Wisconsin is different then than the states I've held a driver's license in then. Everywhere I've lived, a license isn't for life but must be renewed at regular intervals and part of the renewal process is always an eye exam. (Here in Washington, if you have points on your record they may also require a written test and/or a driving test.)
55. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  The article says the craft is being built to Ultralight spect (Part 104 I think). Basically no equipment regs, just stay out of certain airspace.
56. Re:That's fine but... by Caue · 2010-03-10 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  tell that to all the people who ever got stomped by a scared crowd. remember, people move away of danger, regardless of the consequences. a building fire, a rock concert gone wrong and a soccer stadium in england or brazil may prove your theory very, so very wrong.
57. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  Folks don't even use their parking break
  Why, some folks can't even spell parking brake.
58. Re:That's fine but... by Mantis8 · 2010-03-10 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  How long before this unit shows up in the next James Bond movie or some sci-fi flick?
59. Re:That's fine but... by GooberToo · 2010-03-10 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Are you actually comparing the safety of a conservative pilot with their own well-maintained aircraft to the statistics for all motorcyclists, or was it just badly phrased?
  I assume that means I poorly phrased it as I wasn't talking about motorcyclists in that quote. There, I was talking about all generalized vehicles on the roads.
  
  You've excluded a lot of "low hanging fruit" to boost
  
  As I specifically walked you through the list of "low hanging fruit" which was excluded, I'm not sure what you're point is. But, just because "low hanging fruit" is excluded, it hardly means its not valuable information in its own right. Furthermore, most flying clubs and many rental shops take excellent care of their planes and therefore fall into the, "well maintained", group.
  Remember, one of the key items which significantly raises the risk of flying are pilots doing dumb stuff, despite being taught to taught never to do, in their remedial training; and were even taught why not to do it. Not to discount the equipment available to commercial pilots, but a large part of the safety equation commercial operations bring to the table is their safety mentality. Many non-commercial pilots bring this to the table as they understand their cargo is themselves, their friends, and their family. Pilots who fall into this category, statistically, are already flying in a much safer matrix than motorcyclists on the roads, and only slightly worse off (statistically) than all other vehicles on the road. By flying well maintained equipment, which is hardly an undesired objective, are statistically safer than your typical vehicle on the road. I stated owners and it illustrates a group which is more likely to properly maintain their aircraft. That doesn't mean they are the only group to do so.
  So while I did trim low hanging fruit to garner safety, its anything but unachievable or unreasonable exclusions.
60. Re:That's fine but... by tehcyder · 2010-03-10 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
  
  And that's why there are so few serious road traffic accidents.
  
  No, wait...
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
61. Re:That's fine but... by totally+bogus+dude · 2010-03-10 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, my point was that you seemed to be comparing "safety conscious pilots/air passengers" to "general road users" which seemed an odd comparison. As you say, the low hanging fruit is easily achievable and reasonable, but I would argue that a large reason for the current road toll is the apathy of many road users. i.e. people think twice before getting into an airplane because it seems scary and dangerous, but many of those same people don't think twice about using the phone or even texting while driving along with the radio blaring and a million things on their mind (besides the road).
  While there certainly are stupid and/or ignorant pilots, I think aviation in general is more self-selective due to the higher costs and (arguably) lower reward for becoming a pilot in the first place.
  So anyway, this sums up what I'm talking about perfectly:
  
  By flying well maintained equipment, which is hardly an undesired objective, are statistically safer than your typical vehicle on the road
  i.e. Is flying well maintained equipment statistically safer than an equally well-maintained vehicle on the road? If you, as a road user, limit yourself to well-maintained vehicles and drivers who aren't idiots, are you still statistically safer in a well-maintained aircraft with a non-idiot pilot?
  That was all I was getting at. I don't really care about the answer (and I'm not sure if such an answer could reasonably be arrived at via available statistics) but it just seemed like somewhat faulty reasoning and it bugged me. I'll go take my medication and leave you alone now. :)
62. Re:That's fine but... by b0bby · 2010-03-10 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving.
  
  I think you mean, driving when done properly will be a lot safer than flying. If getting a driver's license was like getting a pilot's license, there'd be a lot lees problems on the roads.
63. Re:That's fine but... by joe_frisch · 2010-03-10 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the pilots I know are very safety minded, much more so than drivers. Even so, statistically GA aircraft are more dangerous than cars - similar to motorcycles.
  That's OK - I'm willing to accept the risk when I fly, but I belive it is a real increased risk.
  I think the problem is that aviation is just a lot less forgiving than driving. In a car you are never more than a few seconds from safety by decelerating and pulling off the road. In an aircraft you may be in weather or over hostile terrain, with no escape.
  It is common for pilots to claim that flying is safer than driving, but much as I would like it to be true, I've never seen statistics to support it.
  You can adjust your flying to be safer - no night, no over-water, no mountains, good weather, etc, but doing so drastically reduces the usefulness of the airplane.
  Good maintenance helps, but even a well maintained engine can fail without warning.
64. Re:That's fine but... by GooberToo · 2010-03-10 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, my point was that you seemed to be comparing "safety conscious pilots/air passengers" to "general road users"
  
  That's for a very good reason - because it makes absolute sense to do so. That's not out of the ordinary at all, as pilots are swimming in a safety conscious coulture, which is absolutely not true for drivers. Drivers, on the other hand, will openly show contempt for safety topics whereas all but a tiny, tiny, minority of pilots will openly enbrace such topics until mitigation is understood. Accordingly, your slant on this is completely without merit.
  In short, you're attempting to compare the typical driver with the rare exception of pilots. There is a reason why the common cliche for newly licenses pilots is to be told, , "You now have your license to continue your lifetime of learning."
  
  is the apathy of many road users
  And that's but one of many reasons why pilots are required to take a BFR (Bi-annual Flight Review) such that apathy can be shaken from one's shoulders, as well as to address any bad habits which may have blossomed since the previous BFR.
  
  i.e. Is flying well maintained equipment statistically safer than an equally well-maintained vehicle on the road?
  
  Its more complex than that as there are so many types of aircraft used for a variety of purposes. Just the same, after making some reasonable assumptions, excluding some categories (acrobats and agriculture; whereby the later of the two has one of the highest fatality rates in all of aviation), yes, that's true. That's, of course, why maintenance is tightly regulated, with frequent FAA inspections, for larger commercial operators.
  
  I'll go take my medication and leave you alone now. :)
  Those are some perfectly reasonable questions and assumptions. As such, IMOHO, no medication is required. I must say, its a refreshing exchange from the typical angry, ignorant rant, which is all too typical here.
65. Re:That's fine but... by GooberToo · 2010-03-10 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the pilots I know are very safety minded, much more so than drivers. Even so, statistically GA aircraft are more dangerous than cars - similar to motorcycles.
  That's not accurate. Statically, "GA" is as safe as riding a motorcycle. Once you begin to exclude various sub-categories of light GA, statistically, safety considerably improves.
  
  It is common for pilots to claim that flying is safer than driving, but much as I would like it to be true, I've never seen statistics to support it.
  It's common because its true. It's a simple fact. But that fact is commonly associated with commercial aviation, and more specifically, passenger/cargo transport. General Aviation, on the other hand, can not make that blanket statement. Just the same, if you exclude several categories of GA, statistically, you're somewhere between motorcycles and cars, and much, much closer to cars. There are additional other factors you do apply which further increases your safety.
  Remember, statistics are passive numbers which include both the best and the worst. Since these statistics specifically exist to examine the worst, that means anything you do to mitigate the risks which removes you from their associated factors means you're well on your way of being the exception rather than another statistic. In short, pilots have an active role to play in determining which side of those statistics they wish to reside.
  This is not to say flying is risk free - but there are few things which are risk free.
66. Re:That's fine but... by kalirion · 2010-03-10 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving. With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
  Ah yes, that's why air traffic controllers have such cushy, relaxing jobs.
67. Re:That's fine but... by icebike · 2010-03-10 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  How does projecting "roads" into the air clear up traffic problems? Moving a problem off the ground does not eliminate the problem.
  The only source of improvement is emergency vehicles wouldn't block the roadway after every traffic accident. The wrecked cars would fall to the ground, taking with them untold number of other cars from lower lanes and landing on god knows what.
  As for the "Simple collision detection sensors", good luck with that. Even the brain dead systems being offered on high end cars today trigger high volumes of false alarms, often applying brakes just as drivers were about to pass a slower vehicle.
  Its easy to handwave into existance all the necessary technology to make this work. After all, Popular Science magazine has been doing it for 70 years.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
68. Re:That's fine but... by joe_frisch · 2010-03-10 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen an numbers on GA safety that look good? Commercial aviation is very safe, but the equipment, operating conditions and pilot training are very different from GA.
  I've heard the clam of GA safety many times, but (despite trying), I can't support the claim from the NTSB data.
  Certainly flying carefully reduces your risk - but so does driving carefully. I'm convinced that I am safer driving than flying, with equal care to each.
69. Re:That's fine but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  And if you have wealth, you also have lawyers. whats the problem?
70. Re:That's fine but... by ImYourVirus · 2010-03-10 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Um yeah, how many people do you know that have jet packs? If they were cheap everyone would have them, hence they are expensive.
  
