10 ms·

Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

77 points by cookscar 10y ago

amarka 10y ago
I don't get it, is this hiring like a PR stunt? I would thinking creating your own maps and autonomous driving platforms is already fairly ambitious, but flying cars?
aetherson 10y ago
I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.
- _red 10y ago
  The "self driving car" meme is petering out, so they are attempting to create some hype in order to keep the Ponzi investment flows churning.
  - EthanHeilman 10y ago
    By which you mean, coming to fruition? I'm not the biggest fan of Uber on a number of issues but I think the biggest problem they have is that their investors were planning on having a monopoly on livery. That is clearly not going to happen. Flying cars and self driving cars are actually significantly more sound than their business model and are much more likely to provide a decent ROI. If and when Uber runs out of steam and its assets are liquidated the most valuable part will be research. Lets check back on this in 10 years.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Which could be true if Uber's self driving car project lasted longer than a week. Other companies have already logged tens of thousands of road hours into their self-driving car research. At this point, it seems more like these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring, like the previous commenter said. You don't need to see the end product to know if progress is being made.
      - EthanHeilman 10y ago
        They did hire some of the top self-driving car (can we call them autocars?) researchers. >"these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring" My view is that they are attempting to develop a more solid business model. Why wouldn't they try? Even if they fail to turn it into business it creates value that can sell to the companies that do succeed. Besides if they need a shiney for their investors, faking it seems to be just as much work as actually doing it.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - slededit 10y ago
      Self driving cars will be a commodity business, there are just too many people working on it with sufficient backing (including pretty much all the car companies at this point). In the end its going to be the brand name that ensures margin. Predictions of privately owned self driving fleets are interesting, but it would be ludicrous to assume anyone would be a monopoly supplier of those vehicles.
  - Pigo 10y ago
    I still don't think I understand why self-driving cars is nothing more than a publicity stunt for them. I've heard people say it's not working, and the cars they have on the road are for show. But why can it not ever be a functioning part of their business when there are cars that can do this?
    - Retric 10y ago
      Uber expanded in large part because they did not need to buy cars or taxi medallions to compete. So, they could use subsides to attract new customers. If they now need to buy or even lease a few million cars they simply can't afford to do that globally. So, it's likely going to be the next round of well funded startup that wins.
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      Primarily because "be a functioning part of their business" applies to so many other companies. Manufacturers like Tesla or Audi? Sure. Car rental and fleet management companies like Avis or Enterprise? Certainly could be a part of their business. Local couple who owns a car wash and can afford to buy 2-3 self-driving vehicles and keep them clean? Why not, I'd give someone local a try. What's unique about Uber's know-how to ensure their domination (or in absence of domination, reasonable margins) in the segment?
  - usrusr 10y ago
    Or a less evil version of the same: dazzle the investors they already have lest they decide to cut losses before all that tasty runway is burnt to completion. With all the investment Uber already has (maybe more than their complete target market could ever be worth?) I suspect that they don't really hope for more. Some of their predatory pricing schemes might actually be a panic reaction to not having stopped raising earlier.
- iaw 10y ago
  I share your theory. I think Uber was dominant and in a great position financially until it tried to aggressively continue it's expansion into immature markets using subsidies. Their fixed costs have exploded while revenue hasn't grown as quickly. There's no reason this technology can't/wont work from a science perspective. From an engineering, consumer, political standpoint this concept is such a non-starter. The more money Uber spends on this the quicker they'll bleed-out.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    What do you define to be an "immature market" in this context?
    - iaw 10y ago
      China specifically and any other area where the fixed costs of operation for Uber outpace any marginal cost they can get off the region due to exchange rate inequalities.
- stephengillie 10y ago
  It's an old salesman's technique, to distract the client from current problems with the product, by selling shiny new features. It's similar to distracting a baby from the problems of life, with your shiny keys, in lieu of more appropriate toys.
- fullshark 10y ago
