Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Flying Cars Ready To Take Off

Posted by timothy on Mon Apr 18, 2005 07:50 AM
from the they're-already-late dept.
Ant writes "CBS News has an article, images, and a free streaming video clip of Elwood (Woody) Norris' invention of a working flying machine, AirScooter. He asked one of his test pilots to demonstrate it for 60 Minutes on a hilltop outside San Diego, California. It can fly for 2 hours at 55 mph, and go up to 10,000 feet above sea level. This week, he will receive America's top prize for invention. It's called the Lemelson-MIT award -- a half-million dollar cash prize to honor his life's work, which includes a brand new personal flying machine. Woody Norris' and others' inventions are for NASA's 'The Highway in the Sky.' It is a computer system designed to let millions of people fly whenever they please, and take off and land from wherever they please, in their very own vehicles."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2005, @07:52AM (#12268208)
    Should say:-

    Flying cars to be made available in fifteen years time

    This is just a sickening attempt to get our hopes up.
    • by eclectro (227083) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:09AM (#12268358)
      No, it should say;

      Gas prices take off, flying cars left behind.
      • by bmw (115903) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:04AM (#12268320)
        15 years? Try 1500... We've had cars for over 100 years now and we still haven't found a way to keep people from driving drunk and teanagers from racing in public. We probably never will. Now, Starbucks at 10,000 feet... well... there's something that wouldn't surprise me. They've already run out of space on the ground. I know of a place where you can sit in one Starbucks and look out the window across the street at guess what... Another Starbucks!
        • Mirror?!? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2005, @08:08AM (#12268347)
          I know of a place where you can sit in one Starbucks and look out the window across the street at guess what... Another Starbucks!

          Just curious, this Starbucks doesn't contain remarkably similar looking people to the one you are currently in?
      • Re:Headline is wrong (Score:5, Informative)

        by AJWM (19027) on Monday April 18 2005, @10:24AM (#12269744) Homepage
        How are they going to prevent people from flying over private property?

        They're not. At 500 feet above the highest obstacle, (1000 feet over a built up area), the skies are open (subject to air traffic regs). If you don't want people flying over your property, you'll have to apply to the FAA to declare your property restricted airspace. Good luck.

        (Below the above altitudes, you can report such aircraft to the FAA, unless they're on approach to or departure from an airport.)

        (Oh, and if you feel like just putting up a 500 foot tower to raise the "floor", better make sure you've got approval, lest the FAA declare it a hazard to navigation and make you take it down.)
  • Skycar (Score:5, Informative)

    by dsginter (104154) on Monday April 18 2005, @07:52AM (#12268209)
    Moller Skycar Info [moller.com].
    • Re:Skycar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by djbckr (673156) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:28AM (#12268507)
      Every 5 years or so, I see an article about this flying car, and every time I see the article it says, "It'll be available to everyone in 10 to 15 years".

      I'm quite skeptical.

    • Re:Skycar (Score:4, Informative)

      by andrew_0812 (592089) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:49AM (#12268664)
      Here is another company working on a flying car called SkyRider [macroindustries.com].
      • Re:Skycar (Score:5, Informative)

        by Issue9mm (97360) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:17AM (#12268432) Homepage
        Mr. Moller's been building flying cars since forever ago. I saw his cameo on "Invent This!", and he had relatively working prototypes of various models of flying cars in the 60s and 70s.

        Really, it's quite amazing what he's accomplished, and has to be the first to market on these things. I can only wonder why it's never "taken off" (pun only slightly intended.)

        I want to say I've heard him mention that being the first to market on something so "seemingly" dangerous was his downfall, but I could be misquoting.

        Interesting aside: Moller has acres and acres of pecan trees, which he eats as a staple of his diet, because he believes they slow the aging process (and he's quite old now indeed.)

        -9mm-
        • Re:Skycar (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2005, @10:08AM (#12269575)
          > Moller has acres and acres of pecan trees, which he eats as a staple of his diet

          He should try just eating the nuts, then he wouldn't need so much space for all those trees.
      • by INetUser (723076) on Monday April 18 2005, @09:26AM (#12269096)
        At the present rate of oil consumption, which is increasing by the way, the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.

        It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car. So unless they can figure out how to make an air car run on a renewable energy source, which has less energy than oil based fuels, it'll never happen, or at best, it'll happen as the last of oil reserves are used up, and it'll use them up faster yet on top of that.

