Is the World Ready For Flying Cars? (engadget.com) 251
An anonymous reader shares a report from TechCrunch, adding: "Is the world ready for flying cars? Sebastian Thrun, the supposed godfather of autonomous driving, and several other tech investors seem to think so." From the report: At TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2017, Thrun talked a lot about flying cars and how that was the future of transportation. So did GGV's Jenny Lee, a prolific investor in China. And so did Steve Jurvetson, one of the original investors in SpaceX. The technical backbone for flying cars seems to be there already -- with drones becoming ever-present and advancements in AI and self-driving cars -- but the time is coming soon that flying cars will be the primary mode of transportation. "I can't envision a future of highways [and being] stuck in cars," Thrun said. "I envision a [future] where you hop in a thing, go in the air, and fly in a straight line. I envision a future where Amazon delivers my food in the air in five minutes. The air is so free of stuff and is so unused compared to the ground, it has to happen in my opinion."
Cars today are forced to move on a two-dimensional plane (ramps, clover intersections and tunnels set aside), and while self-driving cars would make it easier for cars to talk to each other and move more efficiently, adding a third dimension to travel would make a lot of sense coming next. Thrun pointed to airplane transit, which is already a "fundamentally great mass transit system." Jurvetson said he was actually about to ride in a flying car before he "watched it flip over" before arriving to talk about some of the next steps in technology onstage. So, there's work to be done there, but it does certainly seem that all eyes are on flying cars. And that'll be enabled by autonomous driving, which will probably allow flying cars to figure out the most efficient paths from one point to the next without crashing into each other. Lee said that China is closely analyzing changes in transportation, which might end up leading to flying cars. "I do want to highlight that there's going to be huge disruption within the transportation ecosystem in China," Lee said. "Cars going from diesel to electric. China has about 200 million install base of car ownership. In 2016, only 1 million cars are electric. The Chinese government hopes to install 5 million parking lots that are electric... Even the Chinese OEMs are buying into flying taxis."
Cars today are forced to move on a two-dimensional plane (ramps, clover intersections and tunnels set aside), and while self-driving cars would make it easier for cars to talk to each other and move more efficiently, adding a third dimension to travel would make a lot of sense coming next. Thrun pointed to airplane transit, which is already a "fundamentally great mass transit system." Jurvetson said he was actually about to ride in a flying car before he "watched it flip over" before arriving to talk about some of the next steps in technology onstage. So, there's work to be done there, but it does certainly seem that all eyes are on flying cars. And that'll be enabled by autonomous driving, which will probably allow flying cars to figure out the most efficient paths from one point to the next without crashing into each other. Lee said that China is closely analyzing changes in transportation, which might end up leading to flying cars. "I do want to highlight that there's going to be huge disruption within the transportation ecosystem in China," Lee said. "Cars going from diesel to electric. China has about 200 million install base of car ownership. In 2016, only 1 million cars are electric. The Chinese government hopes to install 5 million parking lots that are electric... Even the Chinese OEMs are buying into flying taxis."
Is the world ready for flying cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Have you seen the way people drive in only two dimensions?
Autonomous Vehicles (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you seen the way people drive in only two dimensions?
I think that's why we are hearing this from someone who works on autonomous vehicles. The only way we are going to have flying cars is if there is a computer driving it to stop us doing something stupid.
Computers are not infallible. (Score:3)
Would these be the same type of computers that currently control fly by wire aircraft yet still have to hand back control to the pilots if conditions exceed their pre-programmed limits? Yeah, I can see that handover going well with a flying car and a "driver" who doesn't have a first clue what to do next.
Re: (Score:2)
Would these be the same type of computers that currently control fly by wire aircraft yet still have to hand back control to the pilots if conditions exceed their pre-programmed limits?
No, because clearly that would not be acceptable. However, if we have almost solved the problem of autonomous driving in 2D it should be easier to solve in 3D because there are fewer obstacles and more ways to avoid them. Autopilots, while limited, have been around on aircraft for years. What we need is some combination of the two so that flying cars can not only fly automatically but also take off and land.
Re: Autonomous Vehicles (Score:2, Offtopic)
My issue with this isn't safety, it's the fact people will be flying in strait lines over my house at all hours of the night.
