Slashdot Mirror


World's First Commercial Jetpack Arrives Next Year

An anonymous reader writes: The good news is that soon, you'll finally be able to buy that jetpack you've always wanted. The bad news is that it'll run you about $150,000. The Martin Jetpack will use fans, rather than rockets, to lift humans weighing up to 120kg (~256 lbs). Its makers say it can reach altitudes of up to 1 kilometer, and fly for up to 30 minutes at a time. The jetpack will be sold commercially to emergency services next year, and then a smaller, personal version will hit the market in 2017.

119 comments

  1. Sorry most Americans... by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Funny

    lift humans weighing up to 120kg (~256 lbs)

    So basically half of Americans are excluded. Got it.

    On a more serious note, there is NO WAY I'd do it. Not because it wouldn't be cool to fly through the air, I'd love that part...

    ...It is the landing on the rock hard ground I'm concerned about.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    1. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      ...It is the landing on the rock hard ground I'm concerned about.

      From the article:

      along with a low-altitude parachute for use should things go wrong.

      I wouldn't use it without a parachute either. With an emergency parachute... um.... probably. After a few other brave souls try it first.

      Also, 30 minutes is waaay better than the versions we've seen previously, which could only operate for a few minutes at a time. And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't use it without a parachute either.

      A parachute will be particularly useless when the pilot loses control at 100 feet above ground and is headed down at 100 fps. It will be more of a shroud over the body than an actual "save the pilot" device. Its main safety function will be to keep passers-by from tossing their lunch from seeing the mangled splat.

    3. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Specifically designed low-altitude parachutes are effective at a few hundred feet. No, it won't save you at extreme low altitudes and velocities, but it's certainly better than nothing. The phrase "Perfect is the enemy of the good" comes to mind.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:Sorry most Americans... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?

      I'd call it a personal helicopter.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:Sorry most Americans... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

      And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?

      I guess. What else do we call it? TurboFanPack...FanPack?

      I don't like it any of it.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    6. Re:Sorry most Americans... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Well, I guess it depends on expected flight altitude, doesn't it?

      If you're going to stay under, say, 200 feet ... you're pretty much screwed. Call it twice your "few hundred feet" ... then it's still half your flight envelope. Much over 1000 feet and would you even be using a jetpack?

      Yes, "perfect is the enemy of the good" in some cases ... but "never going to be useful enough to work" might also come up here. And if your emergency parachute for your jetpack means free-fall under "a few hundred feet" then that sounds pretty useless unless you're usually cruising at fairly high altitudes.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Sorry most Americans... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?

      Holy crap ... looking at the picture of this thing I'd say "jetpack" is not what we want to say, and it has nothing to do with the technology.

      To me "jetpack" implies something man-portable like a backpack. Not some frame you strap yourself into .. that thing is bigger than a damned motorcycle.

      It's neat looking. But this is somewhere between an exoskeleton and small aircraft you pilot in the upright position.

      Jetpack implies you could actually perform some locomotion with it attached to you. You know, land on the roof, shoot the bad guys, grab the girl and fly off.

      This, not so much.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans?"

      Well, what else would you call JETS of air?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Sorry most Americans... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't use it without a parachute either. With an emergency parachute... um....

      An emergency parachute is no panacea. If something goes wrong... first of all, well, the parachute can fail to open..... the shock from the parachute opening can be painful, even if not as painful as freefall into the ground.

      With little/no control of where you're going.... You can land at a very inopportune place, such as grazing/crashing into the side of a building, being impaled by a vehicle antennae, having the parachute get tangled up in something, or come into contact with live electric wires.

      Other nasty scenarios include landing in water or in the middle of a highway where you might be run over or other unsafe/unsuitable ground.

    10. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Inferno+Vulpix · · Score: 1

      It's possible that future, recreation-oriented versions could limit the speed you can descend at when close to the ground, making it impossible to land too quickly.

    11. Re: Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 frames per second? You play too many video games!

    12. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well, what else would you call JETS of air?

      Thrust?

