Slashdot Mirror
At Last, Flying Cars?
ColdWetDog writes, "OK, we've all whined about the fact that we are now firmly entrenched in the 21st Century and no flying cars. So it is gratifying to see that our good friends at DARPA are finally going to do something about it." The project is called Transformer TX. "The Government's envisioned concept consists of a robust ground vehicle that is capable of configuring into a VTOL air vehicle with a maximum payload capability of approximately 1,000 lbs. ... Technologies of interest may include: hybrid electric drive, advanced batteries, adaptive wing structures, ducted fan propulsion systems, advanced lightweight heavy fuel engines, lightweight materials, advanced sensors, and flight controls for stable transition from vertical to horizontal flight. ... Like all DARPA projects Transformer TX is unlikely to succeed at all. Even if US Marine rifle companies one day do ride to war in handy four-man sky jeeps rather than cumbersome choppers or Humvees, that doesn't necessarily mean flying cars for all any more than Harriers or Ospreys did."
So when do I get my robot servant?
I'm not sure that the average driver needs to worry about three dimensions if he can't handle two well enough.
What do you think, sirs?
I for one welcome our Autobot overlords.
Finally the thing shows up and only the military can play with it.
right...
> Like all DARPA projects Transformer TX is unlikely to succeed at all.
You have a strange definition of success. Hint: DARPA is a research organization.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Maybe you could have a few of them link up and form a Zord.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
'... a VTOL air vehicle with a maximum payload capability of approximately 1,000 lbs?.'
So a typical US family of four won't be able to acheive lift-off in it!
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
FTFS:"So it is gratifying to see that our good friends at DARPA are finally going to do something about it." The project is called Transformer TX."
I wish my wife was as enthusiastic about my garage projects as ColdWetDog is about DARPA's little project. Then again, maybe he doesn't know that he probably has a joint credit card with DARPA.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Till we all get personal nuclear power stations in our cars, they ain't going to fly. There simply isn't enough energy density in our current fuels to power a flying car safely.
Deleted
One of the main problems with the concept of a flying car is that if the engines stop it doesn't just roll to a halt; it falls out of the sky.
We need to get away from this idea of flying cars as small jet planes and think more about personal blimps. Let's quit trying to fly and start floating.
Oh and helium is impractical. Bring back hydrogen. Sure it's explosive - but so is the stuff you put in your car! We give up on it because of one infamous accident? Hardly rational.
Unless someone develops a low energy input, low mass anti-gravity mechanism, flying cars are never going to be commonplace, merely niche vehicles.
The why should be obvious: it takes a lot of energy to get one in the air. Even standard small prop aircraft gets middling mileage, and earns points only by its ability to fly in a straight line. However, it needs a lot of room for take off and landing.
Hence, a practical flying car needs to be VTOL, which is by its nature very energy inefficient.
Luke, help me take this mask off
"You're more likely to die in a car accident than while flying"...
A tank for all uses! An APC, an Anti-Aircraft platform, a partial amphibious landing craft....
I bet this gets stuck in review after review and never gets out of the design cycle, everyone will want their custom use of the vehicle. Nobody wants a plastic/composite/aluminum body cause it puts "their boys" at unnecessary risk but in order to meet the operational requirements that's what they'll end up with, and then it'll go back to review as soon as they crash test/burn test the unit and get heavier, then they'll need to remove "add-ons" that got put in the development stages, and then it won't get support to go through for the decisionmaker that's "add-on" got cut, and then it'll die.
*sigh* nice idea though
I honestly don't believe we will get any sort of a flying vehicle out of this, but that is okay if this research leads to better battery systems for electric vehicles. In the 90's DARPA wanted military field medics to have "tri-corders". The funding of that research vastly accelerated the development of highly portable Ultrasound systems on the market today. This project is money well spent even if we don't get our flying cars, IMHO.
Even if DARPA actually makes it work, Paramount will annihilate them in court for copyright violation.
OK, we've all whined about the fact that we are now firmly entrenched in the 21st Century and no flying cars.
No, I'm pretty sure I consider that to be a feature and not a bug in our technological progress. Movement in three dimensions is a waste of fuel for most tasks, and a humongous safety hazard in the hands of most drivers as well as in the case of engineering failure.