Re: (Score:2)
By the time we have the digital technology to reliably control millions of flying cars, we might actually have usable hydrogen fusion. Or solar panels paving the Sahara, Gobi, and everything from Barstow to Wichita Falls. And in BeauHD's universe making hydrocarbon fuels from CO2, water, and energy is something any schoolchild can tell you how to do.
Re: (Score:3)
My issue is physics... do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make something fly?
The theoretical best case: none. You gain gravitational potential energy taking off, you lose it again coming down. You gain kinetic energy accelerating, you lose it again decelerating. Practically, you probably don't get any of the potential energy back when landing, so getting a 500kg craft up to 1km requires around 5MJ (about 1.4kWh). Once you're up, it gets more complicated because you can either do the helicopter or rocket thing (displace air or propellant directly downwards to generate lift), or t
Re: (Score:2)
About two decades ago, the second most efficient people mover was the bicycle, when measured by calories per mile. The only thing more efficient was a 747 on a transcontinental flight with a full load of passengers.
I guess now there are several other big airplanes that can move people long distances more efficiently than the bicycle, but the lowly bicycle remains by far the most efficient way to get to and from the corner store.
Flying cars should be equipped with bicycle racks...
Re:Autonomous Vehicles (Score:4, Funny)
Broken cars (mostly) STOP. Broken aircraft DROP.
Actually, not dropping (Score:2)
Broken aircraft DROP.
Actually, no.
Airplanes with broken engines tend to glide (like a not as well optimized gliger).
Helicopters with a broken engine tend to autorotate [wikipedia.org] (like a auto-gyro).
But yeah, you can count on cheaply mass produced in China "drone-like flying cars" to not have well tough-out and as safe as possible failure modes.
Re:Is the world ready for flying cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Airplane maintenance is much more critical than automobile maintenance because of the potential for death and destruction should an airplane undergo mechanical failure. That maintenance would be very costly. Also with increased quantities of flying objects above us, the probability of crashes would greatly increase. Add to that a myriad of other things that could go wrong and my response is "NO", we are not ready for flying vehicles.
If it's so "possible", then why aren't all airplanes currently flying themselves? Yes, I understand what auto pilot is but I also understand what it is not. That is why we have air traffic controllers. Imagine what would happen if we had millions more objects flying above us.
I think I'd opt to live in a cave if that were to occur.
Re: (Score:2)
My answer would have been that world might be, but the monkeys who currently run it aren't.
You've changed my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think I'd opt to live in a cave if that were to occur."
Won't be completely safe there either. But it's probably safer than being out in the open. I think the next cave over has a for sale sigh. I'd go out and look, but it's rush hour. Any thoughts about what to do about the humidity in these caves? Or on solving the orc problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Orc-slaying knife. It has a +5 against Orcs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
having just started flying helicopters. im fairly sure there will never be flying cars.
the reason is not technical, training, or even regulatory. its maintenance.
remember all the cars youve ever seen broken down at the side of the road. If they were flying cars they would all be coffins.
preemptive maintainance is what makes flying expensive. and no amount of automating piloting will change that. modern planes and helicopters basically already fly themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If they aren't limited by having humans controlling them, then it won't matter if they add a 3rd dimension."
I don't entirely disagree. But controlling stuff in three dimensions is not as easy as it sounds for all sorts of reasons. And there are a bunch of privacy, noise, and security issues. Plus a lot of problems like overhead wires. And wind. And handling poor visibility. And coordinating thousands of those suckers including the one right around the corner of the building on your left that you can'
Re:Is the world ready for flying cars? (Score:5, Funny)
If you are influencing time significantly, it means you are driving too fast. Way too fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying Cars When Hell Is Frozen (Score:3)
Not a chance in Hell. People can't drive regular cars today, and my biggest fear about autonomous driving is what little skill people have will be neutered away until they cannot safely drive anything at all.
Sorry - but I'm still pissed that all we ever got was Moller and his useless, bullshit "Skycar" that never had a chance in hell, coupled with a number of "roadable aircraft" like the Icon, Terrafugia, PAL-V, et. al., that are now and will always will be nothing but toys for the idle rich.
Flying Cars? As said in my best Lumberg impersonation - "Uhhhhhmmmmm Yeahhhhhhhhh".