    13. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I need to correct myself. I typed "turbofan", which is not what the summary or article said. A turbofan is a type of jet, of course, but I believe these are simply using normal ducted fans. So I guess it's not actually a jet, strictly speaking.

      I think it's a lot more accurate to call this a single-person VTOL aircraft than a "jetpack", but that doesn't sound nearly as sexy I guess.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    14. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Just watched the video, and Martin reps are claiming the parachute system will start functioning in just a few meters. As Ellis mentioned below, this obviously must mean they're ejecting and inflating the parachute via some sort of mortar, and as such, it probably starts working almost instantly.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the parachute was automatically triggered, as it's pretty simple to detect freefall acceleration or a catastrophic engine failure, although this is just my sceculation. So, in this case, human reaction time is also not a factor, which would be significant at low flight levels.

      Also, that thing can fly at 1km in the air and ascend faster than a typical helicopter. It's actually more of a personal VTOL aircraft than a jetpack IMO.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    15. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your religious insult makes you just as stupid as his gay insult made him out to be.

    16. Re: Sorry most Americans... by jimbo · · Score: 1

      A fannypack?

    17. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

      Martin reps are claiming the parachute system will start functioning in just a few meters. As Ellis mentioned below, this obviously must mean they're ejecting and inflating the parachute via some sort of mortar, and as such, it probably starts working almost instantly.

      As I wrote in my initial post (surprised it was first post, weird) those are still my biggest concern. The comments in the articles and videos they make to not comfort those fears.

      Have you ever fallen from "just a few meters?" I have.

      As a child I fell from the monkey bars at school, also "just a few meters". I landed badly on the schoolyard gravel designed to help reduce injury and still broke my leg badly.

      My daughter also once slipped while running on wet ground, fell and twisted her leg badly. (Genetics?) After a surgery, two screws to hold the bone together, and six weeks later, she was learning to walk without a limp. Or you've got Kevin Were who was in an Elite Eight basketball game, jumped wrong, and broke his leg badly, leaving his tibia stabbed through his leg. People break their bones from ground-level falls all the time.

      I'm fine with being in the air. I'm sure when everything is going perfectly and it is zooming through the air, that experience is likely more awesome than anything. And if the motor gives out at 800m, the parachute will be fine.

      No, I'm worried I'll be either launching or landing, have a critical failure while near the ground, and end up hospitalized, seriously injured, or maybe fatally injured. Either that, or have a critical failure that drags me across fields or across pavement, leaving a trail of skin and blood on the ground.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    18. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turbofan = Jet turbine spinning fan blade = jet (Most jet airplanes work this way)
      The term you are looking for is ducted fan which is an ICE running a fan and appears to be what this is.

    19. Re:Sorry most Americans... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      "Opens on impact" :)

    20. Re: Sorry most Americans... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      That was my daughter's response when I mentioned the details of this device. :^)

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    21. Re:Sorry most Americans... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Farts.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    22. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martin jetpack is using a central 2 litre gasoline engine with toothed belts running from central shaft to two propellers.

    23. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Heh, you don't have to tell me how painful short falls can be, as I've also had my own rather nasty injury at a very close proximity to the ground (albeit down a couple of steps).

      The point is that that anything *above* a few meters - which is where you're likely to be flying the vast majority of the time - should be much safer, since the parachute should deploy at those higher altitudes. We'll have to see what the safety limit actually is in practice, but again, this is like seatbelts and airbags for cars. They're not going to save everyone, but it's a hell of a lot better than not having them.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    24. Re:Sorry most Americans... by NonFerrousBueller · · Score: 1

      If the generic term for Jet Ski is "Personal Watercraft" than I guess we may as well call this a "Personal Aircraft".

    25. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't. Being gay isn't a negative thing, whereas being religious is just pure idiocy.

    26. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, 100 feet is enough for a parachute to deploy. People have BASE jumped from lower.

    27. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a child I fell from the monkey bars at school, also "just a few meters". I landed badly on the schoolyard gravel designed to help reduce injury and still broke my leg badly.

      That's just because you are weak. As a child, I fell from the monkey bars, fell from trees, crashed my bike on large dirt trail jumps and jumped two or three storeys out of buildings numerous times and have never broken a bone.

