Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Wants To Bring Flying Cars To Its Skies (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the plain-and-simple dept.

Japan is making a push to develop flying cars, enlisting companies including Uber and Boeing in a government-led group to bring airborne vehicles to the country in the next decade. From a report: The group will initially comprise 21 businesses and organizations, including Airbus, NEC, a Toyota Motor-backed startup called Cartivator, ANA, Japan Airlines, and Yamato, according to a statement Friday from the trade ministry in Tokyo. Delegates will gather Aug. 29 to help chart a road map this year, it said. "The Japanese government will provide appropriate support to help realize the concept of flying cars, such as creation of acceptable rules," the ministry said. Flying cars that can zoom over congested roads are closer to reality than many people think. Startups around the world are pursuing small aircraft, which were until recently only in the realm of science fiction. With Japanese companies already trailing their global peers in electric vehicles and self-driving cars, the government is showing urgency on the aircraft technology, stepping in to facilitate legislation and infrastructure to help gain leadership.

52 comments

  1. *Points at Japan* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hideki!

    1. Re: *Points at Japan* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will japan actually produce?

      Anime mecha cars dressed up as prepubescent girls with big eyes, but in reality they are a 10,000 year old demon dragon spirit

    2. Re:*Points at Japan* by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Wow, talk about Slashdot flashbacks.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: *Points at Japan* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Points at Anonymous Coward*
      Hideki!

      *Points at wall*
      Hideki!

      *Points at microwave oven*
      Hideki!

    4. Re: *Points at Japan* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chi?

  2. acceptable rules = faa code audit levels for softw by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    acceptable rules = faa code audit levels for software or do you want windows for airplanes with BSOD?

  3. Flying cars already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're called ultralights. They cost less than a car and get about the same gas milage. Carrying capacity may be somewhat less than a car. They need runways to take off and land, and they lack air conditioning except for the constant breeze as they fly through the air.

    1. Re:Flying cars already exist by skoskav · · Score: 1

      I disagree. If you're restricted to runways then it's not usable as a car.

    2. Re:Flying cars already exist by taustin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Glenn Curtiss built the first flying car over a hundred years ago. There have been many others since.

      There has never been a technical obstacle to flying cars. The obstacles are

      1) Cost, since airplanes must be built to much higher safety and reliability standards because when they break down, you don't pull over to the shoulder to wait for a tow truck so much as fall out of the sky and explode.

      2) To have flying cars, you have to have pilots, and a pilot's license is much more demanding to get, and needs to be, because again, if something goes wrong, you don't pull over to the shoulder to wait for a tow truck so much as fall out of the sky and explode.

      3) Traffic control in three dimensions rather than two is at least an order of magnitude more complicated.

      Yeah, in theory, self piloting flying cars will eliminate 2 and 3 (while making 1 that much worse), but the technology doesn't exist and no one alive today will live long enough to see it. We can't build a ground car that can drive itself in the rain, at night, on an unfamiliar road, past a construction crew. Again, adding a third dimension adds an order of magnitude more complication. To both driving the thing and traffic control.

      And right now, traffic control is still run by human judgement, with a few thousand planes in the air at any given time. Increase the number of vehicles by three orders of magnitude, with a minimum of a thousand feet required between them at all times, and remember, most of them will be piloted by someone shaving their armpits and eating breakfast at the same time, and you have a good pitch for a sit-com, or a prospectus with which to fleece investors, but not something we'll see any time soon.

    3. Re: Flying cars already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying is alot easier then driving over terrain... Sorry you're wrong lol

    4. Re: Flying cars already exist by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      Oh damn,,, just damn... I'm sorry... you're suggesting that the average person will find it easier to pilot a vehicle in three dimensions than in two?

      Just OMG... do you realize that instead of left and right, the driver of the vehicle would be responsible for managing yaw, pitch and roll?

      I was stuck behind a learner driver (in the middle of a city during business hours no less) the other day. She nearly drove onto the side walk several times... which is extra impressive since there was a bicycle lane that was at least a meter across between a fairly wide normal lane and the sidewalk. She will need months to simply master turning the vehicle without endangering the people around her too much.

      I absolutely refuse to imagine human operators in three dimensional space.

      Now, self piloting vehicles, that could be a real option. Especially if all cars are tied into a single centralized traffic management system.