  Or they think burning money on this guy is worth it to get engineers to join the company because it's "cool."
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Can you elaborate on how think this development helps to achieve an exit? Also what do you mean by "dumb money"? I ask because I am sincerely interested in hearing your theory.
- geodel 10y ago
  So Uber is basically giving a flying fuck to investors by calling it a Flying car.
- castratikron 10y ago
  Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.
  - petra 10y ago
    Their problem is execution - they don't seem to sucseed in true ride sharing(few people share the same car), which is a protectable business, once won. On the other hand, some of their competitors, like via seem to manage to do that quite well(altough currently supported by VC money). So i wonder, what's the secret that Uber can't seem to copy ?
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "Their business model has no barrier to entry." Critical mass of drivers, particularly within a specific market area - and brand - are definitely barriers to entry. There are network externalities for sure. If you go to city ABC and 'everyone is on Uber' - as a consumer, you'll probably just use Uber. Drivers? Well, they'll just sign up for Uber if there's little else. A 'new market entrant' will have a 'chicken and egg' problem in terms of signing up drivers and riders. A true 'lower barrier to entry' business would be like a hot-dog stand - no cost, you set up beside the other guy, you can take just as much business. Your benefit scales roughly linearly with the number of stands you have, and because you have more, does not really give customers incentive to buy from you etc.. So there are 'competitors' but there are also at least some barriers, on a locale by locale basis. There are other barriers - such as the ability to fund/lobby (and bribe) all of the various political entities that could oppose you - Uber has been pretty aggressive at winning these things and that costs $$$.
    - castratikron 10y ago
      I've got both Uber and Lyft on my phone, which I guess could be analogous to having two hot dog stands on the same block. Drivers can switch between the two just as easily. You're right though, they do have a well-established brand, and they have spent a lot of effort in getting around all sorts of legal problems. I wonder, though, if the legal things that Uber has paved the way on would ever make it easier for some other Uber clone to take up the same business without all of the legal hurdles, since they've already established some sort of precedent.
jayjay71 10y ago
When does Uber run out of money? I think the timeline on their R&D projects is longer than their runway, and I'm not sure how many more people would be willing to write Uber a 10 digit check.
- iaw 10y ago
  They've raised a lot of money in the last 18 months (likely in anticipation of an evolving financial environment) so I suspect they actually have a couple years left if they're careful. It's like they're stumbling forward blindly hoping that at some point their books balance.
  - jayjay71 10y ago
    I also forgot they bought Otto. I think self-driving cars are a long way away, but I believe self-driving trucks could potentially be viable in a few years - and the market is massive. Maybe they can commercialize that soon enough to save themselves. Apart from the technology though, I'm sure the regulations (something Uber loves) and customer relations could be a tough nut to crack.
    - iaw 10y ago
      You are completely right. Shipping automation has a lot of potential. I don't think Uber has any strong competitive advantage in the self-driving space relative to all of the other players. I've been wrong about these things before. The thing that may put them at a disadvantage is their history of ignoring regulations compared to companies like Google. Even if they develop the technology quickly enough they may be screwed because a competitive technology is the one that gets licensed by the DOT because other companies play by the rules.
      - jayjay71 10y ago
        I'm biased because I used to work with many of the people Uber hired for self-driving cars, but they bought really great engineering talent. Great talent doesn't mean much though if the management is bad, and after their whole illegal testing in California debacle it makes me cautious. That said, I didn't realize just how far ahead Google/Waymo is with regards to self-driving cars. If you check out the report of autonomous vehicles (HN "discussion" here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13554796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13554796) they are already operating on highways with zero problems! The data is limited, but that is promising.
iaw 10y ago
This strikes me as pretty pathetic effort by Uber to make itself appear forward looking Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. The system only becomes useful/safe if you "stack" vehicles on roadways. What happens when one has a failure and crashes? This is either market signaling or another thing Uber will bleed money onto.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. There are lots of technical roadblocks to feasible flying cars but the cost of the potential energy to change elevation is not one of them. The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips, and when normal cars must change elevation (i.e, drive over hills/mountains), they do not use so much fuel as to make the trips infeasible. In a flying car, much more energy is used fighting air drag and gravity drag.