      My daughter also once slipped while running on wet ground, fell and twisted her leg badly. (Genetics?)

      Yes, it sounds like she inherited your poor genes. You might want to try boosting your calcium and vitamin D intake if you're constantly breaking bones like that.

    28. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farts.

      Ah in which case, I say we declare this class of aerial device to be a klaniácopter, with this one being an opulentaklaniácopter...

    29. Re:Sorry most Americans... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      The problem with fiction based jet packs, is that the physics just doesn't work. Energy density required means very short flight time with supersonic jets that will rip/burn your legs off.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    30. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Mr. Nanny, it can't be made perfectly safe in all conditions for all possibly failure modes. Same with automobiles, conventional aircraft, downhill skiing, and, well, everything.

      By your logic, and fears, motorcycles should *definitely* be outlawed.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    31. Re:Sorry most Americans... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the concept of what a jet pack is has already crept into our minds.

      So when someone comes along with a single-occupant aircraft you fly in an upright position, and calls is a jetpack, the only thing people think is "maybe a small plan, or a personal helicopter ... but jetpack? Not likely".

      Because, you will note, there was an actual real thing used in real James Bond movies which set our expectations.

      A stand up, open air cockpit helicopter isn't it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    32. Re: Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your daughter hot? Does she have big tits and a tight pussy? Check that shit out and let me know.

    33. Re:Sorry most Americans... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?

      I suggest we start calling them fanny-packs.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re:Sorry most Americans... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Where did they recommend outlawing it? The only suggestion that they made was that they would not, personally, be using it. I do not see any comment that indicates they would like to outlaw this device. By your logic I am a purple people eater? I think you failed the whole logic thing and should likely just stick to chewing bubble gum and watching fish.

      Then again, I will offer you an easy out, you may have just missed what they wrote due to your biases and thinking you have something to "win." Alternatively, you could just be stupid. There may be a third option but I am hard pressed to think of it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    35. Re: Sorry most Americans... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      D'oh! I should have scrolled down. I almost did and then I thought, "No, nobody is THIS clever. Surely I will be unique." Alas, such is not true. My reply was threaded under a different post but was, for the most part, the same thing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    36. Re:Sorry most Americans... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Umm... We do have working jetpacks already. I am not sure that you can buy one (I suspect you can) but you could easily build one. Some dude was flying around in one back in the 50s or 60s for the US military.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:Sorry most Americans... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Specifically designed low-altitude parachutes are effective at a few hundred feet. No, it won't save you at extreme low altitudes and velocities, but it's certainly better than nothing.

      To quote a friend describing the first of the micro-nuts (rock climbing protection equipment), "they might not stop you, but they'll sure as hell slow you down!".

      With strengths (breaking loads) from 2 to 6 kN, you don't need to fall very far for a nicro-nut to pull. But in doing so, it absorbs a considerable amount of energy. And the next one does too. It's not nice, but it really does slow you down.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    38. Re:Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might be the Bell Rocket Belt. They used one on the Saturday morning series Ark II:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyv9zxtgCCc

    39. Re: Sorry most Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? Who said anything about not being judgemental? I openly admit I am judgemental and so is every other person on the planet.

      More importantly, in this instance, I am absolutely correct. Only an idiot believes in faerie tales beyond early childhood.

    40. Re:Sorry most Americans... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That's just because you are weak...

      to be fully appreciated, this post needs to be read in an early Arnie Schwarzennegger accent.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:Sorry most Americans... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Whenever someone on slashdot offers a non right wing tough guy argument against something, people jump on it saying that the limp-writsted liberal wants to ban it.

      It's knee jerk libertarianism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:Sorry most Americans... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Also, 30 minutes is waaay better than the versions we've seen previously, which could only operate for a few minutes at a time. And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?

      The Bell Aerospace rocket belt (what we used to call jetpacks) only worked for up to 30 seconds at a time. More commercial versions again, 30 seconds.

