7 ms·

JB-9 jetpack makes debut flying around Statue of Liberty

151 points by deegles 11y ago

omg_copasetic 11y ago
About damn time...I want 4 of them now!
vskarine 11y ago
This one is cool too: http://mashable.com/2015/11/05/jetman-airbus-a380/#R7nf8vKsQ8q3 http://mashable.com/2015/11/05/jetman-airbus-a380/#R7nf8vKsQ...
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  The JetMan device is not a jetpack in the proper sense of the word. It's actually a full-fledged airplane (just mini size) with turboprops. It requires forward velocity to generate lift. Also, it can fly quite a bit longer than a jetpack. A true jetpack generates lift reactively, and can hover at zero forward velocity.
  - johansch 11y ago
    It looks a lot cooler though, in motion. :)
dvere 11y ago
Meet George Jetson...
a3voices 11y ago
I wish I could have someone with a remote control fly me to work every day with one of these.
- cgcardona 11y ago
  or software which could automate the flight path similar to a drone.
deegles 11y ago
I actually submitted this yesterday but it got resubmitted automatically? Is this a new HN feature?
- tim333 11y ago
  I think so
- sprobertson 11y ago
  An experiment they're doing to give "the best stories" a good chance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10537417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10537417
  - jcsnv 11y ago
    This is great
eadz 11y ago
The competition referenced may be the Martin Jetpack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack It is listed on the ASX stock exchange, although hasn't released a product to market yet. However, I think they may be further down the line towards commercialisation. The JB-9 looks more lightweight and fun, but the Martin has a parachute...
- nradov 11y ago
  A parachute doesn't really make it safe. There is still a large "dead zone" where it would be too high for the pilot to survive a crash but too low for the parachute to work. Unlike a helicopter, the propulsion system doesn't have enough inertia to perform a power-off autorotation. Some designs for larger powered lift vehicles have somewhat solved that problem by using multiple engines with cross-linked drive shafts. But that increases size, weight, and cost. These jet pack devices may find a very limited niche market. But they don't have much of a real use case beyond looking cool on video. Most potential buyers will still prefer small helicopters, or drones.
  - retbull 11y ago
    I wonder if they could put in an electric hybrid system that could give a few seconds of propulsion to slow decent in the case of losing gas power. I have no idea though if that would even make sense because it seems like it would just increase the weight with no benefit.
    - nradov 11y ago
      Sure but it would require a complex, heavy, and expensive set of electric motors, transmissions, clutches, batteries, etc. At that point you might as well just use a helicopter.
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    Rocket chutes[1] help with the altitude problem but there are lots of "dead" zones. [1] https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/ps_3.html https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/ps_3.html
mrfusion 11y ago
Why does it use 1 gallon per minute?
- outworlder 11y ago
  To counteract 9.8m/s^2 of downwards acceleration?
trhway 11y ago
obligatory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk - used turbojet as the one on Tomahawk cruise missile.
sounds 11y ago
Serious question, anyone know the ballpark figures of thrust-to-weight based on 1000 ft/min ascent rate for fully loaded and ground level? I'm trying to calculate maximum theoretical fuel capacity, essentially 1:1 thrust-to-weight, given it burns kerosene - 6.82 lbs/gallon at STP. 10 gallons of kerosene = 68.2 lbs is much less than the weight variation of a standard adult human, which falls roughly in the range 100 lbs - 200 lbs, so doubling the fuel capacity should be easy. I suppose engine upgrades would also be easy. They did mention the JB-10 was in the works... [Edit: thanks Retric, 68.2 lbs not 16 lbs]
- Retric 11y ago
  10 gallons of kerosene = 68.2 LBS
- jessriedel 11y ago
  Yea, 10 minutes of flight time seem incredibly high to me. That means you could significantly increase it with external fuel tanks (say, for a total of 20 gallons). 15 minutes would be a darn long jet pack ride. Limiting factor is actually just how much weight you could plausibly carry on your back. (Edited numbers.)
  - trhway 11y ago
    it seems they are using pure jets and in this case high-by-pass would be a way to immediately improve the thrust and thus to decrease the fuel consumption.
    - watmough 11y ago
      It crossed my mind that all you really need is the right engines and some means of control ... http://jetbeetle.com/JB_body_products.htm http://jetbeetle.com/JB_body_products.htm Cost for 150lbf thrust about $15k http://crxturbines.com/jetbeetle.htm http://crxturbines.com/jetbeetle.htm
hyperpallium 11y ago
In USA future, backpack carries you! I was a skeptic, but this looks unbelievably cool (even though they could have done a lot more cinematically). However, jetpacks seem fundamentally limited to me because of the energy required. Perhaps a nuclear powered one would solve this? Or, the mythical massively higher density battery. An alternative for personal flight is the powered parasail (aka parapont). There's a local guy who cruises around the bay shoreline at about 20-30feet, for a couple of hours. It's not capable of jetpack acrobatics, but more like seagulls soaring along a ridge.
