5 ms·

> the promise of flying cars What's the promise of flying cars though? I'd suggest they're largely a terrible idea, wildly inefficient as a mode of transporta

> the promise of flying cars What's the promise of flying cars though? I'd suggest they're largely a terrible idea, wildly inefficient as a mode of transportation, and should not exist unless we come up with an extraordinary energy breakthrough that entirely remakes the planet. There are plenty of terrible ideas we've chosen not to pursue because they're irrational. We could make flying garbage trucks. Who doesn't want hovering garbage trucks. So futuristic! It's a terrible idea. We could make buses that can fly. It's a terrible idea. We could all try to live in underwater cities. It's a terrible idea. We could all try to live in orbit around the planet. It's a terrible idea. The lack of flying cars isn't a failure. It's the ideal outcome (for now). I don't get the appeal of low quality fantasy ideas that were obviously absurd. I don't get why people dwell on mediocre ideas from the past as an indictment of the present. It seems like a cheap excuse to lash the present for not being good enough. Electricity too cheap to meter was obviously not going to happen at scale, it was an incorrect premise that wasn't thought through at all (as though nuclear power plants, infrastructure, maintenance, replacement, labor were also going to be free or nearly so). I'd call it a very foolish notion by the person that suggested it. Just because someone comes up with a fantastic premise and floats it out there (what if I could take a pill and live forever!), that doesn't mean the present failed by not realizing it. Sometimes they're just bad ideas or otherwise a false premise, supported by poor reasoning (if supported by anything).

kccqzy 5y ago
The promise of flying cars was in the 1960s, according to GP. You can see flying cars through the lens of 2021 and find that they don't make sense, but you can't say the same if you were looking through the lens of 1960s. > wildly inefficient as a mode of transportation Energy was plentiful in the 1960s. Gasoline was cheap. The oil crisis was in the 1970s. people hardly ever thought that there was a need to conserve energy. Plus, widespread cheap nuclear energy was on the horizon. > should not exist unless we come up with an extraordinary energy breakthrough that entirely remakes the planet Nuclear was such an imminent breakthrough back in 1960s.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  With solar and storage becoming cheap, we are in many ways in the beginning of a cheap energy revolution. Think of that jet pack dude. Those things are about 5% efficient thermodynamically, and they use jet fuel which costs about 5-15 cents per chemical kWh of energy, so the cost per useful mechanical kWh is about $1-3. For electric power, you can use off-peak electricity at 5 cents per kWh (or solar power utility scale which is half of that and falling) and the efficiency is more like 80-95%, for a useful energy cost of between 3 and 6 cents per mechanical kWh. Plus, electric motors and batteries cost less than those microturbines. And the motors are comparable in specific power, even. So the ingredients are there for new modes of transport enabled by MUCH cheaper and more abundant mechanical energy. Which we are, in fact, seeing in the form of Urban Air Mobility vehicles. But it may take quite a while for all these things to make it through society. The 21st Century is the century of the lithium battery like the 20th Century was the century of the internal combustion engine. Brushless motors with high energy rare earth magnets are a big part of this new energy revolution. 200 years after Faraday invented the first electric motor.
- visarga 5y ago
  > You can see flying cars through the lens of 2021 and find that they don't make sense but we got autonomous flying drones instead and almost self driving cars
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
breck 5y ago
I agree about flying cars. I want nothing flying up there. I want clear air and a view of the stars. Tunnels, that’s where it’s at! I hope the future is really more like Boring Company, and we move all the polluting infra underground.
djmips 5y ago
Yeah flying cars are going to be so noisy and that includes drones that deliver pizza. No thanks!
flyingcircus3 5y ago
Flying cars' most significant hurdle is not energy, but safety. Commercial air travel is only safer than automobile travel because of the high levels of coordination and regulation that exist around it. Think of all of the humans (nevermind software) and their cooperation involved in planes taking off and landing safely. Then add in the fact that planes are constantly being maintained by mechanics, on much more frequent intervals than automobiles. Compare what is considered a safe distance between two moving automobiles, and two moving planes. When these safe distances are violated by planes, even when no actual collision occurs, investigations occur. Inherent to the success of flying cars is widespread adoption by the masses. If they're only available to multimillionaires, why would they be any more attractive than private jets, which are already available to those same people? Thus, the success of flying cars would require similar levels of coordination and regulation, only for many many more times the number of aircraft. If instead, its every pilot for themselves, as it is with automobiles, flying cars will end up being far more deadly than autos, given that low speed car accidents don't often result in deaths, whereas an aircraft collision of any kind can be catastrophic. More aircraft in the air will also mean higher density of aircraft in the air, making coordination even more critical than it already is. The easy answer to all of this is to say that software will replace all of these currently human roles. But just think of how far away level 5 autonomy is for cars. In the case of a car, most dangerous scenarios can be mitigated by slowing down or stopping. The aircraft equivalent of stopping is to land, which is obviously not as simple as decreasing speed, and is also not feasible without a runway of some kind.

