Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA: We're Not Building Flying Taxi Software For Uber (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on from the nothing-to-see-here dept.

News outlets reported on Wednesday that Uber had signed a contract with NASA to develop software for the ride-hailing company's autonomous "flying taxis." A day later, the space agency has clarified its involvement in the project and the specifics of the contract. From the report: Uber's chief product officer Jeff Holden spoke at the Web Summit in Lisbon yesterday where he was promoting the fledgling autonomous taxi project, revealed last year, Uber Elevate. And of course he never claimed that NASA was working on software for his firm, merely explaining that it had inked an agreement to work with the public body on the latter's air traffic control project. Uber told us that while NASA was not "committing funding or anything like that", it said "having their decades of aeronautic experience actively collaborating with our engineers is a huge help for tackling the aviation traffic management hurdles." A NASA spokesperson, meanwhile, told us Uber had indeed signed what it described as a "generic Space Act Agreement" for participation in the programme back in January, joining a "multitude" of others. The project and its members are "researching prototype technologies for a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system that could develop airspace integration requirements for enabling safe, efficient low-altitude operations," according to NASA's website. So no new news on the software front.

24 comments

  1. Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway. by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    As somebody pointed out in a previous post, to take off a flying taxi needs to generate down-thrust greater than it's mass (including the passengers). This will be very noisy, and blow down anything not fixed down nearby, including bins (trash cans), garden furniture, pets, little old ladies and cyclists. Regulation will undoubtedly mean that they can only go to and from designated landing pads

    1. Re:Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      needs to generate down-thrust greater than it's mass

      Weight, not mass.

      And "its", not "it's".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn! I wanted to allah akbar my neighbors towering mailbox.

    3. Re:Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway. by amalcolm · · Score: 2

      Before the car arrived, houses were built without driveways or garages. Many survive and owners are forced to part on the road. It's not hard to imagine new houses with purpose build pads (on the roof, maybe?), but this will take along time and older housing stock would be difficult to modify.
      This pales in comparison to the other less tractable ones, like maintainance, fail-safety, traffic control, range etc.
      With a car you can set off without a reserved parking space at your destination, in the reasonable belief that one will be available. Not so easy with something that flies, and good luck with asking the flying taxi driver (if there is one) to 'drop me on the corner, please.

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    4. Re:Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right in both cases, but pointlessly pedantic.

    5. Re:Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your post contributes what, faggot?

    6. Re:Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway. by jcwayne · · Score: 1

      This will...blow down...bins (trash cans), garden furniture, pets, little old ladies and cyclists.

      That's a feature, not a bug.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
  2. Wrong again what a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake news gets it wrong every time. Best to just ignore pretend journalists, they are no nothing liberal arts majors with an ideological ax to grind.

    Tech press is even worse. Not only are they not journalists, they have no technology experience. Just millennials spitting out click bait for cash.

    1. Re: Wrong again what a surprise by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      they are no nothing

      So they're something.

  3. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean to tell me that the news media misrepresented something?! Never!

  4. Hey Taxi! by wikthemighty · · Score: 1

    Up please!

    --
    "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  5. NASA Should Perhaps? by sycodon · · Score: 1

    It occurs to me that with everyone and their sister wanting to build a "flying car", there will be as many versions of flight control software as there are versions of Unix/Linux. What is worrisome is that these small companies do not have the knowledge or resources to adequately test this software to the extent that it should be tested. There is no such thing as a fender bender when you are in the air.

    It is probably an appropriate use of federal government resources to be the primary certification agency of this software (unless it already is?) and perhaps even sponsor what would amount to a basic suite of open source Flight Control modules and systems. Improvements made to the software would be available to all, enhancing safety for everyone.

    Yes, this would essentially be big government and would probably slow things down. But if the alternative is a sky filled with 1,000 lbs vehicles run by many different versions of flight control software, all behaving in slightly different ways, maybe we should slow down a bit, eh?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:NASA Should Perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the FAA than NASA though? After all it's aviation, not a spacecraft.

    2. Re:NASA Should Perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is worrisome is that these small companies do not have the knowledge or resources to adequately test this software to the extent that it should be tested.

      Which is why those companies will probably be lobbying to be exempt from current FAA certification requirements. This ain't rocket science. Seriously, it isn't rocket science, it's civilian aviation, which is already regulated. But the regulations are inconvenient (and expensive), so expect a big push for loopholes and workarounds.

    3. Re:NASA Should Perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why I don't see it happening,
      One crash, killing people who are in their homes...not good.
      This is mainly to get Uber stock moving up again, just like when Amazon is going to use drones to deliver packages.
      Not going to happen.

    4. Re:NASA Should Perhaps? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Thanks for injecting a bit of reality into the discussion. There may someday be flying cars - or some other kind of flying transport for individuals, but this isn't going to be it. And why on earth any news outlet is willing to discuss it as though it's just around the corner - much less going to be provided by Uber is beyond me. What special expertise does Uber have that makes anybody believe they can invent a whole new mode of transportation based on artificial intelligence.

      Uber has built a straightforward scheduling and billing app for taxis that takes some input from existing GPS/Mapping systems. That's it. Plus being good at marketing hype and having established themselves as a brand name. They've done nothing beyond that than make a bunch of noise and poach some Google driving robot technology.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:NASA Should Perhaps? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      The FAA are bureaucrats. No disrespect intended, but they manage. NASA, on the other hand has always been at the forefront of atmospheric flight.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  6. Can you use an acronym in an acronym? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    researching prototype technologies for a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system

    Can you use an acronym as one of the "words" in another acronym like that? Seems sketchy.

    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:Can you use an acronym in an acronym? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You can have recursive acronyms, so why not?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Of course they aren't by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Because they can't. This does not amount to besmirching NASA - simply, the technology is not there. Sure, we do have the technology to do what are essentially helicopters, but they will remain noisy, inefficient, expensive and limited. Flying cars, like in Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, Back to the Future, etc. remain as firmly in the realm of Sci-Fi today as when they were posited.

  8. But its rocket/turbine science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The GP is a good candidate to work on flying cars :)

  9. A spokesthing for Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > A spokesthing for Uber told The Register

    When they used to say foreigners were taking our jobs, I thought they meant Indians, not Martians!

  10. Liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Uber is run by liars, fraudsters and rapist. No one should believe or take seriously anything they say.