Slashdot Mirror
Are We Getting Close To Flying Taxis? (knpr.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from public news station KNPR about how close weare flying taxi services:
The dream of flying cars is as at least as old as the automobile itself. Bell, which makes attack helicopters for the U.S. Navy, is working on this new project with another high-profile partner, Uber. The prototype, the Bell Nexus, was unveiled earlier this year. Boeing and Airbus also have prototypes of these flying cars in the works. Uber has become the face of the aerial mobility movement as it has the most public campaign touting its work so far. Elon Musk says he'll get us to Mars. Uber says it'll get a millennial from San Francisco to San Jose in 15 minutes flat (instead of the two-hour slog in morning traffic). And its timeline for this flying taxi that does not yet exist is 2023...
NASA is another Uber partner. While Jaiwon Shin, NASA's associate administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, thinks Uber is being a little bullish -- he'd put the timeline further out, to the mid-2020s -- Shin says it's close. "Convergence of many different technologies are maturing to the level that now aviation can benefit to put these things together," he said. The batteries that power electric cars can evolve further, to power flight. Companies can stockpile and pool data, and build artificial intelligence to take over air traffic control, managing the thousands of drones and taxis in the air.
And Uber, his partner, is really well-connected. While fighting the legacy taxi industry, Uber made so many government and lobbyist contacts, that that Rolodex can help grease the wheels -- or wings.
"While no flying taxi exists yet, Uber has dared to estimate the 'near-term' cost of that San Francisco to San Jose trip: $43," the article reports -- suggesting that could create a new division in society.
"With flying cars, the haves can escape to the air and leave the have-nots forgotten in their potholes."
NASA is another Uber partner. While Jaiwon Shin, NASA's associate administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, thinks Uber is being a little bullish -- he'd put the timeline further out, to the mid-2020s -- Shin says it's close. "Convergence of many different technologies are maturing to the level that now aviation can benefit to put these things together," he said. The batteries that power electric cars can evolve further, to power flight. Companies can stockpile and pool data, and build artificial intelligence to take over air traffic control, managing the thousands of drones and taxis in the air.
And Uber, his partner, is really well-connected. While fighting the legacy taxi industry, Uber made so many government and lobbyist contacts, that that Rolodex can help grease the wheels -- or wings.
"While no flying taxi exists yet, Uber has dared to estimate the 'near-term' cost of that San Francisco to San Jose trip: $43," the article reports -- suggesting that could create a new division in society.
"With flying cars, the haves can escape to the air and leave the have-nots forgotten in their potholes."
And, if you ask me again in 2024, I'll say that we're probably 5 years away.
The technical issues are being chipped away but there are power and autonomy (traffic control) issues that will require decades of work before we will have practical flying taxis.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
No.
I'll say that we're probably 5 years away.
The technical issues are being chipped away but there are power and autonomy (traffic control) issues that will require decades of work
Practical flying taxis already exist - they just aren't large enough to carry humans yet.
Drone tech in terms of following paths and tracking and even collision detection and avoidance, is all there and really reliable now.
You don't need to fully solve traffic control. You just need to have well-defined paths and schedules and a few deviations possible. The "nice" thing is that unlike traffic, any problems is the air are quickly cleared away letting further flights continue.
Taxi air drones are a much easier problem to resolve than self-driving cars, and we are almost there with cars...
I signed up for some company that is offering test drone-taxi flights this year. From what I can tell they just take you up, go for a short tour, and then come back to the same spot. But they are planning to launch with real people this year.
The benefits to a city of working drone taxis are so monumental I think they will start going as soon as even the first viable solution is in play. Especially in Silicon Valley, but not that long to reach other places as well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
in the wake of new zealand this white hatred has to be banned. time to ban anonymous, vpn, anonymous comments, usenet, everything. it has to go.
Next question.
Slashdot new low with editorial commment on haves and have nots. Typical idiocy as this sites traffic plunges into the abyss.
