Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airbus Steps Up Push for Flying Taxis, On-Demand Helicopters (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the betting-on-the-future dept.

The future of transportation may not be on the roads but the skies. That might not be a reality quite yet but Airbus is taking it seriously. The company is settng up a division for flying cars and on-demand taxis. From a report: Airbus SE is creating a division to oversee futuristic transport options such as flying taxis and on-demand helicopters in a sign the European planemaker is going on the offensive against tech providers and startups encroaching in the market. The manufacturer named company veteran Eduardo Dominguez Puerta, 40, on Monday to head its newly formed Urban Air Mobility unit. Puerta helped start the firm's innovation center in Silicon Valley, where he served as chief operating officer. Projects that will be overseen by the division include an autonomous flying cab prototype called CityAirbus, an electric flying taxi named Vahana and Voom, billed by Airbus as a premier on-demand helicopter booking platform. Ride-hailing app creator Uber Technologies and startup Kitty Hawk, backed by Google's co-founder Larry Page, are also working to develop airborne taxis.

132 comments

  1. What flying cars? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 0, Troll

    Such things do not exist. We have had helicopters for a few decades now, some ridiculous contraptions with folding wings, and jetpacks. But, not flying cars. We do not have the technology for that, and we are not likely to have it any time soon. So please stop pushing this flying cars nonsense.

    1. Re:What flying cars? by The+Fat+Bastard · · Score: 1

      Speaking of "some ridiculous contraptions with folding wings", Boeing has the 777X with retractable wing tips.

    2. Re:What flying cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rapid advancements in AI will quickly enable this technology in the very near future. And the Singularity.

    3. Re:What flying cars? by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Such things do not exist. We have had helicopters for a few decades now, some ridiculous contraptions with folding wings, and jetpacks. But, not flying cars."

      From TFS, "The future of transportation may not be on the roads but the skies. That might not be a reality quite yet but Airbus is taking it seriously."

      That's been covered already.

      "We do not have the technology for that, and we are not likely to have it any time soon. So please stop pushing this flying cars nonsense."

      The Harrier Jump Jet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) has been around for over half a century. The technology for flying cars is well within reach. The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership of such vehicles and figuring out a way to make mass aerial transit not the massive hazard it potentially is.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:What flying cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTB: Falling Projectile Proof Home and Estate

    5. Re:What flying cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Harrier Jump Jet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) has been around for over half a century."

      It is also not a car.

      " The technology for flying cars is well within reach."

      The technology to armor nearby people, cars,and houses against 300 mile per hour flying debris, however....

      " The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership"

      https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?make=CESSNA&model_group=CESSNA+172+SERIES&s-type=aircraft

    6. Re:What flying cars? by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are flying cars -- Google Terrafugia.for one example.

      Problem is that they are expensive, require a pilots license, aren't energy efficient. They look to be mediocre aircraft and worse cars. But the prototype Terrafugia flies and drives well enough for a lot of folks to believe they will actually ship vehicles within perhaps 18 months. There are other projects, some at least somewhat credible.

      It's also true that those with a money can take helicopter taxi services to a few airports -- e.g $99 for Manhattan to JFK (vs less than $10 by rail).

      Personally, I suspect that the need for dedicated helipads, dubious fuel economy, questionable safety, need for Air Traffic Control on a scale many orders of magnitude greater than any ever implemented, etc are likely to keep "flying cars" pretty much a thing of the future for many decades or, quite likely, centuries.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    7. Re:What flying cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, certainly AI will be a big part of it, but AI is nothing without the pure magic of blockchain!

    8. Re:What flying cars? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Flying cars will always be just for the rich, because if they ever became popular most of the advantages would go away. Air traffic can't be nearly as dense as surface traffic.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:What flying cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a commercial helicopter pilot, I think it's pretty funny that so many people think flying cars don't exist...
      The helicopter I fly is an AS350-B3 Eurocopter:
      It weighs about the same as a typical sedan or small minivan.
      It carries just as many people, has about the same range (~400 miles for the AS350, vs ~450 miles for a Honda Odyssey)
      It handles just like a car, just with more degrees of freedom.
      It has power steering, cruise control, a computer-controlled engine, headlights, windshield wipers, seatbelts, etc.
      I typically park it in a parking space just like a car, and gas it up just like one, too - same little pump with the usual credit card reader and hose+handle thingy. There's also a "garage" we keep it in.
      I had to take a written and practical "Driving test" through the FAA instead of the DMV. While the process was considerably more complex, it generally felt about the same based on my age and maturity at the time.
      There's all the usual driving drama, just in 3D: Roadrage, slow drivers, traffic jams, diversions due to events and accidents, unruly passengers, the occasional blown AC or electrical problem with a light. I listen to the radio or spotify when I'm not busy. Then there's insurance and registration, an inspection, oil changes, arguments with my local mechanic, and on and on.