  - iaw 10y ago
    > The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips Where does the column of flying cars go? Do they expand vertically or horizontally as traffic increases? In the underpopulated area's of the US where 10% of the population lives this is a feasible mode of transit, what about the 90% that actually have traffic? If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, if the cars broaden horizontally it's a violation of property rights (and a different safety risk), if the cars don't broaden it rapidly becomes inefficient and dangerous. Also, with the advent of KERS and other regenerative systems cars will be able to recapture the bulk of energy consumed for elevation changes. To my knowledge there's no such effective system for planes. So the efficiency on cars is still higher than air vehicles.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      > If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, That's the evidence you're giving to dismiss the ability of flying cars to distribute over multiple altitude? Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible. > Also, with the advent of KERS and other regenerative systems cars will be able to recapture the bulk of energy consumed for elevation changes. To my knowledge there's no such effective system for planes. So the efficiency on cars is still higher than air vehicles. No one is disputing that regular cars are more efficient than flying cars. But trucks are less efficient than container ships, and we still use the former when the latter is impossible or too slow. You said "Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics", and this just isn't true.
dexwiz 10y ago
Flying cars of the 2010s seem striking similar to solar cars for the 1980s. A few expensive prototypes here and there, some great pontificating from leading engineers, but no serious consumer model.
- EJTH 10y ago
  Depends... I think we are really close to have viable "flying cars" in the form of electric or even hybrid gas-electric multirotors... Give it 5-10 years Im sure we will begin to see multirotors being used for personal transportation.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Predicated on advances in battery tech. The rest is there, agreed.
spraak 10y ago
This could have equally been an article on the Onion
- creeble 10y ago
  Funnier on Bloomberg! Sort of. I guess they don't do physics there. I love the closing: "Kalanick’s bet on Uber Elevate is another indication that while Silicon Valley seems on the surface to be consumed with politics and protests these days, the march into the future continues apace." Yeah, okay. Oh Uber is based where?
- fullshark 10y ago
  They are gonna hire this guy next to research Compost Fueled Cars: https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q
  - spraak 10y ago
    Actually I remember an article from the local paper here (on Kaua'i) where someone on the island had made just that.. though I think the compost was making biofuel of some sort
EJTH 10y ago
Can we all please agree that if something is not designed for road use, it can hardly be categorized as a car? Im all for stuff like this, but "flying cars" implies something that is practical as both a road vehicle and a flying contraption of sorts...
ilamont 10y ago
There's a flying car company, Terrafugia (1), that came out of MIT ten years ago and they have working prototypes. There's an old YouTube video here (2) and apparently they have "persuaded the FAA to grant Terrafugia a waiver of weight and stall-speed limits so it can self-certify its Transition flying car as a light sport aircraft" (3). Not sure of the safety implications or the commercial viability of flying cars for Uber, but there are people out there who want to be able to own or fly an aircraft and not have to deal with various hassles that come with traditional aircraft ownership. 1. https://www.terrafugia.com/ https://www.terrafugia.com/ 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw 3. http://aviationweek.com/technology/faa-light-sport-aircraft-waiver-clears-way-transition-flying-car http://aviationweek.com/technology/faa-light-sport-aircraft-...
- FabHK 10y ago
  Unfortunately, not really out in production yet, just like the amphibian Icon A5 [1]. With aviation certification requirements, it takes huge amounts of time and capital to get it from concept to prototype/first flight, and unfortunately also from prototype/first flight to production and customers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5
- swatkat 10y ago
  There's also Moller Skycar[1], a vaporware that has been in the works since last 30 years. [1] http://moller.com/moller_skycar400.html http://moller.com/moller_skycar400.html
lutusp 10y ago
