3 ms·

It's hard to pick just one reason, but off the top of my head: * Any failure tends to turn flying things into unguided missiles * Noise is extremely hard to c

by i80and 9mo ago

It's hard to pick just one reason, but off the top of my head: * Any failure tends to turn flying things into unguided missiles * Noise is extremely hard to control -- I did an FAA helicopter discovery lesson, and oof * Cities tend to have difficult to manage wind currents and hit-or-miss visibility. I was in a skyscraper across from one hit by a helicopter trying and failing to land in 2019 -- there's reasons for city no-fly zones * Limited landing sites makes them highly situational in the first place, unless you want your streets to be helipads, which you don't These are all fairly intrinsic and not mitigable. I can think of more issues more in the sticks, but you get the idea.

tyre 9mo ago
The wind in NYC is no joke. In brooklyn yesterday there were gusts so strong that car alarms were going off. In some apartment buildings, the handicap-accessible automatic doors simply cannot open into the wind. Imagine being in a flying car. Nope nope nope!
pastel8739 9mo ago
One more reason is that it cannot actually solve the traffic problem that it claims to solve. It might be able to solve it for rich people when they are the only ones that can afford to travel by air, but if the cost ever comes down low enough for the masses to afford it, I don’t see any reason that congestion wouldn’t be as bad or worse than it is now. And to me it’s not a good investment to improve things just for rich people.
- leoc 9mo ago
  There’s just a lot more space when you can move in three dimensions, so I don’t think the congestion limitations of non-flying cars are likely to be replicated. IIUC (I’m no expert) that’s one of the most attractive features of flying VTOL vehicles.
  - i80and 9mo ago
    You're bandwidth-limited on a sparse serialized landing site map no matter what, and you need far higher distance margins that will eat up basically all of the dimensional advantages. If ground vehicles side-swipe, it's just an insurance claim. If flying vehicles sideswipe, it's a Problem(tm).
  - pastel8739 9mo ago
    I honestly think the most attractive features of VTOL vehicles are that they are from sci fi, and you can look up and see a bunch of empty space and wish you were there while sitting in traffic.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
jstummbillig 9mo ago
I am (usually) not willing to assume that the founders of highly technical startups would not consider something that I as an outsider would in the first 5 minutes of engaging with the topic. That makes me skeptical of all of these (minus the wind currents in cities, that might have taken a little longer).
- RodgerTheGreat 9mo ago
  Theranos was famously founded on pitches about blood testing from finger pricks that literally any phlebotomist and many people with a modest life science background could've told you were physically and statistically impossible on their face. You should be considerably less credulous toward startup grifters.
  - jstummbillig 9mo ago
    The reason why you (and everyone else) knows about Theranos is that it was unique, which serves as a bad signifier if you want to judge what is likely to happen with the next startup. Being in prison and losing billions of dollars is just not something most people get excited about.
    - cbzbc 9mo ago
      The reason we know about Theranos is that it ended up in court. Plenty of other startups have had obviously impractical ideas that didn't go anywhere.
    - tsimionescu 9mo ago
      The reason we know about Theranos is because they took the grift up to a huge level and went from grift to outright fraud once they had to show actual results. It is not only not unique, but in fact extremely common for startups to be grifts around impossible technical promises, live a few years off gullible investors who have way more money than sens and/or for whom losing a few million dollars on a long shot is just as bad as me wasting a few dollars on a gizmo off Temu I know probably won't work, and which then die out because their ideas obviously couldn't work. They even sometimes find a niche by pivoting to some vaguely related tech. Say, while flying taxis obviously won't work, a startup trying to build them might find itself developing into a small company building helicopter propeller blades for some specific niche.
signatoremo 9mo ago
There are about 80,000 non-essential helicopter flights in Manhattan annually -[0]. That means a) there is a lot of demand, and b) it’s been pretty safe, with accidents being very rare. Many people are against helicopters on the grounds of noise, safety and pollution. Electric taxis will be welcomed once they are certified and economical. They only need to do better than helicopters. [0] - https://stopthechopnynj.org/frequently-asked-questions/ https://stopthechopnynj.org/frequently-asked-questions/
- well_ackshually 9mo ago
  > Electric taxis will be welcomed once they are certified and economical. Do you believe helicopters are noisy because they're not electric ? Your electric taxi will do the same thing: they need propellers. Propellers that can carry up to 1 ton are fucking loud. Electric taxis will never be welcomed because they are a dumb idea.

