Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The World's First Commercially Available Jetpack

Posted by kdawson on 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.

61 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. That's fine but... by Wizard+Drongo · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 neight108 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If these things go fast enough, why would you actually need a flying car?

      Cup holders

    4. Re:That's fine but... by Darkness404 · · 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.
    5. Re:That's fine but... by Asclepius99 · · 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.

    6. Re:That's fine but... by Av8rjoker · · 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.

    7. Re:That's fine but... by HBoar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The martin jetpack has a ballistic parachute system for such eventualities.

    8. Re:That's fine but... by Opportunist · · 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.
    9. Re:That's fine but... by wjsteele · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your flying car is over at Terrafugia.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    10. Re:That's fine but... by Nefarious+Wheel · · 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
    11. Re:That's fine but... by Av8rjoker · · 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.

    12. Re:That's fine but... by Antique+Geekmeister · · 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.

    13. Re:That's fine but... by wisty · · 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.

    14. Re:That's fine but... by ozmanjusri · · 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."
    15. Re:That's fine but... by Bitsy+Boffin · · 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
  2. Obligatory XKCD by master5o1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/678/

    --
    signature is pants
    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Unending · · Score: 2, Informative

      related

      http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time

  3. Jet refrigerator maybe? by tjstork · · 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 · · 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.
  4. TBO 100 hours by RichMan · · 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 HBoar · · 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.

    2. Re:TBO 100 hours by suomynonAyletamitlU · · 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...

    3. Re:TBO 100 hours by toQDuj · · 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.
  5. It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by cytoman · · 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 frakir · · 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/

    2. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by Opportunist · · 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.
  6. Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack by thepainguy · · 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 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's a very small helicopter. Which is still pretty cool.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  7. Mosquito is still a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · 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 FrankSchwab · · 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.
    2. Re:Mosquito is still a better idea by Cjstone · · 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.

  8. wow, 6 feet off the ground by danlip · · 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 · · 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
  9. All I could think of by voss · · 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 · · 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?

  10. nah by JackSpratts · · 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

  11. Flight of the Conchords!!! by OzPeter · · 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?
  12. better flight by gamecrusader · · 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 · · 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.
  13. Repossession by MillionthMonkey · · 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.

  14. Short Ranged by Game_Ender · · 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

  15. 'Jetpack' my patootie by macraig · · 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.

  16. whatcouldpossiblygowrong? by Trip6 · · 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!
  17. Not a proper jetpack! by Dun+Malg · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.
  18. How loud is it? by Mr_Blank · · 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.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. But?? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will your wife let you use it?

    --
    Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
  21. Engine failure is the problem by Goonie · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 show+me+altoids · · 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
    4. Re:Engine failure is the problem by izomiac · · 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.

    5. Re:Engine failure is the problem by GooberToo · · 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.

    6. Re:Engine failure is the problem by BJ_Covert_Action · · 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!
    7. Re:Engine failure is the problem by e4g4 · · 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
  22. This is nothing but a very early prototype. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · 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?
  23. Not a jetpack by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can you call it a jetpack when it doesn't have any jets? More of a ducted-fan pack.

  24. Who want to bet.. by chord.wav · · 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?