Projects like this will eventually produce an airborne commuter vehicle, but: * It will resemble a scaled-up quadcopter (for which there's already an early prototype: http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11882458/ehang-passenger-quadcopter-test-flights-nevada http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11882458/ehang-passenger-qu...) * It will only happen when batteries are much better than they are now -- more energy density, longer lived, more efficient. The bottom line is that this idea, like so many around us, is waiting for decent batteries to be invented.
- FabHK 10y ago
  I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. The Volocopter, by way of contrast, has the rotors above the cockpit, has 18 rotors for redundancy, and is actually already flying for both unmanned and manned test flights, with preliminary approval by German authorities. In my view, it's a more sensible concept that's also further advanced already. http://volocopter.com/ http://volocopter.com/
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Agreed though that the big problem for electric flight for now are the batteries. Note though that the issue is not so much energy density (energy per volume), but specific energy (energy per mass), currently at around 400 kWh/kg. Fossile fuel has a specific energy so much higher that it still wins hands down, even though a piston engine converts only about 10% of that energy into mechanical energy.
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. I think it's only because they're the first, their craft is really a rough prototype, and in five years they'll likely be forgotten. > With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. That's my reason for thinking they're engineers who aren't thinking of the needs and vulnerabilities of end users -- they aren't really thinking about end-user issues. > The Volocopter, by way of contrast ... * Much safer design, better protection against any single-point failure (the eHang can't afford to lose even one of its props and remain controllable). * But soo ugly. :) To me, the first large quad with protective shields around its props will signal a level of seriousness consistent with the supposed goal (end-user acceptance, non-prototype).
thearn4 10y ago
Interesting, I didn't realize Mark had resigned from LaRC. I'd be interested to hear a more complete take on his opinions about NASA Aeronautics, because he sounded a bit disillusioned. The big caveat when comparing to industry efforts, of course, is that NASA Aero, by design, is not an airline, or an airframe manufacturer, or a regulator. It's an R&D outfit that still very much follows the structure of its predecessor, NACA.
aptwebapps 10y ago
Rant: Since when did VTOL == 'flying car'? A flying car is a hybrid, dual-use vehicle. Is a helicopter a flying car? A Harrier jet? VTOL would be great for an actual flying car and it would be great for small, personal aircraft, but that doesn't make an aircraft that has it a flying car.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Absolutely. We need a new word for this new category of aircraft (like the eHang, Volocopter, etc.), but "flying car" it is not. I'm in favour of Personal Electric VTOL Aircraft, PEVA.
tga 10y ago
And this is why giving cruddy companies insane amounts of cash works out well for humankind. Few sane companies would have been able to put significant resources behind something like this without a solid lead in hand.
6stringmerc 10y ago
Flying cars aren't the future. I think it's much more in Jetpacks. Once power density is better than Jet-A, we'll be in business for some great options. Probably dangerous as all get out, but that's part of the fun. https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/for-christmas-2016-i-give-the-world-the-parawing-fcc63fb3c20d#.w6iatgr2j https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/for-christmas-2016-i-give-th...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
FnuGk 10y ago
I never understood the point of flying cars. Do we not already have those but call them airplanes? Flying cars seem infeasible to operate for the mass consumer as they (like airplanes) require extensive training to operate safely.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  The idea is that they are self-driving flying cars, so consumers don't need training. While the physics of flight are more complex than driving, the environment is far less complex (straight-line between points, few obstacles along the way). Flight is better suited to automation, and in fact we already have very reliable autopilots and computer-enhanced airplanes. That said, I think the fuel costs of flying mean it will never be competitive with driving, based on cost.
  - FnuGk 10y ago
    I still do not understand the difference between a flying car and an air plane.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      Terrible name, indeed. Flying car sort of implies: * can fly and drive on the road. While there are concepts along those lines (e.g. the Terrafugia Transformation), that's not what this is about. What distinguishes this new bred of aircraft is: * VTOL, so not bound to a traditional airport * simple control ("like a car"), so don't need a pilot. That distinguishes them from a helicopter, which is harder to fly than a fixed wing plane. * maybe also autonomous flying and collision avoidance, so more like next-gen cars. I find PEVA (personal electric VTOL aircraft) more descriptive.