      I don't know what else to say besides "the thing is absolutely a flying car" - I know there's this tendency to fixate on the fact that it doesn't have wheels and can't go on the roads that non-flying cars typically do, but that's the best possible way to do it - when you have a minor fender bender in a parking lot, it might be a $750 buff-out repair. In a helicopter, the same thing is likely to cost around 100X more. You also wouldn't want bipolar alcoholic teenagers flying cars over your house at 2am every Saturday.

      These "Flying Taxis" actually make a lot of sense, too: Modern digital automation is far more reliable than pilots for repetitive closed-loop missions.

    10. Re:What flying cars? by Junta · · Score: 2

      I would say one key difference in practice is tolerance of poor maintenance.

      In a car with poor maintenance and upkeep, you end up on the side of the road.

      In an aircraft with poor maintenance, you die.

      Of course this is not a common criteria, for flying cars people generally think about it being street legal and able to fly/land wherever. By that criteria, the helicopter can't do a grocery trip, at least not by itself, the last mile would have to be some other vehicle.

      Guess the short of it is multi-motor, multi-rotor aircraft are going to be needed for the common slack user to be safer, and for it to tolerate moter/rotor failures and compensate.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    11. Re:What flying cars? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That and $10/minute operating costs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:What flying cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helicopters are the almost the best flying cars we can get on this planet. On a planet with lower gravity and a denser atmosphere we could get something that more closely approximates a flying car.

      There are two ways of making things fly - make them lighter than air, or generate thrust. To generate thrust you either need to move a large mass of fluid at low velocity (helicopters and aircraft) or a small mass of fluid at high velocity (rockets). The problem here is downwash and rotor size. With denser air and lower gravity we could use smaller rotors, moving less air at lower speed. On Earth for efficient hover you want low disk loading, but this translates to huge rotors.

      Oh, and by the way - you could totally do a grocery trip by a helicopter, but you want your local store to have a unobstructed landing zone, which on most suburban parking lots could be done if you remove lamp posts and trees.

    13. Re:What flying cars? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      As a commercial helicopter pilot, I think it's pretty funny that so many people think flying cars don't exist... The helicopter I fly is an AS350-B3 Eurocopter:

      There, you said it yourself: it's a helicopter, not a flying car. You are of course free to call it a flying car, but that will not change what it really is.

    14. Re:What flying cars? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      There are flying cars

      There are roadable planes; a "flying car" will look more like a submarine.

  2. Re:Air travel is heavily regulated for a reason. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    You can already do that with small propeller airplanes. Getting a licence is not that hard for a motivated terrorist. And ultralights (which nowadays are pretty similar to "real" propeller aircraft) are even easier.

  3. To separate fools from their money by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >> Airbus SE is creating a division to oversee futuristic transport options...against tech providers and startups encroaching in the market...Silicon Valley

    In other words, Airbus is hoping to part a few "venture capitalists" and "angel investors" from their liquid funds. Not a bad idea, and probably morality-neutral since the same folks would probably otherwise "invest" their money in flying cars from firms that don't actually build flying things.

  4. Needs special conditions to work... by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    First of all, forget "flying cars" and especially "autonomous" ones - not going to happen for decades if ever.
    Helicopter "Uber", yes, they exist, but it requires special conditions....
    https://phys.org/news/2017-07-...
    "The city, which sits in a state of the same name whose population exceeds 45 million, has the biggest fleet of helicopters in the world...700 choppers, or nearly a third of Brazil's total number, are located there, alongside 528 helipads.

    You would NOT get away with this today in New York, London or Paris...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Needs special conditions to work... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      not going to happen for decades if ever.

      That sounds suspiciously like what was being said about desktop ram, oh, 40 years back.

      Back when no-one would ever need more than 640K....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Needs special conditions to work... by Junta · · Score: 1

      Of course, 70 years back we had a lot of assumptions and seemingly viable concepts around 'flying cars', so there's a much longer tradition of optimism exceeding reality in the case of aviation.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Needs special conditions to work... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When people mock you for saying 'computer power grew exponentially, so can anything else' remember this post. You deserve the mocking.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Needs special conditions to work... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      The difference is, practical air transportation like this would require a whole new kind of propulsion system, because all the existing ones have one fundamental limitation or another that make them unsuited for dense, urban environments. Noise, wind, safety, takeoff distance. It's more like the people who said "Well we have cell phones and the internet now, strong AI must be right around the corner!" No, because that too requires a fundamental change in architecture that we have no idea how to even go about beginning to design. The best that can be hoped for is something practical in rural areas with lots of land, that could maybe connect to a terminal with other transit into the city for air vehicles... like airports and heliports, just incremental progress like RAM.