Thanks for the pro tip Sergei
Oh god please no. Since the only way we humans can make things fly is either by blasting air downwards (think Harrier jet) or by making something that looks like a helicopter or an airplane, any flying taxi (big enough to fit a human) would mean unacceptable levels of noise pollution in cities and even in suburbs. Imagine having a helicopter landing several feet from your window while trying to sleep.
Low flying aircraft, especially with rotor blades, tend to be very noisy. Then there are security concerns. Most defenses (walls, barricades, gates, guards, etc) assume 2 dimensions, not 3. Even a 20 pound object falling a hundred feet or more on a typical roof can easily brake through. Imagine the damage an object a magnitude or more heavier and larger could inflict. Add some explosives and the damage is further magnified.
Even if one dismisses noise and security concerns, the biggest challenge of all is physics. Flying takes a lot more energy than rolling along a surface. There have been many demonstrations of people pulling large trucks, etc with their own strength. Heck, I recall reading someone even pulled a jumbo aircraft with their teeth. In contrast, one with all their strength likely couldn't raise an entire car by any meaningful amount. In short, flying is very energy intensive.
Finally, there are safety concerns in the event of failure. Helicopter crashes are frequent even dispute all the regulation and pilot training. How will the public respond when flying taxis are falling out of the sky routinely into homes, on to people, etc.
Bottom line, flying cars will likely remain just 5 years away indefinitely.
Uber says it'll get a millennial from San Francisco to San Jose in 15 minutes flat
That's great. Who's the lucky millennial?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Realistically we'll have self-driving ground cars long before self-driving flying cars would happen. Rules of the road and concerns with ground driving are well-understood, and it's simply a matter of coding all that in. With flying cars, there are concerns that haven't been considered yet and won't be until there's a tragedy that involves multiple deaths and a huge lawsuit that shuts down the entire program. For example, if one flies into a building because its building sensor doesn't work with all-glass exteriors. Ground cars only have to follow the road and they automatically avoid driving into buildings; flying cars have no such luxury.
Once we have self-driving ground cars, traffic will start to clear up and be more tolerable besides, which will eliminate the benefits of flying cars.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
From the summary: "The batteries that power electric cars can evolve further, to power flight."
Effectively, no, they can't. That is not to say you can't make a battery-powered device that can lift a human and navigate a city, but there are hard limits to what chemistry can do. The best possible chemical battery can never come close to the range you could get from a tank of kerosene, and even that is of limited utility. Thorium, now...(ducks)
Go to school and figure out why.
Use a helicopter (they will always exist).
Don't waste your time with stupidity unless you want to take a fool's life savings.
(Elon Musk makes big money with stupid ideas, not with things that are useful.)
Flying taxis crash. Same for wind, snow.
Maybe some places with ideal weather will get flying taxis for a while, until people get tired of the noise and one or two spectacular crashes remind people why aviation isn't like driving a car.
In order for a vehicle like this to be operated at a profit it must spend a very high percentage of the day "in operation". The problem with EVs (of all kinds) is that they have significant down-time whilst being recharged.
Battery packs you can swap out ad re-charge offline would totally eliminate that issue. It does increase the initial cost having to have so many battery packs and some infrastructure to change them out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We've already seen how an airplane can make a skyscraper fall straight down instead of toppling over. Flying taxis are just too great a threat to fatherland security. Never forget that this is the post-yada-yada-yada world we're living in.
AE911Truth dot Org
Not sure about the rest of u but I am nowhere near getting in a flying taxi. Time for a new horse.
The article has many intertwined ideas that need to be separated. First, Military air taxis- The military can do what ever it wants if it's willing to take the risk. What the military does has little to no bearing on commercial carriers are allowed to do. The military doesn't work on a cost justification or profit basis
Second - There is a big difference between whats technically possible, vs whats commercially viable.