77 points by cookscar 10y ago

I don't get it, is this hiring like a PR stunt? I would thinking creating your own maps and autonomous driving platforms is already fairly ambitious, but flying cars?

aetherson 10y ago

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.

_red 10y ago
The "self driving car" meme is petering out, so they are attempting to create some hype in order to keep the Ponzi investment flows churning.
- EthanHeilman 10y ago
  By which you mean, coming to fruition? I'm not the biggest fan of Uber on a number of issues but I think the biggest problem they have is that their investors were planning on having a monopoly on livery. That is clearly not going to happen. Flying cars and self driving cars are actually significantly more sound than their business model and are much more likely to provide a decent ROI. If and when Uber runs out of steam and its assets are liquidated the most valuable part will be research. Lets check back on this in 10 years.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Which could be true if Uber's self driving car project lasted longer than a week. Other companies have already logged tens of thousands of road hours into their self-driving car research. At this point, it seems more like these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring, like the previous commenter said. You don't need to see the end product to know if progress is being made.
    - EthanHeilman 10y ago
      They did hire some of the top self-driving car (can we call them autocars?) researchers. >"these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring" My view is that they are attempting to develop a more solid business model. Why wouldn't they try? Even if they fail to turn it into business it creates value that can sell to the companies that do succeed. Besides if they need a shiney for their investors, faking it seems to be just as much work as actually doing it.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - slededit 10y ago
    Self driving cars will be a commodity business, there are just too many people working on it with sufficient backing (including pretty much all the car companies at this point). In the end its going to be the brand name that ensures margin. Predictions of privately owned self driving fleets are interesting, but it would be ludicrous to assume anyone would be a monopoly supplier of those vehicles.
- Pigo 10y ago
  I still don't think I understand why self-driving cars is nothing more than a publicity stunt for them. I've heard people say it's not working, and the cars they have on the road are for show. But why can it not ever be a functioning part of their business when there are cars that can do this?
  - Retric 10y ago
    Uber expanded in large part because they did not need to buy cars or taxi medallions to compete. So, they could use subsides to attract new customers. If they now need to buy or even lease a few million cars they simply can't afford to do that globally. So, it's likely going to be the next round of well funded startup that wins.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    Primarily because "be a functioning part of their business" applies to so many other companies. Manufacturers like Tesla or Audi? Sure. Car rental and fleet management companies like Avis or Enterprise? Certainly could be a part of their business. Local couple who owns a car wash and can afford to buy 2-3 self-driving vehicles and keep them clean? Why not, I'd give someone local a try. What's unique about Uber's know-how to ensure their domination (or in absence of domination, reasonable margins) in the segment?
- usrusr 10y ago
  Or a less evil version of the same: dazzle the investors they already have lest they decide to cut losses before all that tasty runway is burnt to completion. With all the investment Uber already has (maybe more than their complete target market could ever be worth?) I suspect that they don't really hope for more. Some of their predatory pricing schemes might actually be a panic reaction to not having stopped raising earlier.
iaw 10y ago
I share your theory. I think Uber was dominant and in a great position financially until it tried to aggressively continue it's expansion into immature markets using subsidies. Their fixed costs have exploded while revenue hasn't grown as quickly. There's no reason this technology can't/wont work from a science perspective. From an engineering, consumer, political standpoint this concept is such a non-starter. The more money Uber spends on this the quicker they'll bleed-out.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  What do you define to be an "immature market" in this context?
  - iaw 10y ago
    China specifically and any other area where the fixed costs of operation for Uber outpace any marginal cost they can get off the region due to exchange rate inequalities.
stephengillie 10y ago
It's an old salesman's technique, to distract the client from current problems with the product, by selling shiny new features. It's similar to distracting a baby from the problems of life, with your shiny keys, in lieu of more appropriate toys.
fullshark 10y ago
Or they think burning money on this guy is worth it to get engineers to join the company because it's "cool."
bogomipz 10y ago
Can you elaborate on how think this development helps to achieve an exit? Also what do you mean by "dumb money"? I ask because I am sincerely interested in hearing your theory.
geodel 10y ago
So Uber is basically giving a flying fuck to investors by calling it a Flying car.
castratikron 10y ago
Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.
- petra 10y ago
  Their problem is execution - they don't seem to sucseed in true ride sharing(few people share the same car), which is a protectable business, once won. On the other hand, some of their competitors, like via seem to manage to do that quite well(altough currently supported by VC money). So i wonder, what's the secret that Uber can't seem to copy ?
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Their business model has no barrier to entry." Critical mass of drivers, particularly within a specific market area - and brand - are definitely barriers to entry. There are network externalities for sure. If you go to city ABC and 'everyone is on Uber' - as a consumer, you'll probably just use Uber. Drivers? Well, they'll just sign up for Uber if there's little else. A 'new market entrant' will have a 'chicken and egg' problem in terms of signing up drivers and riders. A true 'lower barrier to entry' business would be like a hot-dog stand - no cost, you set up beside the other guy, you can take just as much business. Your benefit scales roughly linearly with the number of stands you have, and because you have more, does not really give customers incentive to buy from you etc.. So there are 'competitors' but there are also at least some barriers, on a locale by locale basis. There are other barriers - such as the ability to fund/lobby (and bribe) all of the various political entities that could oppose you - Uber has been pretty aggressive at winning these things and that costs $$$.
  - castratikron 10y ago
    I've got both Uber and Lyft on my phone, which I guess could be analogous to having two hot dog stands on the same block. Drivers can switch between the two just as easily. You're right though, they do have a well-established brand, and they have spent a lot of effort in getting around all sorts of legal problems. I wonder, though, if the legal things that Uber has paved the way on would ever make it easier for some other Uber clone to take up the same business without all of the legal hurdles, since they've already established some sort of precedent.

