Flying cars... *rolls eyes*

[BuzzKillington]

Am I the only one annoyed with this idea?

I can't believe companies out there think they're going somewhere by dropping hundreds of millions into trying to make an idea that will never. ever. catch on.

They try advertising them as some kinda convenient mode of transportation as if you're driving to work and hit a traffic jam. "oh golly, I guess I'll just press the go-go gadget vertical takeoff and hover over this mess. I'm sure the amount of thrust needed to do this wont disturb any of the cars I'm hovering over. Oh damn, a failed engine! Sorry about landing on your car and killing your family... maybe you should have been hovering like me.

People can't drive as it is let alone maneuver between buildings while avoiding other "flying cars."

This cars would be hideous. Outrageously expensive and inconvenient. They would be nothing more than a novelty item so even though I'm sure there are plenty out there that are rich enough and dumb enough to own one, the company would still never see a red cent in profits.

Obviously the idea would be to avoid traffic, avoid the airport drama, being able to travel from point a to point be, land, drive to a gas station, fill up, drive up to your house and pull it into your vacation house's garage but again, it wont work.

Don't get me started on self-driven car highway networks! lol

[TheGreatSatan]

I'm kind of pissed. These were promised to us in the 80's, but they never came through. The cost of the cars and training everyone to use them, setting up a traffic system, changing old laws and making new ones just for these cars. . . . .

It gets to be a huge endevour

[mDust]

We've had the technology to make a car fly for 2 or 3 decades now, but we still don't have the technology to make them idiot-proof...the issues you both raise are exactly why they haven't been produced. The US government requires a pilots license to drive one. And that's on top of other regulations that make the whole driving a flying car unfeasible, which in turn makes manufacturing flying cars unfeasible. It's a catch 22 just like alternative fuel vehicles. You won't find many hydrogen or natural gas vehicles on the road because there's nowhere to fuel them up...and there's nowhere to fuel them up because there aren't enough vehicles on the road to support any kind of business. If there isn't a market for something, companies aren't going to waste their time. However, if companies were smart enough to take care of both issues at once, then they could cultivate their own markets in large cities and use the profits to expand their market further.

[x88x]

Personally, I would love to have a flying car. ...on the other hand, having millions of flying cars throughout the country would be a logistical nightmare. The problem with tech like flying cars and (since you brought it up) self-driving highway networks, is that there are two hurdles. 1) Developing the tech to make it work correctly, reliably, and foolproof..ly?, and 2) getting people to trust it to do its job. Take airplane autopilots, for example. The autopilot in a modern commercial jet can (and I would bet in most cases does) handle everything from takeoff to touchdown, and probably taxiing on the runway too. Millions of flights come and go every day using these systems with an incredibly low number of problems. But, no passenger would get on the plane if there weren't a pilot on it. Doesn't matter that he might not actually do anything, they just don't trust the technology to do its job. It's the same thing with these things, it's not as much a problem of making them idiot-proof, it's a problem of getting the general public to trust that they're idiot-proof.

[knowledgegranted]

I wouldn't mind them, and when cars first went into mass production, it was said that no one would drive them.

When the wright brothers made a "flying machine" everyone thought they were crazy.

No I don't think you are crackpots, but just read:

http://amasci.com/freenrg/arrhenus.html

[BuzzKillington]

The way auto-pilot cars would work would be by following sensors set into the roads. If that's the case, what happens when someones couch falls off a trailer or a car breaks down or any other obstacle one would only be able to avoid by controlling the vehicle themselves?

I don't see auto-pilot cars or flying cars ever working not to mention, as brought up earlier, the entire world would have to be re-done. You think it will happen? I'll continue to laugh at the ideas because in these cases, they're stupid and will never work. haha

[x88x]

The way auto-pilot cars would work would be by following sensors set into the roads. If that's the case, what happens when someones couch falls off a trailer or a car breaks down or any other obstacle one would only be able to avoid by controlling the vehicle themselves?
Distance sensors, obstacle sensors, etc. There's not much that a person does in controlling a vehicle that can't be done just as well if not better with current technology. Check out the DARPA Urban Challenge (http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp) if you don't believe me. The problem is, and has always been, getting the technology cheap enough, reliable enough, and foolproof enough, that a car manufacturer will actually put it in a production car.