kccqzy 5y ago

The promise of flying cars was in the 1960s, according to GP. You can see flying cars through the lens of 2021 and find that they don't make sense, but you can't say the same if you were looking through the lens of 1960s. > wildly inefficient as a mode of transportation Energy was plentiful in the 1960s. Gasoline was cheap. The oil crisis was in the 1970s. people hardly ever thought that there was a need to conserve energy. Plus, widespread cheap nuclear energy was on the horizon. > should not exist unless we come up with an extraordinary energy breakthrough that entirely remakes the planet Nuclear was such an imminent breakthrough back in 1960s.

Robotbeat 5y ago
With solar and storage becoming cheap, we are in many ways in the beginning of a cheap energy revolution. Think of that jet pack dude. Those things are about 5% efficient thermodynamically, and they use jet fuel which costs about 5-15 cents per chemical kWh of energy, so the cost per useful mechanical kWh is about $1-3. For electric power, you can use off-peak electricity at 5 cents per kWh (or solar power utility scale which is half of that and falling) and the efficiency is more like 80-95%, for a useful energy cost of between 3 and 6 cents per mechanical kWh. Plus, electric motors and batteries cost less than those microturbines. And the motors are comparable in specific power, even. So the ingredients are there for new modes of transport enabled by MUCH cheaper and more abundant mechanical energy. Which we are, in fact, seeing in the form of Urban Air Mobility vehicles. But it may take quite a while for all these things to make it through society. The 21st Century is the century of the lithium battery like the 20th Century was the century of the internal combustion engine. Brushless motors with high energy rare earth magnets are a big part of this new energy revolution. 200 years after Faraday invented the first electric motor.
visarga 5y ago
> You can see flying cars through the lens of 2021 and find that they don't make sense but we got autonomous flying drones instead and almost self driving cars

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

breck 5y ago

I agree about flying cars. I want nothing flying up there. I want clear air and a view of the stars. Tunnels, that’s where it’s at! I hope the future is really more like Boring Company, and we move all the polluting infra underground.

djmips 5y ago

Yeah flying cars are going to be so noisy and that includes drones that deliver pizza. No thanks!

flyingcircus3 5y ago

Flying cars' most significant hurdle is not energy, but safety. Commercial air travel is only safer than automobile travel because of the high levels of coordination and regulation that exist around it. Think of all of the humans (nevermind software) and their cooperation involved in planes taking off and landing safely. Then add in the fact that planes are constantly being maintained by mechanics, on much more frequent intervals than automobiles. Compare what is considered a safe distance between two moving automobiles, and two moving planes. When these safe distances are violated by planes, even when no actual collision occurs, investigations occur. Inherent to the success of flying cars is widespread adoption by the masses. If they're only available to multimillionaires, why would they be any more attractive than private jets, which are already available to those same people? Thus, the success of flying cars would require similar levels of coordination and regulation, only for many many more times the number of aircraft. If instead, its every pilot for themselves, as it is with automobiles, flying cars will end up being far more deadly than autos, given that low speed car accidents don't often result in deaths, whereas an aircraft collision of any kind can be catastrophic. More aircraft in the air will also mean higher density of aircraft in the air, making coordination even more critical than it already is. The easy answer to all of this is to say that software will replace all of these currently human roles. But just think of how far away level 5 autonomy is for cars. In the case of a car, most dangerous scenarios can be mitigated by slowing down or stopping. The aircraft equivalent of stopping is to land, which is obviously not as simple as decreasing speed, and is also not feasible without a runway of some kind.