jayjay71 10y ago

When does Uber run out of money? I think the timeline on their R&D projects is longer than their runway, and I'm not sure how many more people would be willing to write Uber a 10 digit check.

iaw 10y ago
They've raised a lot of money in the last 18 months (likely in anticipation of an evolving financial environment) so I suspect they actually have a couple years left if they're careful. It's like they're stumbling forward blindly hoping that at some point their books balance.
- jayjay71 10y ago
  I also forgot they bought Otto. I think self-driving cars are a long way away, but I believe self-driving trucks could potentially be viable in a few years - and the market is massive. Maybe they can commercialize that soon enough to save themselves. Apart from the technology though, I'm sure the regulations (something Uber loves) and customer relations could be a tough nut to crack.
  - iaw 10y ago
    You are completely right. Shipping automation has a lot of potential. I don't think Uber has any strong competitive advantage in the self-driving space relative to all of the other players. I've been wrong about these things before. The thing that may put them at a disadvantage is their history of ignoring regulations compared to companies like Google. Even if they develop the technology quickly enough they may be screwed because a competitive technology is the one that gets licensed by the DOT because other companies play by the rules.
    - jayjay71 10y ago
      I'm biased because I used to work with many of the people Uber hired for self-driving cars, but they bought really great engineering talent. Great talent doesn't mean much though if the management is bad, and after their whole illegal testing in California debacle it makes me cautious. That said, I didn't realize just how far ahead Google/Waymo is with regards to self-driving cars. If you check out the report of autonomous vehicles (HN "discussion" here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13554796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13554796) they are already operating on highways with zero problems! The data is limited, but that is promising.

iaw 10y ago

This strikes me as pretty pathetic effort by Uber to make itself appear forward looking Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. The system only becomes useful/safe if you "stack" vehicles on roadways. What happens when one has a failure and crashes? This is either market signaling or another thing Uber will bleed money onto.