- monk_e_boy 11y ago
  As someone who kitesurfs and is quite aware of how air moves around -- you wouldn't catch me flying one of those things in anything over 10mph, especially around tall buildings. Gusts, rotors, turbulence. Ugh. Scary enough when you're 20 foot above water. Deadly when you're over land.
  - partomniscient 11y ago
    Not to mention the potential annoyance of people trying to buzz you with their drones.
- johnloeber 11y ago
  A nuclear powered jetpack? Wait, sorry, what? Has there been some incredible development regarding either nuclear reactors or propulsion engines that I've missed out on?
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    If you don't mind heavy radiation, you could have a pu pile to rapidly heat air and blast it from a nozzle. This sort of thing was how project Pluto (bought to you by coors, of all people) worked. Nuclear powered cruise missile. Not sure if you could make it quite small enough to stick on your back, and again, heavy radiation.
    - 11y ago
dctoedt 11y ago
Uh oh -- this might be a game changer for well-funded suicide bombers.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  Private planes have existed for a long, long time and can carry a lot more explosives than this can. Also, where are these "well-funded suicide bombers" I keep hearing about? The ones in the news all seem to be running on household chemicals, jacked-up cookware, and chutzpah.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    Provided by the Feds in numerous cases too!
rotten 11y ago
Big city firefighters need these. They could fly up skyscrapers and rescue people or bring hoses way up there. Mountain rescue teams could use them to extract people or get first aid to the sides of cliffs. I remember watching Navy Seals jumping out of helicopters in San Diego harbor and then presumably swimming down to meet submarines. They could do this in reverse - climb out of a submarine and then flying up to the helicopter. Cool stuff.
- gilgoomesh 11y ago
  Except that you can't really carry additional weight (certainly not another person). Even a lightweight hose or line would mess up your flight if it was tethered. As for fires: burning buildings are masses of hot, moving air which wouldn't be navigable (the best you could do would be to land on an unaffected side of the building). Even the Martin Jetpack (the only other nearly-commercial product in this market at the moment): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack is only likely to be useful in a small number of "first responder" situations despite being dramatically more powerful.
  - msie 11y ago
    Party-pooper, you're holding the future back! ;-)
throwaway92 11y ago
I used to work for this guy, for a company called Yodel (owned by Fulfilnet). I know it's not Hacker News worthy, but he's a really awful human being and I remember him coming into the building and firing people blindly just so he could make enough money to keep his jetpack hobby alive. He's British, so he started businesses in Australia and left them running remotely so he couldn't be brought down by them. Sorry for talking about the person and not the technology, I just can't stand by when I watched this guy really screw people over for his own personal gain. Sources: http://www.ecommercereport.com.au/failed-businesses-yodel-blink-digital-fulfilnet-etc-re-surface-as-australian-internet-advertising-pty-limited/ http://www.ecommercereport.com.au/failed-businesses-yodel-bl... <-- This is the interesting one. After crashing his previous businesses he started up another and bought the assets and customers under a new name, then started fresh. New company is https://www.aiad.com.au/ https://www.aiad.com.au/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodel_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodel_Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-16/customers-left-in-the-lurch-as-internet-ad-agencies-go-bust/5159762 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-16/customers-left-in-the-...
- codedokode 11y ago
  What is wrong with firing people to cut the costs?
  - themodelplumber 11y ago
    Sounds like two things: 1) Firing people blindly and 2) Doing #1 to fund an expensive hobby. Neither one really demonstrates responsibility that you'd want in a good leader, to say the least. So to your question: Nothing. But embracing parent's experiential data: Everything.
bambax 11y ago
Shouldn't we look to genetics and try to grow wings instead? I often wonder how different the world would look if "humans" had evolved from birds instead of from primates...
- smallhands 11y ago
  Thank you,but i am happy a primate.but you have to consider faster heart beats ,very short life span etc
  - Faint 11y ago
    Not all birds are short lived... Over 60 and still producing offspring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_%28albatross%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_%28albatross%29
rbanffy 11y ago
[√] jetpack [ ] flying car [ ] Pan-Am space shuttle [ ] Space station with artificial gravity

151 points by deegles 11y ago

About damn time...I want 4 of them now!