Flying cars are the pipe-dreams we grew up reading about in the 70's Popular Mechanics magazines. It was fiction then - and it's fiction now. The best we have are Lipo batteries that to carry anything useful for any distance would be dangerous as f**k. Or we could be that dude on the turbine-powered hoverboard with a backpack full of kerosene? I forget his name/link but it's cool - but again, never gonna happen for the regular Joe.
Flying car = aircraft (Score:3)
"Is the world ready for flying cars?" is just like asking if the world is ready for helicopters.
Given how you've seen most people drive, it's just as unlikely they'll safely pilot aircraft either. You'll have long stretches of crashed vehicles, and so on.
More complicate for the meat bag (Score:2)
Rename helicopters "flying cars" and you're done.
It's easy to just rename the vehicle and exactly get what you need (a very versatile and compact form of transportation).
(The thing that they plan is supposed to by a "drone-inspired flying car" - i.e.: a multi-rotor helicopter.)
The problems come from the one handing the controls.
Simply rename the average dangerous idiot behind the wheel as "helicopter pilot" won't magically make him thousands of times more reliable...
Re: (Score:2)
So, a Chinook helicopter, then? The kind that's been in use for heavy lifting for, oh, 50 years or so?
Dual Chinook !!! (Score:2)
So, a Chinook helicopter, then? The kind that's been in use for heavy lifting for, oh, 50 years or so?
Given that these are inspired by drones - i.e.: Quadcopters (or more)
it's more appropriate to call them Dual chinook (or more. Beware of the Triple-chinook Hexa-copters !)
But, basically, as the AC wrote above - the "flying cars" aren't anything new once you pay attention to helicopters.
It's the "use AI to make a helicopter pilot out of drunken driver Average Joe" part that is going to be a bit more challenging, I think.
7 minute abs (Score:5, Informative)
Is this the tech VC's version of the 7 Minute Abs pitch? "Why would anyone travel in two dimensions when they can travel in three?"
It's a little more complicated than that. Here are some things that don't matter so much in 2D road travel but matter a lot when you're flying
* wind, winds changing at higher altitudes, and wind shear
* Air speed vs ground speed
* Heading vs ground track
* Convective weather (at takeoff, all along path of travel, and at destination)
* Air density (at takeoff, all along path of travel, and at destination)
* Vehicle weight for takeoff and travel, and weight changes as fuel burns
* Lift characteristics at altitude (at takeoff, all along path of travel, and at destination)
* Ability to descend safely if a system fails (single engine?) or you are crashed into
* Empty gas tank doesn't fail gracefully
* Inability to stop moving (probably)
* Obstacles (hills, mountains, towers, buildings
* Etc
As someone who flies, I am (a) certain there will be some sort of flying vehicle some day, and (b) aware there is a lot to figure out. These are all obviously solvable problems because people already do fly. It's just hugely expensive and requires a lot of training (relative to driving). What we are talking about here is ModelT-izing flight which will require a lot of idiot proofing including expensive redundancy while at the same time really driving down the purchase and operational costs of flying. These are not small problems, and these problems are not analogous to the problems of autonomous driving.
Re:7 minute abs (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if we ignore all that and assume we got computers handling all the flying relative both to the environment and other flying cars and making sure it always in range it's a no-go because of:
1) Safety zones and noise
2) Catastrophic failure modes
3) Energy consumption
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Energy consumption per person isn't totally awful if you pack a lot of people in one vehicle and fly at 35000 feet.
So like a bus, in the air? We could call that... *drumroll* Airbus.
we don't have flying cars.. (Score:2)
the energy costs are a main factor, too.
in some places where it makes sense, people use small helicopters regularly(australia). even for herding cattle.
the real question to ask is when will the world get tired of dolts speaking about stuff that people have been speaking for 60+ years.
like.. singularity. it's been a theme in scifi since the forties.
do we have it? haha no and we don't even have a path to it. doesn't stop a lot of people making their entire living by talking about it. it's easy to sound smart
Re: (Score:2)
like.. singularity. it's been a theme in scifi since the forties.
I'd bet that flying cars are the most common futuristic scifi tech across all scifi movies, second only to artificial intelligence. Definitely more common than time-machines, warp-drives, world-peace, or light sabers.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying obstacles don't matter in 2D?
