17 ms·

They’re completely impractical, that jet pack does indeed exist, but there are approximately two people in the world who can safely fly it untethered. Every now

They’re completely impractical, that jet pack does indeed exist, but there are approximately two people in the world who can safely fly it untethered. Every now and again they’ll pop again with “mountain rescue experiment with jet pack” or “Marines demonstrate boarding with jet pack”, and every time it’s just the creator cosplaying as whatever service he’s trying to sell it to this time.

mirekrusin 5y ago
Exactly, we had "smartphones" before iphone as well and nobody did care.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Blackberries were huge and growing. iPhone definitely expanded the market faster than anyone dreamed. But it was easy to see where the market would go before iPhone.
  - mirekrusin 5y ago
    If it was "easy to see" we wouldn't have iphone dominance.
    - WJW 5y ago
      I just want to point out that global iPhone market share has been hovering between 15% and 20% for years. Android has almost all of the rest. Iphones are not dominant.
      - ajb92 5y ago
        Global market share is one kind of dominance, there are others
    - rhino369 5y ago
      Easy to see at a high level--phones with web, multimedia support, and app support. Near impossible to guess what exactly what would look like and when.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        The pieces where there already, just good enough product with good enough connectivity was missing. In the end iPhone is nothing more than refined PDA...
        mirekrusin 5y ago
        Devil is in the detail.
- Tostino 5y ago
  Early adopters absolutely did care.
  - mirekrusin 5y ago
    I'm sure people who fly jetpacks absolutely do care about jetpacks.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  Quite a few of us cared. The teeming millions may not have, but definitely more than nobody.
  - mirekrusin 5y ago
    Sure, I meant it in context, obviously some people did care, otherwise they simply wouldn't exist at all, what I meant is nobody = niche = not mainstream by any means.
    - fartcannon 5y ago
      I still think that's an understatement. Not that it matters really, but did you forget about the ubiquity of Blackberry's for nearly a decade prior to the iPhone?
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Hmmm... Not sure that Jetpack 2.0 will ever be a thing like the iPhone was. Helicopters autogyro, planes glide, balloons (usually) lose their lift slowly. A jetpack, like a rocket, is a thing that has no business flying. Only a large, heavy-handed impulse of energy allow them to oppose gravity. Without altitude and a parachute, there is no Plan B for a jetpack engine failure, loss of fuel, etc.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    I think a parachute would be pretty easy to accommodate, at least an emergency one. Maybe it'll still hurt, but cut the pack loose and hopefully you would survive. Not everyone survives helicopter or plane engine failures either. I certainly don't think jetpacks are a relevant tool for society outside of really niche use cases. If we don't even trust people to fly small drones around the public safely and without FAA regulation and licensing, in what dreamland would we all be able to fly personal jetpacks to the shops, or even recreationally? There are way cheaper, way safer ways to get airbourne as a private aviation enthusiast, so I can see why jetpacks really don't scratch enough itches to have gained popularity.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      Parachutes have a minimum altitude, and jetpacks really do not push people into flying high. (What is a problem in more ways than that, because most of the things that can make your flight safer need altitude.)
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  I had Nokia 7650 in 2004 and I am hopefully not-nobody... these devices, although clumsy, paved the way to the modern mobile ecosystem.
  - mirekrusin 5y ago
    Yes, maybe those jetpacks and micro flying machines will pave the way to future electric-scooter-like flying.
- pmontra 5y ago
  A lot of people had smartphones before iPhones. Basically all the 3G phones sold in Europe since 2003. I was working for an operator that got 3 M customers in its first year back then. Had they a touchscreen as good as iPhone's? Definitely not. Did they had an internet connecting better than iPhone's? Definitely yes because the original iPhone was only 2G. Anyway, this is only an analogy so let's don't get too much into it. People don't care about jetpacks because they are crazy dangerous and expensive. This makes them less practical than jumping from a plane with a parachute instead of waiting for it to land.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> the creator cosplaying as whatever service he’s trying to sell it to That guy is an actual Royal Marine Commando - he's not cosplaying.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  I think the point is that when you see demos, it's always him dressed up as a marine, mountain rescuer, etc and not someone else.
  - hammyhavoc 5y ago
    What difference does it make who demonstrates it? All that matters is application, performance, and whether it is fit for purpose.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      I think the earlier posters are pointing out that no one else seems to be able to safely operate the thing, which suggests that it might not be fit for purpose.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      The amount of training matters. If it's always him, that has some implications on how hard it is to turn into a product. And a quick demo doesn't do a good job of showing fit for purpose either. Maybe performance.
      - hammyhavoc 5y ago
        I can see this potentially having some usefulness if refined, but from a strictly practical perspective, I can't see many pilots surviving a boarding if the vessel has any firearms. It just lacks maneuverability.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        You (obviously) combine it with fire support. Just like a ladder or helicopter assault on a ship, or an infantry attack on land, or really any other military manoeuvre.
_8j50 5y ago