I don't see auto-pilot cars or flying cars ever working not to mention, as brought up earlier, the entire world would have to be re-done. You think it will happen? I'll continue to laugh at the ideas because in these cases, they're stupid and will never work. haha
That's been said for many things over the years that are now commonplace. Just saying. ;)

[Zephik]

And you thought ground-cars got bad mileage! lol

[Diamon]

As Zephik said I'm mostly concerned about the amount of fuel needed to keep a car hovering. Keeping something weighing 1-2 tons in the air constantly, even without any forward movement, takes a lot of power. And besides I think that if we're gonna keep multiplying we won't have any room for cars anyway.

[x88x]

And you thought ground-cars got bad mileage! lol

As Zephik said I'm mostly concerned about the amount of fuel needed to keep a car hovering. Keeping something weighing 1-2 tons in the air constantly, even without any forward movement, takes a lot of power.
This is a good point, though it actually takes more fuel to hover instead of actually moving forward, since 100% of the lift is being generated by the engines, not by the wings or body of the vehicle. This would probably be another factor keeping them in the realm of either very expensive or short-distance. I would expect to see tech like this implemented first in emergency vehicles, since cost of running is much less important for them than getting to the destination quickly.


And besides I think that if we're gonna keep multiplying we won't have any room for cars anyway.
Actually, that started me thinking..(always a dangerous thing :P ).. If we develop a fast for of transportation that does not require a fixed infrastructure (ex, roads, rails, etc), then people could conceivably spread out over much more of the usable land area. The only reason I don't live out in the middle of nowhere is because I don't want to have a 3 hours commute every day. But if I could cut that 3 hours to 30 minutes by flying, and I could actually live where I want, and still work where I want. The population crowding problem seen in so many places in the world is not a problem of there not being enough land area, it's a problem of everyone needing to be in the same place. If we could make it so that they don't all need to be in that same place all of the time, at least some of that problem could be fixed. Sort of like back when suburbs started becoming popular; the introduction of the car meant that people could live further out from the city, but still get into the city every day to work. I think the same thing could happen on a much larger scale if something like personal flying cars became a technological and economically feasible reality.

[mDust]

The way auto-pilot cars would work would be by following sensors set into the roads. If that's the case, what happens when someones couch falls off a trailer or a car breaks down or any other obstacle one would only be able to avoid by controlling the vehicle themselves?
Not likely at all. Sensors in the road surface would be far too expensive to implement and maintain. A combination of different types of sensors built into the cars themselves with redundancy is how auto-pilot cars could be controlled. GPS would be the most important as it would tell the car where it is at any given moment, where it's headed, and how fast it's traveling. Various sensors in each vehicle would communicate with the other vehicles around it to share information like type of vehicle, its exact current location, its exact intended location, its current speed, its intended speed, its direction, its current acceleration, etc. They would also be able to sense hazardous obstacles that do not communicate with the car such as debris, pedestrians, or malfunctioning vehicles.
I believe in cities flying cars would need to be forced to follow streets at a certain altitude to keep everything organized. Otherwise, 50,000 vehicles flying at high velocity in random directions would be a bad idea, although entertaining for onlookers in a distant bunker. I don't even like the idea of flying cars being able to fly wherever they like. I would hope that they would be restricted to various flight corridors to maintain the privacy and peace property owners paid for and deserve. I would be fine with flying traffic being allowed to fly straight to the nearest main road or freeway, but then following that until it needed to exit.


This is a good point, though it actually takes more fuel to hover instead of actually moving forward, since 100% of the lift is being generated by the engines, not by the wings or body of the vehicle. While it's true hovering is bad for fuel economy, there's no reason the vehicle should be hovering when not taking off or landing.

And as for encouraging urban sprawl...that is a very bad idea. We shouldn't destroy every last square mile of nature so that suburbs can extend hundreds of miles from downtown areas only because commuting has become easier.

[x88x]

In the US, flight is limited to at least 500 feet away from any structures or, I believe, personal property, so you would have at least a 500 foot window. Granted, no a huge distance, but no less than any aircraft can fly in today. I think set flight corridors in populated areas would be a very good idea, and even better would be at least partially assisted flight while in those flight corridors (since they would be much more crowded than other areas), but having them follow the roads is missing half the point. In that case they would just be an extension of the roads, limited by the same geographical barriers. Instead, new flight corridors should be drawn up, allowing the safest line-of-sight path possible.