Well then.
Technical backbone is there already (Score:2)
The technical backbone for flying cars seems to be there already
Has anti-gravity been invented? No? Then the technology is not there yet. Cars falling out of the sky is not an acceptable solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anti-gravity been invented? No? Then the technology is not there yet. Cars falling out of the sky is not an acceptable solution.
You are so right. Without a technology similar to that, flying cars will remain, most likely, a pipe dream. At best they will be products for the elite, just as helicopters have always been.
Flying cars? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were writing a science fiction story, I wouldn't include flying cars as an element.
Rather, I'd just make 'travel pods' - comfortable compact living quarters equipped with entertainment/work surfaces, storage, and seats that convert smoothly into beds - all within a strict volume/weight, all in a small geo-stabilized shock mount.
All transportation would take these pods. Cars, helicopters, boats, spacecraft, and essentially everything else. Most of these vehicles would be somewhat crude-looking frameworks compared to our current fashionable vehicles - but few would care, as the method of getting there are just details, and not the important part, very few would put any status into it.
Going from New York to a rural town outside of Hong Kong might involve a few cars, a ferry, an ocean freighter, then a small freight helecopter (large drone-like thing) to get you to the exact house, which the passenger would rarely care about. The cost would be something similar to what we'd consider an Amazon shipping expense, regardless of the number of legs, and time roughly scales with distance.
The biggest concern of folks traveling this way would be time taken and menu selection. All transport units would have a somewhat extensive set of diagnostic tools, with an occasional scandal for any company suspected of skirting the rather heavy regulations put on those, or in any way skirting safety mores. The failure on a redundant pod mounting arm would actually make the news, as would anything even close to death of a passenger.
This is my guess of something closer to the actual future, based on existing trends. Folks desire focus on the things they care about, and transportation isn't as sexy as it was. They want to get there cheap, and not care about the details. Our taste for safety should also go up over time, and the whole thing deserves a bit of a push towards automation and commoditization. .
I certainly wouldn't be sad to see our current commercial car companies/insurance going away, in favor of industrial economy-scale vehicles built to better use every resource.
Lots of stories you could make with that concept too - from Asimov Caves of Steel-style stories with murder sub-plots, to stories of how prisons would work in such a culture.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, personalized carbon-fiber shipping containers for people, in a small enough standardized size they can slot into different prime mover configurations?
I think it sounds great, but I think you face the challenge where it makes sense to stack them densely like actual shipping containers but on long enough trips nobody wants to be sealed inside for the whole trip or lack some kind of window they can see out of.
Re: (Score:2)
There are what is known as bowling alley apartments (or shotgun apartments) because they are long and thin with only a couple of windows at either end. They are open plan and have the living room at one end, the kitchen in the middle and the bedroom at the other, on a mezzanine level above. Similar to this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but if you're packing these pod things onto any kind of space-sensitive carrying vehicle, you're going to need to pack them tight like actual shipping containers. I could probably live with no windows for a 24 hour flight or something, but say 2-3 days on a ship?
And then there's the bathroom question.
Re: (Score:2)
Will people be allowed to travel that easily from the US to China, and if so would they even want to? When travel is that easy culture will quickly homogenize, and transportation of goods will presumably be just as easy and cheap, so the only real reason to go there is tourism. And when VR gets good, it looks a lot easier and cheaper than actually going there.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect we'd be more ready for a VR-world where we can meet people instead of going there physically. Video conferences are getting so good that they're worth it for quick meetings as well as long ones. It's not a huge leap to think we could 'VR' that experience up a bit (although VR headgear needs to improve somewhat, it seems like that'll happen sooner than we'll figure out the bajillion issues we'd need to solve to have 1 flying car, let alone thousands of them).
Are we ready for a VR 'meeting place'? P
Re: (Score:2)
Are we ready for a VR 'meeting place'? Probably not, at least not really, although at least we get to try them out without risking anyone's life.
But a VR meeting could be even more dangerous.
Imagine a politician setting up a virtual rally - you join and are surrounded by tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters and listen to a perfectly delivered speech that's met with wild applause.
But the reality (non-virtual) is that the politician is a weak, sickly person with few followers and many, many enemies.