      It's why those water jet things that use a jetski are so popular - sure you're tethered 20' to a jetski or other thing sitting on the water, but you get 90% of the way to a jetpack without the annoyance of only 30 seconds of flight.

      The Martin Jetpack has been going for a long time now - over a decade, so I'm confident they got the issues worked out (a decade ago, they were already demonstrating, albeit tethered).

      As for 'jetpack' well, the term is ambiguous, and there's a reason we call the ones we see in public rocket belts. But turbofan engines are popular on jetliners (see what I did there?). Especially modern high-bypass ones.

    43. Re:Sorry most Americans... by bored_engineer · · Score: 1

      I propose: turbo fanny pack!

    44. Re:Sorry most Americans... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You weren't paying much attention, it didn't say a few hundred meters, it said a few meters. Less than that and there would likely be no serious injuries anyway.
      Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    45. Re:Sorry most Americans... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Yes and a 4min flight time. Yea really useful, not.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    46. Re:Sorry most Americans... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I did not say it was good or useful. In fact, that is why they are not generally available - they are neither good nor useful.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Better late than never...? by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

    Same company promised it'd be ready all ready. If it works and does go to market, good someone finally succeeded in making a jetpack. Until then, it's just a small-minded person's flying car pipe dream.

    --
    You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    1. Re:Better late than never...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I want to know is, will this thing work on water?

    2. Re: Better late than never...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also note that the man who's pipe dream it was has now left the company. Apparently he didn't agree with the direction things were going.

    3. Re: Better late than never...? by black3d · · Score: 2

      He left not because it isn't working. It's no pipe dream, their aircraft have been flying for a few years now. He left because the board declared that a personal, consumer version of the aircraft was not a priority. The whole reason he started the company was so that eventually he could have a personal "jetpack", but once the company went public, the board had to look at risk vs return and decided to make the consumer version their lowest priority. He didn't like that, so he left. He can always buy a consumer edition once it eventually (if ever) comes out, but their focus at present is first-responder.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    4. Re:Better late than never...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, like RTFA helped :/

      "After initial test flights in 2011, an updated version was shown off recently at the Paris airshow."
      "It began taking orders earlier this year, and has been showing off a simulator of the jetpack at airshows including Paris."

      So, is it real or not? Seems not....shown does not equal flown despite the linguistic similarities!

      If you are not FLYING it at the Paris airshow, you don't have a plane/jetpack/whatever you are pitching. That is kinda the point of the show.

      that's more like it, captcha has been slipping lately: THRILLS

    5. Re:Better late than never...? by black3d · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I even understand the question. It flies at 5000 feet.. this isn't a ground-effect lift. It's a ducted fan aircraft that's big enough for one person.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    6. Re:Better late than never...? by black3d · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, it's real. A quick Google will get you plenty of decent flight video. Here's the "old" one flying at 5000 feet.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The new model looks much sweeter. :) This is video from April last year - not flying nearly as high, but that's because this is one-off unmanned prototype.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Earlier manned footage:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    7. Re:Better late than never...? by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      I think (maybe) AC was referring to a different device that calls itself a jetpack but only works on water: http://www.jetpackamerica.com/. All that's certain is we need to get the term 'jet' off of these devices.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    8. Re: Better late than never...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he can make another company and start all over again.
      Now he knows what works and what does not work.

  3. 21 seconds is enough for anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    asked walter Cronkite many, many years ago.

  4. So not a jetpack by rminsk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is more like a ducted fan flying platform that the pilot is strapped to. This is closer to a Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee direct lift aircraft than a jetpack.

    1. Re:So not a jetpack by idontgno · · Score: 1

      "Jet" means any stream of high-velocity low-pressure fluid... like rocket exhaust, or water, or air, accelerated in a ducted fan.

      It's a jet device.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:So not a jetpack by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Yet not a jetpack.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:So not a jetpack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be disingenuous. "Jet" clearly implies jet engines when talking about aircraft.

  5. Licenses by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    And cue the screams of the people who think they can just buy one, strap it on, and ascend to 1km ... without a pilot's license. For yes, even more so than for drones, these will be classified as manned aircraft and there are already tons of federal regulations regarding operations of such.