I don't want flying cars; I want cars that can drive themselves more safely than people can. That's my SF car of the future.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...pulled this off four or five decades ago! In Asia as I recall.
Inventors these days just don't cut the mustard!
Three Squirrels
No kidding
If you run out of fuel in a regular car, the worst case scenario is that you end up late to where-ever you were going and have to spend money replacing fuel injectors. If you run out of fuel in a flying car, it would fall into the ground damaging or destroying both the car and whatever/whoever you land on depending on how high off the ground you are. Sure, you can implement fuel warnings, but some-one is inevitably going to ignore it or it could not work properly.
So I can now get stuck behind seniors who are FLYING.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Till we all get personal nuclear power stations in our cars, they ain't going to fly. There simply isn't enough energy density in our current fuels to power a flying car safely.
You have a very strange definition of safety if putting a nuclear reactor in a flying vehicle owned and operated by random civilians is your idea of "safe." Even a well-contained (aside: heavy) RTG represents a source of dirty bomb material that you want to put out in the public's hands.
You also have to consider the clean up costs involved in scrapping such a vehicle after its useful life-span is over or it has crashed. Most metal scrapyards won't touch anything that has radioactives. You'd have to set up a specialty business to handle removing offensive components before sending the rest of the wreck off to be processed. I imagine that emergency services across the nation will love having to cart along radiation detectors as part of first response to any accident. (No matter how well you engineer containment, this will be necessary just in case.) And who all has liability if a nuclear flying car crashes into a house and does contaminate the land?
Also, do we even have electric engines capable of heavy lifting for VTOL? All the electric planes I'm aware of are light-weight models with huge wingspan (often to accommodate solar panels). I wouldn't be surprised if we did, but I'd like to ask for some examples.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/nasas-puffin-aircraft-stealthy-one-man-vtol-aircraft
Table-ized A.I.
Let's give DARPA a real challenge!
Like all DARPA projects Transformer TX is unlikely to succeed at all
Yeah, because that bullshit with networking computers - now that was a failure! I don't know why the government ever invested in such a worthless idea... And with a track record like that I don't think I want DARPA working on anything of any importance, ever again.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There's no fundamental problem in building a modest-size VTOL craft. Many have been built. The fuel consumption and cost will be high, but for the military, that's OK.
The big problem back in the 1950s was stability. Now that unstable aircraft are routinely computer-stabilized, that's far less of a problem. It's going to need a jet engine. Piston engines don't have the power to weight ratio needed. That's what runs up the cost. A basic problem with jet engines is that they don't get much cheaper below small bizjet size. That's why general aviation is still piston-powered, despite Williams, etc.
It's not going to be a pure-thrust VTOL, like the Harrier. That takes so much engine power that it's only feasible for fighters, which are mostly engine anyway. Ducted fans, maybe. Successful ducted-fan aircraft have been built, and with modern stabilization, there are several robotic ducted-fan craft. With better stablization, the fans can be pulled in closer to the body, making for a much more compact craft.
There's a new Israeli ducted-fan craft, the AirMule, which is currently in early flight test and can hover tethered.
A big problem with single-engine VTOL aircraft is that they fall like a rock if they lose engine power. Aircraft can glide and helicopters can autorotate, but VTOLs can do neither. Ejection seats are indicated.
I don't know about you, but I don't ever want to see flying cars. Most people can barely figure out how to safely operate a wheeled car in two dimensions. Imagine how nuts it would be if we added a third.
Bibo Ergo Sum.
I agree. The problems with flying cars for the masses are many, well-known and insurmountable. The use of any propulsion technology that pushes a propellant at high speed is not only wasteful of energy but also unhealthy (lots of dust in the air) and highly dangerous (you can't stop or turn quickly enough).
Having said that, it does not mean that we'll never have flying vehicles. A new analysis of the causality of motion reveals that good old Aristotle was right to insist that inertial motion is caused. As a result, we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. No lattice => no motion. Soon, we'll be able to tap into this energy field for both energy production and transportation. We'll have vehicles that have no need of wheels, travel at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage due to inertial effects. How much energy is there, you ask? Lots and lots of it, more than we'll ever need, enough to float entire cities in the sky if we so desire. New York to Beijing in minutes, earth to Mars in hours; that's the future of energy and transportation.