Could say the same about the wright brothers in the early 1900s. Longevity of the flight and safe operation can only improve in time. The question is does anyone care. People will be scared of it and if not does it offer anything over cars? It's not like you can fly it over private property , there will be laws that regulate where you can fly it. Just give me hyperloop tunnels to overlap subways and freeways and I am set. Especially with better bike lanes.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Could say the same about the wright brothers in the early 1900s. Yes, you could. But that’s not actually an argument that jet packs will follow a same development path, it’s just survivor bias in action.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    They may not, I was just saying we don't know what developments will be made in the future.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Aircraft were improved immensely by new materials since then. But jetpacks are still impractical. Might we see the same level of improvements again in the next century ? (And even if we do, wouldn't "super planes/copters" still be ahead of jetpacks ?)
ehnto 5y ago
What were we expecting from jetpacks though, really? Is it not more fair to suggest that the past was a little bit naïve about what it would take to operate a jetpack? They're still aircraft after all, at the very least you're going to need pilots license. There's no "bicycle" of jetpacks, you've got three axis of movement and certain death in every direction but up, it's just not a tool that belongs in the every-man's garage. I think the same can be said for the past's perception of what flying cars would be like. You don't see your average joe flying a helicopter to work, for the very same reasons you'll never see personal flying cars be ubiquitous.
- dioxide 5y ago
  rocket man.
- fishtoaster 5y ago
  I feel like you could describe cars the same way: You've got two axis of movement at 60mph. Stray a couple feet left or right and you die in fiery inferno. Stop too fast or too slow, same deal. Maybe appropriate for highly-trained specialists, not for every-man's garage. My point is not that "cars are death machines no one should own," although there are certainly those who hold that opinion. Rather that inherently dangerous things can be made relatively safe with enough systems around them: roads, signs, traffic laws, licenses, seatbelts, and so on.
  - silvestrov 5y ago
    The big difference is that cars have brakes and that coming to a full stop will avoid most crashes. There is no good "emergency braking" for jetpacks, there is not even "autorotation" as there is for helicopters.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    It's not really a "new frontier being misunderstood" though, it's very clear what it's value proposition is, and it's also clear from our history with aviation so far, what the challenges are. As I said in another comment, we don't even trust people to fly small drones without certification and FAA regulation, there's good reason for that, being in the air is nothing like being on a road.
xtracto 5y ago
Exactly, right there in the article theres a highlighted quote mentioning this: > Now, the flight duration is too short, and the degree of difficulty too great. But this was also the case for the Wright brothers I think the next step for Jetpacks is to develop automated navigation/stabilization systems. We want a Jetpack for which the normal state is flying at a stable height, then with some kind of 3D joystick we can move steadily up, down, front, back and sideways. I think all of this is currently achievable but too expensive to implement. Also, the amount of energy required to lift a person is just to high, so until better ways to store energy are developed, the "backpack" form factor for storing energy will not cut it for practical flights.
- outworlder 5y ago
  Better and safer too. We need to not only store incredible amounts of energy, but do it in such a way that's safe to do so next to your chest :)
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Maybe it's silly, but I want wings on my jetpack that are large enough that I can glide, but also that can sheath themselves into each other.
  - redisman 5y ago
    You just want a Gundam suit
    - BizarroLand 5y ago
      Who wouldn't?
autokad 5y ago
it does feel like we made lots of progress though. as we need less fuel for them, they get easier to use, and safety improves we should start seeing some real use cases
walrus01 5y ago
a widely usable 'jetpack' would actually be more like a ducted-fan coaxial octocopter that you wear, with flight stabilization/onboard flight controller not very dissimilar from a large commerical cinema filming octocopter. if it relies on the person's skill to fly it and has a 5-10 minute max flight time, of course it'll be a niche thing...
- falcolas 5y ago
  Theoretically, if you could add adjustable mechanical joints, you could hook up a flight controller to it and fly it. Could you add the necessary joints and motivators and stay inside a reasonable weight? Not so sure.
  - walrus01 5y ago
    with arducopter and common COTS flight controllers people have made monocopters that use servo motor controlled vanes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pu-KDuxUwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pu-KDuxUwU
    - falcolas 5y ago
      That would require the three points to be rigid other than the vanes. But vectored thrust is a thing for jets too, so it's definitely possible.
ArnoVW 5y ago
While indeed people do not use jetpack in a day-to-day manner, they are becoming slightly more 'available' than you portray. See this video where one of the corridor crew members participates in a jetpack training. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5xYaqQo4k https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5xYaqQo4k I think it's more precise to say that they are currently a toy for the rich.
andi999 5y ago
I think with a active control unit safe operation should be possible. There are fighter jets that cannot be flewn manually (unstable flight behaviour). Probably range and use case is the problem.
MR4D 5y ago
We solved the stability for drones that cost as little as $20. We’ll solve it the same way for jet packs as well.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  We solved stability for a rigid drone that’s symmetric and designed for purpose. That’s a lot different than solving for stability for a variable size and weight human that’s wriggling around.