We're "close" , if not there to this being technically possible. However, for an aircraft - including electric quad type copters - to move beyond private user "experimental" designation to commercial is a huge, long, really REALLY expensive process. Remember "Uber for air planes" got slapped down hard years ago by the FAA. A private pilot is NOT a commercial pilot. This will be no different.
Given all the air checks, balances, engineers, certification of parts, rebuilds required after X hours of air time, the notion of a $43 cost per ride is nonsense.
Factor in Just 1 pigeon causing a crash over a city resulting in ground fatalities will kill the idea permanently, and might financially bankrupt what ever company is pushing this. And Cities will ban flights instantly.
Bottom line.. this is fantasy.
But not that soon, as what Uber tries to sell us to pump up its stock price.
Maybe short distance personal flying drones will become a thing in 3-5 years. But they will be very weather dependent.
Maybe 10 years till cross country flying - but that might be optimistic.
"While no flying taxi exists yet, Uber has dared to estimate the 'near-term' cost of that San Francisco to San Jose trip: $43," the article reports -- suggesting that could create a new division in society. "With flying cars, the haves can escape to the air and leave the have-nots forgotten in their potholes." I've paid more for a taxi trip from SeaTac to Shoreline, about 24 miles.
No. And, stop asking, it's a really dumb idea.
Don't care, 50$ trip on a friday or monday is well worth the price. Count me in.
I would like to play, unless the only passenger is Leeloo
I haven't seen any technology that can meet reasonable noise and air blast requirements. A flying taxi is likely to need as much landing space as a small helocopter - because that is basically what it is.
Quad-copter like designs look neat, and might solve some issues, but they work exactly the same way as helicopters, by forcing air downwards.
self-flying mode sounds nice, but even a small helicopter costs several times as much as its pilot per hour.
Mass short flights with rotor technology will never materialize. Companies will build a vehicle capable of such flights, maybe even relatively safely, but they will not be allowed in cities. Short flights means low altitude. Imagine tens of thousands of these things flying at low altitudes over San Francisco. Even if you figure out virtual corridors and traffic rules, imagine having multiple highways directly over your home. Physical highways often are separated by noise and crash barriers. Unless the city moves underground, people will not accept busy highways just hundreds of feet above residential areas.
Now, if some day we invent anti-gravity, so that such taxis can silently ascend to 30,000ft for a 5 mile trip, sure, but until then, this is less feasible for mass deployment than Elon's networks of tunnels.
then suddenly creimer plops his flabby fat ass in the passenger seat and all you hear is every carbon-fiber joint failing like a firecracker
It would cost $150.
Because the current air traffic control system based on partitioned air space, regular routes, and tens of thousands of humans on duty 24/7 in a highly redundant system integrated with national and international weather forecasting will trivially be replaced by magic pixie dust AI at little or no cost. And it will never ever fail ever, just like commercial air travel. Just check current news for how well air transport works now.
Why is Snark Required?
?? What are you talking about, we've got them right now. You just have to get the driver drunk enough, going fast enough, and hitting something that creates an temporary uplift. Easy.
Of course as always, it's the landing that hard. Any landing that you can walk away from is a good one.
Oh, you mean the normal interpretation -- what, are you crazy? Flying great and easy, and I assume you still have to get an FAA license to carry passengers. Oh, and you've got that silly rule about clear weather vs instrument-only landings. And all those (cell) towers, high-rises, and what-not to deal with, never mind the OTHER TRAFFIC.
Only large cities will receive all of the "benefits" of this, and I think that's just great. I'll let you live in Blade Runner's L.A. Watch out for those replicants!
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
It will take 15mins jus tto find a spot to land and another for a spot to take off.
And what happens when the end point has only one slot and 2 flying taxis wantto use /?
Think helicopter pads, you cant have dozens at every interested place flying taxis might want to access.
While it might be a futuristic idea fro Silicon valley. Flying taxis already exist. Helicopter service in New York and Brazil have existed for years. Perhaps decades.
Airbus already operates an Uber like service for hailing helicopter taxis in Brazil. https://www.voom.flights/en
This isn't anything new, except to peasants.