Read Physics: The Problem with Motion for more on this exciting development.
...airborne signs reading "$500.00 fine for texting while flying...
A car that drives its self means no more designated drivers or having to wait to sober up before going home. It means the party can continue all the way home. ...If you know what I mean.
A flying car is just a waste of fuel & money that could be better spent on booze. :P
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Lighter than air dirigibles are clearly a superior technology, with all the necessary engineering to free us from our reliance on grounded transportation. Zeppelin technology can be safe, efficient, cheap, and reliable in most of the world (barring extremely windy climates). The problem isn't technology. The problem is economic interests who promote the status quo. Just like in most of the issues facing American society.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I seem to recall Fantomas having one! Here it is!
Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
So I can get t-boned by a drunk from two more directions? No thanks. Drivers have enough problems dealing with two dimensions. Auto-pilot will take a few more years to perfect, right?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Something to avoid the traffic on the 405, and 91 Freeways? DARPA now, has my complete attention. Maybe they could use some more funding?
I don't know about you, but I don't want a flying car generating lift with ducted airflow or jet engines. I want my flying car to be equipped with anti-"insert natural law here" devices. Just saying...
Flying cars are a VERY bad idea. Drivers aren't making it in two dimensions. Add another dimension and you're going to make the accident rate go up exponentially.
Not only that but I REALLY do NOT want people flying over my home and land. It is bad enough with the illegal ATV, snowmobile and light plane traffic. If flying cars were a reality it would create enormous amounts of noise pollution and invasion of privacy.
If they get flying cars I want to be allowed to use my anti-aircraft weapons.
Cars are expensive to build (in matter of resources). Cars are not very energy efficient only a fraction of the energy is used for motion the rest converted into heat. Furthermore a cars weight is approx 1.5 t to 2 t (1500-2000kg) and these 1500 kg are used to move around 80-150 kg. On top of that, the average speed of a car in a city is 15-25 km/h (depends on the study) which also achievable with a bike. Furthermore cars tend to stay unused most of their time. For example people drive to their job in the morning 1-2 hours and the same time back, which accumulates to 4 hours. And the other 20 hours a day they are parked somewhere. Most people have a garage at home for the car and at work there is also a parking lot and you need a lot of roads for them. This results in an average use of land area in a city of 50% for cars. The rest is for parks, houses, railroads, planes etc.
As we are going to run out of resources (oil, lithium, copper, and many more) it might be sensible to develop a more resource efficient people mover and if possible a way to reduce the need of using public transportation systems. For example: Many bankers and traders use their car to get to the city then they use an elevator to get to their office. While the boss is on level 12 the other are on level 10 and normally they do not see each other in person for days. Instead they use this awkward piece of equipment called phone to communicate. So why have all these people to use any transportation device to get from the suburbs to the city center when they easily could just stay there and work in distributed offices just together with their coworkers. And definitely outside the city center. And they could still talk to the boss on phone. Ok nobody would need bank towers anymore. But think of it. No bank towers no fear from terrorists in planes.
But instead of being reasonable we build flying cars for the troops. So they can fight abroad for ... what was it again? Never mind.
Like all DARPA projects Transformer TX is unlikely to succeed at all.
Unlike, you know, that whole "Internet" thing.
Technoli
The public view of a 'flying car' is what George Jetson drove, Korben Dallas's taxi or the Doc's Delorean after its hover-conversion. Until you have anti-gravity technology you ain't got no flying car in the public's books - You just have another version of an aircraft.
I love the Manta in UT2004.
The troubled V22 Osprey has been under development for over 20 years, and it is STILL troublesome. It is the ONLY mass produced airplane/helocopter hybrid out there. Because of the tight tolerances, the Osprey lacks a big machine gun, good windows, autorotation in case of failure, and has a high failure rate. And it costs ~$100 million. It ain't going to be good for civilian use.