  - MR4D 5y ago
    It’s just a digital gimbal. Similar to a light drone in a breeze.
  - radley 5y ago
    > solving for stability for a variable size and weight human that’s wriggling around. Was solved for Segways. Just need the third axis and some kind of special emergency landing solution (goo + inflato-ball??).
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      No, it’s more complex than that. A Segway is counting on the fact that it’s sitting on the ground. The force vector on the rider is purely a function of angle. A jet pack has the issue that there is a moveable center of gravity and moveable sources of thrust that feed back into each other. It’s doable, I’m sure, but it’s also much more complicated than a Segway + another direction.
wutbrodo 5y ago
> Marines demonstrate boarding with jet pack”, and every time it’s just the creator cosplaying as whatever service he’s trying to sell it to this time. Didn't an actual Royal Marine do this recently, in a training exercise? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a38748085/royal-navy-marine-jetpack-video/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a38748085... This seems like exactly what we'd expect for a technology this new and dangerous, and is certainly a step farther than "the creator is the only one flying it". EDIT: Per other comments on this thread, apparently the Royal Marine in question _is_ the creator
jollybean 5y ago
That's legit R&D. Marines storming a ship is an obvious use case where the high cost will be accounted for (i.e. we have a lot of expensive gear for specific purpose) and it's a practical scenario. Coast Guard same. And certainly other forces. If we can get the gear to be very easy to use and practical, it could very much enable a kind of acute mobility. There's little direct use beyond that, however, the development of the technology could yield other things as we learn to make those little jets cheap, efficient and intelligent. Those systems could absolutely be deoployed onto drones, which opens up a world of use cases.
twobitshifter 5y ago
Furthermore if you want the sensation of a jet pack, there’s the jet lev, which seems much safer. The article mentions that this should only be flown over water on a tether, so what’s the benefit over a jetlev? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s00SwPZ_1D0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s00SwPZ_1D0
- Animats 5y ago
  That's like the Flyboard, another water-jet system.[1] That's the world champion flying. The Flyboard people now have the Flyboard Air.[2] This is a real flying hoverboard, powered by what is believed to be a group of model aircraft jet engines. It's not easy to fly. They require 50-100 hours in the water-powered version before attempting the jet-powered version. It's very cool, but it's for people who find skateboarding stunts too easy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JhUSu8v2N4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JhUSu8v2N4 [2] https://atlanticflyboard.com/flyboard-air https://atlanticflyboard.com/flyboard-air
guerrilla 5y ago
I was thinking about this while watching a paraglider with propeller yesterday. I was thinking, maybe you could use tiny jets for this, but the question is why would you... this is already perfect [1]. Seems like jetpacks are a solution looking for a problem and at the same time highly impractical. 1. https://youtu.be/L1Z8YT6w7Rc https://youtu.be/L1Z8YT6w7Rc
samstave 5y ago
Question: How impracticable is the following: --- you have a machine with micro-thrusters (of whatever fuel-source) It is driven by modern drone tech for stability. How driven, super simplistic maths for establishing thrust.telemetry.balance... How the FUCK has this not been solved? A belt of jets. They fly you without killing or burning you. We are significantly evolved for this to happen... Seriously. This is a solvable thing. Do it.
EliRivers 5y ago
In his defence, Richard Browning, of Gravity Industries, was an actual Royal Marine. Granted, reservist, but they still take and pass the commando course. I ran into him a couple of times in the service; while he's not in anymore, "cosplay" seems a harsh term in his case.
62951413 5y ago
No revolutionary technology can be expected to be practical for casual users. They are building a cool product and I hope they find a market even if a niche once. But I'd prefer https://www.youtube.com/c/Jetsonaero/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/Jetsonaero/videos to a jet pack too :)
14 5y ago
The only impractical thing is the cost. I tried to look it up and found a quote saying if you have to ask you can’t afford it. If every house had one our kids would be flying them in a week. If I could afford one I would also be spending my days flying them. The only issue is cost. I have to ask the price so obviously can’t afford it. But believe me if I could I would not stop until I mastered it.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
Do we need jetpack 2.0? We (the world) have control software to land a rocket vertically just about OK, but current jetpacks seem to require very complex manual control at the moment. The question is if they were easy to fly would we need them - the sound and jet blast seem to be a very bad idea when rescuing people from snow and icy mountain rescue conditions and all the military demonstrations I've seen just seem to suggests it's a loud, slow moving target.
rm445 5y ago
Just to note, the linked story is about David Mayman of Jetpack Aviation in California, while the other stories you mentioned are (British) Richard Browning of Gravity Industries - the one recognisable by its wrist-mounted supplementary engines. So there are at least a couple of competing inventions. Sure, there isn't a killer app for jet packs at the moment, or perhaps ever. They were enabled by miniature-scale turbine engines being developed for other purposes. But you never know - some innovation in control systems, or them turning out to be just perfect for some obscure emergency/military task, they might find a niche beyond stunts and tethered tourist experiences.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
> “Marines demonstrate boarding with jet pack” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suHOLFhbwsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suHOLFhbwsM is the video for anyone interested