In other words, the Fake News we see coming out of most media outlets today would be orders of magnitude more powerful with VR and good animation
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, shipping containers with people inside.
With such a system, it is likely that many people for which "pods" would be their only home. In fact we are already building housing out of shipping containers.
Now, interestingly, your solution tends to be the opposite of the path we are following. Your idea is one about comfortable slow travel, which remind me of the magnificent Titanic, Orient Express and Hindenburg. Now, the idea is to pack as many people as possible and move them as fast as possible
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd be ok with that kind of travel. But, then again, I'm the kind of person who doesn't really care what their vehicle looks like as long as it's reliable, relatively safe in a crash, economical, and gets me from A to B without discomfort. I'm aware I must be in a minority, because I am totally mystified by why anyone would show any interest in a car commercial. And yet those commercials continue to exist, which, I assume, must mean that there are enough people who care about how a car looks and ho
Just a few years away--kind of like AI (Score:3, Interesting)
We've been hearing for decades that flying cars--and AI--are just a few years away. Right.
For flying cars, there's still one big problem that's not even close to a solution: Battery technology is nowhere near close to being able to store enough energy to make flying cars practical. A Tesla car battery weighs in at 1,200 lbs, and it can only power a car--on the ground--around 200 miles. It takes a lot more energy to keep a one ton drone aloft.
And then there's the problem of safety. Air traffic is routed specifically for safety, to minimize the possibility of crashes into buildings or people. With flying cars, the whole point would be to fly among people and buildings. This cannot have a good ending.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one am glad it will be years away. Flying Cars + AI = Skynet.
My Prayer (Score:5, Funny)
I really hope Apple makes the first flying cars. I've given it a lot of thought. The same people who bought Apple Watches will buy the flying cars. It'll be glorious. It could solve the housing shortage on the West Coast.
Wait longer (Score:2)
The only drawback with your plan is that you'll need to wait a little bit longer.
Apple will probably only "invent" the flying car a decade after they hit production elsewhere.
why can no one even read the summary anymore? (Score:2)
yeah yeah "welcome to /." etc
But seriously... The article talks about autonomous vehicles being a needed pre-requisite. Read the comments and there are at least half a dozen threads starting with variation of
"but people suck at normal driving"
turns out people suck at reading and just want to be the first to shout. I want to go back to the days where there was some intelligent conversation on here
No (Score:5, Interesting)
No the world isn't ready for flying cars, the energy use is too great. We need to reduce fossil fuel usage not increase it. And whilst short plane flights with batteries is possible, it's just not practical enough to become a significant market. VTOL with batteries is even less practical.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
"Free of stuff"? (Score:4, Interesting)
It will no longer be unused and free of stuff once we have flying cars - and you definitely won't just be able to go in a straight line. They already have rules about where you can fly a drone. Imagine a few hundred flying cars in some small area. And of course, if you do have an accident, whose house do you hit and how fast are you going? It gets real ugly real fast
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This complete nonsense. Where is would be beneficial (if feasible with regards to engineering, cost, reliability, pollution, etc.), i.e. in and around large cities, the airspace is packed and the last thing you would want there is additional planes in the air.
Re: (Score:2)
"The air is so free of stuff and is so unused compared to the ground, it has to happen in my opinion." It will no longer be unused and free of stuff once we have flying cars - and you definitely won't just be able to go in a straight line. They already have rules about where you can fly a drone. Imagine a few hundred flying cars in some small area. And of course, if you do have an accident, whose house do you hit and how fast are you going? It gets real ugly real fast ...
It's going to get real ugly real fast once Amazon and other like vendors start delivering damn near everything by drone.
Besides, I don't trust autonomous solutions on the ground, so why exactly should I trust them in the air where they can kill/maim far more people at once?
In China they... (Score:2)
I've met Sebastian Thrun (Score:2)
la la land (Score:2)
And you're hoping that Joe Schmoe's car, that he's stored in his driveway, driven rattling down the highway hitting who knows what, is going to be converted suddenly into a flying apparatus that meets any kind of necessary safety regulations?
Keep on dre
No! Of course not! (Score:2)
Flying cars need even more energy than ground-based ones, particularly when in a traffic jam as you cannot turn off the engine.
The skies would also quickly fill up causing traffic jams up there. So far any increase in capacity has only
Those visions you see in presentation are just there to not scare away potential engineers, the only actual use for this is in the military.
