Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
The future of the past (Score:5, Funny)
Flying cars, robot vacuum cleaners... the future of the mid 60's is getting closer every day!
Re:The future of the past (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:2)
Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.
This one could possibly be different, but I'm just not holding my breath.
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:4, Funny)
Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.
That would make a great line in a song, sung in a monotone
Parent
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.
The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks. Most of our traffic problems are caused by people following too closely and overreacting to developments ahead of them (braking harder than necessary, etc), not to mention the general scourge of distracted driving. If the whole process of freeway merging, maintaining safe distance, responding to stimuli outside the vehicle, etc, was handled by an unemotional computer (perhaps interfacing with a central traffic planning computer in more congested areas), things should smooth out.
Of course, we're still years away from that sort of computing power, but various aspects of the self-driving automobile have been under development for years, and we should eventually get there. At any rate, I find the prospect more realistic than the idea of thousands or millions of flying cars zipping around above New York City.
Parent
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with self-driving cars is that they ALL have to be self-driving for it to work properly. I suppose you could designate certain roads as automated only, but how do you enforce it if you do?
I guess you could add sensors of some kind all around to keep the car from hitting other cars that don't report position data. But if even one of them is off calibration by a little bit.... crash. RADAR isn't great, as there just isn't enough space for independent transmitters. LIDAR might work, but has similar problems.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have something like a car-pool lane, with very, very steep penalties. (you could even had RFID readers like toll-booths to make sure every mile or so) Couple that with the lower insurance costs for drivers, and it would pick up pretty quick.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with self-driving cars is that they ALL have to be self-driving for it to work properly.
Wrong. There have already been successful completely automated cars driven on motorways which could overtake other cars when it needed to. And this was over 10 years ago... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUREKA_Prometheus_Project [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, but in order to enforce it properly, the police would have to be driving an automated car, too. That wouldn't make for a very interesting high speed chase.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:4, Interesting)
Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.
This one could possibly be different, but I'm just not holding my breath.
I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.
I reckon for flying personal vehicles to be actually feasible you need anti-gravity, a portal powersource capable of powering said anti-gravity-device, and some sort of master control network capable of automating and coordinating all such vehicles in the air to ensure they don't collide (among other things). So I would say the likelihood of personal air vehicles becoming feasible is rather slim at the moment.
Parent
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, while I think flying cars like this one may find a niche. I don't think they will ever take off on a large scale.
You will still need a pilots license (albiet only a light sport pilot license asusming terrafugia meet thier weight goals). You will still need a registered airfield to take off and land legally so it will only be worth using for longer trips. Finally it is rather expensive ($200000 iirc).
So I don't see there being enough of them in they sky to have a significant impact.
Of course that doesn't mean terrafugia won't be successfull. A small buisness (Which afaict is what terrafugia are) can be perfectly successfull with a niche product.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sikorsky S-61C. Room for the whole family. 7000 hours till next inspection. Only flown on Sundays. usd 2.4million cheap. No Dealers.
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:5, Insightful)
This issue gets brought up every time this thing is mentioned.
It's NOT a replacement for garden-variety cars. It's a replacement for light aircraft that solves the last mile problem and allows for home storage without living on an airport.
Parent
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:5, Interesting)
In my case, I have a place to store an aircraft in a local home, and on my vacation property. I have a house in upstate NY which I would like to go to, but it is a 6-7 hour drive from my current location.
The ability to store this thing in my home garage, drive it to a local airport, fuel, and then fly to NY would be wonderful. I could land in a podunk airport, and drive the last 3 miles to my vacation home and store it in my garage there. I'm not too keen on arranging to park an aircraft at a field and pay a fee to do so when I could have the option of storing it in my own climate controlled garage (would it be a hangar then?)
If they can get it down to the sport craft limitations, this thing would be awesome and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
Parent
Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone worries that the skies will become a deathtrap when flying cars, driven by people without pilots' licenses, hit the market. But the collision-avoidance solution is simple if they're all flying autonomously. In 2009, it's trivial for inexpensive consumer devices to communicate with each other wirelessly. Similarly, flying cars need to broadcast their positions and velocities to all other aircraft within a few km radius (via WiMAX or similar technology).
Then, all it takes are some simple "right of way" rules and a small amount of computing power to compute the slight course adjustments needed to avoid collisions, or even to avoid intersecting another aircraft's wake vortices. This will also eliminate "air lanes," and the fear of them becoming saturated with traffic. All aircraft will simply fly the shortest point-to-point great circle route, except when the computer tells it to deviate to avoid another aircraft, another aircraft's wake vortices, a region of bad weather, or an ADIZ.