  --
  Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
71. Re:That's fine but... by RockDoctor · 2010-03-10 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's like having the black AmEx. Sure, it's great to have it but none of the stupid chicks will realize who they're dealing with!
  They don't need to know anything (they are, by your definition, stupid) ; they just need to suck and swallow on command.
  [Jeez, do these SlashDudes know nothing? Including the value of money?]
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
72. Re:That's fine but... by RockDoctor · 2010-03-10 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  It'll take a bigger person than me. I'm currently just under 140 lbs.
  You're talking a pile of ballast. In your pockets, tied to your shoes. Whatever. Ballast ; pure, simple ballast.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
73. Re:That's fine but... by RockDoctor · 2010-03-10 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation,
  
  Which 100% of people fail at during 100% of any two consecutive centuries you care to choose.
  
  when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger.
  Sure they are, and sure they do. The fuck do people "do the right thing" in a life-threatening situation ; they tend to either continue doing what they were doing 20 minutes ago (because they fail to recognise or deny that they are in a life-threatening situation), or they run in circles, scream and shout.
  There is a fucking good reason that people who make a living of going into life-threatening situations do lots and lots of drill : "people" (in the sense of, run-of-the-mill, bog-standard, people) are fucking dangerous to themselves and to other people in dangerous situation, because most people don't have the foggiest fucking idea of what the fuck to do.
  
  People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
  Too true : enough of them die, and there is no more of that gene-collection ; meanwhile, the people who have taken the "I'll be elsewhere" response to risk are just out-breeding the brave fools all over the place.
  Which planet were you living on this week, and how did you get into this universe?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
74. Re:That's fine but... by Opportunist · 2010-03-10 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  How many people do you know that have a black AmEx? In a nutshell, unless you're in a place where they are commonly seen, be prepared to see it being met with suspicion for being "real".
  Having something that's not common isn't a status symbol unless everyone knows that it is one.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
75. Re:That's fine but... by LordVader717 · 2010-03-11 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving.
  So at the moment, this is pure speculation.
  
  With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
  First of all, this is under the assumption that these will be useful for transportation. But even for the wealthy the fuel bills for one of these things will be staggering. And considering the maintainence it would require it's probably unlikely that anybody but a scarce few would use it regularly.
  But you seem to think the biggest risk is a aerial collision. That's simply wrong. The most dangerous parts of air travel are taking off and landing. This is where air travel is inevitably much more dangerous than road traffic because of the huge heights and speeds involved mean that in the event of an accident death is extremely likely.
  The reason why accidents are rare today is only because of the huge amount of caution and regulation that we have. There is an extensive network of Radio communication so that pilots and traffic controllers can negotiate landing slots. The Pilot must be trained to deal with these situations and also has to have regular checks. You must have a permit to fly and airports are located far from residential buildings (at least for operating riskier small aircraft).
  With jetpacks people will want to be hovering round buildings and landing somewhere other than an open airfield. They can't wait around in the air for permission to land either. And while bumping you car when you're parking is just going to scratch the paint, bumping into the side of a building while landing a jetpack is probably one the worst kinds of accidents and could result in your body being splattered all over the ground.
76. Re:That's fine but... by ImYourVirus · 2010-03-11 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say its a status symbol I just said they are expensive.
  
  --
  Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
77. Re:That's fine but... by GooberToo · 2010-03-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen an numbers on GA safety that look good?
  
  I would recommend you start at the head of this thread. GA safety is surprisingly good so long as a number of low hanging misfits are removed. The same can not be said for driving as, unless you live in the middle of no where, there's not a lot you can do about other drivers. Whereas for pilots, many are able to spend large amounts of their flying time away from other pilots - leaving themselves and their equipment to work.
  None of this should viewed that I'm trying to assert GA is anywhere near as safe as commercial people/cargo movers. It is not - and to be clear, I never made such a statement. All I'm asserting is that with the right mentality for safety (which affects the planes flown), its easily achievable for GA pilots to obtain safety statistics better than their driving brethren. Take a hard look at GA statistics and you'll quickly realize just how many accidents are "pilot error" and more often than not, covered by the "don't do this" of piloting 101.
  There's still a big gap between modestly better than being on the road and commercial aviation's statistics. Just the same, if it were not for the FAA themselves, even these numbers can be substantially improved. Between the FAA (2x) and lawyers, they keep the cost of aviation 3x-4x more expensive than need be; while at the same time keeping lots of modern equipment out of cockpits. There is no shortage of blood on the hands of the FAA and liability lawyers.
  If you want yet safer skies for everyone, you need only change aviation liability laws and fix a complex web of bureaucracy, which is the FAA. The status quo is literally killing GA.
  For example, in 1962 you could rent a Cessna 152 for $7/hr, including fuel, oil and insurance. After adjusting for inflation, that same rental is $49/hr. Today's actual cost is ~$100/hr. And keep in mind, changes in liability laws (which drastically reduce liability) are in affect for this aircraft which means its actually cheaper than many other types of aircraft. Oddly enough, FAA's cost of 2x is right spot on in this example.
Obligatory XKCD by master5o1 · 2010-03-09 12:36 · Score: 2, Funny

http://xkcd.com/678/

--
signature is pants
1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  best xkcd ever!!!
2. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Unending · 2010-03-09 15:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  related
  http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time
Jet refrigerator maybe? by tjstork · 2010-03-09 12:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

This thing looks more like a Jet Refrigerator or a Jet Stove that you attach to it. The whole beauty of the Jet pack was that it was something you carried with you, perhaps even under your sport coat, then, suddenly, you throw your coat off, ignite your rocket, and you are saved, and probably with a hot chick in your arms.

--
This is my sig.
1. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by Fred_A · 2010-03-09 12:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The whole beauty of the Jet pack was that it was something you carried with you, perhaps even under your sport coat, then, suddenly, you throw your coat off, ignite your rocket, and you are saved, and probably with a hot chick in your arms.
  (Hot chick sold separately)
  Also this jet pack apparently works with fans instead of jets. Which is probably good news for your front lawn and your calves.
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
2. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by zippthorne · 2010-03-09 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, in the movies. In real life, they'd probably be used to replace cherry pickers for certain applications.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
3. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by sopssa · 2010-03-09 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Also this jet pack apparently works with fans instead of jets. Which is probably good news for your front lawn and your calves.
  And someones head when you land next to him.
4. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by BlackSabbath · 2010-03-09 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  > This thing looks more like a Jet Refrigerator or a Jet Stove that you attach to it.
  First thoughts? Wile.E.Coyote and the wonderful products from ACME.
5. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by JustOK · 2010-03-09 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  or in porn.
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
6. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by bertoelcon · 2010-03-09 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  (Hot chick sold separately)
  Where can I get just that then? If I have that part then I don't need a jetpack to pick up more.
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
7. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  (Hot chick sold separately)
  Where can I get just that then? If I have that part then I don't need a jetpack to pick up more.
  Just rent them from craigslist?
8. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by Opportunist · 2010-03-09 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  So get a bigger coat. Duh.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by Angst+Badger · 2010-03-09 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  The whole beauty of the Jet pack was that it was something you carried with you, perhaps even under your sport coat, then, suddenly, you throw your coat off, ignite your rocket, and you are saved, and probably with a hot chick in your arms.
  The problem there is that a small jetpack capable of carrying a human being for long flights in Earth's gravity is physically impossible. No conventional fuel has sufficient energy density, and even if there were tiny megawatt fusion reactors, that doesn't relieve you of the need to carry reaction mass. (Tiny megawatt fusion reactors could conceivably power an actual tiny jet engine, however, but you still have to figure out how to deal with the noise and waste heat.)
  The good news is that once we do have tiny megawatt fusion reactors, you shouldn't have any trouble catching a ride to the moon or Mars, where the lower gravity would make jetpacks practical. The bad news is that even then, engaging in high speed extreme sports with a tiny megawatt fusion reactor strapped to your back will still be an incredibly dumb thing to do.
  
  --
  Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
10. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  So that isn't a jet pack. It's a fanny pack.
11. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-03-09 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Also this jet pack apparently works with fans instead of jets.
  
  Which is probably good news for your front lawn and your calves. And someones head when you land next to [them].
  This is the "hot chick" referred to above.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
12. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by xOneca · 2010-03-10 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  This thing looks more like a Jet Refrigerator or a Jet Stove that you attach to it.
  I see it as two big hairdryer that you attach to it.
13. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by wagnerrp · 2010-03-10 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Also this jet pack apparently works with fans instead of jets. Which is probably good news for your front lawn and your calves.
  This is still a jet. It still receives propulsion from a 'jet' of high speed fluid. The only difference between this and a high bypass turbofan is that it is powered by a 2-cycle gasoline engine, rather than a gas turbine.
14. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by wagnerrp · 2010-03-10 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  The problem there is that a small jetpack capable of carrying a human being for long flights in Earth's gravity is physically impossible. No conventional fuel has sufficient energy density, and even if there were tiny megawatt fusion reactors, that doesn't relieve you of the need to carry reaction mass.
  Actually, a turbojet pack without enough power to fly itself and a human for a halfway decent duration could be built right now. The problem is two fold. How do you properly handle CG, since a backpack would do nothing but forward somersaults until the pilot's appendages fell off. How do you handle heat, since the exhaust is going to be flowing past at least part of the pilot's body.
15. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by Fred_A · 2010-03-10 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is still a jet. It still receives propulsion from a 'jet' of high speed fluid.
  Sooo, are propeller air planes and so called "jet" air planes basically the same thing then ?
  Or is it the casing around the propeller that really makes a difference ?
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
16. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  p>Also this jet pack apparently works with fans instead of jets
  A fanny pack?
17. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by wagnerrp · 2010-03-10 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or is it the casing around the propeller that really makes a difference ?
  It's the casing that makes the difference. The casing makes it a directional 'jet', rather than just a propeller in free stream. That's why turboprops and unducted fans are generally not considered jets, despite being gas turbine powered.
18. Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? by LordVader717 · 2010-03-11 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  You can use air as you reaction mass. That's the reason why air-burning jet-packs can fly for around 30-40 minutes as opposed to the 2 minutes or so that can be achieved with a rocket pack. The distinction here being that a jet-engine sucks in air to burn fuel while a rocket-engine carries self-burning or component fuel and doesn't need air. This device isn't actually either, as it uses a combustion engine to drive fans. The engine exhaust is simply exhumed and doesn't deliver any thrust.
  So if you had a small but powerful engine you wouldn't need to carry reaction mass in an atmousphere. That's why battery powered helicopters work.
TBO 100 hours by RichMan · 2010-03-09 12:40 · Score: 5, Informative

