Fine, mass transit flying vehicles. MTFVs.
Dude, Where's my flying car?
- Thread starter Neroon
- Start date
Fine, mass transit flying vehicles. MTFVs.
C
cynical dreamer
Guest
People can barely handle driving on the roads... you really want them buzzing about overhead?
You can have both.
Since you can cover more mileage in the sky, it would not be farfetched to assume that civic mass-transit lines like MTA or Greyhound, would fill the role of "close-range" airlines, like Southwest, or WestJet, providing rapid sky transit between states, while the remaining "large" airlines remain in business, and retain the long haul air travel. Conversely, those smaller airlines would become like new sky bus lines, in terms of their service or business model.
But people will always want their individual vehicles.
Also, not every idiot would be given a sky license... I assume that the DMV test for a motorcycle is a bit more involved than a car or truck, so I'd imagine that it'd be MUCH more involved, to get a sky driving license... the tests would be harder, and everything would be handled much more carefully, kind of like how some truck drivers also have to get certified with doubles, triples, or hazmat, you'd have to do extra training to be sky certified.
I actually meant *ground* mass-transit, such as subways and light rail. I should have been more clear on that.
More's the pity.
We've already got a pretty decent "sky licensing" system in place. The Sport license probably would be enough for a well-designed skycar and that's not too expensive to get.
As far as the possible problem of constant air crashes if there were hundreds or thousands of the air cars...that is being work out as we speak.
Recently I saw something on the science channel where experts were studying the movement of fish and birds. Hopefully they will develop a sort of algorithm that will enable cars to drive themselves.
If they can do that for ground traffic it's a short jump to air traffic ...but first they must develop an anti gravity type machine...or better understand electromagnetic forces.
That big circle thing in France/Switzerland is putting us one step closer to understanding those mysterious forces of the universe. So I'm pretty certain our children will see some kind of flying car version...they just won't fly using the aerodynamic principles if today.
Recently I saw something on the science channel where experts were studying the movement of fish and birds. Hopefully they will develop a sort of algorithm that will enable cars to drive themselves.
If they can do that for ground traffic it's a short jump to air traffic ...but first they must develop an anti gravity type machine...or better understand electromagnetic forces.
That big circle thing in France/Switzerland is putting us one step closer to understanding those mysterious forces of the universe. So I'm pretty certain our children will see some kind of flying car version...they just won't fly using the aerodynamic principles if today.
Well, the biggest REAL threat to skyway accidents I could possibly see, would be fog. But, heck... if we hypothetically have the tech to have flying cars, I'm sure that some kind of "night vision" HUD could be projected onto the inner windshield, in the event of fog, to cut through the haze.
Again, it's like ANY form of transportation... just use your common sense. MOST people DO.
Again, it's like ANY form of transportation... just use your common sense. MOST people DO.
More than a flying car I would really love for us to have a ST transporter system.
Sure, the energy and computing power needed would be outrageous, but that would really be sweet.
Wanna have a smoke and coffee in Paris?
bchwiiiinggggg (and sparkle filter effects)
Oops, forgot to get aunt Lily a souvenir
bchwiiiinggggg (and sparkle filter effects)
Voila! miniature Eiffel tower toothpick dipenser
yep, that's what I would like. No traffic jam, no road rage, no falling asleep on I-35 or the skyway, just instantaneous transportation.
Hopefully without transcript errors a la Timeline.
Sure, the energy and computing power needed would be outrageous, but that would really be sweet.
Wanna have a smoke and coffee in Paris?
bchwiiiinggggg (and sparkle filter effects)
Oops, forgot to get aunt Lily a souvenir
bchwiiiinggggg (and sparkle filter effects)
Voila! miniature Eiffel tower toothpick dipenser
yep, that's what I would like. No traffic jam, no road rage, no falling asleep on I-35 or the skyway, just instantaneous transportation.
Hopefully without transcript errors a la Timeline.
The transporter should not be used on Earth, for anything but LONG-range travel... anything else would be utterly silly.
I remember an episode of DS9, where either grandpa or Captain Sisko was saying something about how they had beamed in the furniture to their house or something... ugh...
How stupid does that sound? Not only is it downright silly, it made the ST people seem really lazy. On an Earth with no cars, where people supposedly are more physically fit, and active, that line just irked me... ST people would move their own damn furniture.
I remember an episode of DS9, where either grandpa or Captain Sisko was saying something about how they had beamed in the furniture to their house or something... ugh...
