4 ms·
> any kind of outdoor rescue You know we have these things called "helicopters", right?
by rpcope1 10mo ago
> any kind of outdoor rescue
You know we have these things called "helicopters", right?
- signatoremo 10mo agoWe also had carriages before cars. What’s the deal of so many “X already exists therefore any replacement is pointless” posts?
- stoneforger 10mo agoBecause the need is fulfilled adequately. They are not solving anything new or revolutionising anything old, these are dumb ideas for dumb people to throw money at hoping it sticks.
- ta20240528 10mo agoIs it? Are we — as a species — really going to spend until eternity grovelling around on the ground? If not, then we need personal aircraft.
- nandomrumber 10mo agoWhat is there to do not-on-the-ground? Other than wait to be on the ground again?
- ta20240528 9mo agoLoops ?
- rounce 10mo agoThen get a PPL
- well_ackshually 10mo agoUnless you figure out a way to turn off this pesky thing called gravity: yes. Even birds spend the majority of their times on the ground.
- fc417fc802 10mo ago> the need is fulfilled adequately It is not. Wilderness rescues are extremely resource constrained due to the costs involved coupled with the fact that those in need of rescue were fully aware of the risks before they set out. There's a severe limit to how many tax dollars will go towards bailing adults out of situations of their own making. Lowering costs would quite literally save lives.
- calmbonsai 10mo agoAt least with respect to aviation, we don't have any non-combustion power-trains that can remotely come close to the power-to-weight ratios of turbine engines. The earliest cars were replacing the animal muscle power of carriages--a trivially easy feat given that the most primitive steam and combustion engines easily 10x both the raw power, power-to-weight, and power-density of a team of horses.