mirekrusin 5y ago

Exactly, we had "smartphones" before iphone as well and nobody did care.

rhino369 5y ago
Blackberries were huge and growing. iPhone definitely expanded the market faster than anyone dreamed. But it was easy to see where the market would go before iPhone.
- mirekrusin 5y ago
  If it was "easy to see" we wouldn't have iphone dominance.
  - WJW 5y ago
    I just want to point out that global iPhone market share has been hovering between 15% and 20% for years. Android has almost all of the rest. Iphones are not dominant.
    - ajb92 5y ago
      Global market share is one kind of dominance, there are others
  - rhino369 5y ago
    Easy to see at a high level--phones with web, multimedia support, and app support. Near impossible to guess what exactly what would look like and when.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      The pieces where there already, just good enough product with good enough connectivity was missing. In the end iPhone is nothing more than refined PDA...
      - mirekrusin 5y ago
        Devil is in the detail.
Tostino 5y ago
Early adopters absolutely did care.
- mirekrusin 5y ago
  I'm sure people who fly jetpacks absolutely do care about jetpacks.
fartcannon 5y ago
Quite a few of us cared. The teeming millions may not have, but definitely more than nobody.
- mirekrusin 5y ago
  Sure, I meant it in context, obviously some people did care, otherwise they simply wouldn't exist at all, what I meant is nobody = niche = not mainstream by any means.
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    I still think that's an understatement. Not that it matters really, but did you forget about the ubiquity of Blackberry's for nearly a decade prior to the iPhone?
JKCalhoun 5y ago
Hmmm... Not sure that Jetpack 2.0 will ever be a thing like the iPhone was. Helicopters autogyro, planes glide, balloons (usually) lose their lift slowly. A jetpack, like a rocket, is a thing that has no business flying. Only a large, heavy-handed impulse of energy allow them to oppose gravity. Without altitude and a parachute, there is no Plan B for a jetpack engine failure, loss of fuel, etc.
- ehnto 5y ago
  I think a parachute would be pretty easy to accommodate, at least an emergency one. Maybe it'll still hurt, but cut the pack loose and hopefully you would survive. Not everyone survives helicopter or plane engine failures either. I certainly don't think jetpacks are a relevant tool for society outside of really niche use cases. If we don't even trust people to fly small drones around the public safely and without FAA regulation and licensing, in what dreamland would we all be able to fly personal jetpacks to the shops, or even recreationally? There are way cheaper, way safer ways to get airbourne as a private aviation enthusiast, so I can see why jetpacks really don't scratch enough itches to have gained popularity.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    Parachutes have a minimum altitude, and jetpacks really do not push people into flying high. (What is a problem in more ways than that, because most of the things that can make your flight safer need altitude.)
inglor_cz 5y ago
I had Nokia 7650 in 2004 and I am hopefully not-nobody... these devices, although clumsy, paved the way to the modern mobile ecosystem.
- mirekrusin 5y ago
  Yes, maybe those jetpacks and micro flying machines will pave the way to future electric-scooter-like flying.
pmontra 5y ago
A lot of people had smartphones before iPhones. Basically all the 3G phones sold in Europe since 2003. I was working for an operator that got 3 M customers in its first year back then. Had they a touchscreen as good as iPhone's? Definitely not. Did they had an internet connecting better than iPhone's? Definitely yes because the original iPhone was only 2G. Anyway, this is only an analogy so let's don't get too much into it. People don't care about jetpacks because they are crazy dangerous and expensive. This makes them less practical than jumping from a plane with a parachute instead of waiting for it to land.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> the creator cosplaying as whatever service he’s trying to sell it to That guy is an actual Royal Marine Commando - he's not cosplaying.