    5. Re:Needs special conditions to work... by PPH · · Score: 1

      First of all, forget "flying cars" and especially "autonomous" ones - not going to happen for decades if ever.

      Actually, the autonomous operation mode solves one significant problem slowing/stopping flying cars: Can't trust the average moron to operate one without killing a bunch of people. AI removes the incompetent, untrained operator from the loop.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Needs special conditions to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://phys.org/news/2017-07-...
      "The city, which sits in a state of the same name whose population exceeds 45 million, has the biggest fleet of helicopters in the world...700 choppers, or nearly a third of Brazil's total number, are located there, alongside 528 helipads.

      You would NOT get away with this today in New York, London or Paris...

      São Paulo is my town, and it is not tropical, as the article says. It has a humid subtropical climate and is very comfortable, climate wise. It's cooler than most southern USA cities.

      It's winter now and it is a cool 11 degress celsius as I type. Burn in your unbearable summer, bitches.

  5. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already been done in South America with Voom and Cabify.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQDUFWkUTdc

  6. Re:Air travel is heavily regulated for a reason. by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    Yep, security is going to be a serious concern. The big problem is that a "flying car" can start its mission as a car and very likely take to the air far closer to potential targets than a conventional aircraft would be allowed to fly.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  7. what about the noise??? by acdc_rules · · Score: 2

    There's no way physics is going to be able to solve this problem. I was woken up this morning by a helicopter flying around. It was very irritating and not like an airplane. The stupid thing was hovering. They can't even solve the problem of noisy drones.

    1. Re:what about the noise??? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Solution: dirigible. Nice and quite.

      Realistically speaking, an array of more numerous, yet smaller rotors may alleviate the noise and provide redundancy. This is one of the few new things that is easily done now that wasn't feasible years ago in aviation (computer assistance to translate human input into how to individually control the rotors).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:what about the noise??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nice and quite."

      Quite what? Quite slow? Quite old? Quite WHAT!??

    3. Re:what about the noise??? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Trebuchet and parachute can at least work in a light wind.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. The article doesn't mention flying cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please stop pushing this flying cars nonsense

    Yes, we should not talk about or try to solve any problem that OneHundredAndTen thinks is nonsense.

    1. Re:The article doesn't mention flying cars by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Having reading difficulties there? The nonsense is continuing to hang the flying car tag on contraptions that are essentially helicopters or little airplanes with folding wings. Flying cars like in, say, Blade Runner, Back to the Future or The Fifth Element? Forget it. Like many have already explained, we do not have the technology, and we are not going to have it any time soon. Chances are that, in 50 years time, such flying cars will still be in the realm of science-fiction. And people will still be coming up with rather ridiculous vehicles, that will mostly get nowhere, and attempt to push them as flying cars. By all means, we should attempt to solve the associated problems. What we shouldn't do is pretend that we have already solved them.

  9. No we will not have a flying car by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Harrier Jump Jet has been around for over half a century. The technology for flying cars is well within reach

    Sigh... I don't know if you are trolling or stupid. We do not have any technology (nor any reasonably likely near term technology) for power sources with sufficient power density (power to weight) to enable a usable flying car. If you think any part of that sentence is wrong then you do not adequately understand physics enough to be a part of this conversation.

    The Harrier jet in no way shape or form resembles a flying car nor is the technology in a Harrier jet scalable down to enable one. Do you have any idea how big one of these things is? How much fuel it consumes? Do you comprehend how much maintenance there is for such a device? How much infrastructure is required to maintain one? Where do you plan to land it aside from an airport? Why not save money and just buy/rent a plane and a car both of which can do more and cost less? This is not technology that can be scaled down to the size of a family sedan even if we ignore the legion of other problems. Your argument is as absurd as saying we're going to have a moon colony soon because we've managed to have a few men walk there.

    The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership of such vehicles and figuring out a way to make mass aerial transit not the massive hazard it potentially is.

