Slashdot Mirror
Photographer Glimpses Larry Page's Flying Car Hovering In California (Maybe) (siliconvalley.com)
From Hollister, California -- population 40,000 -- comes a good update from the Mercury News on Larry Page's efforts to fund a flying car:
Even from a few hundred yards away, the aircraft made a noise strikingly different from the roar of a typical plane. "It sounded like an electric motor running, just a high-pitched whine," said Steve Eggleston, assistant manager at an airplane-parts company with offices bordering the Hollister Municipal Airport tarmac. But it wasn't only the sound that caught the attention of Eggleston and his co-workers at DK Turbines. It was what the aircraft was doing. "What the heck's that?" saleswoman Brittany Rodriguez thought to herself. It's just hovering."
That, apparently, was a flying car, or perhaps a prototype of another sort of aircraft under development by a mysterious startup called Zee.Aero...one of two reportedly funded by Google co-founder Larry Page to develop revolutionary forms of transportation... A Zee.Aero spokeswoman said the firm is "currently not discussing (its) plans publicly." However, a Zee.Aero patent issued in 2013 describes in some detail an aircraft capable of the hovering seen by people working at the airport. And the drawings showcase a vision of the future in which flying cars park in lots just like their terrestrial, less-evolved cousins.
Page has invested $100 million in Zee.Aero, which appears to have hired more than 100 aerospace engineers. But the article reports that apparently, in the small town where it's headquartered, "the first rule about Zee.Aero is you don't talk about Zee.Aero."
That, apparently, was a flying car, or perhaps a prototype of another sort of aircraft under development by a mysterious startup called Zee.Aero...one of two reportedly funded by Google co-founder Larry Page to develop revolutionary forms of transportation... A Zee.Aero spokeswoman said the firm is "currently not discussing (its) plans publicly." However, a Zee.Aero patent issued in 2013 describes in some detail an aircraft capable of the hovering seen by people working at the airport. And the drawings showcase a vision of the future in which flying cars park in lots just like their terrestrial, less-evolved cousins.
Page has invested $100 million in Zee.Aero, which appears to have hired more than 100 aerospace engineers. But the article reports that apparently, in the small town where it's headquartered, "the first rule about Zee.Aero is you don't talk about Zee.Aero."
Why the fuck didn't this "photographer" take a picture of this "flying car"? Could it be the same reason cameras don't seem to work around UFOs and Bigfoot?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yep looks like a real flying plane to me... not a car.
No, it's not a meme for me. I really want a flying car that I can kill myself in.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I suppose there's more than one way to do it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's a weather balloon.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So you do it with a local AI and sensors. Sorta like a self-driving car. Great. Let me know when it's bulletproof in a 2D environment and I'll consider the 3D version. Let's remember that a groundcar can reasonably be operated manually by most people. Letting untrained pilots fly higher than three feet off the ground will require the addition of a new category to the Darwin awards.
Too bad. I really wanted a flying car.
I really hope flying cars come with telemetry but maybe that's just me.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Just to view the video on that page?
What the fuck is wrong with modern web developers and their obsession on using tons cross-domain-unsecure-bloat just to render a simple page?
That was a waste of time, so I'm going to bitch about it. The modern web has become a really shitty browsing experience, so thanks for that all of you dorks that continue to produce these shitty websites; and thanks for also being responsible for mobile-sites that are 100x slower than the older desktop versions.
Avery Brooks is smiling.
#DeleteChrome
No, there's a lot more than providing an arcade experience involved. Thinking in three dimensions isn't quite as built-in to humans as you seem to think. Hell, half the drivers on the road can't handle thinking in flatland. What do you expect to happen in cubeland?
Great. Let me know when it's bulletproof in a 2D environment and I'll consider the 3D version.
That's actually backwards. Solving for the 3D case is vastly simpler, because while in the air you have very few obstacles to content with, you basically just have to be sure you can react to other planes, and have programmed in the coordinates of no-fly zones - otherwise travel is just a straight line. There are already drones that can find their way back home if the control signal is lost, and almost drones that can fly around tree branches without hitting them...
For takeoff landing you can simply dictate that a solid volume of sufficient space must be below or above you to land/takeoff.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Honestly? I never once associated a flying car with a human pilot.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Oh wow! You POSTED A "VLAD IS FAT" REFERENCE! Congratulations!
Just kidding.
Posting Vlad memes is literally the most basic, desperate, tragic, hopelessly-void-of-meaning, outrageously obnoxious, troublesome, costly, and downright pointless cry for help that the universe has ever screamed. Wow, you were born as a merely BORDERLINE retarded member of your species. WOW! INCREDIBLE! You managed to open your web browser and go to Slashdot (which in evolutionary terms, willing translates roughly to "fucking desperate for at least a few reasons") managed to somehow visit Trolltalk and post a "LOCKWOOD IS FAT" reference that was stale in 2001! WOW! This has literally only been taking place for ALMOST TWENTY FUCKING YEARS! WOW! Except guess what, nobody even reads Trolltalk anymore... which means you failed at submitting yourself to an act which means absolutely nothing. The only thing left to do now is kill yourself.
Not nearly as obnoxious as your post.