jessriedel 10y ago
> Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. There are lots of technical roadblocks to feasible flying cars but the cost of the potential energy to change elevation is not one of them. The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips, and when normal cars must change elevation (i.e, drive over hills/mountains), they do not use so much fuel as to make the trips infeasible. In a flying car, much more energy is used fighting air drag and gravity drag.
- iaw 10y ago
  > The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips Where does the column of flying cars go? Do they expand vertically or horizontally as traffic increases? In the underpopulated area's of the US where 10% of the population lives this is a feasible mode of transit, what about the 90% that actually have traffic? If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, if the cars broaden horizontally it's a violation of property rights (and a different safety risk), if the cars don't broaden it rapidly becomes inefficient and dangerous. Also, with the advent of KERS and other regenerative systems cars will be able to recapture the bulk of energy consumed for elevation changes. To my knowledge there's no such effective system for planes. So the efficiency on cars is still higher than air vehicles.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, That's the evidence you're giving to dismiss the ability of flying cars to distribute over multiple altitude? Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible. > Also, with the advent of KERS and other regenerative systems cars will be able to recapture the bulk of energy consumed for elevation changes. To my knowledge there's no such effective system for planes. So the efficiency on cars is still higher than air vehicles. No one is disputing that regular cars are more efficient than flying cars. But trucks are less efficient than container ships, and we still use the former when the latter is impossible or too slow. You said "Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics", and this just isn't true.

dexwiz 10y ago

Flying cars of the 2010s seem striking similar to solar cars for the 1980s. A few expensive prototypes here and there, some great pontificating from leading engineers, but no serious consumer model.

EJTH 10y ago
Depends... I think we are really close to have viable "flying cars" in the form of electric or even hybrid gas-electric multirotors... Give it 5-10 years Im sure we will begin to see multirotors being used for personal transportation.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Predicated on advances in battery tech. The rest is there, agreed.

spraak 10y ago

This could have equally been an article on the Onion

creeble 10y ago
Funnier on Bloomberg! Sort of. I guess they don't do physics there. I love the closing: "Kalanick’s bet on Uber Elevate is another indication that while Silicon Valley seems on the surface to be consumed with politics and protests these days, the march into the future continues apace." Yeah, okay. Oh Uber is based where?
fullshark 10y ago
They are gonna hire this guy next to research Compost Fueled Cars: https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q
- spraak 10y ago
  Actually I remember an article from the local paper here (on Kaua'i) where someone on the island had made just that.. though I think the compost was making biofuel of some sort

EJTH 10y ago

Can we all please agree that if something is not designed for road use, it can hardly be categorized as a car? Im all for stuff like this, but "flying cars" implies something that is practical as both a road vehicle and a flying contraption of sorts...

ilamont 10y ago

There's a flying car company, Terrafugia (1), that came out of MIT ten years ago and they have working prototypes. There's an old YouTube video here (2) and apparently they have "persuaded the FAA to grant Terrafugia a waiver of weight and stall-speed limits so it can self-certify its Transition flying car as a light sport aircraft" (3). Not sure of the safety implications or the commercial viability of flying cars for Uber, but there are people out there who want to be able to own or fly an aircraft and not have to deal with various hassles that come with traditional aircraft ownership. 1. https://www.terrafugia.com/ https://www.terrafugia.com/ 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw 3. http://aviationweek.com/technology/faa-light-sport-aircraft-waiver-clears-way-transition-flying-car http://aviationweek.com/technology/faa-light-sport-aircraft-...

FabHK 10y ago
Unfortunately, not really out in production yet, just like the amphibian Icon A5 [1]. With aviation certification requirements, it takes huge amounts of time and capital to get it from concept to prototype/first flight, and unfortunately also from prototype/first flight to production and customers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5
swatkat 10y ago
There's also Moller Skycar[1], a vaporware that has been in the works since last 30 years. [1] http://moller.com/moller_skycar400.html http://moller.com/moller_skycar400.html

lutusp 10y ago

Projects like this will eventually produce an airborne commuter vehicle, but: * It will resemble a scaled-up quadcopter (for which there's already an early prototype: http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11882458/ehang-passenger-quadcopter-test-flights-nevada http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11882458/ehang-passenger-qu...) * It will only happen when batteries are much better than they are now -- more energy density, longer lived, more efficient. The bottom line is that this idea, like so many around us, is waiting for decent batteries to be invented.