ch4s3 5y ago
I think the point is that when you see demos, it's always him dressed up as a marine, mountain rescuer, etc and not someone else.
- hammyhavoc 5y ago
  What difference does it make who demonstrates it? All that matters is application, performance, and whether it is fit for purpose.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    I think the earlier posters are pointing out that no one else seems to be able to safely operate the thing, which suggests that it might not be fit for purpose.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    The amount of training matters. If it's always him, that has some implications on how hard it is to turn into a product. And a quick demo doesn't do a good job of showing fit for purpose either. Maybe performance.
    - hammyhavoc 5y ago
      I can see this potentially having some usefulness if refined, but from a strictly practical perspective, I can't see many pilots surviving a boarding if the vessel has any firearms. It just lacks maneuverability.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        You (obviously) combine it with fire support. Just like a ladder or helicopter assault on a ship, or an infantry attack on land, or really any other military manoeuvre.

_8j50 5y ago

Could say the same about the wright brothers in the early 1900s. Longevity of the flight and safe operation can only improve in time. The question is does anyone care. People will be scared of it and if not does it offer anything over cars? It's not like you can fly it over private property , there will be laws that regulate where you can fly it. Just give me hyperloop tunnels to overlap subways and freeways and I am set. Especially with better bike lanes.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> Could say the same about the wright brothers in the early 1900s. Yes, you could. But that’s not actually an argument that jet packs will follow a same development path, it’s just survivor bias in action.
- _8j50 5y ago
  They may not, I was just saying we don't know what developments will be made in the future.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 5y ago
Aircraft were improved immensely by new materials since then. But jetpacks are still impractical. Might we see the same level of improvements again in the next century ? (And even if we do, wouldn't "super planes/copters" still be ahead of jetpacks ?)

ehnto 5y ago

What were we expecting from jetpacks though, really? Is it not more fair to suggest that the past was a little bit naïve about what it would take to operate a jetpack? They're still aircraft after all, at the very least you're going to need pilots license. There's no "bicycle" of jetpacks, you've got three axis of movement and certain death in every direction but up, it's just not a tool that belongs in the every-man's garage. I think the same can be said for the past's perception of what flying cars would be like. You don't see your average joe flying a helicopter to work, for the very same reasons you'll never see personal flying cars be ubiquitous.