That's 100 hours of motor operation before you have to overhaul the engine.
At 30 minutes per flight that is 200 flights.
Still not good for distance or anything more than short hops.
1. Re:TBO 100 hours by cloakedpegasus · 2010-03-09 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't expect it to be good for distance. Who would want to fly 2 hours in that thing? As of now I'm sure the majority of people consider it a luxury toy.
2. Re:TBO 100 hours by icebike · 2010-03-09 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, but the web page says its easy to maintain, so no doubt that overhall is all done with just a screw driver, right?
  Redundant systems too it says.
  Two fans. I bet it doesn't fly worth didly squat when one gives out.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:TBO 100 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Redundant systems too it says.
  Two fans. I bet it doesn't fly worth didly squat when one gives out.
  It doesn't have to fly well with just one... it just has to have enough power/control to let you land safely.
4. Re:TBO 100 hours by peragrin · 2010-03-09 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  probably tied together. one won't fail(other than blade damage) without the other one failing at the same time.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
5. Re:TBO 100 hours by icebike · 2010-03-09 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, thanks, I feel much better now.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:TBO 100 hours by icebike · 2010-03-09 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming of course you have enough of what passes for rudder to control the asymmetric thrust.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:TBO 100 hours by Barny · 2010-03-09 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect, it doesn't even need that.
  A parachute would be the likely "redundant" option here, like with some ultra-light aircraft.
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
8. Re:TBO 100 hours by MichaelSmith · 2010-03-09 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  a ballistic parachute [...] which will allow the pilot and jetpack to descend together. It also has an impact-absorbing carriage,
  My guess is that the parachute won't work below 30 metres and the landing gear won't help you above ~5 metres. I don't think this is very safe at low altitude. Article also says it has one engine driving both fans. I doubt that autorotation would help at all.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
9. Re:TBO 100 hours by HBoar · 2010-03-09 14:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Lighten up. If you're willing to pay ~$100k for a flying toy, I'm sure you can pay a mechanic to rebuild it if you can't cope with more than a screwdriver. The engine has been purpose built for the application, but it's nothing overly special, basically just a large-ish motorbike engine.
  It has a ballistic parachute for when the shit hits the fan(s). Not much good at low altitude, so you woulnd't want to be hovering about the rooftops for too long, but no light aircraft is overly safe.... I'd imagine that for most of the people buying this device, that would be the point. It's dangerous, therefore fun.
10. Re:TBO 100 hours by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2010-03-09 15:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Depends on comfort and how it handles. Have you ever BEEN in an ultralight? Or skydiving/parachuting? (I don't mean to closely associate those two, generally you do one or the other, not both at the same time, ho ho he he.)
  Actually flying, and looking down on the world below you, and knowing that it really is the ground, and not some sort of BS simulation, is a heck of a thing. The world below that was once almost entirely hidden by facades is all laid out bare before you; you don't see storefronts, you see the entire complex, including the service entrances. You don't see the eight cars directly around you, you see a hundred in a line, some merging in and out of traffic, some carrying onwards. You don't see houses with their trimmed lawns, trying to make themselves look like DISTINGUISHED suburbanites, you just see another prefab lot out of thousands.
  With airplanes, if only as a matter of control (and law), you can never drop below several hundred feet. But if, with a jetpack, you could... you could be in both worlds at once--seeing the land below, as you did from the ground, and then the roofs and patterns and skies from above.
  If you get caught up in something like that... thirty minutes is nothing. You could spend that thirty minutes just noticing things you'd never seen before in your favorite places--and not just the first time out, but the tenth or more. And then, since you spent thirty minutes flying instead of fifteen out and fifteen back, you'll run out of fuel...
11. Re:TBO 100 hours by h4rr4r · 2010-03-09 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Zero Zero ejection systems have existed for quite a while now.Seems like a little rocket fixes this issue.
12. Re:TBO 100 hours by j-turkey · 2010-03-09 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't expect it to be good for distance. Who would want to fly 2 hours in that thing? As of now I'm sure the majority of people consider it a luxury toy.
  The automobile used to be considered a luxury toy by the majority of people, good only for short hops, uncomfortable, and horribly unreliable. It is now a ubiquitous and reliable form of transportation.
  I'm not saying that this device will be the replacement for the car, but I'm not so quick to dismiss it, either.
  
  --
  
  -Turkey
13. Re:TBO 100 hours by MichaelSmith · 2010-03-09 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  Zero Zero ejection systems have existed for quite a while now.Seems like a little rocket fixes this issue.
  Not on ultralights. The rocket they refer to pushes the parachute away from the aircraft so it inflates a bit faster but it still has to inflate and that takes time, during which you will be building up vertical speed.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
14. Re:TBO 100 hours by toQDuj · 2010-03-09 18:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  " You could spend that thirty minutes just noticing things you'd never seen before "
  like power lines RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU *ZZERTAARGHH!*
  I think there's a reason not to drop below several hundred feet and it'd be good to keep to it ;).
  
  --
  Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
15. Re:TBO 100 hours by osu-neko · 2010-03-09 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever BEEN in an ultralight? ... you don't see storefronts, you see the entire complex, including the service entrances. You don't see the eight cars directly around you, you see a hundred in a line, some merging in and out of traffic, some carrying onwards. You don't see houses with their trimmed lawns, trying to make themselves look like DISTINGUISHED suburbanites, you just see another prefab lot out of thousands.
  *ahem* Do note that ultralights can only be legally flown during daylight and over unpopulated areas. You shouldn't be seeing any of that... :p
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
16. Re:TBO 100 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  200 flights....
  Just shy of a full years trips one way to work.
  I guess I will have to buy two!
17. Re:TBO 100 hours by tehcyder · 2010-03-10 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  And then, since you spent thirty minutes flying instead of fifteen out and fifteen back, you'll run out of fuel...
  
  And die.
  
  Thanks for the happy ending.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
18. Re:TBO 100 hours by LanMan04 · 2010-03-10 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  With airplanes, if only as a matter of control (and law), you can never drop below several hundred feet. But if, with a jetpack, you could... you could be in both worlds at once--seeing the land below, as you did from the ground, and then the roofs and patterns and skies from above.
  Basically skydiving in reverse.
  Floating down (alone) from about 4000ft is one of the coolest things I've ever experienced.
  FYI - Clouds in central IL don't smell very good. I went through one. :)
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
19. Re:TBO 100 hours by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-03-10 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  It takes me 30 minutes to drive to work every day. It is a 22 mi (no I am not converting it to km for the rest of you) drive one way. So if I follow the windy ass road through the farm fields and behind all of the big rigs and tractors, I get there in 30 minutes. If I get thirty minutes in the air, point my jet pack at the proper flight azimuth to go straight to work, I wager I could make it most of the way there every morning. At the least, I could make it to the petrol station and refill.
  
  Good enough for me.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
20. Re:TBO 100 hours by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2010-03-10 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  I admit I'm not a pilot myself, but I've taken many rides in them, dating back much of my life. I trust the pilots involved not to have done anything illegal; that said, in retrospect, we really didn't do a whole lot of flying over crowded areas and roadways--even if they made the biggest impression on me. However, it's not like airports are only located in the boonies, either.
It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by cytoman · 2010-03-09 12:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

The summary doesn't mention the location...it's in New Zealand. What about US companies developing this kind of stuff? Not happening here?
1. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by master5o1 · 2010-03-09 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, they're still liking being the only ones with jet packs. (http://xkcd.com/678/)
  
  --
  signature is pants
2. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you saw how big the jetpack had to be in order to fly a typically slim New Zealander around. Imagine what would be required to heft your typical 200 kg American behemoth into the air. Plus, flying lard just isn't a pretty sight.
3. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by maxume · 2010-03-09 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  Our mad scientists are working on technologies with potential military applications.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
4. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by frakir · 2010-03-09 13:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The Hiller Flying Platform was designed in 1955. It was originally an ONR (Office of Naval Research) project to develop a platform capable of carrying one man for short hops.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5QDHKk9AY
  ok, the video's choppy but we speak 1950's goddammit
  1997: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-4ygOrgJ4
  2005: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/anderson-based/
5. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by refactored · 2010-03-09 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Plus, flying lard just isn't a pretty sight
  Oh! But you should see it go *SPLAT*!
6. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by refactored · 2010-03-09 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Our mad scientists are working on technologies with potential military applications.
  Our (NZ) Mad Scientists are quite Busy in rather fascinating ways thanks.
7. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, is that all you've got?
  Go back to fucking sheep, you unbathed inbred kiwi.
  Better yet, I'll just kick your sister in the jaw, thus severing your Vienna sausage-like pecker.
  I always love it when NZ folks think they matter...especially now that they've given up their air force so that their island can now be used as a bombing range for the Aussies and Yanks.
8. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by GF678 · 2010-03-09 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  The Hiller Flying Platform was designed in 1955.
  Perhaps I'm just a little fatigued but I could have sworn that said "Hitler Flying Platform" when I first read it. Made me think of this this all of a sudden (yes I know it doesn't fly but it's cool nonetheless.)
9. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by Opportunist · 2010-03-09 15:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Actually in the US I'm pretty sure they got it finished a few years ago, they just can't figure out where to put the "WARNING! Objects below you may appear more stable than they are!" sticker, the "WARNING! Do not let anyone under the age of 12 ride underneath the rotor blades" sticker and similar important safety informations.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  The summary doesn't mention the location...it's in New Zealand. What about US companies developing this kind of stuff? Not happening here?
  There was it was called Solotrek, where the Kiwi got the idea from. Solotrek ran out of money after the prototype got damaged by the safety cable.
11. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by AmberBlackCat · 2010-03-09 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  If anybody builds one here, a corporation will copy the design a week later, patent it, and sue the builder so he can't do it anymore.
Three words by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-03-09 12:41 · Score: 1

I NEED one!!!

