• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Finally - flying cars!

The most effective defense there, I'd think, would be to have a second non-networked core which validates all primary decisions using only locally-gathered information. If something the primary system wants to do doesn't add up, it would assume backup evasion control, send out a signal warning other nearby cars that it's "going dark", and then find a place to stop until the human driver can take over.

I actually thought it was the opposite - that the pilots flew the plane, and the computers handled takeoff and landing....
Click to expand...
Takeoff is dead simple, but it's also the time when a split-second decision is most likely to be needed. Pilots have to be involved there, but I suspect there's a computer backup which can react faster if something *really* obviously bad happens. Landing can be a bit on the tricky side, but it's doable by computer at airports with precision instrument approaches set up. If a pilot can fly by instruments, so can a computer.

But holding a cross-country course is really what the computer is best-suited for. Especially way up above multiple levels of clouds, possibly at night....there are a whole slew of ways for a pilot to get disoriented. Computers don't have that problem. Holding an altitude and heading is pretty simple for an autopilot; holding a course only slightly more difficult, because you have to account for changing magnetic deviation as you move east or west, plus changing winds. The wind situation is usually handled via regular updates from ATC. GPS can also help a great deal, although those things have a habit of going out at the worst possible times, such as when you're skimming within a mile of a Flight Restricted Zone and you *really* don't want to see those F-16s at Andrews taking off.....
 
Last edited:
I'll stick to ground cars, thank you. With a ground car, if you crash anywhere from 5 to 25 miles per hour, you'll probably just end with a fender bender, and if lucky not hit any car or property. With a flying car, you fall from the air and crash into anyhthing below (which could include people and ground cars), which can shatter all the windows, bend the whole frame, crush any parts in the impact zone, and kill you where a normal ground car crash would not. And I think we all know flying cars will have pants shitting insurance costs.
 
I'll grant that I'd be more comfortable with fixed wings to glide down on in the event of engine failure than that parachute wing. I mean, if it tears for some reason, you'd have to hit the button on the backup chute pretty fast.
 
^^^ Yeah, but flying cars would be like ground cars: dumbass people will remove the airbag (parachute) and sell it for money, leaving paper, or junk in there instead.

And flying cars are being mainly created to solve continually congested roads. When it gets to the points we need flying cars than another fly over, there will be too many buiding and pedestrians to glide safely anywhere.
 
Lindley said:
The most effective defense there, I'd think, would be to have a second non-networked core which validates all primary decisions using only locally-gathered information.
Click to expand...

And how would it gather that information locally?

If something the primary system wants to do doesn't add up, it would assume backup evasion control, send out a signal warning other nearby cars that it's "going dark", and then find a place to stop until the human driver can take over.
Click to expand...

I would prefer it if the human driver could decide personally when to take over, and assume control from the get-go if something goes wrong.

But holding a cross-country course is really what the computer is best-suited for. Especially way up above multiple levels of clouds, possibly at night....there are a whole slew of ways for a pilot to get disoriented. Computers don't have that problem. Holding an altitude and heading is pretty simple for an autopilot; holding a course only slightly more difficult, because you have to account for changing magnetic deviation as you move east or west, plus changing winds. The wind situation is usually handled via regular updates from ATC. GPS can also help a great deal, although those things have a habit of going out at the worst possible times, such as when you're skimming within a mile of a Flight Restricted Zone and you *really* don't want to see those F-16s at Andrews taking off.....
Click to expand...

What kind of security do the planes' computers have, to prevent hacking? Has one of those planes ever *been* hacked? Theoretically it could be done, couldn't it?
 
In all fairness, remote control (override) was flirted with after 9/11. Nothing like this exists. The data shared down to the airline's dispatch center contains only metrics, like the classic stuff speed/altitude stuff passengers can see on screens, and probably a great deal more.
 
Babaganoosh said:
And how would it gather that information locally?
Click to expand...

LIDAR and other sensors. Actually research into image-based navigation is proceeding apace, so maybe even video images of the surrounds. It's a hard problem but this is the future we're talking about. Odds are it'll be doable.
 
Babaganoosh said:
I actually thought it was the opposite - that the pilots flew the plane, and the computers handled takeoff and landing....
Click to expand...

Here's another one for you -- US Naval planes can land via computer control on US Aircraft Carriers ;) IIRC, it takes a few ounces of pressure on the stick for the pilot to assume control.
 
Maybe have a hybrid system. The computers control the altitude, maximum speed and project a 'road' in the sky in a heads up display. The driver controls the steering (though the computer will not allow them to go off the 'road' or into the other lane) and the speed (as long as you are below the maximum). If the driver wishes to change 'levels' or land they use a special control at specific locations to do so.
 
Another big reason why Fifth Element-style flying cars might be a problem is that we don't have anything like anti-gravity. In that film (and also things like SW) we see flying cars stop, back up, hover, etc. Almost as if there's a magical force just keeping them in the air. (Is that even possible, given the laws of physics?)

We couldn't have cars that just hover in the air like that, there would have to be a fairly decent sized jet engine providing constant thrust. And having tens of thousands of cars all with engines like that, constantly running full-out...the noise alone would be unbearable.
 
Babaganoosh said:
Flying cars would be one of the most dangerous pieces of technology to come down the pike in years. I hope there's underground housing, or personal home force fields, available if this ever comes to pass.
Click to expand...

That's what I would wonder. If accidents can be bad on the road, it would be worse in the air. Imagine getting hit then falling to the ground, you're almost sure to die from impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top