On the other hand, having a few hundred of these on September 11th, 2001... The ability to plop down a few thousand Marines from ships several hundred miles away, conduct a surprise raid, then conduct another raid several hundred miles away several hours later is very handy.
see title
Seriously; I'm tired of reading "flying cars almost here"-type threads. Until an actual product is for sale (no pre-orders, vapor ware) I don't want to hear about what people are planning. Everything that has ever been posted in the past sounded good at first, promised to be delivered, was soon be in the skies...well they were either wrong, marketing to get funding, or just plain lies.
They're supposed to be autonomous or remote controlled. Let's put 1,000 lbs worth of guns and ammo on them and control them with a central supercomputer. Then it can do all the warfighting without risking humans.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M.A.S.K._toys_&_characters
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
The military tried to develop "flying jeeps" back in the late 40s/50s but disappointing results made them give up on the idea. The most advanced prototype was the Avrocar, produced by Canadian company.
The Avrocar revealed the basic problem with flying cars - you can't easily make something which is controllable and manoeuvrable at low speeds which is essential for personal aircraft. You need to be able to drive it similarly to a car, just up in the air rather than on a road, and even with modern fly-by-wire systems it's a tall order. Plus the only two commonly available means of propulsion for aircraft, i.e. jet engines and propellers/rotors, make an awful lot of noise and are prone to things like ground effect which is difficult even for experienced pilots to deal with.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Flying cars == falling cars
872835240
Like all DARPA projects Transformer TX is unlikely to succeed at all.
Yea, like that crazy idea called ARPANET and those stupid protocols like IP and TCP or the Predator UAV.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
I'd rather see a personal flight suit a la Iron Man or Starship Troopers. Maybe a ballbearing surrounded cockpit whose external walls revolve around you. That would make landing less dicey. Make it engine-assisted pedal power if it's just a flying bicycle. If you want an Iron Man suit or something larger (the suit Jeff Bridges wore was more Starship Troopers sized), the problem right now is power supply. And even if you could somehow wirelessly provide power like Atlantis or Tesla, the weight of the propulsion systems would still be substantial.
What we really need is something that can repel gravity or make use of the Earth's magnetism or some zero-point energy insanity. I hate to keep thinking in the box, but very small, very powerful engines...not available yet.
The Moller Sky Car has been in development for years. There is another company in Alabama working on something similar. Cars that convert into Airplanes are really old, 1960's old. At one time there was a wing kit you could purchase for an AMC Gremlin. Popular Mechanics did a story once, "It sprouted wings so I flew it!" about a car that had bolt on wings. Moller has been trying to develop new technology without government research funding for years because so many people thought of this as a pipe dream. The DARPA money means that the military is beginning to take the idea seriously.
Flying cars are from the 20th century.
I wish people would get a damm clue before submitting crap to /.
Flying cars are supposed to hover silently using some sort of technology which is compact enough to also fit in skateboard. Duh.
Is it volcano proof?
The Parajet Automotive Skycar: http://www.parajetautomotive.com/
It's basically a buggy with a large fan on the back and parafoil wing. Like all the rest of them, I don't think it's in production yet, but they did successfully mount an expedition from London to Timbuktu in it.
Pros:
* Simple.
* Low-cost.
* Won't drop out of the sky if the engine cuts out.
Cons:
* Not VTOL, although it is STOL.
* Not clear how well it would scale if it had to be armoured or had to carry a lot of equipment.
* Not very fast (100mph top speed in the air).
I really like it as a flying car design though. Practical, Simple, Affordable. Doesn't quite give you the jetsons land-on-the-helipad-at-work aspect, though.
Typical childish fantasy. That thing could only be used by a very skilled subset of people and would be too uncomfortable to use long term anyway. I mean you're facing down and have to strain your neck just to look forward. You can't even look up at all. Landing and takeoff would be fraught with issues because it's too complicated, just like the Osprey.
I have no idea how they get the 50 mile range because there is no way in hell to even build one of these machines with current battery technology. It would be too heavy to fly even for 10 minutes.
Poor design all around.
There already is a few different prototypes out there by people who have made their way into the new frontier, without darpas help...
however i do think getting bigger organizations into this might help promote further discoveries much sooner.
Oh goody, FLYING CARS!
Now EVERY DAY can be 9/11!!!!
Why would we want flying cars? Geez, just use the freakin' transporter and BEAM to wherever you need to be!