    1. Re:Licenses by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      And cue the screams of the people who think they can just buy one, strap it on, and ascend to 1km

      But it will make for some very amusing Darwin Awards.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Licenses by hawguy · · Score: 1

      And cue the screams of the people who think they can just buy one, strap it on, and ascend to 1km ... without a pilot's license. For yes, even more so than for drones, these will be classified as manned aircraft and there are already tons of federal regulations regarding operations of such.

      Are you sure a pilots license is required? No license is required to fly an Ultralight aircraft.

      Though I doubt that anyone with $150K to spend on one of these things is going to cringe at spending a few thousand more on training -- nor would they be dumb enough to try to fly one without testing and/or certification.

    3. Re:Licenses by black3d · · Score: 1

      No, a pilots license wouldn't be required, but your local aviation administration will have rules regarding their use (cruise levels, flight over populated areas, all the normal stuff).

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    4. Re:Licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's with all these Darwin Awards. I've lost an old school friend who did the most ridiculous things and he ultimately died when he thought he could balance on a High Voltage Cable while high on speed.

      He died. But he had a wife with two kids, he had an ex wife with two kids and he had 3 other kids with some random woman he didn't even know the name of.

      Darwin awards? Nope, he has been the most productive of all the guys/girls of my generation. And there are 5 kids who carry 50% of his genes. And it are often those who make the most ridiculous decisions who get the most kids (they are not really the types that do birth control). What if he didn't die at the age of 28? Well I guess he would have had 4-5 extra kids.

    5. Re:Licenses by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you sure a pilots license is required? No license is required to fly an Ultralight aircraft.

      The definition of "ultralight" includes: "(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed." I.e., it must not stall if you go faster than 24 knots. If your fans stop and you're still going 40 knots (74 kph), but you have zero lift, you've stalled. As you fall you will reach terminal velocity. That will probably be more than 24 knots, but you will still have zero lift.

      I don't see any technical details other than planned cruise speed, but if it carries more than 5 gallons of fuel or weighs more than 254 pounds dry, it also isn't an ultralight.

      If it is an ultralight, the prohibition that it cannot be operated over congested areas of cities, towns, or settlements, or over any open-air assembly of persons makes this a pretty expensive toy.

      While there is no legal definition of "congested area", the FAA has said it will be determined on a case by case basis, and cases come about when someone complains. So, if you're flying one of these things over someone's head and they complain, you are going to have to defend yourself.

    6. Re:Licenses by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think the point of the darwin Awrds is that people who have spectacularly stupid deaths don't generally even make it to 28 and fatherhood.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. Microsoft Cloud advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the free microsoft cloud advertising slashdot you get down in the pit near sourceforge dead corpse.
    I am leaving this site. Fuck you slashdot !!!

    1. Re:Microsoft Cloud advertising by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Thank you, come again - Apu

  7. Disney will be THRILLED! by adosch · · Score: 1

    ...since Tomorrowland was such a shank job. Like 'more cow bell' solved SNL's problems: More jetpacks, disney!

  8. First commercial "jetpack that isn't a jetpack" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fixed the title for ya.

  9. Load of Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, this reeks of BS marketing. You're telling me they can't provide more than 2 seconds of footage of this thing actually flying. Total BS. I have my airman's certificate and I can tell you that anytime there has been a "true" innovation and no video it's total BS.

    1. Re:Load of Garbage by black3d · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of video of the Martin Aircraft around, and it's been shown at air shows on and off for a few years now. This one is a reality. Here's some nice, manned, 5000 feet flight video for you. (Not great landing though, ha! Better landings in other videos :))
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      This one is a reality. It's not American, which is maybe why you haven't really been aware of it? The key in ongoing development for this (some Chinese firm recently threw $50 million into Martins IPO) is to get the materials lighter, and fuel efficiency greater. 125kgs is enough for a (healthy weight) paramedic + first responder gear. But for military applications for example, you'd want to be able to carry first of all a person that weighs more than 125kg, but gear as well. So, the machine has to be lighter, or fuel more efficient (ie, requiring less fuel, thus less weight).

