5 ms·

Flying cars or taxis will (IMHO) never take off for various reasons: - they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels - they are noisy,

Flying cars or taxis will (IMHO) never take off for various reasons: - they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels - they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity - airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic - it's not sustainable from nature-perspective. Current air traffic accounts for quite some insect & bird loss. Imagine a multitude of current airtraffic; it would be disastrous for the already dwindling quantity of airborne creatures - flying is inherently weather-bound. Especially for relatively small aircrafts this is true. Taxis fit this property. This means service is limited to a subset of all weather conditions; YMMV depending on the area of flight. - flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers. Obviously, startups can overcome these barriers, but they don't help in solving the overall problem - social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached. Until that time, there will be fierce opposition to add any type of aircraft for mass-use to the airspace This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range.

leetcrew 9y ago
> they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels assuming it can be harvested cleanly, energy isn't inherently a problem until we start getting close to capturing a significant fraction of total solar irradiance. we get better at this every year, so eventually it will be a non-issue. > they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity imo, this is probably the biggest obstacle. like you say, there's really no plausible breakthrough that could reduce the noise level to something that could be acceptable in a dense environment. > airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic idk what country you live it, but this is probably only true at higher altitudes and in the immediate surroundings of airports. > airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic this is important, but people won't necessarily care. the other items in your list would probably delay adoption but not prevent it altogether.
mitochondrion 9y ago
>they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels Total cost will be lower. >they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity Not electric, though wind may be a problem if the FAA allows a free-for-all, which it probably won't. >airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic With human pilots, sure. With autonomous vehicles, nope. They'll swarm like birds or insects. >it's not sustainable from nature-perspective Airborne wildlife will learn to avoid population centers and "skyways". >flying is inherently weather-bound Only with human pilots. Autonomous vehicles will care only about ice and lightning. Severe wind, sure, but that's fairly rare in most places. >flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers The FAA just relaxed its regulations and will relax them more in the future. Everyone wants the personal airborne vehicle, especially winkled old bureaucrats in Washington. >social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached This may come as a surprise, but policymakers don't really give a damn about what the public wants. Autonomous vehicles will be more safe than human-piloted craft, which is enough, and electric, which is silent. >This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range. Good, because you're going to get it. P.S. Re: +/- several hundred kilometers: There's no such thing as negative range.
red75prime 9y ago
> it's not sustainable from nature-perspective. There's no nature-perspective, there's the question how to keep the environment the way we like it (or accustomed to). Flying insects/birds loss is a tiny part of the equation that needs to be taken into account.
- red75prime 9y ago
  From nature-perspective it's just another selective pressure.
strait 9y ago
I'm thinking that suitable bird-like flapping wings would solve most of these problems. Coming soon!
FabHK 9y ago
> airspace is very limited. Not sure that’s really an issue. Imagine the surface of your city had no obstacles and were basically one huge road. Surely, that’s a lot of space to drive. Now imagine many horizontal layers of that, so you could eg easily separate by direction of travel (as is done in aviation). Next, one problem in traditional aviation is of course that planes can’t stop in the air. Drones, however, can. While air space and ATC for many air taxis surely present a regulatory and technical challenge, I don’t think they’ll severely limit large scale deployment in principle, particularly if it’s more or less random point-to-point traffic. If everyone is trying to get to a specific location at a specific time (an event), that might get complicated.
FabHK 9y ago
> they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved DJI recently introduced a 60% quieter version of its Mavic Pro drone (with “new FOC sinusoidal driver ESCs and 8331 propellers”). And remember how Apple engineers the fans in the MBP to be very quiet, by using irregular spacing? I think there is quite some scope for improvement, even without anti-gravity devices... Lastly, listening to videos of eg the Volocopter flying, I don’t find the noise particularly bothersome (but then, I’m biased,,, :-)

leetcrew 9y ago

> they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels assuming it can be harvested cleanly, energy isn't inherently a problem until we start getting close to capturing a significant fraction of total solar irradiance. we get better at this every year, so eventually it will be a non-issue. > they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity imo, this is probably the biggest obstacle. like you say, there's really no plausible breakthrough that could reduce the noise level to something that could be acceptable in a dense environment. > airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic idk what country you live it, but this is probably only true at higher altitudes and in the immediate surroundings of airports. > airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic this is important, but people won't necessarily care. the other items in your list would probably delay adoption but not prevent it altogether.

mitochondrion 9y ago

>they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels Total cost will be lower. >they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity Not electric, though wind may be a problem if the FAA allows a free-for-all, which it probably won't. >airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic With human pilots, sure. With autonomous vehicles, nope. They'll swarm like birds or insects. >it's not sustainable from nature-perspective Airborne wildlife will learn to avoid population centers and "skyways". >flying is inherently weather-bound Only with human pilots. Autonomous vehicles will care only about ice and lightning. Severe wind, sure, but that's fairly rare in most places. >flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers The FAA just relaxed its regulations and will relax them more in the future. Everyone wants the personal airborne vehicle, especially winkled old bureaucrats in Washington. >social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached This may come as a surprise, but policymakers don't really give a damn about what the public wants. Autonomous vehicles will be more safe than human-piloted craft, which is enough, and electric, which is silent. >This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range. Good, because you're going to get it. P.S. Re: +/- several hundred kilometers: There's no such thing as negative range.

red75prime 9y ago

> it's not sustainable from nature-perspective. There's no nature-perspective, there's the question how to keep the environment the way we like it (or accustomed to). Flying insects/birds loss is a tiny part of the equation that needs to be taken into account.

red75prime 9y ago
From nature-perspective it's just another selective pressure.

strait 9y ago

I'm thinking that suitable bird-like flapping wings would solve most of these problems. Coming soon!

FabHK 9y ago

> airspace is very limited. Not sure that’s really an issue. Imagine the surface of your city had no obstacles and were basically one huge road. Surely, that’s a lot of space to drive. Now imagine many horizontal layers of that, so you could eg easily separate by direction of travel (as is done in aviation). Next, one problem in traditional aviation is of course that planes can’t stop in the air. Drones, however, can. While air space and ATC for many air taxis surely present a regulatory and technical challenge, I don’t think they’ll severely limit large scale deployment in principle, particularly if it’s more or less random point-to-point traffic. If everyone is trying to get to a specific location at a specific time (an event), that might get complicated.

FabHK 9y ago

> they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved DJI recently introduced a 60% quieter version of its Mavic Pro drone (with “new FOC sinusoidal driver ESCs and 8331 propellers”). And remember how Apple engineers the fans in the MBP to be very quiet, by using irregular spacing? I think there is quite some scope for improvement, even without anti-gravity devices... Lastly, listening to videos of eg the Volocopter flying, I don’t find the noise particularly bothersome (but then, I’m biased,,, :-)