• 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!

Dude, Where's my flying car?

Remember before the segway was revealed? Some of the best brains in the country financed it all hush hush. Many opined it was a possible anti grav transport device...so that would have qualified.

I can see a future in a urban flying machine something like that but not in anything that's dependant on current aero flight tech with the need for glide path angles, wings that provide lift, runways etc.
 
The concept of the 'flying car' scares the crap out of me. Imagine a sky full of those things - at any time, any one of them can come CRASHING DOWN on you, or your house. It's like the Sword of frickin' Damocles up there. Unless you had an underground house, you would never be safe. At least with cars as they exist today, they're already *on* the ground...

And of course any system of flying cars that we might devise, will also require a computer controlled traffic system. That's another thing I wouldn't want. I like to be in control of my own car, at all times. What if that system gets hacked? Whether it be a pimply-faced teenage nerd or an Al Qaeda terrorist, they could trap you in your car, send you into the side of a building (what need would they have for their own suicide bombers when they could always turn any of us into one?), cause the traffic jam from hell, etc.
 
Well, in that respect, they'd be no different from conventional aircraft. There's nothing to stop one of those from crashing down on your house. ;)
 
Babaganoosh said:
The concept of the 'flying car' scares the crap out of me. Imagine a sky full of those things - at any time, any one of them can come CRASHING DOWN on you, or your house. It's like the Sword of frickin' Damocles up there. Unless you had an underground house, you would never be safe. At least with cars as they exist today, they're already *on* the ground...

And of course any system of flying cars that we might devise, will also require a computer controlled traffic system. That's another thing I wouldn't want. I like to be in control of my own car, at all times. What if that system gets hacked? Whether it be a pimply-faced teenage nerd or an Al Qaeda terrorist, they could trap you in your car, send you into the side of a building (what need would they have for their own suicide bombers when they could always turn any of us into one?), cause the traffic jam from hell, etc.
Click to expand...

I imagine buggy whip companies had similar arguments ~100 years ago. :cool:
 
Unicron said:
Well, in that respect, they'd be no different from conventional aircraft. There's nothing to stop one of those from crashing down on your house. ;)
Click to expand...

The difference is, aircraft are relatively few, have very strict flight pattern and coordination to ensure that people aren't just flying willy-nilly all over the place. You put a million flying cars in the air, and that whole system completely collapses. You can't keep people from driving like jackasses on the ground. I can't even imagine how bad it would be once you introduce another dimension into the mix...

That doesn't even get into the fact that flying... is... not... easy. Just because you can play Gran Turismo doesn't mean you can hop on Microsoft Flight simulator and immediately become an ace. Cars are relatively simple to control. A wheel, a shifter and two/three pedals is all the controls you need. Aircraft require significantly more user interaction and competence to control, much less control well.

This could be mitigated by computerized controls, etc., but people have severe reservations about that sort of thing, and no company would dare take on the risk of the inevitable lawsuit that could come from the first major (or minor) accident.
 
Okay... I'm gonna um... "let fly" with this one, because flying cars are something I VERY much wanted to see happen, and it's utterly absurd and counterproductive that they were never developed as they should be. So, I'm gonna outline the arguments FOR flying cars, and why it's a good idea, and why it won't kill our citizens OR economy. And consider that I live in Los Angeles... the home of rust-colored air, and the 405 freeway... aka: America's parking lot. So I know a bit about traffic problems, and how we might fix them.

We NEED flying cars. Everyone will benefit, nobody will lose.

America does not know how to build roads. We simply do not. Many of our interstates and highways, and city streets are constantly plagued by potholes, wear-and-tear of huge trucks and buses, damage due to weather, such as cracking, paint chipping, etc. And when we DO fix problems with our roads, we take upa whole lane to do it, which results in more traffic backup and gridlock.

What has been our answer to gridlock? Build more roads... build OUT. We can't do that. We need to take a lesson from NYC... they can't build out... they can only go UP. We need to free up our land for other uses, and turn to the skies for transportation. The problem with people's thinking about a skyway system, is they think that would be the ONLY thing that is built up... it would not be, for that would be silly...

Consider cost... how would one pay for the upkeep of a skyway system? Well, on land, we have parking structures. The parking structures of the future would be much taller, like skyscrapers, just for parking. And if it's a hospital or amusement park or museum that owns the structure, that would be all that much more money that they can collect, from parking fees. And, since there are always parking violations, there would be that much more revenue to the city, from parking violations.

Also, let's say these new skyscraping buildings are like offices or malls, even... there is that much more space to be occupied by businesses... businesses that charge money, for goods and services. Money that flows back into the local economy. For every new space occupied by a shop, that is more money, going into the economy. Build UP, and take advantage of that new, unexploited real estate. Make it work for you.

The highway patrols of the nation would also have units in the sky. Speeding tickets would be pretty hefty, if you endanger someone on a skyway... again, money that goes back into the local economy. More cops to patrol, equals more jobs. More shops in higher buildings means more employees, equals more jobs... more revenue.

Now... safety... this is very important, yet oh-so simple an issue to address. There are a few main safety issues with flying cars...

