Are We Getting Close To Flying Taxis? (knpr.org) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a report from public news station KNPR about how close weare flying taxi services:
The dream of flying cars is as at least as old as the automobile itself. Bell, which makes attack helicopters for the U.S. Navy, is working on this new project with another high-profile partner, Uber. The prototype, the Bell Nexus, was unveiled earlier this year. Boeing and Airbus also have prototypes of these flying cars in the works. Uber has become the face of the aerial mobility movement as it has the most public campaign touting its work so far. Elon Musk says he'll get us to Mars. Uber says it'll get a millennial from San Francisco to San Jose in 15 minutes flat (instead of the two-hour slog in morning traffic). And its timeline for this flying taxi that does not yet exist is 2023...
NASA is another Uber partner. While Jaiwon Shin, NASA's associate administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, thinks Uber is being a little bullish -- he'd put the timeline further out, to the mid-2020s -- Shin says it's close. "Convergence of many different technologies are maturing to the level that now aviation can benefit to put these things together," he said. The batteries that power electric cars can evolve further, to power flight. Companies can stockpile and pool data, and build artificial intelligence to take over air traffic control, managing the thousands of drones and taxis in the air.
And Uber, his partner, is really well-connected. While fighting the legacy taxi industry, Uber made so many government and lobbyist contacts, that that Rolodex can help grease the wheels -- or wings.
"While no flying taxi exists yet, Uber has dared to estimate the 'near-term' cost of that San Francisco to San Jose trip: $43," the article reports -- suggesting that could create a new division in society.
"With flying cars, the haves can escape to the air and leave the have-nots forgotten in their potholes."
NASA is another Uber partner. While Jaiwon Shin, NASA's associate administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, thinks Uber is being a little bullish -- he'd put the timeline further out, to the mid-2020s -- Shin says it's close. "Convergence of many different technologies are maturing to the level that now aviation can benefit to put these things together," he said. The batteries that power electric cars can evolve further, to power flight. Companies can stockpile and pool data, and build artificial intelligence to take over air traffic control, managing the thousands of drones and taxis in the air.
And Uber, his partner, is really well-connected. While fighting the legacy taxi industry, Uber made so many government and lobbyist contacts, that that Rolodex can help grease the wheels -- or wings.
"While no flying taxi exists yet, Uber has dared to estimate the 'near-term' cost of that San Francisco to San Jose trip: $43," the article reports -- suggesting that could create a new division in society.
"With flying cars, the haves can escape to the air and leave the have-nots forgotten in their potholes."
We're probably 5 years away from flying taxis (Score:5, Interesting)
And, if you ask me again in 2024, I'll say that we're probably 5 years away.
The technical issues are being chipped away but there are power and autonomy (traffic control) issues that will require decades of work before we will have practical flying taxis.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't want rich people's viscera on my lawn, thankyouverymuch.
Re: (Score:2)
trump already has a flying taxi.
all the rich enough people have if they want to spend the requisite amount of money on it. it's fucking expensive and risky though, so most rich people opt not to have it - even the ultra rich.
we have had them for decades. it's not really just a cost issue about flying the thing itself or the cost of the flying thing itself. it's the cost of practicality arrangements between the places you want to land in.
I have no doubt that uber could start a helicopter route between the st
We are already there except for scale (Score:1)
I'll say that we're probably 5 years away.
The technical issues are being chipped away but there are power and autonomy (traffic control) issues that will require decades of work
Practical flying taxis already exist - they just aren't large enough to carry humans yet.
Drone tech in terms of following paths and tracking and even collision detection and avoidance, is all there and really reliable now.
You don't need to fully solve traffic control. You just need to have well-defined paths and schedules and a few d
Re: (Score:2)
Practical flying taxis already exist - they just aren't large enough to carry humans yet.
Then they aren't very fucking practical, are they?
Standard slashdot response: it works in theory, so the implementation is just an engineering problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Will it happen, NO. Why not because a bingle on the ground and there are hundreds of thousands of them every year, mean minor insurance claim and a bingle in the air means people DIE on the ground. Your risk your choice, not fucking your choice my fucking risk.
There will always be strict limitation on flight because it routinely and regularly kills and the more up there the more that WILL die up there and down here. My choice, my risk, fuck your choice.
Have you ever read any software warranty ever, coders
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Except being physically insane.
There's a term, called transport efficiency... (vehicle weight times velocity) versus power needed. Flying machine will always have much worse transport efficiency than car with wheels except for extreme cases when we already have planes. Not going to make a flying version of a car without either having a revolution in physics or being fine with burning through tons of fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We're probably 5 years away from flying taxis (Score:2)
We are 20 years from having engine nosie low enough for it to be practical.