    Ok you are actually retarded if you think it's that simple. Here are just a few of the showstopper problems preventing flying cars. This list isn't even close to complete but every item on it is a showstopper.
    1) No power source with adequate power to weight ratio nor any prospect of one
    2) No adequately robust navigation/piloting system for aerial transit by non-pilots
    3) Very few people are adequately trained pilots
    4) No infrastructure for takeoff/landing anywhere except existing airports
    5) It's cheaper to have a plane and a car than one that does both
    6) A purpose built plane or car will outperform a vehicle that does both
    7) No obvious economic problem solved by a flying car
    8) Any vehicle light enough to get off the ground is too fragile to endure traveling on the ground
    9) Enormous and unresolved liability issues in the event of accidents
    10) Cost of fuel will be prohibitive for anyone but the richest of individuals
    11) Cost of maintenance will be prohibitive

    1. Re:No we will not have a flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sigh... I don't know if you are trolling or stupid. We do not have any technology (nor any reasonably likely near term technology) for power sources with sufficient power density (power to weight) to enable a usable flying car.

      First, the article doesn't even mention "flying cars". Besides which, every pedant on Slashdot wants to interpret the word "car" in the most inflexible way possible, where "car = automobile". Think instead "smallish simple to operate vehicle for transporting a small number of humans".

      you do not adequately understand physics enough to be a part of this conversation

      Maybe Airbus understands a little about physics and thinks the general ideas talked about in the Bloomberg article are worth researching.

    2. Re:No we will not have a flying car by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Sigh... I don't know if you are trolling or stupid."

      That's nice, after reading your post I know for certain that you're an asshole.

      "1) No power source with adequate power to weight ratio nor any prospect of one"

      This is your only valid point. I absently didn't think about fuel when I made my post.

      See above for what I think of people who resort to childish name calling because some one made a mistake.

      "2) No adequately robust navigation/piloting system for aerial transit by non-pilots"

      I covered this here "and figuring out a way to make mass aerial transit not the massive hazard it potentially is."

      "3) Very few people are adequately trained pilots"

      Redundant, Same as above.

      "4) No infrastructure for takeoff/landing anywhere except existing airports"

      I used the Harrier as an example as it can take off and land vertically.

      "5) It's cheaper to have a plane and a car than one that does both"

      I covered that here. "The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership of such vehicles"

      "6) A purpose built plane or car will outperform a vehicle that does both"

      So? A car that flies doesn't need to outperform a regular car or plane to be massively useful.

      "7) No obvious economic problem solved by a flying car"

      Roads cost money. Traffic costs money.

      "8) Any vehicle light enough to get off the ground is too fragile to endure traveling on the ground"

      I don't think you are aware of how much planes weigh. A fully loaded Cessna weighs 2,550 lb which is the weight of a small car and that's not a heavy plane by any standards.

      "9) Enormous and unresolved liability issues in the event of accidents"

      "10) Cost of fuel will be prohibitive for anyone but the richest of individuals"

      So there's "no power source" (your point 1) but the power source is too expensive?

      "11) Cost of maintenance will be prohibitive"

      Maintenance isn't that high on small planes.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:No we will not have a flying car by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So, you ARE stupid and an asshole. Confirmed. Wrong on every single point. That's amazing.

      You should talk to anybody who maintains a private pilot license. Sure it isn't that high compared to a VTOL military aircraft, but 10k$us/year to fly enough hours to maintain proficiency.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:No we will not have a flying car by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      That's what freaking computers are for. That's the only way it would work in Jetsons-crowded skies anyway. Punch in a destination and sit back.

      I'm waiting for large drone things.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:No we will not have a flying car by nasch · · Score: 1

      If you could make a jet pack (with parachute backup) for maybe $10,000 or less, that could be successful. It dodges pretty much all your showstoppers except maybe energy density. If you can only fly for 5 minutes before running out of fuel that would be a problem. Noise could be another issue. But consider someone with the money to own a fairly nice motorcycle. How much more fun would it be to commute via jet pack? Going to work or anywhere would be an absolute joy.

    6. Re:No we will not have a flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do not have any technology (nor any reasonably likely near term technology) for power sources with sufficient power density (power to weight)

      *In theory* a flying car requires ~10 kJ to lift 1m off the ground. Potential energy = mgh, assuming 1000kg car, g = ~10 m/s^2, h = 1m, which is about what a 20 horsepower engine will put out in one second. Interestingly, they used to have a demonstration of this at the Science Museum in Minnesota: they ran compressed air into a stream underneath a car crushed into a cube and visitors could move the entire 1000kg car - slowly, but relatively easily - by simply pushing or pulling on the handles attached to the car as it floated a fraction of a centimeter off the display surface. Given that it was a fraction of a centimeter it was probably a 2-5 HP compressor that was attached to it.