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack by thepainguy · 2010-03-09 12:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm still waiting for my jet pack (and supersonic flight).
1. Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack by zippthorne · 2010-03-09 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, it's a very small helicopter. Which is still pretty cool.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
2. Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack by c6gunner · 2010-03-09 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, he had it right. You'd have to stretch the definition of "helicopter" quite a bit in order to have this qualify. So much, in fact, that under your new classification any aircraft with VTOL capability would also be a helicopter.
3. Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack by zippthorne · 2010-03-09 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yah yeah, a "ducted fan VTOL" which is so much easier to say than helicopter. Further, the point I was making is that it's no more jet(or fan)-pack than a motorcycle is a wheel-pack.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
4. Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's a ducted fan. See X-22.
5. Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack by c6gunner · 2010-03-09 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yah yeah, a "ducted fan VTOL" which is so much easier to say than helicopter.
  Well if we're going to be choosing names based on what's easier to say, we'll just call it "plane!". And you can change your name to zippy.
Finally--- by citylife · 2010-03-09 12:46 · Score: 1

This should make the band We Were Promised Jetpacks stop complaining.....
A deal with Paramount? by cormander · 2010-03-09 12:50 · Score: 0

Or is it just a coincidence that this jet pack becomes available around the time of Iron Man 2 movie trailers hitting the internet?
1. Re:A deal with Paramount? by JustOK · 2010-03-09 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  you think they planned the movie around the jet pack?
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
Mosquito is still a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 12:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Mosquito still looks like a better idea. It's probably cheaper, and it will autorotate and thus be a lot more survivable if the engine goes out.
On the plus side, The jetpack does look like it would be marginally more easy to set down in say, a supermarket parking lot. It looks easier to fly. There are no rotors exposed which makes it safer in tightly constrained environments; but the other safety factors probably outweigh.
I don't see myself going up in either one; but if it were a choice, I'd go with the little chopper.
1. Re:Mosquito is still a better idea by jonwil · 2010-03-09 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  The real question is, are you legally allowed to take off or land in either of these flying machines (the one in TFA or the Mosquito) from just anywhere? (such as your backyard, the parking lot at the shopping center, the flat space near your office building or whatever)
2. Re:Mosquito is still a better idea by FrankSchwab · 2010-03-09 14:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  FAA Part 103 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14 covers the flight privileges for this device.
  Generally, don't cause trouble, and don't make a scene. ( Sec. 103.9 No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.)
  Specifically, not allowed to fly in most controlled airspace, not allowed to fly over congested areas (i.e. don't fly where people can see you), can't fly at night, can't fly in instrument conditions.
  So, a great sport device, but not so great for commuting.
  /frank
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
3. Re:Mosquito is still a better idea by Cjstone · 2010-03-09 14:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No. Both of these are registered as ultralight aircraft, which are prohibited from flying over populated areas. In other words, ultralight aircraft are the airborne equivalent of an ATV or a snowmobile, only really useful for recreational purposes.
4. Re:Mosquito is still a better idea by YourExperiment · 2010-03-10 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  On the plus side, The jetpack does look like it would be marginally more easy to set down in say, a supermarket parking lot.
  Yes, but if the choice after setting it down is either leaving it in the parking lot or walking around the supermarket with it still attached to your back, I'm not entirely convinced of the practicality.
wow, 6 feet off the ground by danlip · 2010-03-09 12:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it would be bit cooler if it got more than 6 feet off the ground.
TFA says "can reach 8000 ft (estimated)" but none of the picks or videos show that.
1. Re:wow, 6 feet off the ground by Barny · 2010-03-09 13:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Probably takes all 30min of flight time to reach 8000ft, which is when you suddenly realise that redundant landing solutions are a great idea :)
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
2. Re:wow, 6 feet off the ground by JimboFBX · 2010-03-09 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  When your prototype fails its a lot safer at 6 feet than 8000.
All I could think of by voss · 2010-03-09 12:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Was not buck rogers, but the terminator H-K units. Someone is gonna realize, carrying a 200 pound human makes no sense...but strapping on a 100 pounds of
bulletproofing and some .30 cal machine guns and thermal imaging units and a remote control system and youre there.
1. Re:All I could think of by RobinEggs · 2010-03-09 13:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Um...compared to the stuff you're talking about a 200 lb human, even one carrying an M4 and covered in full body kevlar, is a downright bargain in the weight department. Armor, machine guns, imaging, and remote controls? How little do you think that stuff weighs?
2. Re:All I could think of by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  £200 humans? I'll take two!
3. Re:All I could think of by Conception · 2010-03-09 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  190lbs. Clearly.
4. Re:All I could think of by Barny · 2010-03-09 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hrmm, lets think, for a few hundred I can get a camera with rf transmitter that weighs about 100g (check out the ones approved for motor-sports), armour is a secondary issue if you can make it cheap enough (and a small self destruct charge for when it does take a hit in hostile areas, to prevent the enemy retrieving munitions).
  For aiming, well the thing looks pretty damn stable, might have to work on some firmware mods to make it allow for weapon kick, leading targets, etc.
  But throw in one of those metal-storm weapon systems (could double as self destruct, just fire off all rounds or charges simultaneously), and you would have one hell of a suppressing fire machine, could throw out 1 or 100,000 rounds in a matter of seconds, and could also make it rather modular so instead of the gun could mount a 40mm grenade launcher (no, don't bother with anti tank, a tank would drop the thing out of the air so fast your head would spin and predators do a damn good job with those already).
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
5. Re:All I could think of by TopSpin · 2010-03-09 14:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  A complete M134 system (a "30 cal" minigun that door gunners use to shred stuff) with 1500 rounds is about 191 lbs. Specs here. Your 200 lbs figure is arbitrary; the pentagon could order up a design to handle 300-400 lbs to deal with the additional mass of telemetry, servos, sensors, etc.
  No, the parent was correct; making a remote controlled "H-K" like unit from this ducted fan is entirely feasible, and probably inevitable. Flying a minigun across town or over the hill to zap a mortar team will occur to someone.
  
  --
  Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
6. Re:All I could think of by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Um, perhaps you didn't actually *read* the parent; I'm quoting *his* "arbitrary" 200 lb figure.
7. Re:All I could think of by camperdave · 2010-03-09 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it's not Buck Rogers. Buck had a substance called inertron which was pulled out of an alternate universe and upon which the force of gravity works in the opposite direction. A 200 pound person with 199 pounds of inertron would have an effective weight of only one pound. A small rocket pack can easily push around a one pound weight.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
8. Re:All I could think of by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  And we shall call it "helicopter".
  
  ..as long as you're willing to swap the .30 cal with some Hellfires.
  ..and trade the 30 minute flight time for 8 HOURS.
  Hell it's even made by a company called Teledyne Ryan (too close to Cyberdyne for me.)
9. Re:All I could think of by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 18:42 · Score: 0
  
  You mean a UAV? While plane based UAVs are more popular, and have been armed, helicopter based UAVs for urban deployment have also been an area of interest for the military.
10. Re:All I could think of by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-03-09 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  Flying a minigun across town or over the hill to zap a mortar team will occur to someone.
  Self fulfilling prophecy?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
11. Re:All I could think of by lennier · 2010-03-10 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Was not buck rogers, but the terminator H-K units. Someone is gonna realize, carrying a 200 pound human makes no sense...but strapping on a 100 pounds of bulletproofing and some .30 cal machine guns and thermal imaging units and a remote control system and youre there.
  And then we give it Internet access, it discovers 4chan and... you know, maybe Skynet was the good guy.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
nah by JackSpratts · 2010-03-09 13:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

that's not a rocket pack. this is a rocket pack. self-taught guy's been building them for years: http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/2/26/jetpacks-this-mexican-inventor-s-been-making-them-for-years--2
1. Re:nah by iamhassi · 2010-03-09 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Mexican inventor? "insert Mexican joke here"
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
2. Re:nah by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  TEQUILLA POWER!
  - funny guy, his daughter has my utmost sympathy though - "I strapped her in, then invited the Press. She couldnt back out then.."
  Still, as he states, hasnt killed anyone. Yet.
3. Re:nah by timeOday · 2010-03-09 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Those hydrogen-peroxide packs are old news; the main problem is they can only fly for about 30 seconds.
4. Re:nah by Spykk · 2010-03-09 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, this is a knoife! Wait, what were we talking about?
Flight of the Conchords!!! by OzPeter · 2010-03-09 13:03 · Score: 2, Funny

They really do fly this time!!
Just listen to the sound track on the training video - even sounds like it was scripted by the show

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The future is here! by glwtta · 2010-03-09 13:05 · Score: 1

So, it's massive, ridiculously expensive, and useless?

Why, this thing could replace the Segway as the most popular mode of transportation!

