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.
> 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.
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!
Yeah, add violation to the charges against us when the robots rise against us.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/nasas-puffin-aircraft-stealthy-one-man-vtol-aircraft
Table-ized A.I.
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.