This one is cool too: http://mashable.com/2015/11/05/jetman-airbus-a380/#R7nf8vKsQ8q3 http://mashable.com/2015/11/05/jetman-airbus-a380/#R7nf8vKsQ...

Florin_Andrei 11y ago
The JetMan device is not a jetpack in the proper sense of the word. It's actually a full-fledged airplane (just mini size) with turboprops. It requires forward velocity to generate lift. Also, it can fly quite a bit longer than a jetpack. A true jetpack generates lift reactively, and can hover at zero forward velocity.
- johansch 11y ago
  It looks a lot cooler though, in motion. :)

dvere 11y ago

Meet George Jetson...

a3voices 11y ago

I wish I could have someone with a remote control fly me to work every day with one of these.

cgcardona 11y ago
or software which could automate the flight path similar to a drone.

deegles 11y ago

I actually submitted this yesterday but it got resubmitted automatically? Is this a new HN feature?

tim333 11y ago
I think so
sprobertson 11y ago
An experiment they're doing to give "the best stories" a good chance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10537417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10537417
- jcsnv 11y ago
  This is great

eadz 11y ago

The competition referenced may be the Martin Jetpack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack It is listed on the ASX stock exchange, although hasn't released a product to market yet. However, I think they may be further down the line towards commercialisation. The JB-9 looks more lightweight and fun, but the Martin has a parachute...

nradov 11y ago
A parachute doesn't really make it safe. There is still a large "dead zone" where it would be too high for the pilot to survive a crash but too low for the parachute to work. Unlike a helicopter, the propulsion system doesn't have enough inertia to perform a power-off autorotation. Some designs for larger powered lift vehicles have somewhat solved that problem by using multiple engines with cross-linked drive shafts. But that increases size, weight, and cost. These jet pack devices may find a very limited niche market. But they don't have much of a real use case beyond looking cool on video. Most potential buyers will still prefer small helicopters, or drones.
- retbull 11y ago
  I wonder if they could put in an electric hybrid system that could give a few seconds of propulsion to slow decent in the case of losing gas power. I have no idea though if that would even make sense because it seems like it would just increase the weight with no benefit.
  - nradov 11y ago
    Sure but it would require a complex, heavy, and expensive set of electric motors, transmissions, clutches, batteries, etc. At that point you might as well just use a helicopter.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  Rocket chutes[1] help with the altitude problem but there are lots of "dead" zones. [1] https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/ps_3.html https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/ps_3.html

mrfusion 11y ago

Why does it use 1 gallon per minute?

outworlder 11y ago
To counteract 9.8m/s^2 of downwards acceleration?

trhway 11y ago

obligatory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk - used turbojet as the one on Tomahawk cruise missile.

sounds 11y ago

Serious question, anyone know the ballpark figures of thrust-to-weight based on 1000 ft/min ascent rate for fully loaded and ground level? I'm trying to calculate maximum theoretical fuel capacity, essentially 1:1 thrust-to-weight, given it burns kerosene - 6.82 lbs/gallon at STP. 10 gallons of kerosene = 68.2 lbs is much less than the weight variation of a standard adult human, which falls roughly in the range 100 lbs - 200 lbs, so doubling the fuel capacity should be easy. I suppose engine upgrades would also be easy. They did mention the JB-10 was in the works... [Edit: thanks Retric, 68.2 lbs not 16 lbs]

Retric 11y ago
10 gallons of kerosene = 68.2 LBS
jessriedel 11y ago
Yea, 10 minutes of flight time seem incredibly high to me. That means you could significantly increase it with external fuel tanks (say, for a total of 20 gallons). 15 minutes would be a darn long jet pack ride. Limiting factor is actually just how much weight you could plausibly carry on your back. (Edited numbers.)
- trhway 11y ago
  it seems they are using pure jets and in this case high-by-pass would be a way to immediately improve the thrust and thus to decrease the fuel consumption.
  - watmough 11y ago
    It crossed my mind that all you really need is the right engines and some means of control ... http://jetbeetle.com/JB_body_products.htm http://jetbeetle.com/JB_body_products.htm Cost for 150lbf thrust about $15k http://crxturbines.com/jetbeetle.htm http://crxturbines.com/jetbeetle.htm

hyperpallium 11y ago

In USA future, backpack carries you! I was a skeptic, but this looks unbelievably cool (even though they could have done a lot more cinematically). However, jetpacks seem fundamentally limited to me because of the energy required. Perhaps a nuclear powered one would solve this? Or, the mythical massively higher density battery. An alternative for personal flight is the powered parasail (aka parapont). There's a local guy who cruises around the bay shoreline at about 20-30feet, for a couple of hours. It's not capable of jetpack acrobatics, but more like seagulls soaring along a ridge.