      Getting it to *stay* off the ground is another matter, though, and there are no signs of anti-gravity devices anywhere on the horizon, so pragmatically I will agree with the rest of your post.

    7. Re:No we will not have a flying car by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      1) No power source with adequate power to weight ratio nor any prospect of one

      The largest existing helicopters (hydrocarbon-based, presumably) can lift ten Teslas stacked on top of one another. Anything that can be done with hydrocarbons can be done for a shorter period of time with batteries, and when it comes to a flying car, you don't need to be always in the air for the design to be useful. Being able to lift off and fly for fifteen minutes over the worst section of freeway can save you an hour of driving.

      It's really not the power-to-weight ratio that's the problem, as I understand it, but rather the requirement that the thing not take up more space than a car while driving, which makes the blade length too small, thus requiring speeds that are infeasible and amounts of power that are infeasible. That's the problem that needs to be solved.

      2) No adequately robust navigation/piloting system for aerial transit by non-pilots

      Easy. Require that cars travel only over existing roads, and not be in the air near airports. Then, all you need is a lane keeping system (which is trivial at this point) and cameras on the bottom for finding a spot to drop back onto the road (also not so hard).

      3) Very few people are adequately trained pilots

      See #2.

      4) No infrastructure for takeoff/landing anywhere except existing airports

      See #2.

      5) It's cheaper to have a plane and a car than one that does both

      This is not a reason that it isn't possible. Also, cars and planes serve different purposes, with the former being for point-to-point travel locally, and the latter being for long-range travel. A flying car serves the same purpose as a car. Thus, a plane plus a car is still not as useful as a flying car, unless your goal is long-range travel.

      6) A purpose built plane or car will outperform a vehicle that does both

      Again, not a reason that it isn't possible.

      7) No obvious economic problem solved by a flying car

      You obviously haven't driven in the Bay Area or Los Angeles.

      8) Any vehicle light enough to get off the ground is too fragile to endure traveling on the ground

      Again, there are helicopters that can lift twenty tons, so that's not really a safe assumption.

      9) Enormous and unresolved liability issues in the event of accidents

      That's potentially a serious problem. However, that could be reduced dramatically by requiring that they fly only over roadways and by providing some sort of mandatory communication system such that if one of them fails, the cars on the surface below it slam on their brakes so that it crashes onto an empty section of pavement.

      10) Cost of fuel will be prohibitive for anyone but the richest of individuals

      That's really the same as #1. Solve the problem of inadequate sweep somehow, and you've largely solved the cost of energy, too.

      11) Cost of maintenance will be prohibitive

      Not necessarily. It depends on the design. A sufficiently advanced quadcopter (or more) with computer-controlled single-blade-failure tolerance might not be that expensive maintenance-wise. The more redundancy you have, the more failure tolerance you have, and the less critical it will be to do the continuous maintenance required by traditional helicopters and (to a lesser extent) airplanes.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re: No we will not have a flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We do not have any technology (nor any reasonably likely near term technology) for power sources with sufficient power density (power to weight) to enable a usable flying car."

      Of course we do, just look at most small utility helicopters.

  10. Electric Planes by Jodka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It looks like small short-range electric and hybrid fixed-wing aircraft will be the vanguard of the coming revolution in autonomous electric aircraft. Teslarati has a good rundown of the players in that space. (IMHO the all-electric Eviation prototype is beautiful.)

    The energy density of lithium cells is terrible compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but the simplicity, reliability and lower operating cost of an electric motor and batteries over a combustion engine is the driver. They might never compete with turbojets for long-distance flights, but they can still capture a large proportion of the market by dominating shorter range commutes.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Electric Planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " They might never compete with turbojets for long-distance flights,"

      Turbofans, actually.

    2. Re:Electric Planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great links, thanks.

    3. Re:Electric Planes by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      These are really just electric airplanes, not flying cars or anything similarly revolutionary. Not that the term "flying car" is well defined, but as most people understand it a flying car needs to be able to drive on ordinary roads, and it needs to be able to take off and land without needing an airport. If you have to get in an ordinary car to drive to the place where your "flying taxi" picks you up, and then when it drops you off you need to get in another car to drive to your destination, you might as well just drive the whole way.

      Eventually batteries may get to the point where electric airplanes make sense, at least for short flights. And maybe that will save some fuel and help airlines make more money, but it won't revolutionize how people get around. I just don't see air travel becoming practical for traveling short distances. Physics is against it. The energy needed is too high, and ground transport can be almost as fast.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  11. Won't actually happen by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Just like automakers they're getting a foot in the door ahead of their competition without any real expectations of actually producing anything.