--
sic transit gloria mundi
better flight by gamecrusader · 2010-03-09 13:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

what can go possibly wrong with this
I know if someon decides to put rocke fuel instead of gasoline
jet fuel instead of gasoline
add nitro to increase preformance
this will be interesting how this plays out
1. Re:better flight by John+Hasler · 2010-03-09 15:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I assume you are unaware of the fact that both rocket fuel and jet fuel are essentially kerosene: not something gasoline engines run well on.
  Nitromethane, on the other hand, might be interesting. You can be the test pilot, though. I'll watch from the bunker.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Not a jetpack by sneakyimp · 2010-03-09 13:07 · Score: 1

I belive driven not by jet engines, but by a ducted van. *not* a jetpack!
1. Re:Not a jetpack by myowntrueself · 2010-03-09 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  Its name is misleading and could be taken as false advertising.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
2. Re:Not a jetpack by MichaelSmith · 2010-03-09 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  Its name is misleading and could be taken as false advertising.
  What type of engines do you think Jet Boats use?
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:Not a jetpack by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  A ducted van?!
  There's some joke about /. car analogies to be made here, but I'm too busy wondering at the sheer awesomeness of the concept to think of them.
4. Re:Not a jetpack by Cjstone · 2010-03-09 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  The "jet" in "jet-boat" comes from the fact that it is propelled by a pump-jet, otherwise known as a water-jet, rather than a screw. Of course, the pump-jet is powered by a maritime gasoline engine in most cases, but that's irrelevant. On the other hand, the term "jet pack" is general parlance for any type of "wearable" aircraft. In fact, the most well known "jet pack," the bell rocket-belt is, as implied by the name, a rocket pack.
5. Re:Not a jetpack by MichaelSmith · 2010-03-09 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  The "jet" in "jet-boat" comes from the fact that it is propelled by a pump-jet
  
  A ducted fan is really an air pump. Sounds consistent to me.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
6. Re:Not a jetpack by myowntrueself · 2010-03-09 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  This thing is more like a helicopter with shielded blades. Ie ducted fan.
  A jetboat engine is far more like a jet engine than this is.
  Hey this is teh internets, the home of pedantry! Get off my lawn!!!
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
7. Re:Not a jetpack by marciot · 2010-03-09 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  So, if it uses fans rather than jets, it is not a jetpack, it is a...
  *drum roll*
  fanny pack
8. Re:Not a jetpack by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  It's better to not to confuse rockets with jets.
9. Re:Not a jetpack by YourExperiment · 2010-03-10 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because it sounds more awesome if you call it a jetpack.
Repossession by MillionthMonkey · 2010-03-09 13:14 · Score: 2, Funny

The payments on $86K are going to be a bitch. I can't wait for jetpacks to start appearing on Operation Repo.
1. Re:Repossession by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  too bad that show's fake
2. Re:Repossession by MillionthMonkey · 2010-03-09 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  You just figure that out?
Obligatory by Yvan256 · 2010-03-09 13:14 · Score: 1

Will they use this song for their TV ads?
Short Ranged by Game_Ender · 2010-03-09 13:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

It only has a 30 mile range and gets just 0.5 hours of flight time with its 5 gallons of fuel. Not exactly the best commute vehicle. Source: http://www.martinjetpack.com/technical-information.aspx
1. Re:Short Ranged by Cjstone · 2010-03-09 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  You couldn't commute with it, even if you were within range. This thing is an ultralight aircraft, and the FAA prohibits ultralights from overflying populated areas, or from operating between dusk and dawn. Ultralights are recreational vehicles, plain and simple.
2. Re:Short Ranged by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 16:41 · Score: 0
  
  Those 30 miles could take two hours to cover in a car during commute times. Longer if there's accidents. There's also the time-saving advantages of flying in a straight line. In good weather I can see some high level managers buying these and taking them to work instead of driving their BMWs.
3. Re:Short Ranged by WiseWeasel · 2010-03-09 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's about 29.5 miles further than other "jetpacks" can fly. 30 miles in a straight line covers a great many people's daily commutes, and it uses regular gasoline, not 90+% hydrogen peroxide, which you can't buy anywhere.
  
  --
  "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
4. Re:Short Ranged by Billy+the+Mountain · 2010-03-10 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  So get it licensed as an experimental helicopter and stick some N-numbers on the side. You can legally carry more than 5 gallons at that point. Once you've flown off the required number of hours you can then fly at night and over populated areas.
  
  --
  That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
5. Re:Short Ranged by Shotgun · 2010-03-11 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  To do that, you will need to build it yourself, especially with the FAA rewriting the regulations to make the 51% legitimate.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
hovercraft is better by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:20 · Score: 1, Informative

the jetpack was such a moneysink, this hovercraft is cooler.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Flying-Hovercraft-Inventor-New-Zealand-Mechanic-Rudy-Heeman-Auctions-WIG-Vehicle/Article/201003115563210?lpos=Strange_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15563210_Flying_Hovercraft%3A_Inventor%2C_New_Zealand_Mechanic_Rudy_Heeman%2C_Auctions_WIG_Vehicle
A motorcycle for flying by tchdab1 · 2010-03-09 13:27 · Score: 1

It's the protective equivalent of a motorcycle.
I hope it has a big plastic bag in it to collect body parts.
1. Re:A motorcycle for flying by MichaelSmith · 2010-03-09 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  But he is wearing a helmet ;)
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:A motorcycle for flying by timlash · 2010-03-09 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  This would be a perfect application for an aircraft recovery parachute. http://www.brsparachutes.com/ Too bad Steve Fossett didn't have one.
  
  --
  US2B
3. Re:A motorcycle for flying by Opportunist · 2010-03-09 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  At least the head will be in one piece.
  Trust me. That's a good thing. I spent some time collecting/assembling cyclists who mistook the winding roads through the forests here for a nifty race track. When you hear the search party leader cry out "oh goodie, I found his spine. It's stuck in the tree here", you know you're in for a long, long night. You cannot go home until you have found every last bit of him. Else someone might find a finger and the police is looking in vain for a corpse that has long been dumped down the hole.
  If he wore a helmet, it does at least spare you the gooey insides of his skull. Believe it or not, it's actually more disgusting to touch than guts and lung together.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
**Shudders** by wolf12886 · 2010-03-09 13:29 · Score: 1

And to think, I've heard of people spending 100k on a nice kitchen or a sports car.
Turbines, not jets. by celibate+for+life · 2010-03-09 13:29 · Score: 1

Should be called a "turbopack".
Question? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:30 · Score: 0

In any 'jetpack' video--from any company--all we've seen so far is a guy no higher than 6' doing less than 10mph. This vehicle would be useless if that's all it could do. So, if these things can do 60mph+ and fly at an altitude of 8000ft+, where's the video? Wouldn't a potential customer be more willing to drop $60,000+ before the thing is even produced if we saw that?
'Jetpack' my patootie by macraig · 2010-03-09 13:32 · Score: 3, Funny

That's not a 'jetpack'... it's a VTOL without the jet. And just as noisy... it's a boom box car that breaks wind.
whatcouldpossiblygowrong? by Trip6 · 2010-03-09 13:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Sign me up for one of these AFTER the deaths per hour rate has been well-established.

--
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
http://www.mychristianlouboutinshoes.com/ by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:35 · Score: 0

it's seems a joke.!
You've just got it all wrong by zogger · 2010-03-09 13:36 · Score: 1

We don't want those jetpacks, we want all them snooty rich skinny furriners to have jetpacks, then come over here and start zipping around, laughing at us in their superiority. See, then we have some *outstanding* skeet practice. and after they fall out of the sky all sorts of shot fulla holes and stuff, we get to lift their wallets, take the cash and credit cards, snag the jewelry and head to the pawn shop,etc., and get stuff like new lift kits for our pickups.
You really need to get with the program better...
1. Re:You've just got it all wrong by Barny · 2010-03-09 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  "... take their cash... "
  Now I will admit that the $NZ has been doing well of late, but still, that;s kind of like stealing a kids monopoly money ;)
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
2. Re:You've just got it all wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds more like Mexico to me.
Not a proper jetpack! by Dun+Malg · 2010-03-09 13:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

This design does not meet the basic definition of a proper science fiction jetpack. Specifically, you cannot walk around with it on your back, then decide "you know, I think I'll fly over that wall" and then WHOOOOOOSH! over the wall you go. This thing is obviously too big and heavy to tote around on your back. Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
1. Re:Not a proper jetpack! by MichaelSmith · 2010-03-09 13:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen,
  A 20G crash cage wouldn't go astray either.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Not a proper jetpack! by earlymon · 2010-03-09 14:03 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?
  Might as well add wheels to move it about while on ground - and maybe a way to retract them; and then add a bit more fuel capacity for all of the trouble. At its heart is a V-4 engine - might as well upgrade that.
  While we're at it, we could even toss on wings and a tail.....
  
  --
  Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
3. Re:Not a proper jetpack! by psithurism · 2010-03-09 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?
  Might as well add wheels to move it about while on ground - and maybe a way to retract them; and then add a bit more fuel capacity for all of the trouble. At its heart is a V-4 engine - might as well upgrade that.
  While we're at it, we could even toss on wings and a tail.....
  Ridiculously after adding all that, it would actually be cheaper!
  (For those who don't believe me Cesnas are rather popular already: http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?HDRSO=Price&ETID=1&catid=6&Mdltxt=170&setype=1&Manu=CESSNA&mdlx=exact&bcatid=13&Pref=0&HDROR=asc)
4. Re:Not a proper jetpack! by Strange+Ranger · 2010-03-09 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  "does not meet the basic definition of a proper science fiction jetpack.... if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?"
  
  Without things like this, the "proper science fiction jetpack" will never exist.
  Without any hype, these inventions can't happen.
  
  It's a disappointment to see so many nay-saying posts come from this community.
  