Decades before flying taxis we will have point to point helicopters lowering the costs drastically.
Flying cars are 20 years after that point.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt it. We'll have robotic cars well before the point where flying cars are practical and between robotic deliveries, taxis and telecommuting applications, there won't be much point in being able to drive a flying car. Perhaps as a replacement for bush pilots these may have an eventual market, but for most other purposes they'll be inferior to other technologies that are definitely coming as opposed to possibly coming.
The only reason people want flying cars is because they're fucking cool. They're kind
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As big of a son of a bitch Neil Degrasse Tyson is for demoting Pluto, he was spot on when he explained to Joe Rogan why we'll never get flying cars in any sort of common place.
The big problem is that they will likely always be loud, energy inefficient and unnecessary. Flying cars would appear to solve the problem of insufficient road space. The problem is that we've already got effective solutions to that which would likely be more cost effective over the long term. We have the ability to tunnel under citie
Re:We're probably 5 years away from flying taxis (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, but flying taxis powered by nuclear fusion will be 10 years away of course.
The reality is that we already have flying taxis -- they're called *helicopters* but the economics simply don't stack up.
An electric-powered flying taxi (of the type commonly popping up as "real soon now") is woefully lacking in economics -- even worse than a helicopter. In order for a vehicle like this to be operated at a profit it must spend a very high percentiage of the day "in operation". The problem with EVs (of all kinds) is that they have significant down-time whilst being recharged.
A gas-powered heli can be refueled in minutes so can operate at its normal hourly recovery-rate for most of the day. An electric flying taxi will spend as much (or more) time on the ground being recharged as it does actually flying -- hence the economics (by way of the return on capital) will be unworkable.
Easy solution (Score:3)
In order for a vehicle like this to be operated at a profit it must spend a very high percentage of the day "in operation". The problem with EVs (of all kinds) is that they have significant down-time whilst being recharged.
Battery packs you can swap out ad re-charge offline would totally eliminate that issue. It does increase the initial cost having to have so many battery packs and some infrastructure to change them out.
Re: (Score:3)
An electric flying taxi will spend as much (or more) time on the ground being recharged as it does actually flying
So battery swap it. It ought to be easy on a purpose-built multicopter. Or use supercapacitors, maybe this is the type of vehicle where it finally makes sense because of the trip prices and energy consumption profile.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe me? Go visit Kenmore Air in Seattle. Try to get a job with them doing 100 hour inspections on their float equipped Cessna and Dehavilland aircraft.
100 hour inspections of liquid-fueled aircraft are necessarily expensive because they have many complex parts. Multicopters don't, and you couldn't perform any meaningful test that couldn't better be performed by the hardware itself. Battery retention would likely be controlled by wired or use-once tab-retained fasteners (the tabs are bent up after the fasteners are torqued down, and the retention shims are discarded after use) with the batteries themselves being installed by machine.
Self-testing is just on
Re: (Score:2)
supercaps aren't better than batteries for this. what you need/want is just maximum energy storage for the smallest amount of weight.
of course a battery pack system would be fairly trivial to develop. you could just hang it on the underside of the thing, or maybe have 3 different packs for redundancey. but you still have the energy density problem for the range of it vs. gasoline.
and after that, it's still just a helicopter with all the associated problems of one. you can have one today, even fairly cheapl
Re: (Score:2)
of course a battery pack system would be fairly trivial to develop. you could just hang it on the underside of the thing, or maybe have 3 different packs for redundancey. but you still have the energy density problem for the range of it vs. gasoline.
They're intended for short hops anyway, so the energy density isn't a problem except for recharging.
and after that, it's still just a helicopter with all the associated problems of one. you can have one today, even fairly cheaply, if you can deal with all the problems between the points you want to fly.
Well, let's distinguish between singlecopters and multicopters. When one says helicopter, one generally means a turbine-powered craft with a gearbox and a swashplate, and one variable-pitch rotor. Automated air taxi designs all seem to be electric multicopters. That means they have more overall complexity, but many fewer moving parts. If designed with enough motors (and rotors) then they can land with partial
Re:We're probably 5 years away from flying taxis (Score:4, Interesting)
A helicopter is expected to spend at least twice the amount of time being maintained than it spends flying. The lowest actual estimate I could find said 3.5 times as much. If an electric helicopter can reduce the amount of time required for maintenance, the fact that refuelling is slower is completely negligible. Refuelling is free, it only ties down capital. When you look at lifetime costs of a helicopter, the initial purchase cost practically vanishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Those daring commuters on the flying taxis
They're all safe, everyone believes
As long as Boeing stays on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
They fly through the air if the FAA agrees
Nope. The FAA will have no say, because the first air-taxi flights will not happen in America.
