5 ms·

> The Flying Car Oh, sure. Why use enough just enough energy to propel yourself forward to your destination when you can also use a massive amount of extra ene

> The Flying Car Oh, sure. Why use enough just enough energy to propel yourself forward to your destination when you can also use a massive amount of extra energy to fight gravity the whole way? > capable of flying above congested roads... If flying cars became popular, this advantage would be destroyed by the congested skies. > will require a new kind of air traffic control Boy howdy. And create new categories of horrific accidents. Let's not build a world where a drunk driver can plow through the roof of a school, shall we? A more sensible answer to traffic is 1) more remote work and 2) better mass transportation.

mirimir 9y ago
Right, including flying cars for commuting damages credibility for me. For having fun, sure. For mass use, maybe if they were all under coordinated AI control. But otherwise, there's too much chance of horrific accidents. I mean, I don't even like driving undivided highways. And that's barely over 1D. 3D traffic? That's insane.
- mixmastamyk 9y ago
  There’s a lot more space in 3D and computers aren’t going away.
no1youknowz 9y ago
You kinda realise we are on a technical site right? This answer is wholly dismissive of where technology is going. How about the flipside? > The Flying Car New technologies such as metallic hydrogen are on the horizon. Coupled with better advances in battery tech, we may see the advent of a hybrid approach where VTOL is used via battery and propulsion with hydrogen. That said. Flying Cars may be mandated so that it's for use intra-cities or states. But then localised will be for autonomous driving. Having synergistic travel mediums will allow people to travel further and faster. Imagine having flying cars, hyperloop, autonomous driving and spaceX to combine to get you from A to B over a great distance in a matter of hours? All running on clean energy? More importantly, all AI driven without the need for human intervention? > will require a new kind of air traffic control Sure, AI driven. There's nothing wrong with having an AI that ensures cars fly amongst already agreed routes. > "Boy howdy. And create new categories of horrific accidents. Let's not build a world where a drunk driver can plow through the roof of a school, shall we?" How about No? How about having AI actually fly the car? We already have planes which go on autopilot for most of the journey. AI for flying cars should actually be a whole lot easier, than driving on the road. There will be no drunk driver, because there will be no stick. If you actually look at all the differing technologies that are coming out. Graphene, AI, Chemical processes, Battery Tech, etc, etc, etc. It's not difficult to see the next 5 or 10 years being a whole lot different to now.
- mikestew 9y ago
  How about having AI actually fly the car? In other words, I'm not going to see flying cars in my lifetime, then? I mean, from my POV, that is some serious hand-waving, at least until we get some demonstrable AI in consumer products that's anywhere near what I'd trust to drive a car, let alone fly something.
  - no1youknowz 9y ago
    > I'm not going to see flying cars in my lifetime How old are you now? 20, 30, 40? Given an average life of lets say 80. That's 40 years. So much could happen. Are you serious? > at least until we get some demonstrable AI in consumer products that's anywhere near what I'd trust to drive a car Google started the self driving concept back in 2009. 16 years later, here we are. Also, that's half of what's left of a potential lifetime. Waymo is testing on public roads now [1]. Here's an article details the other competitors timelines [2]: GM: Rumors of self-driving vehicles by 2018 Ford: Truly self-driving vehicles by 2021 Honda: Self-driving on the highway by 2020 Toyota: Self-driving on the highway by 2020 Renault-Nissan: 2020 for autonomous cars in urban conditions, 2025 for truly driverless cars Volvo: Self-driving on the highway by 2021 Hyundai: Highway by 2020, urban driving by 2030 Daimler: Nearly fully autonomous by early 2020s Fiat-Chrysler: CEO expects there to be some self driving vehicles on the road by 2021 BMW: Fully self-driving vehicles possible by 2021 Tesla: End of 2017 Lets say, that all the manufacturers slip and it's only until 2030 that it's a viable consumer product. That's still 26 years it took to develop. Way way less than half a lifetime. Now if we extrapolate all that AI and knowledge and apply it to: [3] - Uber enlists help from NASA in bid to launch flying taxis by 2020 then [4] - [5] - [6] and probably more companies who are racing to make this a reality. Even if it took them 20 years to do so. You'd still see it in your life-time. ----- So please. I'd love to hear a rebuttal. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/07/google-waymo-announces-fully-autonomous-ride-hailing-service-uber-alphabet https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/07/google-wa... [2]: https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/04/self-driving-car-timeline-for-11-top-automakers/ https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/04/self-driving-car-timeline... [3]: https://news.sky.com/story/uber-enlists-help-from-nasa-in-bid-to-launch-flying-taxis-by-2020-11119777 https://news.sky.com/story/uber-enlists-help-from-nasa-in-bi... [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/21/electric-flying-car-lilium-google-uber-vtol-jet-taxi https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/21/electric-fl... [5]: https://www.wired.com/story/delorean-aerospace-flying-car/ https://www.wired.com/story/delorean-aerospace-flying-car/ [6]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/17/flying-car-company-aeromobil-says-radical-concept-vehicle-will/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/17/flying-car-compan...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Retric 9y ago
Passenger aircraft use a lot of fuel because they are flying 10x the speed of a normal car. Low speed flight can use significantly less energy than driving somewhere. The advantages of only slowing down once and having a shorter trip end up being significant.
patall 9y ago
>> capable of flying above congested roads... >If flying cars became popular, this advantage would be destroyed by the congested skies. No, it will be destroyed by the noise these cars would make and hence will be forbidden in populated areas == where there are actually congested roads.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
> Boy howdy. And create new categories of horrific accidents. Had this been the attitude 100 years ago, we would not be using cars. Why should we go from a horse that can walk me home itself without running into a single obstacle, ever, to a big heavy loud metal gasoline-burning machine that has mechanical failures, and requires constant vigilance from the driver?
woolvalley 9y ago
A low altitude automated 70mph 'fast hover ferry' that is as fuel efficient as a car would be pretty revolutionary. A lot of cases for bridges and the traffic choke points they represent would disappear in places like nyc, sf, seattle and others. People who live on islands could have fast and affordable ferry services to the mainland or other nearby islands. You could also create 'coastline subways' with such tech, but only need to maintain the ferry vehicles themsleves and docks vs road or train track infrastructure.