  --
  
  Operator, give me the number for 911!
5. Re:Not a proper jetpack! by osu-neko · 2010-03-09 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  ...and ENIAC wasn't a computer because it didn't fit on your desk, right? :p
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Photoshopped? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 13:47 · Score: 0

Those outdoor pictures look strange. The skies are clear, but the pilot and jetpack don't look like they were photographed in direct sunlight. No apparent jet wash, either.
Not a turbine either by evanh · 2010-03-09 13:48 · Score: 1

It's a four cylinder piston engine with two ducted fans attached. For that matter, the other "Jetpack" - http://www.jetpackinternational.com/ is not a jet engine either, it's a rocket engine.
1. Re:Not a turbine either by camperdave · 2010-03-09 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, ducted fans and rockets are both jets. They both emit a fast moving stream of fluid to produce thrust.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
2. Re:Not a turbine either by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Technically, ducted fans and rockets are both jets. They both emit a fast moving stream of fluid to produce thrust.
  Not really. It's not sufficient to have a fast-moving stream of fluid: jets obtain their thrust from the expansion of exhaust gases.
  So rockets are self-contained jets without a compression stage, but ducted fans are no more "jets" than props are.
How loud is it? by Mr_Blank · 2010-03-09 13:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Having my head 1 meter from a 100+ decibel turbo props for 30 minutes at a time does not sound like a good idea. Crashing in the equivalent of a flying motorcycle (human body moving fast on a structure required to hold a combustion engine) does not sound good for my health either.
no problemos by zogger · 2010-03-09 13:59 · Score: 1

well, we figger they done perverted their cash over ta the border, and we find real muriken money. If not, still great sport, good targit shootin!
Not sure on the harvested meat, though, we don't want our hogs gittin sick nor chokin on any of them skinny bones...
1. Re:no problemos by Foobar+of+Borg · 2010-03-09 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  we figger they done perverted their cash over ta the border
  You try any preversions in there, and I'll blow your head off!
  
  --
  Similar to the upcoming US election results
iJet by gmuslera · 2010-03-09 14:04 · Score: 1

Have wires, needs more space than a nomad. Lame.
This Looks Shopped by baka_toroi · 2010-03-09 14:12 · Score: 1

I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
avoid the "touring" package by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 14:13 · Score: 0

This package adds $10K to the price, but only provides frilly extras such as a tape deck that plays "Meet the Jetsons" in a loop while the rider is airborne.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-03-09 14:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion
power paragliding seems to beat this hands down by siddesu · 2010-03-09 14:30 · Score: 1

The gear costs less than the deposit on this thing, there is no waiting, and it is immense fun. Besides, for paragliding you don't need a license, so you can start trying to kill yourself right away. This says "ultralight", so probably needs a license. (Note: paragliding without license may be allowed, but doing so without adequate training is pretty lethal).
1. Re:power paragliding seems to beat this hands down by osu-neko · 2010-03-09 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  This says "ultralight", so probably needs a license.
  Depends on the country. In the US, no license is required to fly an ultralight.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Well, how would you know??? by zogger · 2010-03-09 14:31 · Score: 1

I never seen you to any of da meetins! Not lately anyway and last time you needed to worsh your hood and robes cleaner. Git some bleach on dem things, get them bluhdstains out! Just tain't respeckable...
Is this Glenn Martin related to Glenn L. Martin? by grandpa-geek · 2010-03-09 14:56 · Score: 1

The story is about a Glenn Martin of New Zealand.
Many years ago, I worked at the Glenn L. Martin Company in Middle River, Maryland, just outside Baltimore. That company later became part of Martin-Marietta and was merged into Lockheed-Martin.
Glenn L. Martin established his company in Middle River to be able to work on seaplanes. You don't hear much about those anymore, but they could take off and land on the water. The final seaplane project of the company was a jet seaplane that was later cancelled. On one test flight the pilot flew the plane under the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which caused somewhat of an uproar.
Is this Glenn Martin related to Glenn L. Martin?
Rocket Man by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 15:11 · Score: 0

I think I prefer the rocketman jet pack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-oQ--U-WaQ
Huge by aldld · 2010-03-09 15:15 · Score: 1

But it's freaking huge! I don't think I could even fit that through the door to my house.
But?? by arthurpaliden · 2010-03-09 15:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Will your wife let you use it?

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
1. Re:But?? by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-03-09 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wife?!?!?!?! Never heard if it.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Engine failure is the problem by Goonie · 2010-03-09 15:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

This device uses a two-stroke engine as its powerplant. Two-stroke engines are notoriously unreliable. You will get engine failures on these every couple of hundred hours of flying time, and most likely it'll occur when the engine is under load in initial takeoff or landing.
Let's assume that the engine stops at 50 feet.
If the engine dies, this thing will, pretty much instantly, drop like a rock. Assuming a little bit of aerodynamic drag, it would take around 1.8 seconds and terminal velocity would be around 35 mph. In other words, you would splatter yourself over the tarmac like jelly. Ballistic recovery chutes work faster than conventional chutes, but it's still going to take virtually all of those 1.8 seconds even to deploy the chute, let alone achieve significant retardation. The only solution would be something like emergency rockets to lift the pack (and user) to sufficient altitude to deploy the recovery chute safely.
Would you fly something that will need you to use the last-ditch "ejector seat" system every couple of hundred flying hours?

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
1. Re:Engine failure is the problem by im_thatoneguy · 2010-03-09 16:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the website:
  Rollcage:
  Although it is not visually apparent the Martin Jetpack has an internal roll cage. The ducts currently have a carbon kevlar hoop. These are to protect the pilot from side impact. The control arms protect from the front and are designed to snap off in a hard impact, the ducts then further protect the pilot. The structure extends below the level of the spine to prevent injury from a hard landing. In effect the pilot is housed in a protective cocoon by the structure and engine. Further enhancements are planned for impact protection, the goal is to provide impact protection from 30 feet high.
  Minimal Avoidance Curve:
  Helicopters and other VTOL aircraft normally have an avoidance curve. This is
  the height where an impact is not survivable but below which other procedures like "autorotation" are not possible. Currently we think that with good design and correct flying procedures the avoidance curve can be eliminated. This is one of the reasons we feel that the Jetpack will be safer than current "light helicopters".
  My 2 cents:
  Most engine failures aren't instantaneous in my experience. If you're gaining altitude there is probably only 4 seconds during those hundreds of hours that you would feasibly be in the 'death zone'. I also reject your theory that most failures would take place during the initial climb. Considering the aircraft itself offers 0 lift climbing and hovering would probably be similar engine strain.
  Also keep in mind that's a 4 cylinder 2 stroke. I find it unlikely you would encounter an engine problem which would take out the entire engine in mid flight. If a spark plug somehow went out or a single valve failed you would still most likely have enough power to descend safely. If we're talking about something like the fuel pump then that's just as likely to go out while sitting on the tarmac as the first 3 seconds of flight.
2. Re:Engine failure is the problem by fnj · 2010-03-09 16:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Horse feathers. Two-stroke engines have few moving parts; no valves or oil pump. As a class, and other factors being equal, they are inherently much more reliable than 4-stroke engines. There have been many cheap 2-stroke engines with miserable reliability, but for $86,000 I will bet this one is flight rated, and a different story. Cargo ship builders and operators do not seem to think that 2-stroke diesels are unreliable. The preponderance of both bet their business on them.
  This particular engine (FTFA) is rated at 100 hours TBO. As long as you overhaul it every 100 hours (that's around 200-600 flights), it is supposed to remain reliable.
  An internal combustion engine is highly unlikely to lose most of its power within a couple of seconds with no advance warning. There is a finite chance it could throw a rod or something and jerk almost instantly to a stop, but it's quite a remote chance.
3. Re:Engine failure is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 16:39 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Two-stroke engines are notoriously unreliable.
  Only among the ignorant...
4. Re:Engine failure is the problem by show+me+altoids · 2010-03-09 16:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wind and weather in general are going to be huge problems.
  
  --
  I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
5. Re:Engine failure is the problem by izomiac · 2010-03-09 16:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  35 mph isn't that bad. If you land on your head or stomach you're (probably) dead, but landing on your feet is survivable. Some could probably even walk away from that. Most would be in a wheelchair for a while (maybe forever) but it wouldn't be that much worse than a car accident.
  
  This isn't an insurmountable problem. I'm sure the first cars that could go faster than a horse were criticized in the same way. Throw in a small parachute to ensure you don't land on your head, and lessen your speed by 25% and it's basically the same as jumping out of a barn loft.
6. Re:Engine failure is the problem by GooberToo · 2010-03-09 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  flight rated
  There is no such thing as, "flight rated". There is, however, FAA certification. Unless they have something like $10,000,000 or more and many years dedicated toward certification, its unlikely to be certified. And that's just for the engine. Of course, that doesn't mean whoever they acquire their engines from don't already have a certified product. Just the same, the odds are not in their favor as certified engines which provide the required power to weight ratios for these types of projects have unheard of.
7. Re:Engine failure is the problem by GooberToo · 2010-03-09 18:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Let's assume that the engine stops at 50 feet.
  For what its worth, helicopters have these same types of failure concerns. Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond. Furthermore, most helicopters have a critical horizontal speed which must be obtained before enough energy can be maintained in the rotor system to safely auto rotate. As such, there is a critical failure window in all single engine helicopters, during take off, in which auto rotation is all but impossible. Multi-engine helicopters are generally not an issue as worst case they will generally have enough power to safely land in this critical window of time.
8. Re:Engine failure is the problem by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2010-03-09 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Why are two-strokes so unreliable? I assume you're not just talking about non-aircraft engines.
9. Re:Engine failure is the problem by walshy007 · 2010-03-09 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Two-stroke engines are notoriously unreliable.
  