Rules of the road and concerns with ground driving are well-understood, and it's simply a matter of coding all that in.
But the devil is in the details.
Though more or less understood and not impossible for our evolved-from-chimps human brain to understand, it turns out rules of road have evolved in a definitely very human-oriented way (for obvious historical reasons).
And it turns out that making sense of that isn't as straight forward as the marketing department of start-ups would like you to believe.
With flying cars, there are concerns that haven't been considered yet
On the other hand, as flying cars aren't common *yet*, we can progressively build an infrastructure that is better suited for automated flying and doesn't require reverse engineering the way the human mind see things by using complex neural nets.
See how fast autonomous cars are developing (slow, only currently in very limited testing, always with human supervisors "just in cas") vs. autonomous trains/metros/etc. (just build a purpose-specific track that has all the necessary tricks to make it easy) (see all the autonomous metros in big cities).
Depending on how it evolves, autonomous sky taxis could actually be a more plausible thing, simply because we could end up designing specially adapted "air corridors for autonomous vehicle" with all the necessary tricks.
Whereas it might turn out that having autonomous vehicle and human drive on the same road simply doesn't work, and you'd need to build a separate network of robot-friendly roads.
and won't be until there's a tragedy that involves multiple deaths and a huge lawsuit that shuts down the entire program. For example, if one flies into a building because its building sensor doesn't work with all-glass exteriors. Ground cars only have to follow the road and they automatically avoid driving into buildings; flying cars have no such luxury.
Once we have self-driving ground cars, traffic will start to clear up and be more tolerable besides, which will eliminate the benefits of flying cars.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Guess where 'autopilot' comes from.
"Autopilot", in the aviation world (and maritime) (and they way Tesla uses it):
computers that are able to offload a part of the ginormous mental load required by flying/helming/driving a vehicle around, and simplify the life of the pilot/captain/driver. But the pilot/captain/driver still remains in-charge of the vehicle, there are just some minute tasks that require less attention and can handle themselves autonomously (optionally requiring less crew).
"Autopilot", the way the masses are seeing it and what they what from an autopilot car/flying taxi:
just dial in the destination and go take a nap until you arrive.
Mind you, this *also* has existed (in the past): it was called "a horse" or "a donkey", but usage has fell out of fashion, and we haven't successfully replicated it with computers. :-D
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Take an Uber or Lyft and the drivers are flying high most of the time. (just kidding).
https://xkcd.com/678/
Kill this idea with fire. It is a terrible idea. If these things aren't automated then we'll have the same distracted, incompetent, texting-while-driving idiot drivers operating these flying vehicles. These things would end up crash landing down on buildings of all sorts: schools, homes, etc.
Even if they are automated; the increased number of aerial vehicles would result in an increased number of mechanical failures, again resulting in crash landings.
Even if we work out all the tech to make this happen and its somehow 100% safe, fuel costs will prohibit this. Think of how we consider fuel expensive now and you never leave the ground. Many cars get 30+ MPG. Now consider how much extra energy (i.e. fuel) it would take to lift you and a flying vehicle to go the same distance? Only the wealthy will be able to afford this.
Also, if we suddenly reverting back to vehicles that effectively get 10mpg or less, the FINITE fuel reserves will be exhausted at 3+ times the current rate.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
"the haves can escape to the air and leave the have-nots forgotten" r.i.p.
How secure do you think Uber's electronics in the car (or their C&C system back at the server farm) are? One successful hack any you have a flying IED that can deliver a few hundred pounds of explosives right to your front door. I can't wait for all the Silicon Valley billionaires to start ordering anti-aircraft weapons for their front yard.
Paul Moller has been trying for 40 years now. Sometimes it turns out first-mover advantage is no advantage at all.
He's 82 years old. He probably won't live long enough to see the first commercial "flying taxi" flight, even if Bell or Boeing or Airbus eventually succeed.
It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!
How's life in the hypocrite lane?