Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's First Commercial Jetpack Arrives Next Year

Posted by Soulskill on from the time-to-chase-down-some-drones dept.

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.

79 of 119 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Re: Sorry most Americans... by jimbo · · Score: 1

      A fannypack?

    14. 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
    15. Re:Sorry most Americans... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      "Opens on impact" :)

    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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".

    20. 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!
    21. 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?
    22. 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.
    23. 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."
    24. 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."
    25. 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."
    26. 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."
    27. 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"
    28. 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
    29. 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
    30. 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.

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

      I propose: turbo fanny pack!

    32. 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?...

    33. 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!
    34. 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: 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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.

    5. 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
  5. 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!

  6. 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.
  7. Re:Microsoft Cloud advertising by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Thank you, come again - Apu

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  8. 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."
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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. 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
  13. 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"
  14. 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.
  15. 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 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. 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?
  18. 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.

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

    guess fashion is doubling back on us.

  20. 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.
  21. 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...

  22. Simpsons by jones_supa · · Score: 1

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

  23. 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?
  24. 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