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.

15 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 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.
    6. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.