My bet is on China. Fewer regulations, less NIMBYism, and they are already ahead on drone tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely - it's the regulations which are the "problem".
Are we getting close to flying taxis? Uhhh... We've had them for years; they're called small planes. There's plenty of services where you can book a plane to take you from the closest airport to you to pretty much anywhere else in the world (as long as there's an airport at which you can land).
Are getting close to de-regulating our skies so that an airbourne vehicle can take off and land at any point in any city rather than at specially designated zo
Re: (Score:1)
Please no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Starting out, their use will be extremely restricted. Later on, perhaps the military will let loose of some of their quiet heli tech, or it may be replicated in the private sector.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one other means of flying, one that does not involve blasting air down, but the taxi-blimp brings its own practical difficulties.
Noise, Security, and Energy Are Big Challenges (Score:1)
Low flying aircraft, especially with rotor blades, tend to be very noisy. Then there are security concerns. Most defenses (walls, barricades, gates, guards, etc) assume 2 dimensions, not 3. Even a 20 pound object falling a hundred feet or more on a typical roof can easily brake through. Imagine the damage an object a magnitude or more heavier and larger could inflict. Add some explosives and the damage is further magnified.
Even if one dismisses noise and security concerns, the biggest challenge of all is ph
Cost and benefits (Score:5, Informative)
Uber says it'll get a millennial from San Francisco to San Jose in 15 minutes flat
That's great. Who's the lucky millennial?
Re: (Score:2)
The real question: how do these things compare to the next best thing, helicopters? Are they quieter?
A one or two person quadcopter with brushless motors and ducted blades is about 10 dB (a factor of ten) quieter than a helicopter.
Cheaper to operate?
Yes. They are smaller, lighter, use less power, need less maintenance, and have way fewer moving parts.
Safer?
This is certainly true for smaller quadcopters, since there are fewer failure modes, but there isn't enough data yet on larger quadcopters.
Faster?
No. But that doesn't matter. Air-taxis need to be faster than cars, not faster than helicopters.
Re: (Score:2)
A passenger vehicle would probably be a hex- or octocopter. Just a safety measure - such a craft would still be able to limp down to a safe-ish landing in the event of mechanical failure. A quadcopter will generally flip over if a rotor stops working and, at best, fall down to earth.
Rules of the Sky Road (Score:4, Interesting)
Realistically we'll have self-driving ground cars long before self-driving flying cars would happen. Rules of the road and concerns with ground driving are well-understood, and it's simply a matter of coding all that in. With flying cars, there are concerns that haven't been considered yet and won't be until there's a tragedy that involves multiple deaths and a huge lawsuit that shuts down the entire program. For example, if one flies into a building because its building sensor doesn't work with all-glass exteriors. Ground cars only have to follow the road and they automatically avoid driving into buildings; flying cars have no such luxury.
Once we have self-driving ground cars, traffic will start to clear up and be more tolerable besides, which will eliminate the benefits of flying cars.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if one flies into a building because its building sensor doesn't work with all-glass exteriors.
The Air-taxis will initially fly fixed routes, say from a helipad at OAK to a helipad at SFO. No buildings are on that route.
Ground cars only have to follow the road and they automatically avoid driving into buildings
It is silly to claim that obstacle avoidance is easier on the ground than at 500 meters in the air.
Autopilot vs. autopilot (Score:2)
Guess where 'autopilot' comes from.
"Autopilot", in the aviation world (and maritime) (and they way Tesla uses it):
computers that are able to offload a part of the ginormous mental load required by flying/helming/driving a vehicle around, and simplify the life of the pilot/captain/driver. But the pilot/captain/driver still remains in-charge of the vehicle, there are just some minute tasks that require less attention and can handle themselves autonomously (optionally requiring less crew).
"Autopilot", the way the masses are seeing it and what t
Rules of Sky (Score:3)
Rules of the road and concerns with ground driving are well-understood, and it's simply a matter of coding all that in.
But the devil is in the details.
Though more or less understood and not impossible for our evolved-from-chimps human brain to understand, it turns out rules of road have evolved in a definitely very human-oriented way (for obvious historical reasons).
And it turns out that making sense of that isn't as straight forward as the marketing department of start-ups would like you to believe.
With flying cars, there are concerns that haven't been considered yet
On the other hand, as flying cars aren't common *yet*, we can progressively build an infrastructure that is better suited for
Forget Batteries! (Score:1)
From the summary: "The batteries that power electric cars can evolve further, to power flight."