Because three-dimensional airspace is so vast, it will be able to accommodate exponentially more traffic than the current "air lanes" concept.
Autonomous flight is a much easier problem to solve than autonomous ground vehicles. A large but simple database will allow the aircraft to avoid obstacles like mountains and tall structures. An autonomous ground vehicle, on the other hand, would need to tackle machine vision problems like discriminating between an actual pedestrian and a picture of human on a bus-stop advertisement.
Parent
Challenges faced by autonomous ground vehicles (Score:3, Insightful)
Machine vision wouldn't have to distinguish between an actual pedestrian and a bus stop ad. I don't want to run over either of them.
When you encounter a pedestrian, there's a finite risk of the pedestrian darting out in front of your car.
An unsophisticated autonomous ground vehicle would have to slow down every time it encounters something that might be a pedestrian. It will take a lot of sophistication for the control software to determine that the advertisement on the bus stop is not an actual pedestrian
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks. Most of our traffic problems are caused by people following too closely and overreacting to developments ahead of them (braking harder than necessary, etc), not to mention the general scourge of distracted driving. If the whole process of freeway merging, maintaining safe distance, responding to stimuli outside the vehicle, etc, was handled by an unemotional computer (perhaps interfacing with a central traffic planning computer in more congested areas), things should smooth out.
Congratulations. You have just handed the government the ability to monitor and control the movements of everyone, everywhere. Now aren't you proud of yourself?
Parent
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:5, Insightful)
"self-driving cars on defined tracks"
We have these. They are called "trains". And they are very efficient, too.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually think railable cars is a much better solution than *flyable* cars. There's multiple concepts for regular cars that have a "slit" under the middle that make it possible for them to drive on a monorail.
The advantages are many, compared to normal car:
For longer commutes, you can spend the time on the rail sensibly (catching up on news or email, for example)
Higher capacity, on the rail the cars can form a "train" with zero inter-vehicle distance, which means a single rail can have the capacity of 4-5
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:4, Funny)
I know at least one reporter [youtube.com] that's going to be thrilled...
Parent
Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years. (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, this is more of a drive-able airplane than it is a flying car. I know, maybe there isn't any difference but to me a flying car is something that flys which replaces my car. This is something that I can drive on regular roads that replaces my airplane.
It's a different market, a different use, and a very different price point. It might succeed, but personally I still wouldn't call it a successful flying car.
Parent
It's a TRAP! (Score:5, Funny)
Transition® Roadable Aircraft Proof of Concept.
TRAP Concept? Oh, sign me up!
Not really a "Flying Car" (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a Jetson's style "Flying Car" for everyone to keep in their driveways. It is a plane that can fold its wings and has enough lights such that it is street legal. It is meant as something for private pilots (with pilot licenses) such that they can store their planes at home and "drive" them to the local airport before taking off on a pleasure flight.
It is NOT meant for people to fly to work after taking off from their garages, merging onto the skyway, and passing some old geezers flying outdated DeLoreans.
It's just a plane that you can also legally 'drive' on the road. That's it.
Re:Not really a "Flying Car" (Score:5, Insightful)
We needed a starting-point. This is it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that this _is_ different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is interested in an airplane the super-rich can drive to their villas after their day trip to the Bahamas. Everyone is interested in flying cars. If you put up an article about something that looks like it could someday lead to flying cars, people are going to comment on flying cars and what they would mean and how plausible they are.
Without the flying car connection, this article is more suited for some magazine that sells over-priced crap that no one needs like SkyMall, not Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have articles on Jetpacks and stuff that only the rich can afford... this is no different.
Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy (Score:4, Interesting)
The video voice-over says that the Terrafugia's empty weight is 890 pounds. With a maximum gross weight of 1320 pounds set by the Light Sport AIrcraft rules, this leaves a useful load of just 430 pounds. Gasoline weighs 6 pounds per gallon. With two real people aboard, it won't have much range...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah... unfortunately, the kind of thing I'd really want something like this for is visiting my family in Florida (from Georgia). At 550 miles, it's way over the maximum range of this thing, and I have two kids. And two dogs. And, of course, luggage.
Otherwise I'd buy one of these in a heartbeat. If they took a slightly postdated check, that is.
