Slashdot Mirror
The Ephemerality and Reality of the Jetpack
First time accepted submitter Recaply writes "Here's a look back at the 1960's Bell Aerosystems Rocket Belt. 'Born out of sci-fi cinema, pulp literature and a general lust for launching ourselves into the wild blue yonder, the real-world Rocket Belt began to truly unfold once the military industrial complex opened up its wallet. In the late 1950s, the US Army's Transportation Research Command (TRECOM) was looking at ways to augment the mobility of foot soldiers and enable them to bypass minefields and other obstacles on the battleground by making long-range jumps. It put out a call to various aerospace companies looking for prototypes of a Small Rocket Lift Device (SRLD). Bell Aerospace, which had built the sound-barrier-breaking X-1 aircraft for the Army Air Forces, managed to get the contract and Wendell Moore, a propulsion engineer at Bell became the technical lead.'"
Jetpacks make sense if you can get them to work. If you can get one to every person in your army, imagine the mobility you would have. Think of the kinds of flanking maneuvers you could perform. The same would be true for flying cars. Of course, the barriers are cost, controllability, range.....things like that.
Space elevators and asteroid mining can make sense too, but in those cases (assuming the space elevator can actually be built, which it can't with today's materials) it becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Is it cheaper to mine asteroids, or get the same materials here on earth? As soon as it's cheaper to get them from asteroids, we will get them from asteroids. Is it cheaper to get things into orbit via space elevator? We don't know yet, but if it is, then we will build a space elevator.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A big problem with jetpacks is that human ankles are weak landing gear. You can't do a parachute landing fall while wearing a jetpack; you have to do a standing landing. With all the mass of the gear on your back.
The other big problem is that rocket systems have a short flight time, and jet engine systems are too expensive. The jet engine powered backpack worked well, but cost too much. That used a small Williams jet engine. Williams International has tried and tried to make small jet engines cheaper. So have many others. Unfortunately, that's a very hard problem, which is why general aviation is still piston-powered. Below small-bizjet size, jet engines don't seem to get much cheaper as they get smaller. There was a big effort about a decade ago to develop "very light jets", but they ended up costing well over $1 million, most of that being engine cost.
So it can be done, and it has been done, but it just doesn't work very well.
This is the reality of how to make a single man fly.
Williams WASP X-Jet
It worked, it flew, there was no military justification for it, it disappeared.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
but no one mentions the Martin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Jetpacks make sense if you can get them to work.
As would many, many other things, like Warp Drive and the G Spot.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I suspect they ran the numbers and decided that rather than making medicore-range quasi-flyers out of ground soldiers, the smart money was on just getting it over with and develop better helicopters, instead. Better speed; longer flights; bigger payloads - all much cheaper than adding limited flight capabilities to the individual.
We don't see jetpacks or flying cars for the very same physics reason. In order to hover against gravity you need to produce thrust > weight. Since thrust is proportional to (mass/second) X velocity, and power is proportional to (mass/second) X velocity^2, an efficient source of thrust you want to move a lot of material slowly (assuming you have unlimited reaction mass -> the atmosphere).
So, things that hover need to move lots of air, and have great big propellers. That is why helicopters work, and jet-reaction cars are too inefficient to be practical. It is why airplanes have big wings, not stubby lifting bodies. There may be a few spacial cases where you are willing to tolerate inefficiency, but they are rare.
Planes look like planes for a reason. Helicopters look like helicopters for a reason.