by i80and 9mo ago

tyre 9mo ago

The wind in NYC is no joke. In brooklyn yesterday there were gusts so strong that car alarms were going off. In some apartment buildings, the handicap-accessible automatic doors simply cannot open into the wind. Imagine being in a flying car. Nope nope nope!

pastel8739 9mo ago

One more reason is that it cannot actually solve the traffic problem that it claims to solve. It might be able to solve it for rich people when they are the only ones that can afford to travel by air, but if the cost ever comes down low enough for the masses to afford it, I don’t see any reason that congestion wouldn’t be as bad or worse than it is now. And to me it’s not a good investment to improve things just for rich people.

leoc 9mo ago
There’s just a lot more space when you can move in three dimensions, so I don’t think the congestion limitations of non-flying cars are likely to be replicated. IIUC (I’m no expert) that’s one of the most attractive features of flying VTOL vehicles.
- i80and 9mo ago
  You're bandwidth-limited on a sparse serialized landing site map no matter what, and you need far higher distance margins that will eat up basically all of the dimensional advantages. If ground vehicles side-swipe, it's just an insurance claim. If flying vehicles sideswipe, it's a Problem(tm).
- pastel8739 9mo ago
  I honestly think the most attractive features of VTOL vehicles are that they are from sci fi, and you can look up and see a bunch of empty space and wish you were there while sitting in traffic.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]

jstummbillig 9mo ago

I am (usually) not willing to assume that the founders of highly technical startups would not consider something that I as an outsider would in the first 5 minutes of engaging with the topic. That makes me skeptical of all of these (minus the wind currents in cities, that might have taken a little longer).

RodgerTheGreat 9mo ago
Theranos was famously founded on pitches about blood testing from finger pricks that literally any phlebotomist and many people with a modest life science background could've told you were physically and statistically impossible on their face. You should be considerably less credulous toward startup grifters.
- jstummbillig 9mo ago
  The reason why you (and everyone else) knows about Theranos is that it was unique, which serves as a bad signifier if you want to judge what is likely to happen with the next startup. Being in prison and losing billions of dollars is just not something most people get excited about.
  - cbzbc 9mo ago
    The reason we know about Theranos is that it ended up in court. Plenty of other startups have had obviously impractical ideas that didn't go anywhere.
  - tsimionescu 9mo ago
    The reason we know about Theranos is because they took the grift up to a huge level and went from grift to outright fraud once they had to show actual results. It is not only not unique, but in fact extremely common for startups to be grifts around impossible technical promises, live a few years off gullible investors who have way more money than sens and/or for whom losing a few million dollars on a long shot is just as bad as me wasting a few dollars on a gizmo off Temu I know probably won't work, and which then die out because their ideas obviously couldn't work. They even sometimes find a niche by pivoting to some vaguely related tech. Say, while flying taxis obviously won't work, a startup trying to build them might find itself developing into a small company building helicopter propeller blades for some specific niche.

signatoremo 9mo ago

There are about 80,000 non-essential helicopter flights in Manhattan annually -[0]. That means a) there is a lot of demand, and b) it’s been pretty safe, with accidents being very rare. Many people are against helicopters on the grounds of noise, safety and pollution. Electric taxis will be welcomed once they are certified and economical. They only need to do better than helicopters. [0] - https://stopthechopnynj.org/frequently-asked-questions/ https://stopthechopnynj.org/frequently-asked-questions/

well_ackshually 9mo ago
> Electric taxis will be welcomed once they are certified and economical. Do you believe helicopters are noisy because they're not electric ? Your electric taxi will do the same thing: they need propellers. Propellers that can carry up to 1 ton are fucking loud. Electric taxis will never be welcomed because they are a dumb idea.