        • by Steffan (126616) on Monday April 18 2005, @09:47AM (#12269324)
          "It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car"

          That would only be true for a given mass. There are diesel powered airplanes in production [diamond-air.at] that get the equivalent of 20-30 mpg (US). Compare this to a Ford Excursion or Chevy Suburban and you will see that the airplane is actually more economical in fuel usage. It may well be more economical in total energy picture, factoring in manufacturing as well.
          In addition, the DA40TDI runs on diesel. It is not currently certified to operate on biodiesel, but there is probably no technical reason it could not do so. (Yeah, yeah, the standard arguments against biodiesel like supposedly taking up all of our farmland to grow fuel, blah blah blah)
          So your blanket statement does not hold up even with present technology.
        • by AJWM (19027) on Monday April 18 2005, @10:38AM (#12269894) Homepage
          It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car.

          No, it isn't.

          There are far too many variables involved to make such a blanket statement: L/D ratio of the aircraft, mass, rolling resistance and air drag of the ground vehicle, terrain, speeds, stopping and starting, etc, etc.

          As an extreme example, consider what kind of gas mileage a glider gets, even counting whatever gas is used to tow (or propel, for a motor-glider) it to altitude. Compare that to an SUV with under-inflated tires. Even a (non-gliding) Cessna gets better gas mileage than an SUV (I don't recall the exact numbers of the top of my head, aircraft fuel consumption is listed in gallons (or sometimes pounds) per hour.)

          Now, something that relies on a fan instead of a wing for lift probably will have higher consumption, but you're blanket statement is simply false.
            • by Shihar (153932) on Monday April 18 2005, @01:10PM (#12271758)
              "we will run out oil eventually... this running out will happen relatively abruptly, leading to something of a crisis in our society on account of our dependance on private transportation."

              This is very much NOT true. We will not suddenly wake up one day and find all the oil gone. What will happen is that price of oil will slowly continue to rise for decades. This will facilitate a smooth transition from oil to alternative energy sources.

              What most people don't understand about oil is that we dig up very little of the blackstuff. When we drop a well down and start sucking up reservoirs of this oil, we are really only dragging up the easiest to reach oil that is just sitting there. Most oil is left untouched due to the fact that it would be very expensive to remove it.

              Three things are going to happen to make the cost of oil slowly rise as it is depleted.

              1) Speculators will make sure that it rises slowly. Speculators watch the supply of oil and basically bet on how much it is going to cost in the future. While they do drive the price of the oil up by buying out supply, they also ensure a more even distribution over time of its distribution. For instance, if suddenly the oil companies were to announce that HOLY SHIT we are out of oil in a year, speculators would quickly buy up the supply and start parceling it away. The price absolutely would go up, but we wouldn't go from oil gushing out of our ears to being bone dry.

              2) As the cost of oil is driven up, oil companies will naturally start digging up more expensive to extract oil. At $30 a barrel it makes no sense to go to an old oil well and start extracting all that stuff that takes $50 a barrel to extract. However, once the price of oil hits $100 per barrel, that $50 per barrel oil will make a tidy profit. So, as the cost for oil goes up, more and more expensive oil will be introduced to the market. The oil will not suddenly run out. Instead, more expensive oil will be introduced to the market that will slowly drive the price up.

              3) As the cost of oil goes up, the demand for oil will go down. This is economics 101 supply and demand. Oil is the energy source of choice simply because it is relatively clean (compared to some thing), a very dense energy source, and extremely cheap. Today oil is cheap for the amount of energy you can make from it. The stuff is plentiful enough to fuel the world, and cheap enough for almost everyone to be able to buy it. This will not always be true. As the price goes up, more people will start to spend a few extra dollars to avoid having to shell out so much at the pump. Alternative energy sources will be comparatively cheaper then oil. People will move naturally away from oil. You can see a perfect of this by looking at Europe and the US. The US, where this is almost no taxation on oil, people own big ugly fuel hungry cars. In Europe, where the taxes on oil account for a full ¾ of the costs, people use significantly more fuel efficient cars and in general burn much less oil. Up the price of oil by 500% and even Americans will find it in their hearts (or more likely wallets) to be more fuel efficient.