Details of material and size, please (Score:2)
Will they be made of gleaming alloy, and will they be as wide as two lanes? These questions need to be answered.
Re: (Score:2)
Will they be made of gleaming alloy, and will they be as wide as two lanes? These questions need to be answered.
That idea will never fly. For one thing, they won't be able to cross one-lane bridges.
Always this nonsense (Score:2)
This is complete nonsense. A) There is not enough airspace b) there are no flying cars beyond stunts that are not ready for normal use c) most people are not pilots d) there are not enough airports e) energy-efficiency is very bad f) cost is very bad.
Seriously, this moronic idea needs to die until we have anti-grav, no energy problems and working AI pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You probably do not know what a) this automation does and does not do and b) that this is nowhere near an autonomous plane. You are wayyyy off.
This is a terrible idea (Score:3)
> adding a third dimension to travel would make a lot of sense coming next ... you mean global climate change? You're saying a transport system that uses perhaps 5 to 10 times as much energy as existing technologies is what we need at this point?
Sure, we solved the pilot problem. Call me when you figured out the problem about how to make VTOL use less energy than a wheel.
Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we solved the pilot problem. Call me when you figured out the problem about how to make VTOL use less energy than a wheel.
You 'solve' it by making energy so cheap, plentiful, and available that it doesn't matter.
Of course, then you have the problem of overcoming the push-back from the radical environmentalist types who would scream bloody Gaia-murder about any increase in civilization's energy generation/usage, no matter how safe, clean, and low-impact it might actually be.
Another problem is political/ideological in nature, as many nations would never allow their populations access to such an empowering technology, like Best K
Wrong question (Score:2)
>> Is the World Ready For Flying Cars?
That question is straight out of the 1960's
Today, the question is :
"Is the World Ready For Autonomous Electric Cars?"
The world isn't ready for CARS. Period. (Score:2)
Sorry, but people, as a group, are mouth-breathing, drooling, drunken morons of questionable parentage.
Cars, as they are, are barely within their ability to control.
Flying cars would just get lots and lots (and LOTS) of people killed.
Is the world ready for remote work? (Score:2)
From employers to education, when you look at the main reasons our roadways are congested, it says a lot about what we could do today to drastically improve the situation.
How many employers could support employees working from home, but continue to hold on to an obsolete mentality of forcing people to waste countless hours commuting to a building and sit in a cube or office all day?
How many schools could support virtual classrooms, but refuse to do so for similar reasons?
Get on the roadways during a nationa
People already can't drive in *two* dimensions... (Score:2)
Seriously, we want to add a -third- dimension to the driving experience?! Come to Orlando FL, my home town, where when there's not a cop around, traffic laws are just mere suggestions. And the cops don't bother following the same laws. The thought of adding a Z-axis to the average driver's motion range just scares the absolute dog-crap out of me.
Not ready for them yet, but when they are , , , (Score:2)
When they are, it will also be the Year of the Linux Desktop! Woo-hoo!!
costs kill (Score:2)
THe problem is COST.
Energy required for flight is orders of magnitude greater for flight. Add insurance... what will GEICO charge you for a "flying car" to cover potential pr
No, of course not (Score:2)
We can't even drive on the ground with lines and markers everywhere.
I can't even imagine how terrible letting people fly their cars would be.
My prediction is (Score:2)
Flying autonomous cars will happen in numbers before autonomous cars. I also predict it will happen in China, developers of the inexpensive toy quadcopters. I believe Ehang is testing in Dubai.
Nip it in the bud (Score:2)
Ok by flying cars I mean multi-rotor drones, not shit cars with folded wings from a 1950s newsreel buffed up in 4K video.
I wanna take off and land right where I wanna go, not have to go drive a half hour to a takeoff area.
Problems with flying cars... (Score:2)
2.) Maintenance... have you seen how people maintain the majority of cars on the road? How many broken down cars do you drive by each day on your commute? Imagine a non-maintained flying car crashing into a houseful of kids. Think of the children!
3.) Traffic control... airplanes and helicopters are easy to guide now because there aren't that
No. (Score:2)
Self driving cars need to prove themselves on the ground first. I've heard that the AI needed for flying is simpler than that needed for ground based driving, but more is at stake, so I still think ground based AI is a necessary proving ground.