  12. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    https://ua-video.com/c/UC8oH0oDwWyTBwVdC0kKkp3w#

    Weird, it's still up. Guess your impotent rage stopped short of achieving anything, except getting my good account banned for some reason.

  13. Read the thread before responding by sjbe · · Score: 0

    First, the article doesn't even mention "flying cars".

    No but some of the more ridiculous responses did mention flying cars. Flying cars are a stupid idea that needs to be stomped out. Please do try to keep up.

    Besides which, every pedant on Slashdot wants to interpret the word "car" in the most inflexible way possible, where "car = automobile". Think instead "smallish simple to operate vehicle for transporting a small number of humans".

    Nice attempt to move the goalposts. Define the word "car" to be vague enough to mean whatever idiotic thing you want it to mean. By that logic the a Soyuz capsule is a "flying car". A flying car is a simple thing enough idea. It is vehicle that can both A) fly and B) drive legally on existing roads. Technically vehicles devices do actually exist but they are utterly useless for any reasonably practical purpose and are economic boondoggles.

    Maybe Airbus understands a little about physics and thinks the general ideas talked about in the Bloomberg article are worth researching.

    Maybe you should read the thread before jumping in without understanding the context of a post. Airbus certainly does understand physics. That doesn't mean certain slashdot readers share that ability.

  14. Premier on-demand helicopter booking platform ... by remoteshell · · Score: 1

    As opposed to the cheap, discount helicopter booking platforms.

    --
    Just the washing instructions on life's rich tapestry
  15. Just stop by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's nice, after reading your post I know for certain that you're an asshole.

    Grow up. If you post something that stupid and easily disproved be prepared to take some heat for it. Honestly I still don't know if you are an idiot or a troll so I'm not going to respond after this.

    This is your only valid point. I absently didn't think about fuel when I made my post.

    If you think that is the only valid point then you don't understand what you are talking about.

    I covered that here. "The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership of such vehicles"

    That claim is preposterously wrong. We don't have the technology nor any plausible means to develop such technology within our lifetime. The physics doesn't work and the economics of it don't work. Unless you have a design for Tony Stark's arc reactor that you are hiding you aren't going to see a flying car any time soon.

    I used the Harrier as an example as it can take off and land vertically.

    And it was a stupid example. Harrier VTOL technology cannot practically be used elsewhere. It's akin to saying we should start transporting cargo via scaled down Saturn V rockets instead of using cargo ships. If it were economically practical to scale down for civilian use it would have been already.

    Roads cost money. Traffic costs money.

    The roads already exist and so does the infrastructure to handle them. Whether you understand it or not you are suggesting ripping out a huge portion of that for no apparent economic benefit. If you can actually develop a practical flying car then you can argue with me about the economics of overhauling our entire road system.

    I don't think you are aware of how much planes weigh. A fully loaded Cessna weighs 2,550 lb which is the weight of a small car and that's not a heavy plane by any standards.

    Seriously, just stop. It's not how much the vehicle weighs. It's how much the vehicle can carry safely and how expensive it is to carry it. A fully loaded Cessna 172 has enough power to get itself aloft along with typically around 600-700lbs of cargo and/or passengers. You can put it over the weight limit with as little as three passengers and a full tank of gas in some circumstances. Even the most basic automobile sold today can safely handle more weight than that and it doesn't have to land at an airport to do it. Nor does a car have to carry around heavy and impractical wings while driving. What magical technology are you imagining that will allow you to make the vehicle robust enough to drive on a road while still remaining airworthy without using up the entire weight budget?

    Maintenance isn't that high on small planes.

    HAHAHAHA... You haven't ever actually owned a small plane have you? They are stupidly expensive to maintain even for a little two seat Cessna. It's not unusal for them to cost hundreds of dollars per operating hour not including the cost of the vehicle itself. Something that would be a practical flying car would cost considerably more unless you invoke science fiction level advances in our technology.

    1. Re:Just stop by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Grow up. If you post something that stupid and easily disproved be prepared to take some heat for it. Honestly I still don't know if you are an idiot or a troll so I'm not going to respond after this."

      Hahaha. I love being trolled by some one who feels so righteous in regards to what they are doing. "Address some one civilly!? It's my God given right to be a rude asshole!".

      "Grow up", man that makes me laugh. When has childish name calling ever been a virtue of adulthood?