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    2. Re: Load of Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, it's been around for ages and it's very real. There's footage of it a km in the air.

  10. A Fanny Pack by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Ducted fan starp on, best fanny pack ever.
    Sure it's not as cool as a real jet or rocket but I want one.
    Didn't see any specs on range/endurance. Still I want one.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  11. Soo basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soo basically, if you think Uber is a transportation problem right now just wait until people are flying around in their personal aircrafts - how will the police pull us over then?

    1. Re:Soo basically... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Long range tranquilizer rifles.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  12. Just like Moller... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like Moller and his never-to-be-seen "SkyCar" this too is a pipe dream. I remember seeing a version of this thing back in 1997 or so, but the ducted fans were over the guys shoulders. Never made it anywhere, either.

    The payload will always be too small since there is no extra space for the gear a "first responder" would be needing, the FAA is so backlogged in everything right now the chances of it getting flight worthiness is minimal, and the "consumer version"? HA! LOL!!! Just like the 200-mile range $35K electric car Musk has been promising. Well, no - I take that back. This concept ranks just about dead center of the "Duke Nukem Forever" vs. "Moller SkyCar" scale.

    Feasible? Maybe, will we see it in our lifetime for anything under $500K (screw the $150K crap)... Not bloody likely...

  13. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Bringing a whole new meaning to the word drone.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  14. Darwin Awards! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I just can't wait to see how this turns out!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  15. Wrong on all counts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's NOT a jetpack - it uses propellers and internal combustion

    It's not a "pack" (as-in backpack) that you slip on with some straps, it's a small cockpit-less helicopter that you strap yourself to the nose of as suposedly a better alternative to strapping yourself into a seat behind a windscreen. Oh, and it lacks the primary safety function of a helicopter, the ability to auto-rotate

    It's not really commercial in any sense yet. What licensing is needed? It's probably not certified for operation as a commercial vehicle yet it's not cheap enough to be sold to the masses commercially and probably never will be (it has a huge price tag inflation built-in to cover the massive costs of FAA certification, and they'd have to sell many thousands of them to get that down)

    Let's hold off on "jetpack" excitement until somebody produces a pack like that shown in the popcorn film "The Rocketeer", which is what MOST people think the term "jetpack" means. Until that time, it's fine to get excited about any new gear like this, but let's keep the discussion tethered to reality.

  16. Check the video for chute test footage... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have a specially designed ultra low altitude chute. It is fired from a mortar, and gets blown into a nearly open canopy shape by the blast that deploys it.

    Doesn't need hundreds of feet of freefall to inflate it.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Check the video for chute test footage... by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      That chute won't help when either of the rotors is broken. The Martin "Jetpack" will nicely rotate and the chute, deployed at any altitude, will get entangled within fractions of a second.
      There is a reason why 80% of Youtube footage of the Martin is still unmanned flight.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  17. I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No well dressed man should be without one.

  18. You think drones are bad now.. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Now you'll have people flying in on these things, getting into situations that they're unprepared for and they'll need rescuing as well. I'm waiting for the first time one of these falls out of the sky and kills somebody on the ground. It'll be a field day for the lawyers. Preparing popcorn now...

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  19. Fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should put some grills before someone loses an hand

  20. Redundant by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    I'm sure many others will point this out, but don't call it a jet pack if it's not a jet pack! I guess I'll call my Mini Copper a flying car since I can drive it on the high way too.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  21. Emergency services? by Shoten · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The video shows floods, earthquake areas, even people trapped in burning buildings. And they talk about how these machines are somehow going to help.

    Here's the problem:

    (Flooded area...Jetpack Guy flies in near house with a family of 4 on top of it, as the flood waters rise...)
    Jetpack Guy: "Hey, you guys look like you could use a little help!"
    Family of 4: "Yeah,we sure could, Jetpack Guy! How about you fly us to safety?"
    Jetpack Guy: "Ah, sorry about that...I've only got a weight limit of about 250 pounds, and on top of that, the weight would destabilize the pack. How about I just keep you company until you drown?"