dioxide 5y ago
rocket man.
fishtoaster 5y ago
I feel like you could describe cars the same way: You've got two axis of movement at 60mph. Stray a couple feet left or right and you die in fiery inferno. Stop too fast or too slow, same deal. Maybe appropriate for highly-trained specialists, not for every-man's garage. My point is not that "cars are death machines no one should own," although there are certainly those who hold that opinion. Rather that inherently dangerous things can be made relatively safe with enough systems around them: roads, signs, traffic laws, licenses, seatbelts, and so on.
- silvestrov 5y ago
  The big difference is that cars have brakes and that coming to a full stop will avoid most crashes. There is no good "emergency braking" for jetpacks, there is not even "autorotation" as there is for helicopters.
- ehnto 5y ago
  It's not really a "new frontier being misunderstood" though, it's very clear what it's value proposition is, and it's also clear from our history with aviation so far, what the challenges are. As I said in another comment, we don't even trust people to fly small drones without certification and FAA regulation, there's good reason for that, being in the air is nothing like being on a road.

xtracto 5y ago

Exactly, right there in the article theres a highlighted quote mentioning this: > Now, the flight duration is too short, and the degree of difficulty too great. But this was also the case for the Wright brothers I think the next step for Jetpacks is to develop automated navigation/stabilization systems. We want a Jetpack for which the normal state is flying at a stable height, then with some kind of 3D joystick we can move steadily up, down, front, back and sideways. I think all of this is currently achievable but too expensive to implement. Also, the amount of energy required to lift a person is just to high, so until better ways to store energy are developed, the "backpack" form factor for storing energy will not cut it for practical flights.

outworlder 5y ago
Better and safer too. We need to not only store incredible amounts of energy, but do it in such a way that's safe to do so next to your chest :)
BizarroLand 5y ago
Maybe it's silly, but I want wings on my jetpack that are large enough that I can glide, but also that can sheath themselves into each other.
- redisman 5y ago
  You just want a Gundam suit
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    Who wouldn't?

autokad 5y ago

it does feel like we made lots of progress though. as we need less fuel for them, they get easier to use, and safety improves we should start seeing some real use cases

walrus01 5y ago

a widely usable 'jetpack' would actually be more like a ducted-fan coaxial octocopter that you wear, with flight stabilization/onboard flight controller not very dissimilar from a large commerical cinema filming octocopter. if it relies on the person's skill to fly it and has a 5-10 minute max flight time, of course it'll be a niche thing...

falcolas 5y ago
Theoretically, if you could add adjustable mechanical joints, you could hook up a flight controller to it and fly it. Could you add the necessary joints and motivators and stay inside a reasonable weight? Not so sure.
- walrus01 5y ago
  with arducopter and common COTS flight controllers people have made monocopters that use servo motor controlled vanes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pu-KDuxUwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pu-KDuxUwU
  - falcolas 5y ago
    That would require the three points to be rigid other than the vanes. But vectored thrust is a thing for jets too, so it's definitely possible.

ArnoVW 5y ago

While indeed people do not use jetpack in a day-to-day manner, they are becoming slightly more 'available' than you portray. See this video where one of the corridor crew members participates in a jetpack training. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5xYaqQo4k https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5xYaqQo4k I think it's more precise to say that they are currently a toy for the rich.

andi999 5y ago

I think with a active control unit safe operation should be possible. There are fighter jets that cannot be flewn manually (unstable flight behaviour). Probably range and use case is the problem.

MR4D 5y ago

We solved the stability for drones that cost as little as $20. We’ll solve it the same way for jet packs as well.

ashtonkem 5y ago
We solved stability for a rigid drone that’s symmetric and designed for purpose. That’s a lot different than solving for stability for a variable size and weight human that’s wriggling around.
- MR4D 5y ago
  It’s just a digital gimbal. Similar to a light drone in a breeze.
- radley 5y ago
  > solving for stability for a variable size and weight human that’s wriggling around. Was solved for Segways. Just need the third axis and some kind of special emergency landing solution (goo + inflato-ball??).
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    No, it’s more complex than that. A Segway is counting on the fact that it’s sitting on the ground. The force vector on the rider is purely a function of angle. A jet pack has the issue that there is a moveable center of gravity and moveable sources of thrust that feed back into each other. It’s doable, I’m sure, but it’s also much more complicated than a Segway + another direction.