      The rest of your posts seem to engage in some bizarre denial of reality. The physics of a flying car are impossible when we've had working VTOL for half a century? "Roads already exist" Oh, thanks for that. I suppose we never have to widen roads? Repair roads and bridges? Way to ignore the costs of traffic I mention. Way to ignore that the vast majority of your 11 point list is mostly made up of redundant points and things I covered in my original post when they aren't directly contradicting each other.

      Sorry but the only major hurdle to a flying car that I didn't mention in my original post is a power source

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  16. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mistake was assuming that creimer would only send a DMCA takedown notice for copyright infringement to the Russian website.

  17. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So cute that you think every AC is creimer.

  18. WTF is with "on-demand taxis"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please do tell if taxis are normally _not_ on-demand.

  19. Do they not have a Z dimension where you live? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    nt

  20. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet you think every AC is FCLM, Tardolardo?

  21. I am not a lawyer but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know that every single bad faith use of the DMCA can be litigated for ( I think ) the next 3 years. This might not concern you because you've seen the DMCA getting abused all the time but what you don't know is that people are actually starting to litigate bad-faith DMCA claims so now that the it's clear how to proceed in such cases you'll start to sell off all of your silver. Since your offenses are totally blatant and there are numerous, archived, confessions to your crime.... maybe you should pay your credit card bills before pursuing other investments as nearly any real financial adviser would tell you.

    https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/08/invest-reduce-debt.asp
    https://www.magnifymoney.com/blog/pay-down-my-debt/invest-pay-credit-card-debt1047256529/

    https://calcxml.com/calculators/pay-off-debt-or-invest

    Hurry TardChris it's not too late!!!

    1. Re:I am not a lawyer but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is so stupid that it t makes Trump's attorney from a fifth-rate law school look intelligent in comparison.

    2. Re:I am not a lawyer but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but he still fits in size 32 jeans, Tardolardo.

  22. Re:Air travel is heavily regulated for a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So can vehicle-mounted surface-to-surface missiles, and that's not currently a significant concern in most of the civilized world.

  23. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is advocating copyright infringement? Do you know what "advocating" means?

  24. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I forego them all for my transporter, powered by Duplex, or was it Alexa?. Everyone will be using them in five years, 20th century transportation is sooo about to get its ass dusrupted. My holodeck, and universal translator, too. Five. Years. /s

  25. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That isn't "advocating" you lummox. And I notice the Russian site is still up, so how's that DMCA going?

  26. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I'm sure when you're cracking open dollar-store tins of catfood on Homeless Alley for your retirement, that'll give you some comfort.

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FCLM. Please check your email. Check your spam folder. I'm the guy with the funny email address.

  29. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creimer is full of shit. Again.

  30. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Check again.

  31. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, just checked:

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    A +5 comment? Not bad for a neutered FCLM!

    How's your karma these days?

  32. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No promises, you fat delusional fuck!

  33. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's OK, FCLM has the same strategy, the latest one is Tardeau_Lardeau.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH NO! How diabolical!
    Well I'll just have to spend the rest of the day tracking down your latest sockpuppet!
    It'll probably take as long as it took you to tally up all of FCLM's 5+ posts.

  36. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does FCLM have any +5 comments? They whole point of creimer threads was to keep them low-moderation so most people on Slashdot wouldn't have to see Chris at all, unless they specifically look for them.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when you thought you got FCLM banned but really you got banned again?
    Fuck man that was hilarious

  40. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long will creimer take to "accumulate" 9000 "karma points" again? Remember when you thought karma was like gold? You thought you could be as annoying as a beehive in an asshole?

    And then you quickly got to -1 and banned?

    Will creimer's thick skull and small brain be able to learn from this?

    The past suggests that creimer is unable to learn.

  41. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "20 years"

    LOL given the size of your chins, you're not making it another 20 months, you lummox.

    "Give it rest!"

    OK Kamarad Keshyu, I give rest.

  42. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as you've changed and no longer behave like an unsupervised eight year old, that's all we ask!

  43. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TardChris got another 5+ comment. I'm surprised no one has caught on to his new account. Maybe TardChris will hit 9000+ in 20 months.

    After all this time you haven't learned:
    1. If we can't tell who you are because you finally became a productive poster then who cares what you're doing?
    2. You don't get 9000 karma genius you get like 26 karma or something like that, well under 50 karma points, and then you max out, nowhere to go but down unless you're sustaining good enough behavior to compensate for occasional downmod. I checked it in slashdot's open source fork, go look for yourself and give up this pointless grift for karma. It's annoying as fuck to see people with maxed out karma making obvious karma whore posts.

    The past suggests that TardChris is unable to learn.

    Truly!!! I don't know how many times people are going to have to spell this shit out for him! Lordy!