      To be fair, I pretty much would simply be happy if we could just eliminate human drivers and if The Boring Company works out, we can still have the third dimension without the massive amount of energy waste required for lifting an American sized human in a VTOL traffic environment.

    5. Re:Flying cars already exist by jcr · · Score: 1

      adding a third dimension adds an order of magnitude more complication.

      What's your next guess?

      Being able to fly point-to-point instead of threading all the traffic through narrow channels separated only by painted lines is a huge win. Add to that drastically shorter transit times, and the opportunities for collision are far fewer.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re: Flying cars already exist by jcr · · Score: 1

      single centralized traffic management system.

      Nope. Peer-to-peer route avoidance negotiation is the way to go. No central point of failure.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Flying cars already exist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I disagree. If you're restricted to runways then it's not usable as a car.

      It's got to be totally usable as a car and be able to take off without a runway to be a flying car. There have been a couple of roadable airplanes built, but there has never been a flying car and there probably never will be due to various physical laws.

      There will however be flying taxis, which take off and land from helipads... but they won't do anything with roads, which makes them conclusively not flying cars.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: Flying cars already exist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just OMG... do you realize that instead of left and right, the driver of the vehicle would be responsible for managing yaw, pitch and roll?

      I don't think putting the average person in control of a flying vehicle makes sense either, but you do realize that you can give them only limited control, right? Even hobbyist-level drones have that functionality. It's even a standard feature on foamies now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Flying cars already exist by mikael · · Score: 1

      But you need to stop someone from flying their car into the sky, landing into someone elses garden, nicking their property (smartphones, watches) beside a swimming pool and then flying off again. There's enough grief and aggro with tour helicopters flying over other peoples gardens.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:Flying cars already exist by jcr · · Score: 1

      stop someone from flying their car into the sky, landing into someone elses garden, nicking their property

      That's what guns are for.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re: Flying cars already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a roadable aircraft, not a flying car.
      And if it's in Japan, it'll be adorned with Hello Kitty decals and have three 14 year old girls in schoolgirl uniforms chained in the back seat while being raped by a tentacle machine.

    12. Re:Flying cars already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly prevents people from just going into peoples gardens on foot? Walls? You don't need to fly over walls, you can just climb them. The only things that will actually work against either method are active measures like cameras, security guards, or vigilant owners.

    13. Re:Flying cars already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and all of this is why we will never see any significant amount of flying cars... sadly..

      and if we do, they will be vulnerable to hacking like all the current electric self driving cars and will become flying missiles instead of 4 wheeld ones like the current self driving cars are...

  4. This won't end well. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of flying car headlights + Mothra = disaster.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re: This won't end well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll be fine, just equip the cars with beam saber weapons and the problem will take care of itself.

  5. dashcam by bomek · · Score: 1

    can't wait to watch dashcam crash compilations on youtube

    1. Re:dashcam by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Why would you need a dashcam? They will be crashing into personal property with security cameras, corporate property with security cameras, and public property with cameras. Some won't even be crashes but poor parking selection as well as privacy invasion. Complain about roads, buy at least it keeps most of the riffraff within specific areas. Flying cars pose a personal airspace disaster.

      Now get off my lawn and out of my airspace.

  6. What could possibly go wrong? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    I mean, really???

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      When they see a US warship aproaching the air taxi drivers will go "Tora! Tora! Tora!"

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      What's a taxi driver?

      Wait... that's a question for 3-10 years from now. I'll say it then when it becomes relevant... kinda like "What's a CD?"

  7. They'd better ... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    ...bring them to the skies, because if they bring them to the seas, they have to call them submarines.

    1. Re:They'd better ... by taustin · · Score: 1

      Given that Japan is an island surrounded by ocean, I suspect a lot of their flying cars will end up submarines anyway.

  8. Like the 5th generation AI project? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Japan came with the 5th generation AI project in the 80s. The promises were out this world. Which is why it fizzled, and came to nothing. With this, Japan may end up with few more helicopters in the sky. Flying cars? I don't think so.

  9. Noise noise noise from moving enough air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Other than lighter than air, I know of no way hold machines with people in them UP other than moving large quantities of air DOWN, which makes noise. You will never have "Jetsons" type personal flying car in your garage, unless you live in the country, because your neighbors won't tollerate the NOISE. That is the reason I invested in that anti gravity company ;-)

    1. Re:Noise noise noise from moving enough air by skoskav · · Score: 1

      Well, electromagnets could do it, akin to maglev trains. You just need massive amounts of electricity running through every road, preferably using room-temperature superconductors. The electricity required could be supplied by the local fusion plant.