mirimir 9y ago

Right, including flying cars for commuting damages credibility for me. For having fun, sure. For mass use, maybe if they were all under coordinated AI control. But otherwise, there's too much chance of horrific accidents. I mean, I don't even like driving undivided highways. And that's barely over 1D. 3D traffic? That's insane.

mixmastamyk 9y ago
There’s a lot more space in 3D and computers aren’t going away.

no1youknowz 9y ago

You kinda realise we are on a technical site right? This answer is wholly dismissive of where technology is going. How about the flipside? > The Flying Car New technologies such as metallic hydrogen are on the horizon. Coupled with better advances in battery tech, we may see the advent of a hybrid approach where VTOL is used via battery and propulsion with hydrogen. That said. Flying Cars may be mandated so that it's for use intra-cities or states. But then localised will be for autonomous driving. Having synergistic travel mediums will allow people to travel further and faster. Imagine having flying cars, hyperloop, autonomous driving and spaceX to combine to get you from A to B over a great distance in a matter of hours? All running on clean energy? More importantly, all AI driven without the need for human intervention? > will require a new kind of air traffic control Sure, AI driven. There's nothing wrong with having an AI that ensures cars fly amongst already agreed routes. > "Boy howdy. And create new categories of horrific accidents. Let's not build a world where a drunk driver can plow through the roof of a school, shall we?" How about No? How about having AI actually fly the car? We already have planes which go on autopilot for most of the journey. AI for flying cars should actually be a whole lot easier, than driving on the road. There will be no drunk driver, because there will be no stick. If you actually look at all the differing technologies that are coming out. Graphene, AI, Chemical processes, Battery Tech, etc, etc, etc. It's not difficult to see the next 5 or 10 years being a whole lot different to now.