FabHK 10y ago
I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. The Volocopter, by way of contrast, has the rotors above the cockpit, has 18 rotors for redundancy, and is actually already flying for both unmanned and manned test flights, with preliminary approval by German authorities. In my view, it's a more sensible concept that's also further advanced already. http://volocopter.com/ http://volocopter.com/
- FabHK 10y ago
  Agreed though that the big problem for electric flight for now are the batteries. Note though that the issue is not so much energy density (energy per volume), but specific energy (energy per mass), currently at around 400 kWh/kg. Fossile fuel has a specific energy so much higher that it still wins hands down, even though a piston engine converts only about 10% of that energy into mechanical energy.
- lutusp 10y ago
  > I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. I think it's only because they're the first, their craft is really a rough prototype, and in five years they'll likely be forgotten. > With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. That's my reason for thinking they're engineers who aren't thinking of the needs and vulnerabilities of end users -- they aren't really thinking about end-user issues. > The Volocopter, by way of contrast ... * Much safer design, better protection against any single-point failure (the eHang can't afford to lose even one of its props and remain controllable). * But soo ugly. :) To me, the first large quad with protective shields around its props will signal a level of seriousness consistent with the supposed goal (end-user acceptance, non-prototype).

thearn4 10y ago

Interesting, I didn't realize Mark had resigned from LaRC. I'd be interested to hear a more complete take on his opinions about NASA Aeronautics, because he sounded a bit disillusioned. The big caveat when comparing to industry efforts, of course, is that NASA Aero, by design, is not an airline, or an airframe manufacturer, or a regulator. It's an R&D outfit that still very much follows the structure of its predecessor, NACA.

aptwebapps 10y ago

Rant: Since when did VTOL == 'flying car'? A flying car is a hybrid, dual-use vehicle. Is a helicopter a flying car? A Harrier jet? VTOL would be great for an actual flying car and it would be great for small, personal aircraft, but that doesn't make an aircraft that has it a flying car.

FabHK 10y ago
Absolutely. We need a new word for this new category of aircraft (like the eHang, Volocopter, etc.), but "flying car" it is not. I'm in favour of Personal Electric VTOL Aircraft, PEVA.

tga 10y ago

And this is why giving cruddy companies insane amounts of cash works out well for humankind. Few sane companies would have been able to put significant resources behind something like this without a solid lead in hand.

6stringmerc 10y ago

Flying cars aren't the future. I think it's much more in Jetpacks. Once power density is better than Jet-A, we'll be in business for some great options. Probably dangerous as all get out, but that's part of the fun. https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/for-christmas-2016-i-give-the-world-the-parawing-fcc63fb3c20d#.w6iatgr2j https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/for-christmas-2016-i-give-th...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

FnuGk 10y ago

I never understood the point of flying cars. Do we not already have those but call them airplanes? Flying cars seem infeasible to operate for the mass consumer as they (like airplanes) require extensive training to operate safely.

snowwrestler 10y ago
The idea is that they are self-driving flying cars, so consumers don't need training. While the physics of flight are more complex than driving, the environment is far less complex (straight-line between points, few obstacles along the way). Flight is better suited to automation, and in fact we already have very reliable autopilots and computer-enhanced airplanes. That said, I think the fuel costs of flying mean it will never be competitive with driving, based on cost.
- FnuGk 10y ago
  I still do not understand the difference between a flying car and an air plane.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Terrible name, indeed. Flying car sort of implies: * can fly and drive on the road. While there are concepts along those lines (e.g. the Terrafugia Transformation), that's not what this is about. What distinguishes this new bred of aircraft is: * VTOL, so not bound to a traditional airport * simple control ("like a car"), so don't need a pilot. That distinguishes them from a helicopter, which is harder to fly than a fixed wing plane. * maybe also autonomous flying and collision avoidance, so more like next-gen cars. I find PEVA (personal electric VTOL aircraft) more descriptive.