Hacker News Reader

Comment by strong_silent_t | Hacker News Reader

I think the ideal scenario for this tech is running a downtown core to airport shuttle:

- a short trip allows battery needs to not be excessive

- bypass traffic, you don't have to go all that fast to get a huge speedup, and remove the extra buffer time on traffic uncertainty

- radically less infrastructure than roads or rails, reduces the cost of adding more pickup zones

In cites with poor airport to downtown infrastructure you could probably start off as a high-end service and charge i.e. 5x than an airport limo.

View on HN

I believe an express subway line can do a better job. Though the initial cost for building new infrastructure is high, it also have the other two benefits you mention: Bypass all ground traffic and being very predictable (in fact more predictable than flying cars as it won't be impacted by whether). Moreover it can carry much more people at much lower cost. The benefit of high capacity could probably compensate for the high initial cost.

If regular subway is not fast enough, maglev train like the one connecting PVG airport to Longyang Rd subway station can complete its 19 miles trip in 8 minutes, with a fare less than 10 US dollars, and it has been running for almost two decades.

The question OP was trying to answer was not “what’s the best technology for this application”, but “what’s the best application for this technology”.

And I agree, I’m thinking of short shuttle services in extremely congested cities, such as São Paulo, Jakarta, etc.

Yes, they’d be better served by a good subway system, but good luck waiting for that.

I’m just saying, we need to find other applications for this new technology. If we just want to connect city center to airports I’d so much prefer that people invest their money on trains which is a solution that can benefit lots of people rather than a just a few riches

Trains are great, but they exist already.

For a technology to eventually become mainstream, usually it first needs to find a sweet-spot where operational kinks can be worked out. Think of Tesla Roadster.

It may add value if you could suggest a more suitable initial application than airport shuttle.

If the best application for a technology is better served by another technology, then what's the point to begin with?

1. The new technology is in its infancy, and we expect it to get better over time.

2. External constraints prevent the better solution from being implemented for now.

The original plan was to run it to the "city centre" at People's Square and then on to the other airport in town Hongqiao. The problem was expense, and for money to be a problem for the infrastructure-happy Chinese, you know its not economically viable for the majority of countries on earth.

The problem is not simply expense but whether the expense is worthwhile. Given Shanghai is already connected by a subway web, the benefit of directly connecting two airports with maglev is very questionable.

Maglev is just a bit extreme but more traditional subway systems are already super common across the world. The RER trains in Paris is exactly what I mean by an express subway system. It’s much faster than the other metro system in Paris simply because it has fewer stops.

And you could do the security check at the downtown station to offload some of that from the airport (while also handling the need to screen people before they get on the flying taxi.)

You mean like what the Metlife building in NYC was designed for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Building#Helicopter_se...

Doesn’t a helicopter serve these needs? I think the problem is there isn’t a market for it yet. There is Blade in NYC and LA but it’s closer to 10x the price. I think the cost could be a lot lower if there was higher demand.

I think there doesn’t need to be new tech to make this work. Helicopters are safe and reliable, but are out of reach financially for most. I don’t see how drones or multirotor would be able to compete on price for a very long time.

Why do you think electric drones have taken off as toys and for filming etc, when remote controlled helicopters have been available for ages?

Because they have better properties for many use cases: much simpler mechanically, cheaper to operate, easier to control, etc. I’d also expect drones to be more reliable, but that remains to be seen.

There's a problem here, though. Drones can't autorotate, and autorotation is kind of an important safety feature for helicopters carrying humans.

Don't know about the (8-rotor) eHang, but the 18-rotor Volocopter remains fully controllable with 3 rotor failures (or more, if they're benignly distributed), and has a ballistic rescue chute in addition (which is hard to fit on a heli).

(Of course, you need a certain altitude for the BRS to kick in successfully, so low-level hover is a risk, just as with a helicopter.)

Helicopters are generally safe, but Robinson helicopters are the exception, and are unfortunately incredibly common due to their comparatively low cost.

If the drone is autonomous and electric motor-driven, at least the human labor cost and fuel cost are taken out of equation.

Or let's call these hoppers. There would be small hopper stations every five or ten blocks. You hop into one hopper, it flies you to a nearby station avoiding all traffics and zig zag roads. You hop into another hopper to incrementally get to your destination. This way these drones dont need to have huge batteries or any other complicated features for long distance flight.

But aren't the major airports already saturated at the capacity that their runways can handle?

You wouldn't need a runway if you're using a helicopter/quadcopter like device, just a small landing pad (hell, you might be able to do it on a public street... but I imagine that would be a regulatory nightmare)

Yes, Manhattan-La Guardia

Reply on news.ycombinator.com