mikestew 9y ago
How about having AI actually fly the car? In other words, I'm not going to see flying cars in my lifetime, then? I mean, from my POV, that is some serious hand-waving, at least until we get some demonstrable AI in consumer products that's anywhere near what I'd trust to drive a car, let alone fly something.
- no1youknowz 9y ago
  > I'm not going to see flying cars in my lifetime How old are you now? 20, 30, 40? Given an average life of lets say 80. That's 40 years. So much could happen. Are you serious? > at least until we get some demonstrable AI in consumer products that's anywhere near what I'd trust to drive a car Google started the self driving concept back in 2009. 16 years later, here we are. Also, that's half of what's left of a potential lifetime. Waymo is testing on public roads now [1]. Here's an article details the other competitors timelines [2]: GM: Rumors of self-driving vehicles by 2018 Ford: Truly self-driving vehicles by 2021 Honda: Self-driving on the highway by 2020 Toyota: Self-driving on the highway by 2020 Renault-Nissan: 2020 for autonomous cars in urban conditions, 2025 for truly driverless cars Volvo: Self-driving on the highway by 2021 Hyundai: Highway by 2020, urban driving by 2030 Daimler: Nearly fully autonomous by early 2020s Fiat-Chrysler: CEO expects there to be some self driving vehicles on the road by 2021 BMW: Fully self-driving vehicles possible by 2021 Tesla: End of 2017 Lets say, that all the manufacturers slip and it's only until 2030 that it's a viable consumer product. That's still 26 years it took to develop. Way way less than half a lifetime. Now if we extrapolate all that AI and knowledge and apply it to: [3] - Uber enlists help from NASA in bid to launch flying taxis by 2020 then [4] - [5] - [6] and probably more companies who are racing to make this a reality. Even if it took them 20 years to do so. You'd still see it in your life-time. ----- So please. I'd love to hear a rebuttal. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/07/google-waymo-announces-fully-autonomous-ride-hailing-service-uber-alphabet https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/07/google-wa... [2]: https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/04/self-driving-car-timeline-for-11-top-automakers/ https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/04/self-driving-car-timeline... [3]: https://news.sky.com/story/uber-enlists-help-from-nasa-in-bid-to-launch-flying-taxis-by-2020-11119777 https://news.sky.com/story/uber-enlists-help-from-nasa-in-bi... [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/21/electric-flying-car-lilium-google-uber-vtol-jet-taxi https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/21/electric-fl... [5]: https://www.wired.com/story/delorean-aerospace-flying-car/ https://www.wired.com/story/delorean-aerospace-flying-car/ [6]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/17/flying-car-company-aeromobil-says-radical-concept-vehicle-will/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/17/flying-car-compan...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Retric 9y ago

Passenger aircraft use a lot of fuel because they are flying 10x the speed of a normal car. Low speed flight can use significantly less energy than driving somewhere. The advantages of only slowing down once and having a shorter trip end up being significant.

patall 9y ago

>> capable of flying above congested roads... >If flying cars became popular, this advantage would be destroyed by the congested skies. No, it will be destroyed by the noise these cars would make and hence will be forbidden in populated areas == where there are actually congested roads.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

> Boy howdy. And create new categories of horrific accidents. Had this been the attitude 100 years ago, we would not be using cars. Why should we go from a horse that can walk me home itself without running into a single obstacle, ever, to a big heavy loud metal gasoline-burning machine that has mechanical failures, and requires constant vigilance from the driver?

woolvalley 9y ago

A low altitude automated 70mph 'fast hover ferry' that is as fuel efficient as a car would be pretty revolutionary. A lot of cases for bridges and the traffic choke points they represent would disappear in places like nyc, sf, seattle and others. People who live on islands could have fast and affordable ferry services to the mainland or other nearby islands. You could also create 'coastline subways' with such tech, but only need to maintain the ferry vehicles themsleves and docks vs road or train track infrastructure.