There have been flying cars and vertical takeoff aircraft for decades now. The issues have always been engineering practicality. Carrying capacity, efficiency, range etc. The question is whether they have found a way to fix the technical issues that lead to these problems.
All electric may wind up cheaper, but the energy storage is even lower than for gasoline, so the weight problem becomes worse.
Vertical takeoff helps in some ways, but tends to lead to less efficient aerodynamics in cruise, and requires even more energy storage.
Very large single props are the most efficient (to reduce then number of tip vorticies), but lead to a helicopter like design. That leads to perhaps the most serious question - how is this better at flying than a helicopter? Helicopters are already very energy inefficient .
They're called helicopters
The simplest problem is also the hardest to solve: All it takes is one sudden cross breeze to make something in the air go splat against the nearest wall, wire, or other flying thing. A hovering, or slow moving, vehicle on a breezy day is a disaster looking for a place to happen.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
Is that a flying car, or a plane you can drive?
TFA says:
Americans collectively spending 8 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, (...) lifting off and cruising above snarled roadways has considerable appeal.
I suspect that Americans that have to drive to work during congested hours, will not be the ones that can afford a flying car.
from a regulatory standpoint, it's neither. It's most certainly incapable of meeting crash safety ratings, and it doesn't meet aviation safety criteria. It may, eventually, possibly, with truly incredible composites, but the design objectives of modern cars and of airplanes are almost completely opposite.
I want flying cars as badly as any kid that grew up watching The Jetsons. Problem is, you can't let Joe Sixpack drive - regardless of what everyone saw in Star Wars.
The problem is that flying requires significantly more energy than driving, so the viability of this as a mode of transport will always be questionable.
It is a roadable aircraft. And it is not the first.
It is not the sci-fi type flying car since it can only take of and land on a suitable airstrip. So yes, it is a plane you can drive. I think it is mostly made for private pilots.
Legality is a problem because it has to be both street-legal and airworthy. The Terrafugia Transition did it by bending the rules a little. The airplane part is under the light sport aircraft rules but got an exemption because they couldn't meet the maximum weight criteria.
I really don't care about flying cars.
What I want to know is, if I rent a flying car instead of flying the traditional way, do I still have to be fondled and have my shoes violated by TSA, or not? It might be worth the additional safety risk to avoid the indignities of security theater.
Free sandblasting every time someone lifts off or lands next to you. Maybe a center out pattern of landings could facilitate the process of the parking area keeping itself clear.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Isn't that just a plane?
What the hell is a "Vlad is Fat" reference? A meme loses basically all of it's power, or supposed humor, when the context is missing.
Sig for hire.
None of these concepts solve the problem of utility lines. A LOT of streets are criss-crossed with the damn things and none of it is on maps.
One advantage of airports is that they don't have overhead wires all over the place. And one advantage of regular cars is that they don't need to care about overhead wires, which is great, because cities and utility companies love stringing crap everywhere and making it all into an eyesore.
Sig for hire.
No. Multiple companies have electric planes in the works. One powered by the sun flew around the world. Airbus has several different concepts in the works.
It's not really novel anymore and nobody has proven it's practical for a mass production. Normal aviation powerplants need to be lightweight and powerful which are not things easily achieved with current batteries and electric motors.
Sig for hire.
Aside from take-offs and landings, the problems the AI of a flying machine will face are a lot more simple than those an AI of a car must face. Drones show that many flying AI issues are already adequately solved. Issues concerning toddlers chasing after bouncing balls or ice on the shady curve just simply don't exist at flight levels above 10 feet. And take-offs and landings are probably not going to be much of an issue, what with sonar or laser assisted optical rangefinders managing the last little bit.
I look forward to the day when I can call up my personal drone on my smart phone, have it meet me on the rooftop, climb inside and tell it to take me the beach--- by the scenic route. It will join the airborne swarm and the distributed group AI will maintain safe distances between all the personal drones, cargo drones, airliners, and incoming meteors.
I don't think the future is like a flying car. I think the future is like a quadcopter on steroids, with wings for long distance aerodynamic flight.
Flatland is a lot more dangerous than 3D space. So many factors to consider--- is that ball that just bounced across the road ahead being followed by a kid or a dog? Is there an icy patch on that shady curve up ahead? In the air, potential hazards can be spotted long before they become threats and there are a lot more options for avoiding them.
The way to reduce traffic fatalities is to put everyone in the air, but make it so that they have to leave the driving to the AI. The operator's input should be no more than what we tell our Garmen, Tom-Tom, or other GPS to do now: this is where I want to go, show me the alternate routes and I'll pick the one I want.
Letting untrained pilots fly higher than three feet off the ground will require the addition of a new category to the Darwin awards.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Why doesn't the actual vehicle look like the sketch?
This would have been more believable if they hadn't put all that makeup on Nicolas Cage and got him to portray the town mayor.
No, there's a lot more than providing an arcade experience involved. Thinking in three dimensions isn't quite as built-in to humans as you seem to think. Hell, half the drivers on the road can't handle thinking in flatland. What do you expect to happen in cubeland?
People better be thinking in at least 3 dimensions when they are driving on land because most control actions take a non-zero amount of time to take effect.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Yeah, I forgot about that whole energy storage density thing. Damn . . . for a relatively weak force, gravity is a bitch!