              The net result is that as the price of oil goes up, the consumption of the stuff goes down. As consumption goes down, the price slows its upward slope. The result is that you have a gradual increase in oil prices and a gradual move away from using it.
  • by meringuoid (568297) on Monday April 18 2005, @07:53AM (#12268222)
    let millions of people fly whenever they please, and take off and land from wherever they please, in their very own vehicles

    Homeland Security will have a fit!

    • by ptomblin (1378) <ptomblin@xcski.com> on Monday April 18 2005, @08:34AM (#12268553) Homepage Journal
      Never mind Homeland Security. What about the people whose houses these things are going to fall on when people without the skills required for a current private pilots license decide that "whenever they please" means during thunderstorms or when the clouds are generating ice or when the wind is gusting to 90 knots?
      • Answer (Score:4, Funny)

        by Craig_P92669 (875776) on Monday April 18 2005, @09:11AM (#12268916)
        DIY surface to air missile systems
      • by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Monday April 18 2005, @09:34AM (#12269170) Journal

        What about the people whose houses these things are going to fall on when people without the skills required for a current private pilots license decide that "whenever they please" means during thunderstorms or when the clouds are generating ice or when the wind is gusting to 90 knots?

        Most likely you'll need a license and insurance in order to operate these things. In fact, mandatory insurance makes even more sense for these things then it does for cars. It's pretty easy to keep a car on the road. Keeping a plane in the sky is impossible to do with 100% certainty, no matter how skilled you are.

  • by xyronix (254256) on Monday April 18 2005, @07:54AM (#12268227)
    I'm still waiting for my hoverboard...
    Fooget Flyin Cars!
  • public roads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on Monday April 18 2005, @07:54AM (#12268233) Journal
    Im fairly sure these device wont be valid road going vehicals for a while atleast.
    I am wonder (fairly sure they will)if they will need to introduce a new license scheme for them and a whole new set of transit laws .
    The potential problems that machines like this could cause is immense if this is not as tightly regulated as standerd aircraft not to mention the cross with auto mobiles

    However if these things are avaliable for 50k from people like Mr Morris then I will definantly be rather tempted to get when if i ever have money like that laying around(Lets hope some unknown rich relative dies).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2005, @07:55AM (#12268240)
    wonder if it looks like that hover car on the Simpsons last night... hmm...
  • by JJ (29711) on Monday April 18 2005, @07:58AM (#12268267) Homepage Journal
    Buy one now before the air commute becomes congested as well.
  • by garcia (6573) * on Monday April 18 2005, @07:59AM (#12268273) Homepage
    Norris says you won't need a pilot's license if you fly it under 400 feet in non-restricted air space. And he's going to sell it for $50,000.

    But the car will fly to 10k feet right and it will sell for $50k right? That means that a lot of idiots will be flying one of these things and they will have the ability to go over the 400 foot limit.

    Looks like a serious issue.
    • by Jussi K. Kojootti (646145) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:23AM (#12268479)
      I thought this was even more frightening:
      NASA says it will draw on modern day satellites and global positioning systems to track the flying vehicles -- to prevent them from bumping into each other.
      Bumping? I know marketing people like to downplay possible problems, but calling aircraft-to-aircraft collision "bumping" is both hilarious and scary.
    • by Greyfox (87712) on Monday April 18 2005, @12:01PM (#12270929) Homepage Journal
      Not to mention that you kind of need a pilot's license to know where the non-restricted airspace is. From what I recall (It's been a while since I dabbled) 1 mile from municipal airports and up to 25 or 30 from an international airports require you to follow direction from air traffic control. That means that among other things you have to ask permission to enter the airspace and turn if you don't get it before you cross over or are denied. Certain classes of aircraft are simply not allowed in certain classes of airspace. I know this because my hang glider instructor misunderstood the regulations and landed at the Wilmington International Airport once and had to file some "Mea Culpa it Won't Happen Again" paperwork with the FAA over it. If that'd happened AFTER 9/11 he probably would have been arrested.

      It's even worse when you're flying a powered aircraft, especially in crowded airspace. Not only are you navigating in 3 dimensions (Which actually is pretty easy to get used to) but you have to keep an eye out for other vehicles up to two or three MILES off and above or below you and follow air traffic control's instructions when they tell you to do something. Overall the amount of bullshit you have to put up with makes the occasional speed trap on the ground look pretty inviting.

      In the end, the flying car experience will be a lot different from what most people imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if the only way it would be allowed would be with a computer controlled navigation system that had no allowance for manual override. Some people might opt to move up to pilots licenses for a craft they could manually control, but that would be about the equivalent of a CB radio enthusiast moving up to a ham license -- most people won't want to and it will bring as many new restrictions as it does newfound freedom.