It takes more energy to fly than to drive. Let's get a bit farther down the path of solving our energy issues before switching to a mode of transportation that gets 5 mpg (a 747 gets about 5 mpg, maybe not a fair comparison).
It's inevitable that a car will fail mid-
Not even close. (Score:2)
That was easy to answer.
Re: BeauHD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Aeroplanes are not cars.
If it is personal transportation, and it flies from point A to point B, where neither A nor B is an airport, then it is a flying car. Any other details don't matter.
Re: BeauHD (Score:5, Informative)
If it is personal transportation, and it flies from point A to point B, where neither A nor B is an airport, then it is a flying car.
And not a helicopter.
Re: BeauHD (Score:4, Informative)
Or a personal jetpack.
Re: BeauHD (Score:4, Funny)
Re: BeauHD (Score:3)
So the Wright brothers invented the flying car a century ago, and planes with floats are actually cars? Your definition doesn't seem to match how "car" and "plane" are actually used. But whatever. To each his own definition.
Re: (Score:3)
Traditionally it also meant something that you could drive on the road as well as fly, and it should be small enough to fit into a single-car garage. But as the many previous attempts have shown, you tend to end up with a crappy car and a crappy plane that happen to be the same thing. Nowadays they have jumbo drones big enough to carry a person.
The technology for "personal air transportation" is already available (though still rather expensive), but the technology to control that much air traffic safely is
Re: (Score:2)
Traditionally it also meant something that you could drive on the road as well as fly
I watched The Jetsons every weekend, and George's flying car never once went on a road. It doesn't even have wheels [cartoon-characters.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is much easier to safely manage air traffic than to devise safe self-driving cars.
Detection and avoidance of other aero vehicles can be done with existing technology, municipally defined air corridors can be incorporated into GPS aware autopilots. But good collision avoidance in self-driving cars involves somehow seeing around obstacles, and dealing with capricious moving obstacles like deer, toddlers chasing rubber balls, jay-walkers popping out from behind parked trucks, etc. And self-driving cars ha
Re: (Score:2)
True, but ultimately you're swapping one set of problems for another, bird-strikes and weather instead of jaywalkers and deer, and mishaps in the air result in falling debris instead of traffic jams (or perhaps both).
I'll grant you that both "self-driving" capabilities (air and surface) are just around the corner in terms of technological readiness. But I still think that the surface version will become prevalent first, if only because the price per vehicle is so much lower. Also, so much of our urban livin
Re: (Score:2)
There will never be flying cars.
There will soon be, however, autonomous passenger carrying drones (APCDs, aka ApeSeeds) that will travel point to point, evade each other, and adhere to the flight corridors defined by each municipality.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "soon".
Re: (Score:2)
"Aeroplanes are not cars."
Airplanes can be highway drivable cars also. But the limitations of such a vehicle seem pretty numerous. You need a runway and a pilot's license, etc,etc,etc. The likelihood is that they will be mediocre aircraft and worse automobiles. There are probably a few situations where there is a reasonable use case. But for the most part, they aren't likely to be flying cars in the Jetsons, Futurama, Fifth Element sense.
Helicopters might come closer, maybe ... But there might be some
Re: (Score:2)
Visualize an electric Smart Fortwo car with fold-out quad rotors and you'll be imagining a true flying car. Capable of jumping over traffic jams. Performing U-turns on divided roadways. Roof top parking.
Now strip off its wheels and drive train and use the weight saved to increase the size of its battery. Make the flight controls semi-autonomous: you use something like Google Maps to select your destination and the vehicle finds the best route. And uses collision avoidance technology and active cooperation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: BeauHD (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it wasn't. The evidence is sketchy and he himself made no such claim that he achieved sustainable flight in 1903, as his control system was basically shiite. He said he did not attempt anything practical until 1904.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of Britain, the world speaks Ameriglish. The Brits really do need to catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
BeauHD the H1-B. Would make a good cartoon character.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Fusion reactors are mostly beneficial, while flying cars do badly solve a mostly imagined problem. Nobody really smart gets excited about "flying cars".
Re: (Score:2)
It's bad enough with startup businesses offering helicopter tours of upmarket neighborhoods