wutbrodo 5y ago

> Marines demonstrate boarding with jet pack”, and every time it’s just the creator cosplaying as whatever service he’s trying to sell it to this time. Didn't an actual Royal Marine do this recently, in a training exercise? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a38748085/royal-navy-marine-jetpack-video/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a38748085... This seems like exactly what we'd expect for a technology this new and dangerous, and is certainly a step farther than "the creator is the only one flying it". EDIT: Per other comments on this thread, apparently the Royal Marine in question _is_ the creator

jollybean 5y ago

That's legit R&D. Marines storming a ship is an obvious use case where the high cost will be accounted for (i.e. we have a lot of expensive gear for specific purpose) and it's a practical scenario. Coast Guard same. And certainly other forces. If we can get the gear to be very easy to use and practical, it could very much enable a kind of acute mobility. There's little direct use beyond that, however, the development of the technology could yield other things as we learn to make those little jets cheap, efficient and intelligent. Those systems could absolutely be deoployed onto drones, which opens up a world of use cases.

twobitshifter 5y ago

Furthermore if you want the sensation of a jet pack, there’s the jet lev, which seems much safer. The article mentions that this should only be flown over water on a tether, so what’s the benefit over a jetlev? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s00SwPZ_1D0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s00SwPZ_1D0

Animats 5y ago
That's like the Flyboard, another water-jet system.[1] That's the world champion flying. The Flyboard people now have the Flyboard Air.[2] This is a real flying hoverboard, powered by what is believed to be a group of model aircraft jet engines. It's not easy to fly. They require 50-100 hours in the water-powered version before attempting the jet-powered version. It's very cool, but it's for people who find skateboarding stunts too easy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JhUSu8v2N4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JhUSu8v2N4 [2] https://atlanticflyboard.com/flyboard-air https://atlanticflyboard.com/flyboard-air

guerrilla 5y ago

I was thinking about this while watching a paraglider with propeller yesterday. I was thinking, maybe you could use tiny jets for this, but the question is why would you... this is already perfect [1]. Seems like jetpacks are a solution looking for a problem and at the same time highly impractical. 1. https://youtu.be/L1Z8YT6w7Rc https://youtu.be/L1Z8YT6w7Rc

samstave 5y ago

Question: How impracticable is the following: --- you have a machine with micro-thrusters (of whatever fuel-source) It is driven by modern drone tech for stability. How driven, super simplistic maths for establishing thrust.telemetry.balance... How the FUCK has this not been solved? A belt of jets. They fly you without killing or burning you. We are significantly evolved for this to happen... Seriously. This is a solvable thing. Do it.

EliRivers 5y ago

In his defence, Richard Browning, of Gravity Industries, was an actual Royal Marine. Granted, reservist, but they still take and pass the commando course. I ran into him a couple of times in the service; while he's not in anymore, "cosplay" seems a harsh term in his case.

62951413 5y ago

No revolutionary technology can be expected to be practical for casual users. They are building a cool product and I hope they find a market even if a niche once. But I'd prefer https://www.youtube.com/c/Jetsonaero/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/Jetsonaero/videos to a jet pack too :)

14 5y ago

The only impractical thing is the cost. I tried to look it up and found a quote saying if you have to ask you can’t afford it. If every house had one our kids would be flying them in a week. If I could afford one I would also be spending my days flying them. The only issue is cost. I have to ask the price so obviously can’t afford it. But believe me if I could I would not stop until I mastered it.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

Do we need jetpack 2.0? We (the world) have control software to land a rocket vertically just about OK, but current jetpacks seem to require very complex manual control at the moment. The question is if they were easy to fly would we need them - the sound and jet blast seem to be a very bad idea when rescuing people from snow and icy mountain rescue conditions and all the military demonstrations I've seen just seem to suggests it's a loud, slow moving target.

rm445 5y ago

Just to note, the linked story is about David Mayman of Jetpack Aviation in California, while the other stories you mentioned are (British) Richard Browning of Gravity Industries - the one recognisable by its wrist-mounted supplementary engines. So there are at least a couple of competing inventions. Sure, there isn't a killer app for jet packs at the moment, or perhaps ever. They were enabled by miniature-scale turbine engines being developed for other purposes. But you never know - some innovation in control systems, or them turning out to be just perfect for some obscure emergency/military task, they might find a niche beyond stunts and tethered tourist experiences.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

> “Marines demonstrate boarding with jet pack” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suHOLFhbwsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suHOLFhbwsM is the video for anyone interested