    (Earthquake-ravaged area...Jetpack Guy flies into the city, and lands...)
    Jetpack Guy: "Hey, you guys look like you could use a little help!"
    Earthquake Survivors: "Yeah, we sure could, Jetpack Guy! How about some food, water, shelter, or sanitation? Or equipment so we can rescue people trapped under tons of rubble? Fortunately, most of us are still alive, and we've got manpower to spare, but all basic services have been wiped out and there are people buried alive who need to be excavated!"
    Jetpack Guy: "Ah, sorry about that...I've only got a weight limit of about 250 pounds, so all I could bring was these two shovels. How about I just keep you company for a while? It's not like one more person will add an extra burden to the lack of food, drinking water, or sanitation...right?"

    Yeah, thanks a lot, Jetpack Guy. Fuckin' prick.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Emergency services? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      (Flooded area...Jetpack Guy flies in near house with a family of 4 on top of it, as the flood waters rise...)

      Jetpack guy sees problem, calls in real helicopter.....

      All of your scenarios imply that Mr. Jetpack has to save the day by him / her self. Real rescues are a team sport.

      That said, it isn't a compelling sort of thing to own. Expensive, likely cranky of maintenance and training. Limited range. More useful to get a bunch of cheap drones and running around looking for people to help.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Emergency services? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Easy solution: Have a 10-year-old fly it into the areas, and then he/she can save other children while their parents die horrible deaths.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Emergency services? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Jetpack Guy flies in near house with a family of 4 on top of it, as the flood waters rise.

      With only 30 minutes of flight time and only the pilot on board I'd say that's not a good application either. A helicopter with pilot and copilot that can stay up for a couple of hours would be far more practical.

    4. Re:Emergency services? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Nah, have the JetPack guy save the family's poodle while the family drowns.

    5. Re:Emergency services? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The family poodle? The JetPack guy must save ME-ow first!

      Sincerely,
      The Family Cat

    6. Re:Emergency services? by Shoten · · Score: 1

      (Flooded area...Jetpack Guy flies in near house with a family of 4 on top of it, as the flood waters rise...)

      Jetpack guy sees problem, calls in real helicopter.....

      All of your scenarios imply that Mr. Jetpack has to save the day by him / her self. Real rescues are a team sport.

      That said, it isn't a compelling sort of thing to own. Expensive, likely cranky of maintenance and training. Limited range. More useful to get a bunch of cheap drones and running around looking for people to help.

      All of my scenarios imply...correctly...that there aren't helicopters on standby with nothing currently going on. Helicopters have several times the range, several times the capacity, and several times the speed of one of these things. They can do everything the jetpack can do, do it better, and more importantly, they can do a lot more. This is why helicopters go do these things. When these events happen, the helicopters are entirely busy, and not because they're just wandering around for someplace to be useful.

      What makes more sense...sending out jetpacks to find people in need, and then sending helicopters...or just finding them with the helicopters, thus shortening the whole process in the first place? At night, the helicopters can find people with FLIR...the jetpacks can't. The helicopters can drop off supplies and bring out the injured for treatment elsewhere...the jetpacks can't.

      I would hasten to point out that in both of the scenarios that I illustrated...both of which I took from the video off of the website, mind you...that it's not hard to find places where help is needed. These aren't the "stranded hiker in the woods" scenario where having more eyes is more important than having more hands. These are the "holy shit, the logistics of helping these people are fucking overwhelming" problems, which are definitely not served by flying in one more mouth to feed who doesn't have his own supplies, much less anything to help the others.

      And they are the examples that Martin put forth as their business case.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    7. Re:Emergency services? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      These aren't the "stranded hiker in the woods" scenario where having more eyes is more important than having more hands. These are the "holy shit, the logistics of helping these people are fucking overwhelming" problems, which are definitely not served by flying in one more mouth to feed who doesn't have his own supplies, much less anything to help the others.

      Actually, it's worse than just "one more mouth to feed", it's one more potential medical casualty to rescue.