- Running low or out of fuel
- Merging UP or DOWN between lanes
- Crashing

Okay... let us begin with fuel. I'm gonna assume for argument's sake, that we're talking gasoline here, but no matter what, my example works. We can assume there will be some arsehole, who thinks it'd be amusing to see how far he can fly on a tank of gas, before he runs out. Well... in the interests of safety, we just can't let that be, on the skyways. My proposal, would be that any skyworthy vehicles, have a chip installed in them, that upon activation of the fuel light coming on, would alert the driver that they must descend at the next exit, and refuel. Once the driver has landed... if he has NOT refueled the vehicle, the chip will take all flight-capable systems off-line, confining the driver to surface roads. Once the chip detects enough fuel in the tank, this restriction will be automatically disengaged. Is it 100% foolproof? No. But newsflash, people... deadly accidents occur every day, on surface roads... there will always be morons driving.

Okay... merging in a 3D lane system... this I have also thought about, though it will take time for people to get used to. In the same way that modern roads have green arrows denoting turn lanes, so would the skyway, only the arrows would be pointing up or down, and MAY even be another color, to avoid confusion, like blue, maybe. To avoid any chance of collisions, the lights would be timed, like the timed stops at freeway on-ramps. If you are already in the air, and want to merge to a skyramp lane, just use your turn signal as you would on the ground, and merge safely.

Crashing. Again... this is just one of those sad facts of life... people will be in control of their vehicles. The trick for technology, is to make sure you take away from the driver, anything he could possibly use to harm others. The low fuel issue was a big one. Drunk driving. Okay... here's another one. Aside from having an on-baord computer asking you to take a breath test, I don't see (at this time) how we can effectively curtail that one problem, other than to offer that as with on the ground, people need to use good judgement, and we would also rely on the efforts of the highway patrol, to keep us all safe, from the few who don't use that good judgement. Again, cars are cars, and people are people... there WILL be accidents. Crashes WILL happen. But you know... sometimes cars crash. Sometimes buses and motorcycles and planes and trains and boats crash. Flying cars ARE safe.

Let me use this analogy...

If you are on an airliner and take a flight, and later learn that the pilot on that plane was drunk, and thus a danger to all of your lives... would you then try and make an argument that tourism into space could never be done, because it'd be unsafe? What if a starliner pilot is drunk? It makes no difference. People make mistakes. That should not prevent the march of technology for the betterment of our lives.

Think, also, if buses were able to take to the skies... that's even more bus fare... more riders... more money into the economy. And flying cars would actually be MORE fuel efficient, because mileage in the air would be way better, than driving on the ground. There is NO viable argument against flying cars.

But they have to be true cars... something you can buy from Buick, or Ford, or Toyota, and park in your garage... not some mutilated car body, with a fricking plane wing glued to the top of it, and so cumbersome it needs a municipal airport runway. It should be VTOL, like the hovercars in "Back to the Future, II". So, the only thing keeping us from realizing this future, is the raw technology. But I truly and deeply believe that pursuing this technology is in all our better interests.
 
I think that the reason that we don't have flying cars is that frankly at this point we don't NEED flying cars. For the average user, ground-cars work just fine. People have never upgraded technology *just* to have new technology. Sure a few will, and we nerds are those people, but most people will say "but I don't need to be able to do that" or "my analog TV is good enough" etc. and not move on to the next technology. Heck, some people still use typewriters for typing rather than computers.

So flying cars will come about when we need them. Not just because we can, but because people can't live without them.
 
Corran Horn said:
Babaganoosh said:
The concept of the 'flying car' scares the crap out of me. Imagine a sky full of those things - at any time, any one of them can come CRASHING DOWN on you, or your house. It's like the Sword of frickin' Damocles up there. Unless you had an underground house, you would never be safe. At least with cars as they exist today, they're already *on* the ground...

And of course any system of flying cars that we might devise, will also require a computer controlled traffic system. That's another thing I wouldn't want. I like to be in control of my own car, at all times. What if that system gets hacked? Whether it be a pimply-faced teenage nerd or an Al Qaeda terrorist, they could trap you in your car, send you into the side of a building (what need would they have for their own suicide bombers when they could always turn any of us into one?), cause the traffic jam from hell, etc.
Click to expand...

I imagine buggy whip companies had similar arguments ~100 years ago. :cool:
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. A horse-and-buggy could have caused similar damage to a house back then, as a car can now (although to much less of a degree, of course): If a horse gets spooked and starts running, it and the cart could have crashed into things. That's the same thing a car can do now, although at least the curb helps - if a car heads straight for your house, there's a chance it could hit the curb and flip over before it hits you.

With a flying car, though, it's a whole lot different - there's a hundred different directions an errant vehicle can come hurtling from. Cars could hit you from anywhere above or to the sides. Even relatively speaking, that is much more dangerous relative to conventional cars, than a car would be relative to a horse-and-buggy.

BolianAdmiral said:
My proposal, would be that any skyworthy vehicles, have a chip installed in them, that upon activation of the fuel light coming on, would alert the driver that they must descend at the next exit, and refuel. Once the driver has landed... if he has NOT refueled the vehicle, the chip will take all flight-capable systems off-line, confining the driver to surface roads.
Click to expand...

