4 ms·

Ask HN: It's 2023 where are the flying cars?

3 points by anon115 3y ago

traffic is getting tewwible.

alpaca128 3y ago
And where are the genetically engineered catgirls? [0] [0] https://www.engadget.com/self-proclaimed-gay-furry-hackers-breach-nuclear-lab-152034192.html https://www.engadget.com/self-proclaimed-gay-furry-hackers-b...
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  they're not on HN, they're outside: doing purrkour
politelemon 3y ago
Observations of the behavior of humans inside their personal rapidly moving death boxes only drive us to a single conclusion: the fact that we currently don't have flying cars is a blessing to everyone both involved and not involved.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Indeed. Flying cars are fundamentally a terrible idea. Certainly if humans are in control. When a car breaks you pull over. When a plane breaks people die. In thd plane, and wherever the plane lands. Car accidents are limited to roads and surrounds. Plane accidents can land on anything. Like, you know, tall buildings. Road noise is a thing, but road noise attenuates quickly. Raise from the air attenuates slowly. Imagine living under the flight path to JFK. Now imagine it 24x7, 100 times louder. That'll be the quiet times... We could talk about maintenence, fuel costs, collisions, drunk-flying, sober-moron-flying (you know the sweet, considerate, kind-hearted folks you see on the road everyday? Imagine them as pilots). The reason we don't have flying cars is because they are a stupid idea. At every level. In every way.
Ekaros 3y ago
In the end they are not actually that great solution. Specially if they do not use lift bodies... And then there is all the funs of things crashing in 3d...
ironmagma 3y ago
Traffic is bad enough in two dimensions, I can't imagine what insane things people would come up with to try in three.
the_common_man 3y ago
Where is good sustainable public transport? Railways is so underdeveloped :/ why is rail often expensive than flying?
kstenerud 3y ago
Think of how difficult and time consuming it is to get a pilots license. Now think of how much of a market there is for a vehicle that only pilots can use. Add to that a dabble of the safety issues and FAA requirements of turning 75% of the cityscape into potential landing zones. That's why.
mikewarot 3y ago
Given the current laws of physics, flying cars are essentially helicopters, with all the attendant noise and risk of falling out of the sky. Until the laws of physics change, it's likely we won't have flying cars. I give the odds of that change 10% in the next 20 years. I'm watching the fringes closely, but nothing has shown real evidence yet. I'm hoping Barry-1 can push itself into a higher orbit without propellant... but that remains to be seen. You too can follow along, watching this page[1,1a], specifically columns 53–63 of line 2 of the Two Line Element set, the mean motion, which is orbits per day.... if that goes down, that is a higher orbit... it's been slowly increasing so far, as drag causes it to get into lower (and faster) orbits. The first elements based on observation had it at 15.15327300, as of Nov 22 (5 days later) it's at 15.15439447. They hope to boost it's orbit by 100 Kilometers, which should take it below 15 orbits/day. If it works, that means Mike McCulloch's Quantized Inertia is likely right, and we get to get out of this star system. Along the way, you get flying cars, and I get a personal megawatt. [1] https://db.satnogs.org/satellite/QDDY-8878-5291-1819-3935#data https://db.satnogs.org/satellite/QDDY-8878-5291-1819-3935#da... [1a] https://web.archive.org/web/20231125162752/https://db.satnogs.org/satellite/QDDY-8878-5291-1819-3935#data https://web.archive.org/web/20231125162752/https://db.satnog...

3 points by anon115 3y ago

traffic is getting tewwible.

And where are the genetically engineered catgirls? [0] [0] https://www.engadget.com/self-proclaimed-gay-furry-hackers-breach-nuclear-lab-152034192.html https://www.engadget.com/self-proclaimed-gay-furry-hackers-b...

082349872349872 3y ago
they're not on HN, they're outside: doing purrkour

politelemon 3y ago

Observations of the behavior of humans inside their personal rapidly moving death boxes only drive us to a single conclusion: the fact that we currently don't have flying cars is a blessing to everyone both involved and not involved.

bruce511 3y ago
Indeed. Flying cars are fundamentally a terrible idea. Certainly if humans are in control. When a car breaks you pull over. When a plane breaks people die. In thd plane, and wherever the plane lands. Car accidents are limited to roads and surrounds. Plane accidents can land on anything. Like, you know, tall buildings. Road noise is a thing, but road noise attenuates quickly. Raise from the air attenuates slowly. Imagine living under the flight path to JFK. Now imagine it 24x7, 100 times louder. That'll be the quiet times... We could talk about maintenence, fuel costs, collisions, drunk-flying, sober-moron-flying (you know the sweet, considerate, kind-hearted folks you see on the road everyday? Imagine them as pilots). The reason we don't have flying cars is because they are a stupid idea. At every level. In every way.

Ekaros 3y ago

In the end they are not actually that great solution. Specially if they do not use lift bodies... And then there is all the funs of things crashing in 3d...

ironmagma 3y ago

Traffic is bad enough in two dimensions, I can't imagine what insane things people would come up with to try in three.

the_common_man 3y ago

Where is good sustainable public transport? Railways is so underdeveloped :/ why is rail often expensive than flying?

kstenerud 3y ago

Think of how difficult and time consuming it is to get a pilots license. Now think of how much of a market there is for a vehicle that only pilots can use. Add to that a dabble of the safety issues and FAA requirements of turning 75% of the cityscape into potential landing zones. That's why.

mikewarot 3y ago

Given the current laws of physics, flying cars are essentially helicopters, with all the attendant noise and risk of falling out of the sky. Until the laws of physics change, it's likely we won't have flying cars. I give the odds of that change 10% in the next 20 years. I'm watching the fringes closely, but nothing has shown real evidence yet. I'm hoping Barry-1 can push itself into a higher orbit without propellant... but that remains to be seen. You too can follow along, watching this page[1,1a], specifically columns 53–63 of line 2 of the Two Line Element set, the mean motion, which is orbits per day.... if that goes down, that is a higher orbit... it's been slowly increasing so far, as drag causes it to get into lower (and faster) orbits. The first elements based on observation had it at 15.15327300, as of Nov 22 (5 days later) it's at 15.15439447. They hope to boost it's orbit by 100 Kilometers, which should take it below 15 orbits/day. If it works, that means Mike McCulloch's Quantized Inertia is likely right, and we get to get out of this star system. Along the way, you get flying cars, and I get a personal megawatt. [1] https://db.satnogs.org/satellite/QDDY-8878-5291-1819-3935#data https://db.satnogs.org/satellite/QDDY-8878-5291-1819-3935#da... [1a] https://web.archive.org/web/20231125162752/https://db.satnogs.org/satellite/QDDY-8878-5291-1819-3935#data https://web.archive.org/web/20231125162752/https://db.satnog...