  Depends on the type of two-stroke, some actually have a sump etc and aren't like the oil chewing ones most people associate with two stroke, even though they are a rarity
  But mainly, ever heard of preventative maintenance? I know lots of car drivers drive around until something breaks, but really preventative maintenance tends to stop that from happening
10. Re:Engine failure is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 19:36 · Score: 0
  
  Bollocks, two strokes are fine. It's a purpose built 2 L engine making 200 hp. That's rather detuned for a 2 stroke. Sure, they can be bitchy when they are producing 400 hp/L like they were in motogp, but 100 hp/L has lower revs, lower thermal loading, smaller ports (ring wear and jamming is greatly reduced) and doesn't have to be run on the edge of detonation with a lean mixture.
  FYI the largest and most powerful piston engines in the world are two stroke marine diesels. They're reliable too. My 200 hp/L 250 cc from 1987 works fine too, both on track and road.
11. Re:Engine failure is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 19:51 · Score: 0
  
  How about an Airbag to protect the passenger?
12. Re:Engine failure is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 20:35 · Score: 0
  
  How about a big airbag that deploys on the bottom of the craft under a certain altitude?
13. Re:Engine failure is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  2 stroke engines have been used in aircraft for many, many, many years, they have been honed to be a very reliable engine if treated right, I oversee the operation of 3 separate Rotax 2 stroke powered aircraft at about 2500 combined hours now (of course overhauled every 330 hours), the only time we had an in flight failure (touch wood of course!) was when a radiator hose failed causing coolant loss, the engine was shut down and a forced landing carried out, the hose was replaced, and the engine ran admirably to get the aircraft back home again.
  As for the "jetpack", I agree, there will be a big gap between "falling from here will kill you" and "falling from here the chute will actually work", and I'd expect a lot of people would end up flying in that death zone. I also seem to recall it's not using a proven engine design such as those from Rotax, so... I don't know I'd trust THAT engine, but not because it's 2 stroke.
14. Re:Engine failure is the problem by osu-neko · 2010-03-09 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  There is, however, FAA certification.
  For an ultralight?
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
15. Re:Engine failure is the problem by tehcyder · 2010-03-10 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  the goal is to provide impact protection from 30 feet high
  
  If you're going to be limited to 30 feet, what's the point?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
16. Re:Engine failure is the problem by GooberToo · 2010-03-10 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  For an ultralight?
  , in response to the original "flight worthy" comment.
  All aircraft are either "air worthy" or not. Furthermore, all aircraft and their components are either "certified" or not. Plus, its not entirely clear to me this vehicle will continue to fall into the ultralight category - or if it initially qualifies.
17. Re:Engine failure is the problem by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-03-10 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You will get engine failures on these every couple of hundred hours of flying time, and most likely it'll occur when the engine is under load in initial takeoff or landing.
  That's probably why the company suggest that proper maintenance includes:
  
  100 hours engine TBO (Time Between Overhaul)
  In other words, having the engine tuned and overhauled before you reach that couple hundred flying hours. Don't let RTFA get in the way of your unhinged cynicism or anything though. That would be inconvenient.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
18. Re:Engine failure is the problem by e4g4 · 2010-03-10 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They've already got impact protection from > 30 ft - a ballistic parachute.
  
  --
  The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
19. Re:Engine failure is the problem by Shotgun · 2010-03-10 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore, the FAA requires that all flights be planned to end with a minimum amount of fuel remaining. That minimum is 15 minutes of flight time, if I'm not mistaken. That leaves enough time to get off the ground, and look around for a refueling spot. Note, you won't have time to fly there. Just time to look for it.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
20. Re:Engine failure is the problem by YourExperiment · 2010-03-10 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond.
  Is that really a popular myth? The vast majority of people have never even heard of auto-rotation. Helicopter pilots know all about it. The only other group of people I can think of are those who know very little about real aviation but have played a couple of flight sims (i.e. people like me), and we're well aware that it takes some effort to initiate auto-rotation.
21. Re:Engine failure is the problem by countach · 2010-03-10 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but you can land *anywhere*. So finding a safe landing spot is not an issue. And any service station is potentially a refueling spot.
22. Re:Engine failure is the problem by Shotgun · 2010-03-11 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you can. But if you fly below 500ft, you are trespassing, and can be fined. This is usually waived in the case of an emergency landing, but not necessarily always.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Just a Kiwi knock off of a Solotrek by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 15:41 · Score: 0

I know this is likely to result in a Troll but I lived in New Zealand for a while and what I found was it was amazing how many things Kiwis were first in they just did it a couple of years after the other guy. An example was a Kiwi pilot who is considered by Kiwis the first person to ever have a controlled flight he just did it a few years after the Wright Brothers. This is being pitched as something original when it's just like a Solotrek. The US company ran out of funding and given the inherent danger it's doubtful they would have ever released a commercial product. They mention using a parachute for safety. That doesn't make much sense given it would mostly operate in what is known as the kill zone, kind of between 30'-200'. Below that you might survive the fall and above that parachutes work. In that zone it's tough to get a parachute to work. They have to be explosively deployed and testing can be harder than testing the flying machine itself. These devices are more like an ultralight with really bad fuel economy that can take off vertically. They've been around for years in various forms and always have extremely short ranges and are extremely dangerous. Saying they are a "pack" is a bit of a stretch. You may be strapped into it but I've never seen one of these light enough to carry around and they all have stands on the bottom. The actual jetpacks are more compact and lighter and can be carried around for very short distances but their range is even worse than these Solotrek style machines. The fantasy of walking out front of your house and flying to work has been around since the 50s and is likely to be a fantasy for another 50 years. It'll always be dangerous and until some one comes up with a more energy dense form of fuel they will always have very short ranges. Spend a few grand on an electric bike if you want a personal high tech way to get to work. Personal flight is called an airplane or a helicopter. Even if some one pulls it off it'll never be cheap.
1. Re:Just a Kiwi knock off of a Solotrek by Bitsy+Boffin · 2010-03-09 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  An example was a Kiwi pilot who is considered by Kiwis the first person to ever have a controlled flight he just did it a few years after the Wright Brothers.
  Richard Pearse, and he was potentially first, research shows it was likely very close either way. Certainly not "a few years after".
  
  Solotrek
  Did it fly? Don't think so. DNF doesn't count.
  The rest I agree with.
  
  --
  NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Dentasmile MD by junadi · 2010-03-09 15:42 · Score: 1

Those look more like turbofan engines to me. Plus it would be kind of a pain in the a*s to have two guys with you all the time to guide you around. Dentasmile MD
This one is cooler by Monolith1 · 2010-03-09 15:43 · Score: 1

This one is cooler http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/shifting-gears/2010/03/05/learn-fly-jetpack-yes-jetpack
1. Re:This one is cooler by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  It's the same thing, dipshit.
Prior art by Ghubi · 2010-03-09 15:50 · Score: 1

http://www.ted.com/talks/pw_singer_on_robots_of_war.html
thought by jarden_from_cerberus · 2010-03-09 16:08 · Score: 1

When are they going to combine this 250lb monster with one of those exoskeletons that let you carry 250lbs with little effort? Talk about a match made in heaven...
1. Re:thought by NormalVisual · 2010-03-10 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  But the exoskeleton itself will weigh 250 lbs, so you'll be right back where you started. :-)
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
FAA certification by T-Bucket · 2010-03-09 16:14 · Score: 1

Wouldn't this fall under that little-used "Powered Lift" category? Looks to me like they already have standards set up for it!
No shirt, no service by failedlogic · 2010-03-09 16:17 · Score: 1

So you walk into a store or mall, they tell you - No Shirt, no service. No smoking in the building. No Skateboards. No Pets. Since you wear this on your back and there's really no space for parking, how will the shopping malls accommodate to its customers?
I don't forsee the need for a No Jet Pack sticker. Its going to be just one more thing to remember. They can enlarge the doors to let you walk into the store with your jetpack. The only problem I see is that they'll have to increase the size of the aisles.
I call Shenanigans by Low+Ranked+Craig · 2010-03-09 16:17 · Score: 1

Adam and Jami couldn't build it so this must be fake.

--
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
This is nothing but a very early prototype. by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2010-03-09 16:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

They are having surely huge issues with it's stability and control. I'm also sure it's not generating enough thrust. In all videos they show, two man are holding the device down, pretending that it's because of safety concerns. Bullshit. If they let it go, it'll go crazy and crash into the ground. There's only ONE video of the thing flying by itself, and it's INDOORS (Yeah, no wind at all), it doesn't go higher than half a meter off the ground, it doesn't move at all (It just floats there, and then it rotates on it's own axis), and the flight only lasts 30 seconds. The other video that shows the thing flying in outdoors (not fully outdoors, it's a backyard, well protected against wind), the camera is carefully positioned on the helmet, so that whatever is holding it still, can't be seen. There's no video from other points, only the on-helmet camera. And the video only lasts 10 seconds. And it's cut off mid-flight.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
1. Re:This is nothing but a very early prototype. by commodoresloat · 2010-03-09 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  And the video only lasts 10 seconds. And it's cut off mid-flight.
  Well, the bloody crash really didn't make for a good promotional video. It flies great but they're still working on the landing issue....
2. Re:This is nothing but a very early prototype. by osu-neko · 2010-03-09 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  There's only ONE video of the thing flying by itself, and it's INDOORS (Yeah, no wind at all), it doesn't go higher than half a meter off the ground, it doesn't move at all (It just floats there, and then it rotates on it's own axis), and the flight only lasts 30 seconds.
  Actually, it does move around in the indoor video. You need to watch more than the first 30 seconds of the 90 second flight. Either that, or you're talking about a completely different video than the one linked to in the summary, in which case, it's not true that's there's only one video, since you've apparently seen a second one that's different than the 90 second one where it actually flies around. Apparently, based on your description, the only thing the two videos have in common is that they're indoors. You should watch the longer one.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
3. Re:This is nothing but a very early prototype. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  You really need this man, http://tinyurl.com/ykv2mnw . People that post without watching videos or doing any research should be beat with a google link till there're eyes are black.
4. Re:This is nothing but a very early prototype. by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2010-03-10 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I did watch the longer one. I watched 5 different videos about this crap. All that was relevant on youtube.
  Look, a real testing video would be Outdoors, where they reach an altitude of at least 50m and travel at least 200m. There is no such video. All of them are small hovering indoors, and in many of them there's someone holding the aircraft.
  If you really have a fucking inspector-gadget like persona helicopter, you would be flying it everywhere, and making videos of it, so that people would go crazy and go all the way to new zealand to get one.
  This guys are not doing that. They show a few videos scarce on details. They've got lots of troubles with their little invention.
  
