Flying Cars Probably Won't Happen | Hacker News Reader

Flying Cars Probably Won't Happen

citylab.com

20 pointspencilpup22353 comments

I feel like the only person in the world who doesn't want flying cars. With cars, a crash isn't necessarily fatal. But with flying cars... any failure means cars fall out of the sky, woe be to who/whatever's in and/or under

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5888216/the-first-flying-car-was-base...

But unfortunately the current culture's rampant and excessive technology fetishism means that people can't stop dreaming of them :/

Ballistic parachutes will help with that some.

Ballistic recovery systems usually require a minimum altitude of around 1000 feet, so they are not really an option for urban settings. CAPS [0] for example needs 920 feet. As of August 2016, it was activated 83 times, of which only 69 were successful and there was 1 fatality [1].

[0] https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_G...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems#Dep...

Are you just operating under the assumption that no one will invent the seatbelt of flying cars? That cars will just fall out of the sky with no attempt at saving a passengers life?

Eventually someone will invent a big balloon that pops out of the bottom of cars to catch them as they fall, or a parachute, or something better no one has thought of yet.

What about the people that it lands on?

> Eventually maybe someone

FTFY

Because it's going to have to be truly fool-proof to withstand the drunks, idiots, and downright malice on roads today. And that parachute system better know how to land on solid ground and not, say, someone's house.

I do NOT want anyone but professional pilots piloting big heavy flying things over my head, my stuff, or my house

You're assuming that the occupants will have control of the things. Once you leave the ground autopilot gets a lot easier as you have more space/visibility and fewer random obstacles. And a car is going to be just as dangerous to you flying off the road into the side of your house as one falling from the sky slowed slightly by a parachute.

I beg to differ. There is a mile or two of snaky two-lanes roads with unguarded hairpin curves whose edges lead down small embankments with houses (some protected by trees, others not) on my commute home. Despite the high traffic (it's a feeder road connecting an interstate with a boulevard) and the fact that it consistently backs up during rush hour, plus there will frequently be (crazy!!) pedestrians walking up its sides... and I have never, ever seen a single accident or emergency response vehicle because not just because some guy couldn't complete the turn, but at all. No smashed houses, nothing. Sure it's one example but I would argue that a busy road next door and a busy skyway overhead are entirely different things with very different risk profiles.

IF the vehicles are self-driving that perhaps it will be safer. I don't think current autopilot technology can handle crowded, low-speed scenarios that you'd see in such a world. Maybe the tech catches up, maybe not

http://abc11.com/news/raleigh-man-fed-up-after-house-hit-by-...

>I don't think current autopilot technology can handle crowded, low-speed scenarios that you'd see in such a world.

Why don't you think they can?

Your link is just one example, like mine. Guard rails exist for a reason, of course, but I still believe that living under a skyway will be far more risky than living next to a busy road.

As for autopilot tech, we're still in the very early stages for autonomous navigation. Absent a central controller or cloud (the presence of which is something I vehemently oppose) we're still learning to pilot vehicles in a mostly-2D plane. Throw in the third dimension, and all the safety stuff that that will entail, and you end up with a plurality of political, engineering, and safety risks.

All it will take is one tragic loss of life writ large to kill the industry and set back plans 50 years.

Yes, that was my point. There are plenty of windy roads with no accidents and plenty with lots of accidents.

When the accident happens though the problem is the same. A big chunk of metal moving through your house at speed.

>but I still believe that living under a skyway will be far more risky than living next to a busy road.

Part of this I'm guessing is that you're still imagining a bunch of drunk, or aggressive or just plain bad drivers flying over your head.

We am already surrounded by drunk, aggressive, and just-plain-bad drivers. I am not so sure technology will make them simply go away.

>I am not so sure technology will make them simply go away.

Once they aren't in control of the vehicle it won't matter if they are drunk or aggressive or bad drivers. The people will still be there but it won't matter because they don't have any control over the vehicle.

Airplanes have been around a long time. Commercial aviation is much safer than general aviation, and that's with everyone being a trained pilot.

With airplanes, simple things like running out of fuel can be fatal. Yes, it happens. [1]

There are small airplanes with parachutes [2]. It's a big safety advance, but it still doesn't always help. You still need training in when to pull the parachute.

[1] http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/why-would-a-pilot-let-h... [2] https://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/airframe-parachute/

When I think of flying cars, I think of hovercrafts.

It would a step in the right direction for maximizing quality of life in the first world.

Poor roads (due to stress and lack of maintenance) being the main irritant at the moment.

Hover crafts would: make tollbooths obsolete (their main function: road-tax for maintenance -- gone), reduce accidents all around (trivial: liquid spills, minor: flats and whip lash, major: hydroplaning, ice-caused accidents, and crushed-by-car accidents), decrease consumer and government costs (via aforementioned need for tollbooths and road maint, wear-and-tear/ car maint, and insurance), and, as well, keep the aesthetic quality of the roads intact for longer.

Also: leaders plant the seeds into their followers imaginations. Electric cars and getting to Mars are relatively boring things (think: mass-media popularity), but Musk was able to get everyone on-board, although at the cost of promising Utopia. The same can be done against flying cars, if one is possessed on the issue.