How stupid does that sound? Not only is it downright silly, it made the ST people seem really lazy. On an Earth with no cars, where people supposedly are more physically fit, and active, that line just irked me... ST people would move their own damn furniture.
Have you ever tried to move a huge piece of furniture? A transporter would be a gift from God in situations like that. It'd be easier on the mover *and* the movee.
Using a transporter to beam furniture is no more lazy than using a flatbed truck to haul it. You've got to carry it around somehow, and of course this isn't *literally* possible (unless you're RAMA
), so you'll have to use some form of aid. A transporter is just one more example of this.I agree, though, that for travel purposes, you wouldn't use it to get down to the corner drugstore or anything like that. Long range only. Sisko used that a lot too - he used up a whole lot of credits when he was at the Academy since he beamed back home for dinner every night.
Current air travel solves this in two ways:
1) Visual Flight Rules traffic is not allowed to fly in clouds.
2) Instrument Flight Rules traffic is kept separated by ATC.
So this is merely a specific case of the more general problem: flying cars mean a heavier density of small air vehicles. New regulations would need to be developed to deal with that.
Oh I agree, BolianAdmiral.
Paris is waaay the heck out from where I am.
As a kid in the early seventies, I remember how we all talked about "the future", and how everything was going to be so much better/different:
Flying cars
Auto everything
Cibernetic beings
Colonies on Luna and Mars, etc.
and when some of us asked, when is "the future"?, the response would invariably be: In the year 2000.
So, you can imagine my utter disappointment when 2000 rolled around and not only were there no flying cars et al, but except for computers and a few other amenities, the world still looked pretty much the same as in 1973!
PS. I should have known it was all a lie when 1980 rolled around and there were no UFOs anywhere, and no babes in miniskirts and metallic wigs on the moon.
Well, with regard to transporters moving furniture around... at what point to you draw the line at what you consider lazy? If you can move a sofa or a piano with the transporter... why not just beam a bag of chips from the pantry, and a 2-liter of soda from the fridge, right onto your lap, on the recliner? Heck, why not just beam the remote control into your hand.
You can see how this application of the tech is utterly silly.
You can see how this application of the tech is utterly silly.
Reductio ad absurdum. It's not lazy to seek assistance in moving furniture. Everyone needs help doing that. Nobody can pick up a bed, sofa, couch, etc., and move it themselves. Everyone needs help. What difference does it really make whether that help comes in the form of a friend, a moving company, or a transporter?
Oh I agree, BolianAdmiral.
Paris is waaay the heck out from where I am.
As a kid in the early seventies, I remember how we all talked about "the future", and how everything was going to be so much better/different:
Flying cars
Auto everything
Cibernetic beings
Colonies on Luna and Mars, etc.
and when some of us asked, when is "the future"?, the response would invariably be: In the year 2000.
So, you can imagine my utter disappointment when 2000 rolled around and not only were there no flying cars et al, but except for computers and a few other amenities, the world still looked pretty much the same as in 1973!
PS. I should have known it was all a lie when 1980 rolled around and there were no UFOs anywhere, and no babes in miniskirts and metallic wigs on the moon.
I think part of the issue with thinking about the future is that is easy to imagine what will be possible, but harder to predict when economics and practicality will implement it. I would submit that most of the things on your list, except perhaps cybernetic beings, are possible right now. Technologically we could probably build Mars colonies, but NASA and other nations space organizations would require nearly unlimited budgets to do so. Flying automated cars that are reasonably light, and travel from point to point via GPS to avoid other traffic could also be built, but the neither the practically nor the profit are there for it to happen.
Presumably these hyper-advanced cars will be capable of analyzing their driver's intoxication state somehow. Built-in breathalyzers or something. The advantage there would be an ability to send up a flag if the driver becomes incapacitated some other way such as a heart attack, to alert medical personel.
That's assuming you don't have a computer do most of the driving anyway.
That's assuming you don't have a computer do most of the driving anyway.
You cannot stop drunk drivers in flying cars, anymore than you can in regular cars...
How many people each day in the country, die from an intoxicated driver? So, what... are you gonna ban car travel, because so many deaths result, from drunk drivers? No. Because accidents happen, and the majority of people have the forewith to use common sense and good judgement, and abide by the law.
How many people each day in the country, die from an intoxicated driver? So, what... are you gonna ban car travel, because so many deaths result, from drunk drivers? No. Because accidents happen, and the majority of people have the forewith to use common sense and good judgement, and abide by the law.