    2. Re:Noise noise noise from moving enough air by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      I was really with you there for a while.. then I remembered Harley Davidson motorcycles... or even sports cars... I've taught my children that any machine that makes that much noise is poorly designed. Well designed machines don't make noise like that.

      I think that was in reference to a Ferrari making the popping sounds. I taught them that any machine that makes that much noise is only operated by assholes who don't mind driving something which is basically broken by design and can't operate within decent sound limits. Within 5 years, consumer electric or fuel cell vehicles will far outperform super sports cars. So, electric drive train vehicles will be able to run fairly silent and within only 20 years of evolution will have accomplished substantially more than internal combustion engine vehicles did in nearly 100.

      If Harley's are still allowed and people try to tolerate them, then a flying vehicle will be no different.

      That said, the third dimension is logical and underground is far better than above... though tunneling also requires air quality management :(

    3. Re:Noise noise noise from moving enough air by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I was really with you there for a while.. then I remembered Harley Davidson motorcycles... or even sports cars... I've taught my children that any machine that makes that much noise is poorly designed. Well designed machines don't make noise like that.

      That's kind of true. Harleys are designed to make noise, not to be maximally efficient. However...

      I think that was in reference to a Ferrari making the popping sounds. I taught them that any machine that makes that much noise is only operated by assholes who don't mind driving something which is basically broken by design and can't operate within decent sound limits.

      No, that's totally different. That's actually just not spending money to make it quieter. Like all competitive automotive manufacturers, Ferrari tries to make efficient engines, because that means more power output. Harley doesn't have competition in the same way other manufacturers do, because they are selling an experience — not the best-possible machine, but the most stylish (for a particular style.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Noise noise noise from moving enough air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't the vehicle just push off the earth's magnetic field? I understand its rather weak, but it has the entire mass of the planet behind it, so you're not gonna push it away. Just put high powered electromagnets on the vehicle, tune them to the earth's magnetic field, and repel like fridge magnets, no? Worst case you get a really fast trip to the opposite pole followed by a sudden stop at the ground.

  10. This is a bad idea by DarkRookie · · Score: 2

    Most people cannot handle the 2d that driving entails.
    Adding a 3rd will make it so much worse.
    I rather not have one of those crash into me.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:This is a bad idea by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And adding a 4th just gives me a headache.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:This is a bad idea by aldumas · · Score: 1

      Agreed 100%.

    3. Re:This is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Flying cars that can zoom over congested roads are closer to reality than many people think."

      lol, where exactly does one land after flying over those congested roads? Might not that be just a tad congested itself by then. Wonder how long one will have to wait for a landing spot ? It is also alot faster to park cars than helicopters.

      Another toy for the 1%...except they already have a helicopter and pilot. I don't see them firing the pilot so they can do it themselves. So who is the market?

  11. You know what really scares me? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Soon, flying cars could crash on our homes.
    That means we'll all have to live in underground shelters.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  12. Re:Flight time is too short in USA by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    The proper terminology is "American sized people". I've found people in most countries generally understand what that means.

  13. Two years away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flying cars are always two years away.

  14. Holy crap, not Toyota! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Toyota can't even manage following its own internal coding practices, let alone industry standard best practices. I sure hope they don't transfer any technology.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Energy costs by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it makes economical sense to fly people over the road. Will the additional cost over rolling be affordable for more than 1% of drivers?

    1. Re:Energy costs by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Small planes can actually get 25+ mph. Not a flying car but it is a surprising number nonetheless.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Energy costs by avandesande · · Score: 1

      (mpg)

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  16. dont need to fly so high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you could get them to hover on a road at multiple heights sort of like in the fifth element

  17. Humans are better at 2-D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the problems with flying cars (and any aircraft at all) is that humans are evolved to live on flat plains, not in highly 3-D environments. Much of 3-D coordination is controlled by the cerebellum, which in humans is relatively small. Birds, in contrast, have rather large cerebellums in relation to total brain size. This is why they are so good at flying. For airplanes, humans take off, fly up to a certain level, level off, and treat it like a 2-D plane, not a true 3-D environment. When we do treat flying as true 3-D, as in aerobatics, accidents are common. So this will have to be taken into account for human-controlled flying vehicles.

  18. Why Uber??? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    What makes them think Uber is a good option????