While it's true hovering is bad for fuel economy, there's no reason the vehicle should be hovering when not taking off or landing.
True. in fact, that would be preferable.


And as for encouraging urban sprawl...that is a very bad idea. We shouldn't destroy every last square mile of nature so that suburbs can extend hundreds of miles from downtown areas only because commuting has become easier.
Who said anything about destroying all of nature? The larger the area that people can spread to, the less dense the population will be, so the less impact they will likely have. Isn't it better to have a small impact on a large area than a decimating impact on a small area? Additionally, wide roads would not be needed in these areas, further lessening the impact. Why should I have any less right to live far away from a city simply because I work near a city?

[Zephik]

What we need is to get rid of personal transportation altogether and get real damn fast public transportation. Just have bullet trains/trolleys EVERYWHERE. Heck yeah. :p

[knowledgegranted]

What we need is to get rid of personal transportation altogether and get real damn fast public transportation. Just have bullet trains/trolleys EVERYWHERE. Heck yeah. :p

That would be wicked cool, I would try it out. Although carrying groceries and stuff would be a little difficult.

[mDust]

...but having them follow the roads is missing half the point. In that case they would just be an extension of the roads, limited by the same geographical barriers.
If you bought a house and then thousands of flying cars started following a flight corridor 500 feet from your front door, would you feel the same way? Flying cars will undoubtedly be much faster than their grounded predecessors, so even though they are taking similar routes, they will get to the destination much faster. So your 3 hour commute now only takes an hour, you can't complain too much about that! The only geographical barriers for flying cars should be residential areas and high-population cities.



Who said anything about destroying all of nature? The larger the area that people can spread to, the less dense the population will be, so the less impact they will likely have. Isn't it better to have a small impact on a large area than a decimating impact on a small area? Additionally, wide roads would not be needed in these areas, further lessening the impact. Why should I have any less right to live far away from a city simply because I work near a city?

Have you walked down any sidewalk of any city lately? It doesn't matter where or when, but look at the trash on the ground. There's always some around. A McDonalds cup along the curb, or some napkins blowing around freely, a crushed soda can, plastic grocery bags caught in an updraft, misc. debris...and worst, the cocktail of automotive fluids that have stained the middle of each lane on the roadway and front of every parking space in every parking lot in existence. We are messy creatures. Spreading the pollution around IS worse than keeping it in a concentrated area...that's why we have landfills. I know I would still like to go camping or biking in relatively pristine areas in 30 years.
Also, by spreading everyone out, that means they MUST use their flying car to get anywhere. Here in the city, I can walk or bike anywhere I need to go and only really have to drive to get groceries or leave the city. That means less fuel burned and one less oil droplet trail to and from the 'corner store' 150 miles away for that pack of cigarettes.

[x88x]

The only geographical barriers for flying cars should be residential areas and high-population cities.
Exactly. That would be part of 'drawing up new flight corridors'.


Have you walked down any sidewalk of any city lately? It doesn't matter where or when, but look at the trash on the ground. There's always some around. A McDonalds cup along the curb, or some napkins blowing around freely, a crushed soda can, plastic grocery bags caught in an updraft, misc. debris...and worst, the cocktail of automotive fluids that have stained the middle of each lane on the roadway and front of every parking space in every parking lot in existence. We are messy creatures.
You're making my point here. Imagine how much worse that would be if all the people who live in the suburbs of that city had to live in the city itself. Take even more people out of the city, and the city can become nicer, meanwhile the people who move out can live in nicer areas too, and everyone's happy (ok, not everyone, but hopefully more than were before).


Spreading the pollution around IS worse than keeping it in a concentrated area...that's why we have landfills. I know I would still like to go camping or biking in relatively pristine areas in 30 years.
There are plenty of pristine areas far away from cities, and even a lot of fairly pristine (yeah, oxymoron, I know) areas in current suburbs. That's kinda the point of suburbs. Most people I know who live in suburbs want to have more preserved nature around them..that's why they moved to the suburbs (among other reasons).


Also, by spreading everyone out, that means they MUST use their flying car to get anywhere. Here in the city, I can walk or bike anywhere I need to go and only really have to drive to get groceries or leave the city. That means less fuel burned and one less oil droplet trail to and from the 'corner store' 150 miles away for that pack of cigarettes.
When you live out in the middle of nowhere, you learn to consolidate trips. You don't go to work, go home, go to the store, go home, go get cigarettes, and go home, you go to work and pick everything else up on the way back. And if you have something small that you need, you wait until the next time you're out anyway. This applies to suburbs to a lesser extent, but still, it's all just a matter of intelligently managing your time and resources.