Effectively, no, they can't. That is not to say you can't make a battery-powered device that can lift a human and navigate a city, but there are hard limits to what chemistry can do. The best possible chemical battery can never come close to the range you could get from a tank of kerosene, and even that is of limited utility. Thorium, now...(ducks)
Re: (Score:2)
It rains (Score:2)
Flying taxis crash. Same for wind, snow.
Maybe some places with ideal weather will get flying taxis for a while, until people get tired of the noise and one or two spectacular crashes remind people why aviation isn't like driving a car.
We? (Score:1)
20 years+ if ever (Score:5, Interesting)
Second - There is a big difference between whats technically possible, vs whats commercially viable.
We're "close" , if not there to this being technically possible. However, for an aircraft - including electric quad type copters - to move beyond private user "experimental" designation to commercial is a huge, long, really REALLY expensive process. Remember "Uber for air planes" got slapped down hard years ago by the FAA. A private pilot is NOT a commercial pilot. This will be no different.
Given all the air checks, balances, engineers, certification of parts, rebuilds required after X hours of air time, the notion of a $43 cost per ride is nonsense.
Factor in Just 1 pigeon causing a crash over a city resulting in ground fatalities will kill the idea permanently, and might financially bankrupt what ever company is pushing this. And Cities will ban flights instantly.
Bottom line.. this is fantasy.
One does not have to guess... (Score:2)
But not that soon, as what Uber tries to s
$43 sounds pretty cheap (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't see how $43 is remotely realistic within 5 years. The distance between San Francisco to San Jose is about 30-40 miles depending on how direct you are able to fly (restricted airspaces such as the area around SFO may limit this). Taking into account take off and landing, let's call it a 15 minute trip. A five seat helicopter burns about 30 gallons per hour. Jet A currently runs about $5 a gallon, of which you will need approximately 7 gallons. So that's $37.5 in just fuel. That leaves basically
Are We Getting Close To Flying Taxis? (Score:2)
Doesn't seem feasable (Score:3)
I haven't seen any technology that can meet reasonable noise and air blast requirements. A flying taxi is likely to need as much landing space as a small helocopter - because that is basically what it is.
Quad-copter like designs look neat, and might solve some issues, but they work exactly the same way as helicopters, by forcing air downwards.
self-flying mode sounds nice, but even a small helicopter costs several times as much as its pilot per hour.
Will never be allowed to mass deploy (Score:3)
Mass short flights with rotor technology will never materialize. Companies will build a vehicle capable of such flights, maybe even relatively safely, but they will not be allowed in cities. Short flights means low altitude. Imagine tens of thousands of these things flying at low altitudes over San Francisco. Even if you figure out virtual corridors and traffic rules, imagine having multiple highways directly over your home. Physical highways often are separated by noise and crash barriers. Unless the city moves underground, people will not accept busy highways just hundreds of feet above residential areas.
Now, if some day we invent anti-gravity, so that such taxis can silently ascend to 30,000ft for a 5 mile trip, sure, but until then, this is less feasible for mass deployment than Elon's networks of tunnels.
AI is Magic Pixie Dust (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the current air traffic control system based on partitioned air space, regular routes, and tens of thousands of humans on duty 24/7 in a highly redundant system integrated with national and international weather forecasting will trivially be replaced by magic pixie dust AI at little or no cost. And it will never ever fail ever, just like commercial air travel. Just check current news for how well air transport works now.
Are We Getting Close To Flying Taxis? (Score:2)
Of course as always, it's the landing that hard. Any landing that you can walk away from is a good one.
Oh, you mean the normal interpretation -- what, are you crazy? Flying great and easy, and I assume you still have to get an FAA license to carry passengers. Oh, and you've got that silly rule about clear weather vs i
Re: (Score:1)
It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!
So (Score:3)
Obligatory XKCD (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/678/ [xkcd.com]
Tech isn't the problem, fuel is (Score:2)
Even if we work out all the tech to make this happen and its somehow 100% safe, fuel costs will prohibit this. Think of how we consider fuel expensive now and you never leave the ground. Many cars get 30+ MPG. Now consider how much extra energy (i.e. fuel) it would take to lift you and a flying vehicle to go the same distance? Only the wealthy will be able to afford this.
Also, if we suddenly reverting back to vehicles that effectively get 10mpg or less, the FINITE fuel reserves will be exhausted at 3+ times
that final quote though (Score:1)
40 years (Score:2)
Paul Moller has been trying [moller.com] for 40 years now. Sometimes it turns out first-mover advantage is no advantage at all.
He's 82 years old. He probably won't live long enough to see the first commercial "flying taxi" flight, even if Bell or Boeing or Airbus eventually succeed.