  --
  WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:It's not a jet pack and it defeats the purpose by joe_frisch · 2010-03-09 16:30 · Score: 1

Well you might be able to move it around if you stood on a beefed up Segway
Seriously though, the problem with jet packs is that you need a low exhaust velocity to get high thrust with reasonable fuel consumption. (Force=M* V, Power = .5 M*V^2 - M is mass flow rate, F/P ~ 1/V). That means big fans / propellers, and pretty soon you are re-inventing the helicopter or airplane.
Well...I guess I have to change my sig. by Interoperable · 2010-03-09 17:10 · Score: 1

It was good while it lasted.

--
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
even better than jetlev by Polo · 2010-03-09 18:14 · Score: 1

wow, that's the second one I've seen this week...
The jetlev seems a little less intimidating though:
http://jetlev.com/
1. Re:even better than jetlev by mafian911 · 2010-03-10 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. That looks way more fun, and much less intimidating. How is it $175k though? Did I calculate that currency conversion right? I mean, it seems like the technology isn't incredibly sophisticated... just a high power water hose. Im surprised its more than 2x expensive than the jetpack in the article.
At that price, why not a plane? by JeffTL · 2010-03-09 19:15 · Score: 1

About $80K? Give me a break. I don't know how the learning curve differs, but you can get a small airplane for quite a bit less than that...plenty of general aviation airports out there, I know that much. It's an interesting idea and something might yet come of it, but when you can buy a used plane for so much less, I don't think it's anywhere near commercially viable yet.
1. Re:At that price, why not a plane? by osu-neko · 2010-03-09 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  At that price, why not a plane?
  You may as well ask, "At that price, why not a yacht?" If you're going to compare apples and oranges...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Do I smell ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 19:39 · Score: 0

Do I smell a whiff of not invented in the USA, so it can't be good or clever?
Good luck to both the company and their customers.
Hmmm.... by silentmonkey · 2010-03-09 19:50 · Score: 1

Well, wouldn’t this be a trip if the masses got ahold of these, the average human can’t even seem to drive straight on the road systems, what’s gonna happen when we jet fuel are asses and head upwards?!?! ;) I wonder what the fine is going to be on one of these if you are caught cruising through the skyscrappers of major cities core. http://www.digitalpanther.net/
Not a jetpack by Chris+Mattern · 2010-03-09 20:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

How can you call it a jetpack when it doesn't have any jets? More of a ducted-fan pack.
That's all very well and good... by ghmh · 2010-03-09 21:32 · Score: 1

.. but what I want to know is: does it blend?
Don't know ... by jandersen · 2010-03-09 21:51 · Score: 1

While Arthur C. Clarke's geosync satellites have taken to space, and James Bond's futuristic mobile technology has become commonplace
Arthur Clarke was a clever guy, and geostationary satelites are kind of obvious, really. And one of the main reasons why James Bond tech is now common is that their occurance in the Bond movies was part of a carefully planned marketing strategy.

... still the dream of sustained personal flight has eluded us -- until now. At $86,000, the Martin Aircraft jetpack costs about as much as a high-end car, achieves a 30-minute flight time, and is fueled by regular gasoline. A 10% deposit buys you a production slot for 12 months hence."
I don't think this one is going to get off the ground. Personal flight is the kind of thing you may like to dream about, but I suspect most wouldn't enjoy actually doing it - otherwise the sky would be full of hang-gliders, day and night. On top of that, $86k for 30 minutes of lumbering along uncomfortably under some stinking and noisy contraption hardly seems attractive, unless you want to show off that you are rich enough to not care that you look a right twit. And of course, there is the question of CO2 and responsibility; very soon no one will admire somebody who feels that he can piss the environment up and down - which is just one of the reasons that the Hummer is not being produced any more.
1. Re:Don't know ... by alobar72 · 2010-03-09 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  damn - i cannot find the quote, but a similar thing was said about railroads back in 18hundredsomething
  The steam, the noise, the lack of comfort... :-)
  
  On top of that, $86k for 30 minutes of lumbering along uncomfortably under some stinking and noisy contraption hardly seems attractive, unless you want to show off that you are rich enough to not care that you look a right twit.
2. Re:Don't know ... by jandersen · 2010-03-10 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  The railroads have added value to society, by making it easier to travel; without the ability to easily get from one end of the nation to the other, it wouldn't be able to hang together as one - this is why China, Russia and the US and Canada are big and it also explains why Europe consisted of a huge number of tiny nations for so long: after the Roman roads fell into disrepair, it was too hard to get from place to place.
  But what will a jetpack contribute to society? It's only an expensive toy.
3. Re:Don't know ... by alobar72 · 2010-03-10 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Dont you agree that your arguments are retrospective ?
  Could one imaginge a discussion on Slashdot in a hundred years where one states:
  "Jetpacks saved our society from transportion breakdown.
  Groundbased ( i.e. 2 dimensional ) travel could no longer provide the space neccessary for all the individual travel.
  With the extension of individual travel into the third dimension, we gained the space we needed to carry on.
  If you look back a hundred years or so... it is grotesc imagening all those people in there cars spending half of their holidays or workdays in traffic jams...
  Additionaly we had done great and nearly unreparable damage to our environment building all those roads and railroads and such.
  All those thing got significantly better as soon as jetpacks became a common thing "
  Just an idea :-)
4. Re:Don't know ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  > Arthur Clarke was a clever guy, and geostationary satelites are kind of obvious, really.
  Inventors are fond of pointing out that "obvious" patents are never said to be obvious before the patent application is filed.
5. Re:Don't know ... by jandersen · 2010-03-10 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Inventors are fond of pointing out that "obvious" patents are never said to be obvious before the patent application is filed.
  That is as may be, but the geostationary satelite is not patented; it has been known for a very long time that there are orbits around the centre of mass of any planet which will allow an object in free fall to stay over the same point of the surface (although in exotic cases that orbit may be underground). I don't think the idea of using geostationary satelites for radio communication came much later than the invention of radio, possibly even predating our ability to put them up there.
deja vu by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 22:52 · Score: 0

Wow, the design is almost identical to the one they tried to build on Mythbusters. For being a couple SFX geeks those guys get thier shit pretty close to together.
Wait a second.. by argStyopa · 2010-03-10 00:07 · Score: 1

Shouldn't this article have a link to the Darwin Awards somewhere in it?
http://www.darwinawards.com/
Please, if you're going to buy a jetpack, please don't breed FIRST.

--
-Styopa
Who want to bet.. by chord.wav · 2010-03-10 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

..that the first kill by one of these is a multi-millionaire executive of a top company that missed to reach his office's window on the 100th floor after commuting from a distance which burned most of his fuel?
Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 03:07 · Score: 0

That should read Flying Jet with Meat Pack.
How many other people... by mafian911 · 2010-03-10 03:59 · Score: 1

... were thinking of that scene from Iron Man at the end of the video. In the moment he was hovering, getting ready to land, I was kinda hoping he'd say "Kill power." and go crashing through the floor.
Better than a jetpack: by 2obvious4u · 2010-03-10 04:27 · Score: 1

The best way to fly!
Deposit by HTH+NE1 · 2010-03-10 08:04 · Score: 1

A 10% deposit buys you a production slot for 12 months hence.
If I put down a 20% deposit, can I get cutsies?

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Wot no Wankel? by turgid · 2010-03-10 08:52 · Score: 1

When power to wight ratio and reliability are crucial, why on earth are they using a plain old piston engine when they could be using a Wankel? Are they stuck in the 1940s?

--
Stick Men
1. Re:Wot no Wankel? by countach · 2010-03-10 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well, why aren't helicopters using Wankels? Huh? Huh?
  For one thing, you can't buy a Wankel engine of the appropriate size, and manufacturing your own would be really hard. For another thing, don't they have awful fuel economy which mitigates power to wait when you've got to carry more fuel.
2. Re:Wot no Wankel? by turgid · 2010-03-11 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, why aren't helicopters using Wankels? Huh? Huh?
  Most use gas turbines.
  For one thing, you can't buy a Wankel engine of the appropriate size
  Yes you can.
  don't they have awful fuel economy which mitigates power to wait when you've got to carry more fuel
  No, not at the speeds and loadings required for aero use.
  
  --
  Stick Men
Rescue e.g. Rock Climbers ? by hashstamp · 2010-03-10 19:51 · Score: 1

Darwin-awards-wise, one might wish that folks who get in trouble say on El Capitan should be left to nature, but a device like this would seem potentially safer than a Helicopter, you can imagine just plucking a climber off a wall. The Google Query (( rescue helicopter crash rainier )) finds articles related to that video I saw once where the blades just brushed the snow, bye bye. With the ducted fans this device seems to fix that problem. No mention of the theoretical altitude ceiling, say with improved engine, still way cheaper than a helicopter.
Re:It's not a jet pack and it defeats the purpose by Shotgun · 2010-03-11 03:52 · Score: 1

You can't walk around with it. 250lbs isn't all that much. What you meant to say is that it isn't Slashdot Geek Portable.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
redundancy by JumpSocial · 2010-03-12 09:49 · Score: 1

It's pretty cool but it should have redundant engines. Engine failure is inevitable and it'll cause injury. They have ducted fan helicopters in Avatar (James Cameron's recent movie). That's similar to this except the Avatar copters had tail rotors and a vertical stabilizer. I suspect that it's a bad design choice since ducted fans it may not auto-gyro. For the jet pack, I don't think there are many applications for it aside from just screwing. But perhaps a cool discovery gets made while developing that stuff. Maybe they could cook up a VTO (vertical takeoff and landing) ultralight that has a wing and can also fly using the wing. I saw the comments about using flying things in place of cars. One huge issue is that cars already use too much energy. Thing that fly are even more demanding for energy. So where things stand now, I doubt airplanes will replace cars for a long while. Things that fly will be better for stuff like the airlines and military are already doing for a while but not to replace cars.

--
Inventor, Artist http://www.Rubber-Power.com