And what happens if fuel runs completely out while the car is in the air? It just drops out of the sky like a stone, most likely. :wtf:

In the same way that modern roads have green arrows denoting turn lanes, so would the skyway, only the arrows would be pointing up or down, and MAY even be another color, to avoid confusion, like blue, maybe. To avoid any chance of collisions, the lights would be timed, like the timed stops at freeway on-ramps. If you are already in the air, and want to merge to a skyramp lane, just use your turn signal as you would on the ground, and merge safely.
Click to expand...

This is a problem with airborne cars: In the air, there are no physical lanes. You would have to have thousands of floating lane markers. And how would you suggest keeping those signals up in the air?

Crashing. Again... this is just one of those sad facts of life... people will be in control of their vehicles.
Click to expand...

Except when they're not.

The trick for technology, is to make sure you take away from the driver, anything he could possibly use to harm others.
Click to expand...

The only way you could do that would be to take away the actual car. A flying car is a missile. It *is* a weapon, even if not designed specifically as such. An out-of-control ground car is dangerous as well, but there's limits. There's only so many directions it can go before it hits something and is permanently disabled. Which is not going to be that long. A flying car, though? One of those suckers out of control, could cause a whole lot MORE damage.

If you are on an airliner and take a flight, and later learn that the pilot on that plane was drunk, and thus a danger to all of your lives... would you then try and make an argument that tourism into space could never be done, because it'd be unsafe? What if a starliner pilot is drunk? It makes no difference. People make mistakes. That should not prevent the march of technology for the betterment of our lives.
Click to expand...

Some mistakes are just too dangerous to risk occurring.
 
As much as I would love to have a flying car, I think there's one other major problem that everyone's forgetting. In addition to the safety issues, you'd essentially render all borders irrelevant. Anyone could come and go from just about anywhere, be it another country, a military base, Area 51, or any other formerly secure or limited access area. There's no way you could protect against the sheer volume of people flying around. I'm pretty sure that it would result in pure chaos for many years, even moreso than "people falling on your house".

After thinking about that for a moment, I bet the Aussies would have the most stable government after that mess, simply because of their relative isolation!
 
Bonzo the Fifth said:
The difference is, aircraft are relatively few, have very strict flight pattern and coordination to ensure that people aren't just flying willy-nilly all over the place.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. Visual Flight Rules traffic *can* pretty much fly willy-nilly all over the place unless they're in controlled airspace. Outside of DC and a few other tier-1 cities, controlled airspace is pretty rare.

That doesn't even get into the fact that flying... is... not... easy. Just because you can play Gran Turismo doesn't mean you can hop on Microsoft Flight simulator and immediately become an ace. Cars are relatively simple to control. A wheel, a shifter and two/three pedals is all the controls you need. Aircraft require significantly more user interaction and competence to control, much less control well.
Click to expand...
They're actually really easy to fly. Landing is the hard part. Flying on course, that's a bit of a trick too.....

Babaganoosh said:
And what happens if fuel runs completely out while the car is in the air? It just drops out of the sky like a stone, most likely. :wtf:
Click to expand...

Depends on the design. Unless it's based on a copter blade or antigrav, odds are it can glide pretty well. A good glide ratio could even be a design requirement. The bigger problem is that most aircraft fuel gauges aren't as accurate as car gauges----they don't have to be since pilots are expected to calculate expected fuel consumption before each flight.

The problem with flying cars is not technical: It's that people in general cannot be trained to have the necessary skill as easily as they can for land vehicles. I'd be very much in favor of spreading flight training programs to the general public at affordable prices if a way could be found to do it. General Aviation could stand to become more common. I doubt it will ever entirely replace ground transport though.
 
All I'm saying is that no matter how safe you make a vehicle, there will always be a couple idiots behind the controls, that will screw it up, regardless... look at the recent train crash, where the Conductor was texting on his cellphone... a lot more than one person died there, but do we stop trains from moving along? No.

Flying cars ARE needed... they will halt congestion, free us from the need to clear more land for road construction, infuse more money into local economies, create jobs, and so on.

It's not a "fad" technology. Back in the late 80's, we had a couple electric cars... the GM Impact, and the Honda Insight. Both never sold well back then, because it was not popular to have an electric car, and more people wanted gasoline cars. But now, look... so many people drive hybrids, and we even have hybrid SUV's. As a technology becomes more popular, and more widespread, people will be more likely to buy it.
 
It would be much, much better - more efficient, more cost-effective, and more safety-conscious - to promote true, universal MASS TRANSIT rather than wasting all this time, effort and money on flying cars.

Everyone can use mass transit. Not everyone can, or should, drive.
 
Of course there would be a system of dual parachutes in the cars to stop them from falling out of the sky like a "stone". Most good designs proposals I have seen include a car that is light enough for this and has them automatically deploy.

Take off would be solved by designing a car that takes off straight up, kind of like a hover lift off. I am not sure where technology is on this, but there are aircraft that can do this.
 
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