      Fanpack guy flies in, sees family stranded on roof by flood waters. Notices fuel is low, and needs to land. Only places to come down are: a) water, b) treetop, c) pointy roof. None of those options seem like a good idea, but one of them is going to be put to the test very soon.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:Emergency services? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Earthquake-raveged area...Jetpack Guys fly into the city, and land...)
      Jetpack Guys: "Hey, you guys look like you could use a little help!"
      Proceeds to administer first aid
      Proceeds to provide advise about how to remove rubble to free trapped people without collapsing the building further
      Proceeds to triage incoming assistance to areas that need it the most

      Your lack of imagination is embarrassing.

    9. Re:Emergency services? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Ah, but you forgot the clincher: jetpack guy rescues a crying baby wrapped in a blanket from a burning skyscraper.

      After the first one of these gets shown live on TV, every fire/emergency service in the world is going to have to buy one.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Looks good for the commute by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would be great for commuting from NJ to NYC. I imagine the FAA and Homeland Security won't be allow it though. But if they did, at $150,000? WORTH IT.

    1. Re:Looks good for the commute by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      $150k is about what you pay for a month of parking in the city, so it seems pretty trivial.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  24. Flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still cool and all, but it is not a flying car.

  25. Neat by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    I can use it as the only way to get into my secret island fortress?

    Emergencies could potential use them, but smaller and lighter for a single person, or it needs to be able to carry at least a second passenger, so you're looking at 300-500 lbs carry weight to be truly useful. Then in hard to reach places, they can actually bring someone down.

  26. I thought fanny packs were out of style... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    guess fashion is doubling back on us.

  27. $50m investment from Chinese aerospace company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $50m investment from Chinese aerospace company Kuang-Chi Science.

    For once, it looks like the tech is for real.

  28. That's a laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is as similar to a jetpack as those ridiculous mini-airplanes with folding wings are to flying cars. In both cases, the message is the same as it has been for 70 years: we do not yet have the technology. We can (and we will) come up with more ridiculous, marginally useful contraptions like those over the years, but they are not the real thing, and they will never be until new, still undreamed-of technologies are developed.

  29. Not a JET pack. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Its a wearable helicopter. Its also so big and bulky that it isn't especially portable.

    The concept of a jet pack was supposed to be a backpack a guy puts on flies around... and then walks inside with the pack... not even bothering to take it off because it isn't an encumbrance.

    That thing is f'ing huge.

    Even at 25 percent of its current size it would be annoying.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  30. Bit generous to call it a jetpack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a bit generous to call it a "pack." More like a small hovercraft than a jetpack. But hey, you gotta start somewhere. Looking forward to when the Jonny Quest jetpacks come out.

  31. Meet George Jestson by maryjanety3 · · Score: 1

    wow, its finally come true. What we see in the movies and TV does come true http://www.dailymotion.com/vid...

  32. Jetpack? Where's the jet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not a jetpack... that's a fanpack.

  33. Simpsons by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Hehheh...it looks similar to the jetpack in the Simpsons episode Sky Police (S26E16).

  34. Arrives without Martin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the Martin Jetpack arrives without Mr Martin who recently quickly left the company with the parting words "don't fuck it up."

    He worked for decades to design and develop his dream but saw his dream of a personal device end up a lot more corporate/military/industrial than he envisaged. He left because it wasn't fun to run a company like that - it was more fun to build the dream.

  35. Maybe Moller has come of age by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    If $150k is the target, and they miss by a factor of two, they could still scale to 4x the thrust and put an enclosed 2/4 seater with a 1000# payload for under a million.

    Stability, flight dynamics, and structures have come a long way since Moller bilked investors for millions. Possibly to the point where it's actually feasible to build the aircar he couldn't.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  36. "Smaller, personal" version coming in 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this one is family-sized?

  37. Non-Commercial? by tmjva · · Score: 1

    So they're saying prior non-commercial Jet-Packs were industrial strength?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  38. KICK ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's three hundred thousand bucks."
    "Can you think of anything else you'd rather spend it on?"

    "Oooohhhhhhhh, my gosh. That is cool."
    "Yeah!"
    "Add to shopping cart." :)