monk_e_boy 11y ago
As someone who kitesurfs and is quite aware of how air moves around -- you wouldn't catch me flying one of those things in anything over 10mph, especially around tall buildings. Gusts, rotors, turbulence. Ugh. Scary enough when you're 20 foot above water. Deadly when you're over land.
- partomniscient 11y ago
  Not to mention the potential annoyance of people trying to buzz you with their drones.
johnloeber 11y ago
A nuclear powered jetpack? Wait, sorry, what? Has there been some incredible development regarding either nuclear reactors or propulsion engines that I've missed out on?
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  If you don't mind heavy radiation, you could have a pu pile to rapidly heat air and blast it from a nozzle. This sort of thing was how project Pluto (bought to you by coors, of all people) worked. Nuclear powered cruise missile. Not sure if you could make it quite small enough to stick on your back, and again, heavy radiation.
  - 11y ago

dctoedt 11y ago

Uh oh -- this might be a game changer for well-funded suicide bombers.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
Private planes have existed for a long, long time and can carry a lot more explosives than this can. Also, where are these "well-funded suicide bombers" I keep hearing about? The ones in the news all seem to be running on household chemicals, jacked-up cookware, and chutzpah.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  Provided by the Feds in numerous cases too!

rotten 11y ago

Big city firefighters need these. They could fly up skyscrapers and rescue people or bring hoses way up there. Mountain rescue teams could use them to extract people or get first aid to the sides of cliffs. I remember watching Navy Seals jumping out of helicopters in San Diego harbor and then presumably swimming down to meet submarines. They could do this in reverse - climb out of a submarine and then flying up to the helicopter. Cool stuff.

gilgoomesh 11y ago
Except that you can't really carry additional weight (certainly not another person). Even a lightweight hose or line would mess up your flight if it was tethered. As for fires: burning buildings are masses of hot, moving air which wouldn't be navigable (the best you could do would be to land on an unaffected side of the building). Even the Martin Jetpack (the only other nearly-commercial product in this market at the moment): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack is only likely to be useful in a small number of "first responder" situations despite being dramatically more powerful.
- msie 11y ago
  Party-pooper, you're holding the future back! ;-)

throwaway92 11y ago

I used to work for this guy, for a company called Yodel (owned by Fulfilnet). I know it's not Hacker News worthy, but he's a really awful human being and I remember him coming into the building and firing people blindly just so he could make enough money to keep his jetpack hobby alive. He's British, so he started businesses in Australia and left them running remotely so he couldn't be brought down by them. Sorry for talking about the person and not the technology, I just can't stand by when I watched this guy really screw people over for his own personal gain. Sources: http://www.ecommercereport.com.au/failed-businesses-yodel-blink-digital-fulfilnet-etc-re-surface-as-australian-internet-advertising-pty-limited/ http://www.ecommercereport.com.au/failed-businesses-yodel-bl... <-- This is the interesting one. After crashing his previous businesses he started up another and bought the assets and customers under a new name, then started fresh. New company is https://www.aiad.com.au/ https://www.aiad.com.au/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodel_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodel_Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-16/customers-left-in-the-lurch-as-internet-ad-agencies-go-bust/5159762 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-16/customers-left-in-the-...

codedokode 11y ago
What is wrong with firing people to cut the costs?
- themodelplumber 11y ago
  Sounds like two things: 1) Firing people blindly and 2) Doing #1 to fund an expensive hobby. Neither one really demonstrates responsibility that you'd want in a good leader, to say the least. So to your question: Nothing. But embracing parent's experiential data: Everything.

bambax 11y ago

Shouldn't we look to genetics and try to grow wings instead? I often wonder how different the world would look if "humans" had evolved from birds instead of from primates...

smallhands 11y ago
Thank you,but i am happy a primate.but you have to consider faster heart beats ,very short life span etc
- Faint 11y ago
  Not all birds are short lived... Over 60 and still producing offspring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_%28albatross%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_%28albatross%29

rbanffy 11y ago

[√] jetpack [ ] flying car [ ] Pan-Am space shuttle [ ] Space station with artificial gravity