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."
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?
> 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.
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.
Wait... if it's a flying car, does it count as both a "car accident" AND a "while flying" accident? In which case, the adage doesn't change.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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").
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").
Let's give DARPA a real challenge!
If we can get AI good enough to provide a good listener the end-result will be the same.
And that's way easier than creating one which can actually have a conversation since it just have to shut up and listen.
So you see, we are screwed already!