      • by garcia (6573) * on Monday April 18 2005, @08:30AM (#12268521) Homepage
        So, do you advocate all cars being unable to accelerate beyond 65 miles per hour? Or all guns being able to sense if they're being used in self defense? How about MP3 players that can detect copyrighted music and refuse to play it? The lack of these features sounds like a "serious issue" to me.

        It's a bit different when you are driving a car and you go in excess of the speed limit. This is going into restricted airspace where you need to be licensed in order to fly above it.
  • by grqb (410789) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:00AM (#12268278) Homepage Journal
    Damn...and I thought people were finally getting the idea that we have to conserve energy. Imagine how much oil/jet fuel that flying car would go through? It has four sets of rotary engines! I'd much rather see people driving an electric vehicle like this Reva NXG that can go 200km after a 6 hour charge [thewatt.com].
    • by selectspec (74651) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:37AM (#12268578)
      conserve energy

      Conserving energy is an absurd notion. We need to continue to grow the per capita energy allocation. People need more energy so we can do cool things like fly around in cars. Conservation is often confused with efficiency. I'm all for making systems more productive. But to actually curb energy "consumption" is outrageous. We need to find new, safe, and more plentiful ways to produce as much energy as possible. Perhaps (if you are one of these global warming nimrods) you could argue that we need to produce less CO2. However, that is not a conservation issue - it's a pollution issue.

      The automobile has revolutionized our society - changed family life, geography, etc. The car's impact has been huge. While not everything the car has brought us has been good, on the whole, I'd say it's been worth it. While I doubt this "air-car" will take off any time soon, if it did, who knows what revolutionary impact it would have on mankind.

      This "green religion" clamping down on progress reminds me of the Church crackdowns on science during the Reformation.

      • by Digital_Quartz (75366) on Monday April 18 2005, @10:11AM (#12269618) Homepage
        This is kind of like saying "I need to continue to grow my per day spending. I need to find new and more plentiful ways to make money. Having lots of money has change my life, where I live, etc... I'm not sure I can afford a yacht any time soon, but If could, wouldn't that be cool?"

        It's true; spending energy is fun and has many positive benefits, but at the moment our primary energy source is oil, and it isn't renewable. One day, maybe we'll have some new, safe, and more plentiful energy "income" sources, but right now we don't. When you're out of work, spending all your cash reserves is a dumb thing to do, and that's what we're doing with oil, right now. There's no "energy Visa company" we can borrow from while we're out of oil and waiting for fusion or high-altitude wind generation, either.

        It is, in fact, even worse than the cash analogy; development of new energy technologies requires energy. If we let our energy reserves drop low enough, eventually we won't have the resources required to invest in new energy technology. It's like driving down the highway, and being close to empty. It's nice that there's a gas station 40 miles up the road, but if you keep the pedal to the metal, and burn up all your gas in 20 miles, you're still fscked.
        • by Geoff-with-a-G (762688) on Monday April 18 2005, @09:03AM (#12268786)
          I think where you went off track was when you assumed that energy == oil. Oil is simply one currently used method of producing energy. To quote the grandparent directly:
          "We need to find new, safe, and more plentiful ways to produce as much energy as possible."

          That doesn't sound to me like he's saying "let's use more oil."
  • by dcigary (221160) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:01AM (#12268285) Homepage
    ....can it fold up into a briefcase after you land at work?
  • by DrWhizBang (5333) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:06AM (#12268328) Homepage Journal
    From TFA

    "...But if we sold say a couple thousand, $50,000 a piece, that's a billion dollars."

    If that's how this guy does math, I think I'll wait for some other manufacturer to create these things before I buy...

  • by aapold (753705) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:09AM (#12268362) Homepage Journal
    Buy a piece of land. And wait.
  • by guido1 (108876) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:15AM (#12268415)
    About this "car".

    It's a one seater.
    The driver/pilot position is open to the elements.
    It has no cargo carrying capacity (as far as I could tell.)
    Max speed 55mph, 2 hours of flight per tank.
    Skids only (no wheels), so you can't park it in a ramp/underground garage, so can't fly it to the city...