[mDust]

Take even more people out of the city, and the city can become nicer, meanwhile...
...meanwhile all the clean areas around the city slowly become trashed. It's like taking trash out of the landfill to clean it up slightly and spreading it around the surrounding countryside in a thin layer. It's better to sacrifice certain areas to keep the surrounding areas clean.



There are plenty of pristine areas far away from cities, and even a lot of fairly pristine (yeah, oxymoron, I know) areas in current suburbs. That's kinda the point of suburbs. Most people I know who live in suburbs want to have more preserved nature around them..that's why they moved to the suburbs (among other reasons). That's exactly what urban sprawl is; it's people not wanting to be in the big city moving just outside of the city. This creates small towns, which grow to become suburban cities, which continue to grow to become an extension of the downtown area and the cycle repeats. This generation's suburb is the next generation's urban downtown.



When you live out in the middle of nowhere, you learn to consolidate trips. You don't go to work, go home, go to the store, go home, go get cigarettes, and go home, you go to work and pick everything else up on the way back. And if you have something small that you need, you wait until the next time you're out anyway. This applies to suburbs to a lesser extent, but still, it's all just a matter of intelligently managing your time and resources.
You would think this would be the case since it makes perfect logical sense. However, and if you smoke tobacco you will probably agree, if you're out of cigarettes, there's not a damn thing (ok...maybe a flying car seeking missile...but that's about it) that will stop you from getting to the store soon after that first craving hits. Unexpected trips are made all the time, and it doesn't matter how urban or rural your neighborhood.

[Diamon]

The amount of space needed isn't a problem...yet. The amount of resources needed however is a problem. Powering these new flying cars with fossil fuels simply isn't a good idea and to power them with electricity you'd need a very large battery. In the future maybe we can make batteries efficient enough for it to work though. Or we could just solve how to extract energy from random objects, e=mc^2, and put a small reactor in the car. Alternatively charge the batteries that way.

[mDust]

Powering these new flying cars with fossil fuels simply isn't a good idea and to power them with electricity you'd need a very large battery. In the future maybe we can make batteries efficient enough for it to work though. Or we could just solve how to extract energy from random objects, e=mc^2, and put a small reactor in the car. Alternatively charge the batteries that way.Hydrogen or liquid natural gas would work until we get those batteries' capacities sky high and their weight down to reasonable levels. I think we should experiment with bio-reactors more...we're constantly finding new strains of bacteria that produce interesting compounds or consume materials we never thought possible...e.g. oil, plastic, metal. We need to find, or breed, some that make fuel compounds. We could turn them loose on garbage and extract free fuel. And maybe if we tweak them right, we can have a clean burning fuel more powerful than methane! :D

[Bopher]

I've been following the Moller company for a couple years now. They seem to have the better idea with bringing ideas into the field. According to their site they already have been working with the FAA to bring about licensing for their flying car.

I think last time i saw one of these would be in the range of about $100k. Probably more, I'm terrible with prices just ask my wife. I'd take this over any sports car.

http://www.moller.com/

[x88x]

Yeah, I remember seeing the first concepts that Moller put out...oh, wow, what, it must have been almost 15 years ago now? They've popped up from time to time sense then though, each time with a more well developed product. I've been quite impressed by them overall.

[msmrx57]

http://www.terrafugia.com/
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/146891000

Something a little closer to actually happening soon. :eek:

[Bopher]

http://www.terrafugia.com/
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/146891000

Something a little closer to actually happening soon. :eek:

Funny I just saw that the FAA had approved terrafugia on XBox Live tonight when I went to play some Halo 3. I like the design but 190k for the car eep.

[msmrx57]

Funny I just saw that the FAA had approved terrafugia on XBox Live tonight when I went to play some Halo 3. I like the design but 190k for the car eep.

But it literally flies.

[mDust]

But it literally flies.

Heh, I think that's a prerequisite to be a flying car. I personally don't like the design of it. It looks like a VW bug with wings welded to the sides. I'd want a little more for my 200k bucks. Plus it can only take off from airports...

It's a start for flying cars, I suppose. But it's like the Geo Tracker of the sky: it can get you just about anywhere, but not with style, comfort, or power.