>Poor roads (due to stress and lack of maintenance)

Uh, hovercraft (and flying things) are extremely loud. Their weight causes things not well attached under them to go flinging out at high speed. You have to keep the ground pretty clean to keep peoples heads from getting knocked off.

The loudness is definitely a problem, but it looks like there's headway being made on helicopter noise-reduction that could be transferred over to hovercrafts.

On second issue, do you mean rocks and sharp objects that could be thrown from the air being pushed out? I don't know how applicable it is to hovercrafts in this situation. We're either pushing air up or down, not side-ways. I don't imagine a rogue knife will be a problem for anyone else but the owner of the vehicle (a quick-fix would be to use a catcher cage).

But none of thee issues damn hovercraft. It'd be more likely the technology's just not at a practical level.

"Poor roads (due to stress and lack of maintenance) being the main irritant at the moment."

My main problem with roads are not the roads, but all the noisy, stinking cars on them. They all have a explosion engine after all ... so I will be allready very happy, if electric cars become standard ... and citys enjoyable again.

And then maybe we can focus on anti-grav etc. ... ;)

I'm right there with you.

Even in the suburbs, a car going faster than 15 mph is annoying (not even because of the engine!).

Then there's the Harley Davidson's that are louder than the train station, while still being farther away.

And since no one wants to miss that, the new electric Harley is made loud on purpose ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/electric-harley-davidson-mo...

There are plenty of people that roll their eyes at Musk and Mars.

And probably even more that have maybe heard his name but know little else about him.

Regrettably (or as expected, for some), their voices are never as loud (or obnoxious) nor are their views en vogue.

There is, however, money on the table for anyone who can keep a calm head. The current state of irrational exuberance is showing signs of wear.

I say they will. Autopilot is so much easier in the air than in the street, especially if the system is created with that in mind.

I would hate to have flying cars with people behind the wheel. We would have cars falling from the sky by the minute. If car drivers are bad, flying cars would be so much worst.

But if it becomes a mechanized system then it works. It's coming. I'm guessing 30 years. It won't be cheap.

I also say it will happen. 30 years is a lot different than today. By a long shot.

We'll have ANI (artificial narrow intelligence) completed by then. It'll be able to drive a car and fly a drone PERFECTLY. So why not a flying car?

We'll have Graphene solved and able to create mass quantities cheaply. Which means the weight problem will be solved.

We'll have far better batteries than we do now. In addition, metallic hydrogen anyone? That alone may actually pave the way for country hopping.

Who's to say, in 30 years there will be no cars on the road or planes in the sky. Travel would have been fully democratized. Just pull out your phone and uber/lyft/other yourself wherever you want to go.

Oh and the final upside. No more TSA. That alone is priceless.

-------

Plus up next, build a much stronger model for planet hopping. I think that's a worthwhile goal to aim for. Fancy a weekend trip to Mars? Hmm, in 2050?

Hmm, not sure about the security implications of many medium-sized flying vehicles, just forcing one to drop out of the sky in a crowded downtown would be pretty nasty. So the TSA may be replaced with some other kind of inspection regime (or surface to air missiles).

As for weekends on Mars, we'll need your solved graphene to build a space elevator to get into orbit cheaply, but the travel time will presumably be months, any faster and you'd be a pancake inside the craft, either accelerating or decelerating.

> Flying is a lot more complicated than driving. “With a car, you have many fewer axes of control,” Tilleman says. “We already lose 30,000 people a year in automotive accidents and you’re only having to worry about two basic things: Is the car going forward and does it turn left or right?”

This has been my take. We drive poorly enough as it is in two dimensions. Adding a third dimension seems like an awful idea. I don't know if it will ever come to fruition. Personally, I don't think it should.

Just think, in the future everyone could feel like they live next to an airport!

I think they already happened, but we just insist in calling them "helicopters".

I guess.

But I do wonder why autogyros haven't become more popular.

The regulatory environment of aviation is so far above what anyone who has no idea what that world is about can even imagine. Piles of regulations for aicraft and their regular inspection requirements are just the beginning of what will be a huge FU to/from any libertarian who already gets pissy at compulsory bienniel smog tests for their car.

Annual Inspection FAR 91.409

Try programming this into the virtual pilot. It's basically saying in event of power/engine failure, it still must conduct an emergency landing without undue (evaluate and decide capability indicated) hazard to people and property on the ground. It's not good enough to just go into landing mode and come what may. Land in a park and smash a couple kids? That's not merely a lawsuit. That's the end of your company. It'll get all of its flight certificates yanked, all the products will be grounded. And yes any investor worth their salt will know this in advance and won't volunteer for what amounts to nearly instant asset destruction if the system betrays this regulation.

And even before all of that? Not only does there need to be code that enables the autoflyingcar to conform, but there has to be a pile of tests to demonstrate competency. Just like a pilot has to do that when they take a practical flight test, just like they have to do in a flight review every couple of years.