    Cool toy? H3ll yeah. If I ever win the lottery (unlikely, as I don't play it) I'll be all over one of these. Replacement for a car? Bah.
  • by Bnderan (801928) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:16AM (#12268420)
    Woody Norris' company invented a device to aim sound, something like a laser does light. There was a good article in the NY Times about it a couple years back. This Popular Science article appears to cover it as well. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/article/0,16106, 388134,00.html [popsci.com]
  • by jerryasher (151512) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:19AM (#12268445)
    Looking at the AirScooter video, and at thinking about the motorcycle handle and the lack of foot pedals, how does the pilot correct for uncommanded roll, as might occur in turbulence, or thermals, encountering wake turbulence, ...?
  • *Sure* they are... (Score:4, Informative)

    by supabeast! (84658) on Monday April 18 2005, @09:11AM (#12268906)
    When I was a little kid I used to read all the time about these neat flying cars that were only a few years away, once the designers worked out a few kinks and the government figured out the regulatory side. As I've grown up I've continued to see these stories coming along, always promising that these guys have a new flying car that will be ready for consumers at some time right around the bend...

    It ain't happening, folks. Now and then these guys might pick up an award or snowball another big team of journalists into reporting on their work, but safe, reliable, affordable flying cars that get reasonable fuel economy aren't going to happen any time soon. And when they do, they'll be tied up in regulatory and insurance messes for years, continuing to prevent wide adoption. At the rate this stuff is moving, by the these designs are ready for the market and the market is ready, the fossil fuels needed to run them will cost so much that people won't want them, and we'll get to wait another twenty years for hydrogen-powered models to arrive.
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:06AM (#12268331) Homepage
      you can get that now. it's called a private pilots license. unlike a drivers license it actually requires an IQ and SKILL to get and hold onto one. Hopefully in the future either a pilots license is required or they are automated so the braindead morons owning them will not be allowed to control it..

      Personally, I have held my pilots license. I let it lapse cince family has taken precedence. but I remember that going from mid-michigan to chicago meigs was a super quick jaunt in that Piper Aero... having a quick lunch in downtown chicago between classes (2 hour break) was very doable when the school had their own grass airstrip.

    • by ScentCone (795499) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:20AM (#12268455)
      can you imagine the waste of fossil fuels

      Except, if Moller's specs are even close to right, traveling with two or three people to some harder-to-get-to places will involve using much, much less fuel than you'd use in a road vehicle, and we'd spend way less money, fuel, equipment, etc., maintaining roads into certain areas. And at 200 or 300 mph, you're getting someplace much more quickly than in a car, but with car-like gas mileage. With that time savings, you're going to see a lot of otherwise unecessary (and way, way less fuel-economic) traditional commuter flights end.

      It's not like this is the sort of thing that people would be taking to the grocery store.
      • Doing the Math (Score:4, Informative)

        by goombah99 (560566) on Monday April 18 2005, @08:45AM (#12268634)
        I'd douby his math. From the article:

        ""Well, I've done the math. I think it's a modest number if you could sell a couple thousand, when you look at snowmobiles and quads and those things -- not cars," says Norris. "That's a big market. But if we sold say a couple thousand, $50,000 a piece, that's a billion dollars." "

        Uh no that would be 100 million dollars.

            • by Anonym1ty (534715) on Monday April 18 2005, @12:01PM (#12270933) Homepage Journal
              A few people are sloppy and let couple refer to the "few", meaning, but most people prefer the definition referring to a pair.

              Some are sloppier than others - depends on which one. No one will argue what a dozen means, most people ar clueless about a peck... couple, & few depend on who you are talking to. Not to mention some words have always had two meanings... one being ambiguous

              1/10 = gry
              1 = single
              2 = couple
              3 = few
              4 = gang
              5 = punch
              6 = half dozen
              7 = several
              8 = peck / basket
              9 = bunch
              10 = carton / minyan
              11 = short dozen
              12 = dozen
              13 = long dozen / baker's dozen
              14 = fort
              16 = kenning / half bushel
              20 = score
              24 = case
              32 = bushel
              144 = gross
              1728 = great gross
    • by Geoff-with-a-G (762688) on Monday April 18 2005, @09:08AM (#12268868)
      If you can't be troubled to RTFA, at least read the summary.

      It's mostly about Norris' "AirScooter", NOT Moller's Skycar, and Norris DID demo the AirScooter, with a 60 minute flight in front of press.

      It may not be in a dealership near you yet, but it really does fly, it's not vapor.