Crash safety? (Score:2)
This thing won't be more than a novelty if it's light aeroframe can't survive an impact with one of those giant SUVs driven by some guy yelling at his girlfriend on a cell phone... You'll be the jelly between two pieces of fiberglass. Plus, until it can land on a public street, and pull into a parking spot, and then take off again on the same street, without violating the speed limit, I don't see it having much practicality to Joe Average.
That said... Good job. We here at Slashdot love seeing what bored eng
Hmmm. Don't want one. (Score:3, Funny)
Think it'd have trouble towing my bass boat.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Think it'd have trouble towing my bass boat.
Yeah. Especially while in the air...
You want idiots in the air too? (Score:4, Funny)
While I am looking forward to a flying car, on the condition it doesn't consume more fuel that the current automobile, I can't wonder who will be driving those things. At least with current aviation you know that people have a pilot's license and have a certain sense of wanting to live, but if I look at some of the drivers around me when I drive, then I can't help wonder whether putting these people at the helm of a flying vehicle would be such a wise thing. Imagine:
normal:
- driving instructor: look left and right before entering the intersection
- ditsy learner: ooh look at the flowers
- driving instructor: watch out for the car!!!!
flying:
- driving instructor: look all around you before crossing the vertical air junction
- ditsy learner: ohh those cars look like ants
- driving instructor: keep your altitude!!!
Back to the Future (Score:4, Funny)
Folding Plane, not Flying Car (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
roadable aircraft, not flying car (Score:3, Insightful)
'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me)
Not quite.
The problem with conventional small aircraft is that once you've flown your Cesna 172 (or whatever) to your destination, you find that you're at an airfield way out of town somewhere, and you don't have a car.
Terrafugia is a solution that, once you land, you have a car. Which would be very handy sometimes!
But it's not really a "flying car" in the science-fiction sense.
Still barking up the wrong tree (Score:4, Informative)
This makes it a much better aircraft, but as always causes HUGE problems on the ground. It causes huge air-drag, even when foled up. They need to do it the other way. Make a good car that can also fly. Why? Because if flight is your major interest, then you always will need.
Specifically, go the powered parachute route. (Basic, non-street legal version here: http://www.easyflight.com/ [easyflight.com])
Your wing needs to be packable, not merely foldable - once. Once you do that, make it street legal, like this: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/the-worlds-firs.html [wired.com]
Yes, it is a pusher prop instead of the more tradional forward based properller. This means the prop is not blocking the driver's view.
But the most important thing is that wing is CHEAP, and when not being used to fly, can get packed away into the trunk of your car.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't care about the sports license limits, I don't think it would be a problem to upgrade the engine, but then you would need the better pilot license to fly them.
Honestly, raising your top
Damn you, Moller (Score:3, Interesting)
See, this would be far cooler if Moller hadn't set the bar so high with his vaporware. 4 seater, 350mph cruise, and 16MPG, and near VTOL - even when it turns out to be technically impossible - is still the standard flying car of my dreams.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the pre-takeoff checklist for every aircraft I've ever seen is "FLIGHT CONTROLS: FREE AND CORRECT". You move the stick and make sure the control surfaces move in the proper direction. It's not just (or even primarily) for detecting sabotage; it's because mechanics have been known to hook cables up backwards during maintenance.
Re:What is the big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...and does not require an air traffic controller.
Eh???? You can legally fly *any* airplane without talking to air traffic control with a conventional pilot's license, as long as you remain clear of certain types of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D airspace, specifically).
Of course, your personal 747 won't do you much good if you remain clear of Class A airspace, and you'd better have a really big back yard to build your private 10,000 foot airstrip on so you don't have to fly in Class D airspace.....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need clearance from anyone to fly an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (class G - below 700 ft or below 1200 ft near uncontrolled airports).
Further, you can fly VFR in class E (pretty much everywhere except near airports, and below 18000 ft) without any clearance whatsoever. In fact, you are not required to talk to anyone at all if you don't want to.
Re:What is the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who don't use their radios are indeed taking unjustified risks...but it's quite common for airplanes not to have radios at all. (Some airplanes don't even have electrical systems.) You can't assume that the pattern is empty just because nobody's talking. You have to look. Depending on the radio is just as foolish as depending solely on your own abilities to see and avoid.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Supposedly the video is only of the maiden flight. The article said they made several more "real" flights.
One thing that was disconcerting to me though, was the amount of elevator it took to get airborne. That seemed to me like a not well balanced (CG) aircraft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Probably not bad. My Diamond DA20 gets 29mpg in cruise.