Minimum safe altitudes - FAR 91.119

Expensive! Really really expensive! I think controlling the Mississippi river is easier and cheaper but whatever...

I always think of this breakdown of 'Flying cars and You' whenever this comes up: http://i.imgur.com/qm5t6.jpg

Make a version with helicopters.

What's happening with downward-pointing fan-based flight? There were a couple of interesting prototypes, a few years ago, and then relative silence in the techie headlines I scan.

Kind of like a giant drone. You can have some redundancy. You can have an emergency chute for the vehicle -- some small planes are beginning to carry these.

As with autos, I see the future of personal transportation in the U.S. as being electric. We're not at the end of onboarding power capacity into vehicles. Electric motors can provide sufficient drive. As renewable / next-generation energy grows, grid capacity is going to expand while prices hold or drop. Past a point, when the power gets cheap enough, you can sacrifice some power efficiency of the transportation for convenience and other factors. Let me cite "time efficiency" as something highly valued.

I see this extending to personal flight vehicles. Although I agree with other posters that, particularly en masse, automated flight controls are probably going to be necessary/mandatory much of the time.

Also, noise control. I don't want some dude's Harley quad-coptor roaring over my house.

P.S. If batteries can't meet all needs, there is still fuel-cell technology. Although, currently, batteries seem to be running away with the market. (Sorry for the unintended pun, there.)

I think flying cars are possible, but security and regulatory issues actively prevent them from taking off.

Look at all the microlights [1] that enthusiasts are having so much fun with. There are also tons of lightweight lower cost planes available now from as low as $20K. $80k like a high end car costs would get you something with decent speed and range.

With the huge investment that the average car model development cycle receives you could develop a flying car, at least make a start. The fact that that there is no serious effort suggests its not the technology barrier.

Some commentators seem to be concerned with the risks, but technology will develop to address it. If cars were introduced today the same arguments about risk and accidents could be made. After all cars can travel at high speeds much closer to crowds and other cars. But cars have been matured over nearly 100 years. Flying cars could do the same.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrEhrecBFIs

I think city zip line networks are much more feasible (energy, cost, speed, and safety-wise) than flying cars, but overlooked.

Replace zip line with gondola.

But gondolas are slow.

How much more energy does it take to make something FLY vs roll around on the ground?

There's a density issue with urban flying vehicles (only so many places to stop and park) but suburban FVs make a lot of sense (assuming the physics work out). Though it's funny that this article still thinks of people buying the vehicle and not the ride. Apart from all the financial reasons (capital utilization rate etc) having a corporation that manages the maintenance for AFVs will make everyone feel safer.

And what about those starship delivery robots photographed supposedly "making a delivery"? I've never seen one in the street without at least one person supervising it.

>suburban FVs make a lot of sense (assuming the physics work out).

Noise may be the ultimate physics problem.

Lighter than air, or near lighter than air vehicles? (Maybe only when lower than 1000' or something?)

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/i-didnt-know-that/...

Well, the plan (/leap of faith) is that electric will be quieter than internal combustion, including cars.

But you raise a good point and, reflecting on it, it is hard to see how these claims could be true (noise may fall off at 1/r^2 but with the vehicle in the air there's nothing to block the noise.)

Making the streets safer for kids and pets may be important too.

Unfortunately, the motor is only part of the problem - rotating blades (propellers, fans) make a lot of noise. Shrouds or ducts help, but not enough, and on top of that, noise is generated by the mixing of the output flow with the surrounding air.

Disappointed this article didn't talk about maintenance.

I get the feeling most people don't take care of their cars (oil changes, tire rotations, etc) as often as they should -- I certainly don't. And with driving, it's no big deal. If your car overheats, just pull off to the shoulder.

With flying, it's another story entirely. Even a successful emergency landing would be terrifying for occupants. That means having experts go over every inch of your flying car regularly, and that means a lot of money.

> That means having experts go over every inch of your flying car regularly, and that means a lot of money.

Automated car inspections with robotic X-ray scans every 3000 miles of flight? A JiffyInspect on every street corner?

Who is going to pay for all that infrastructure?

Who pays for all the infrastructure like mechanic shops, and oil changing facilities?

Funnily enough an electric vtol got posted to HAN. 300km range for the prototype and as fast as a formula 1 car.

Depends on how you define car I suppose.

Such pessimism on here. This is why we can't have nice things ha ha.

With so many technological advances happening there will be myriads of solutions to all of our concerns about these types of craft. But there will also be stumbles and accidents in developing them, but nothing compared to the introduction of day the automobile.

Personal flying cars are extremely unlikely except maybe for high net worth people in rural areas.

Managed services shuttling people around with autonomous flying vehicles between designated "micro-airports" are definitely a possibility.

Flying personal consumer crafts could definitely happen in our lifetime. Light wings + light engine/fuel + safety system.

I hope i'm not the only one on HN that really cant take such a post seriously. "This will never happen", yeah okay, glad someone can see infinitely into the future.

we already have self flying drones and cars. This OLD SCHOOL thinking of technology as stagnant directly causes us to lose sight of the potential the future holds.

humans are so dumb thinking they are so smart.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com