    TardChris wrote more comments in the last 18 months than TardChris has in the last 20 years. Give it rest!

    Highly improbable since you're limited to only a few posts a day and you were IP banned from anonymous posting for a good while. Like it matters anyhow. You get modded down before the threads lock so nobody except for your trolls will ever see whatever you're trying to drive traffic to. So much for the long tail.
       

  44. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard to believe you got +5 comments. (Not 5+, you lummox.). I search every new story for +5 rated comments and when I smell your stale crotch odor I'll mod you down, and revive my army.

  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does FCLM owe you anything on the weekend? He was having fun with his girlfriend as the weather was very nice.

    It's amazing how quickly you shift goalposts whenever the conversation doesn't go your way. From non-existent copyright infringement (Atari has been notified about your use of the word ATARI in your channel, we'll see how that goes), to non-existent banning of my accounts, to non-existent persecution from the "same person" (every AC is FCLM, Chris?)??

    When none of those things mean anything, then suddenly the focus is whether or not we posted on the weekend?

    CROFL.

  48. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every AC is FCLM, Chris?

    How is that comment "about" copyright infringement, Chris? Is every link in Slashdot that goes to a site you don't like "copyright infringement"? Why didn't you get the UA-Video site taken down? Because you can't? CROFLOLLER!!!

    "Why did the anti-creimer brigrade go silent for 5+ days?"

    Nice crammar. It "went silent" because you did too.

    "Inquiring minds want to know..."

    Yup, go tell it to Atari when they contact you.... LOLCROFLOLLERLOL!!!

  49. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no. Atari is a French holding company that has an excellent legal department. Nice misdirection, though.

    "You think that it was coincidental that someone came across a Russian website that infringed on creimer's copyrights"

    Yes, completely. I was searching google and found that site by complete coincidence. Funny how that works, huh?

    "Slashdot management haven't forgotten the Russian DMCA scandal from last year."

    Yeah. The "scandal". That involved no one of any importance whatsoever. Is there no limit to your ego puffery, Chris?

  50. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's should be an interesting conversation. "

    Oh completely anonymous and unknown person who has the same crammar as Chris, tell us how interesting the conversation will be!

    " Especially since Atari Reimer was creimer's online nickname before, during and after he worked at Atari "

    I'm sure that's an excellent defense against trademark infringement. Atari must protect their trademark or risk losing it. That's just the way it works for content creators. You know, the ones that create actual content.

    " If creimer isn't using the Atari logo and doesn't represent himself as Atari,"

    "cdreimer" didn't represent himself as creimer either... hmmm!! We'll see how it goes, n'est ce pas?? Brush up on your French!!

  51. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again with the misdirection when you have nothing pertinent to add.

    "he got another +5+ comment "

    A +5+ comment, huh???

  52. (R) Retarded Trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atari was supposed to sound japanese back when that was synonymous with the cutting edge.
    I'm not sure how the fuck TardChris(R) worked there and yes somehow he actually thought they were japanese.

    (R) Retarded Trademark

  53. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I just got a reply from Atari. They are asking what I'm talking about and could I provide a link. What should I do now?

  54. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I just got a reply from Atari. They are asking what I'm talking about and could I provide a link. What should I do now?

    Give them the URL for the Russian website. The French can tell the Russians to fuck off.

  55. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? They aren't the ones infringing on the trademark of ATARI in all capital letters and talking about video games. With the time difference, give it a few days to make its way through the french bureaucracy.

    Besides, who do you go after? The one advocating for trademark infringement, or a website using publicly available data?

  56. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, YouTube is very permissive when it comes to trademark infringement. I'm sure they'll just ignore Atari's counsel.

  57. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Let's say Atari file claims against the videos. "

    Let's. We're just talking here. You're the one advocating trademark infringement, I'm the one protecting valuable trademarks.

    "and gets picked up as a lead item on The Philip DeFranco Show"

    No wonder you're like a child with the garbage you watch. And I see that your monstrous ego is as inflated as ever. I'm sure the travails of a channel with 7 views per video will make FRONT PAGE NEWS! READ ALL ABOUT IT! ELEPHANT BOY HAS TO REPOST VIDEOS!!

  58. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not willing to mention creimer in your comment, whom are you trolling? Other creimertards?

  59. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I forgot how much you look like a Yeti! It's cute how you think every AC is FCLM!

  60. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "that FCLM is blathering idiot now."

    is blathering idiot? Chris, once again your crammar shows your emotional state: every time I show how stupid you are your writing falls apart!

  61. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL Lardchris sure is a fat goon!