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?
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.
Well, we're part-way there:
http://store.irobot.com/shop/index.jsp?categoryId=2804605
Table-ized A.I.
'... 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.
By "servant", you mean "sexbot", right?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I assume yes, but I think it would be nice for the robot to clean up after sex as well.
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.
If it can sexually service men, clean up afterwards, and then fetch beer and a pizza... then our species is doomed!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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"...
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").
I do? I'll go check again. This will be great!
"No, honey, I didn't order the four GE turbofan engines that just showed up on the UPS dock. That wasn't me at all, that was DARPA!"
On second thought, maybe it wouldn't be such a good idea.. "So, just who is this Darpa chick? How did she get your credit card?" I'd be in a heap of trouble.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"It's times like this that I feel lied to by the Jetsons."
"The Flying Car" by Kevin Smith
Here I sit, all broken hearted.
Came to poop, but only farted.
Yeah, add violation to the charges against us when the robots rise against us.
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!
Not if it collects samples during the service!
Tape a fleshlight to a roomba. :D
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
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.
Oh God I read "felch beer" the first time...(ok, it was actually kind of hot)
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
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!