4 ms·

Airships are like fusion and flying cars, always N years in the future. Why should we believe it this time?

Ekaros 4y ago
I think more like they don't really make sense. Not that technology isn't ready. Which is entirely different from fusion. On other hand flying cars are combination of both, they don't make sense and technology isn't ready.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  Why do flying cars not make sense, assuming the technology was perfect? Cars could go more direct routes to their destinations and we could give so much ground area that's currently dedicated to cars back to pedestrians and other modes of transportation.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    I just don't believe the math on efficiency. Wheels are darn good in efficiency. Wings sure can work in some scenarios, but most flying cars I see are some type of quadcopter or like which I find questionable. And anti-gravity is not happening.
  - mrkeen 4y ago
    It would take too much energy to keep them off the ground.
  - danhor 4y ago
    Aside from technical concerns, they're loud as hell during takeoff and landings, making their use inside populated places a bit controversial.
    - ajmurmann 4y ago
      Like most other objections better this sounds like the technology isn't ready.
  - febusravenga 4y ago
    Energy. Flight control. Congestion. Accidents. Noise. All those would be much difficult, worse / problematic or even catastrophic when flying vehicles would be accessible to literally everyone, including criminals, drunks and teenagers.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Also not to forget misuse scenarios. We already blockade roads around large events when there is lot of pedestrians around. How would we do same for the sky? If there was hundreds or thousands of flying cars. Drones are one thing, but tonne or multi-tonne vehicles?
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    The occasional helicopter flying over a city is already noisy enough to be annoying. There's no way people would put up with hundreds of flying cars above at any given moment unless they're much less noisy than that.
kshacker 4y ago
Technology has been making progress all this time. It may be slow progress like FSD or a fast progress like many of the things in Moore's law. We still do not need to believe it, but obstacles do get overcome with time, and if at some point someone can make a business out of it, we will wonder why it took so long since it was so easy.
alpos 4y ago
None of those things are N years in the future. That's a bad meme. We have had fusion that works, flying cars that work, and airships that work for 50ish years. A thermonuclear bomb set off in a giant underground tank of water would make a lot of power and we would have no trouble controlling and harnessing that. We just don't want to do it that way. We already have tons of trouble getting people to approve building a controlled nuclear melting pot anywhere near them, no one would ever agree to let you detonate bombs under their feet. That doesn't mean the tech doesn't work. It means we don't want to use it. And flying cars have existed since the term was invented. They're called airplanes. You can get a four seat one to fly yourself for about 40k. They are a bit harder to "drive" than regular cars and we don't make as many places to park them so most people don't want one. Plus gas prices already limit how much people drive, try burning 10 gallons/hr. Airships work too, they just occupy a niche that we do not have a need for other than entertainment value. Cargo ships get lots of stuff across water cheaper, trucks get stuff across land cheaper, and cargo planes get more stuff through the air faster.

I think more like they don't really make sense. Not that technology isn't ready. Which is entirely different from fusion. On other hand flying cars are combination of both, they don't make sense and technology isn't ready.

ajmurmann 4y ago
Why do flying cars not make sense, assuming the technology was perfect? Cars could go more direct routes to their destinations and we could give so much ground area that's currently dedicated to cars back to pedestrians and other modes of transportation.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I just don't believe the math on efficiency. Wheels are darn good in efficiency. Wings sure can work in some scenarios, but most flying cars I see are some type of quadcopter or like which I find questionable. And anti-gravity is not happening.
- mrkeen 4y ago
  It would take too much energy to keep them off the ground.
- danhor 4y ago
  Aside from technical concerns, they're loud as hell during takeoff and landings, making their use inside populated places a bit controversial.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    Like most other objections better this sounds like the technology isn't ready.
- febusravenga 4y ago
  Energy. Flight control. Congestion. Accidents. Noise. All those would be much difficult, worse / problematic or even catastrophic when flying vehicles would be accessible to literally everyone, including criminals, drunks and teenagers.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Also not to forget misuse scenarios. We already blockade roads around large events when there is lot of pedestrians around. How would we do same for the sky? If there was hundreds or thousands of flying cars. Drones are one thing, but tonne or multi-tonne vehicles?
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  The occasional helicopter flying over a city is already noisy enough to be annoying. There's no way people would put up with hundreds of flying cars above at any given moment unless they're much less noisy than that.

kshacker 4y ago

Technology has been making progress all this time. It may be slow progress like FSD or a fast progress like many of the things in Moore's law. We still do not need to believe it, but obstacles do get overcome with time, and if at some point someone can make a business out of it, we will wonder why it took so long since it was so easy.

alpos 4y ago

None of those things are N years in the future. That's a bad meme. We have had fusion that works, flying cars that work, and airships that work for 50ish years. A thermonuclear bomb set off in a giant underground tank of water would make a lot of power and we would have no trouble controlling and harnessing that. We just don't want to do it that way. We already have tons of trouble getting people to approve building a controlled nuclear melting pot anywhere near them, no one would ever agree to let you detonate bombs under their feet. That doesn't mean the tech doesn't work. It means we don't want to use it. And flying cars have existed since the term was invented. They're called airplanes. You can get a four seat one to fly yourself for about 40k. They are a bit harder to "drive" than regular cars and we don't make as many places to park them so most people don't want one. Plus gas prices already limit how much people drive, try burning 10 gallons/hr. Airships work too, they just occupy a niche that we do not have a need for other than entertainment value. Cargo ships get lots of stuff across water cheaper, trucks get stuff across land cheaper, and cargo planes get more stuff through the air faster.