Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Thatingles t1_j1wg875 wrote

The piloting is only one aspect. A flying car is a small helicopter, and downdraft is a thing. You can't get around the need for thrust of some kind, so you can only have a flying car if you have a place to land it, or your neighbours don't have a problem with seeing everything get blown over every time you take off or land.

There is also the problem of fuel costs, but that is another thing. The main issue is that if you want to keep something weighing 1000kg in the air you need a lot of thrust, and if that is pointed at the ground it causes havoc.

162

mrgulabull t1_j1wq3sd wrote

On top of the air turbulence caused by thrusters, the noise would carry great distances. Recreational drones are already pretty obnoxious and they weigh several orders of magnitude less than a personal aircraft.

68

7HawksAnd t1_j1xdlma wrote

So we’re saying hot air balloons are really the future!

28

bbpsword t1_j1y3m8r wrote

Trains, brother. High speed trains.

18

Phssthp0kThePak t1_j1y680i wrote

To where? The 7-11?

2

icest0 t1_j1ycgjz wrote

how about 7-11 on a train, also the train is in the air? damn that's future.

1

Less-Mail4256 t1_j1xufht wrote

Flying cars just aren’t practical in any way. It’s one of those science fiction ideas that has no relevant place in reality.

13

Ok_Dog_4059 t1_j1xi7xg wrote

Think about that plane going to Hawaii a week or so ago that hit turbulence. Even if AI could pilot it the ride would suck. AI can't really do anything about lack of maintenance or random break downs either so dead motors or electrical fires would be almost always fatal.

9

DallaThaun t1_j1xx8s6 wrote

AI can't do something about that but if automated aircraft are commercialized they will have multiple levels of redundancy. The role of "AI" in such a scenario would be to switch to a backup string, alert everyone, maybe search for an emergency landing site, etc.

Additionally, engine failure or electrical fires are certainly disasters but are not "almost always fatal" especially if nobody is on board. You'd be surprised. That should not change with an unmanned aircraft...or else it is not yet ready for commercial flight.

−2

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j1ygsro wrote

Lmao you know what keeps other aircraft from falling out of the sky? Several hours of maintenance for every hour it is in the air. Completely impractical for mass transit...

6

DallaThaun t1_j1ygvis wrote

Why do you think that automated aircraft would not be maintained? Of course they would, same as now.

Of course it will never be used for individual mass transport like OP is asking. Was not saying it would.

1

civilrunner t1_j1wmbsz wrote

Yeah, even if we got ion propulsion to be advanced enough it would still have thrust. It's not likely we'll have flying cars like in star wars, though perhaps we could stimulate it with stacked high temperature super conductor infrastructure combined with fusion energy for levitating vehicles but that's really just like a bunch of stacked mag lev's and not actually flying cars. By that point cars will have long been autonomous, and more like on demand Transit vehicles compared to today's cars.

Edit: I think what's more likely is for relatively low cost miniaturized fusion powered high speed orbital trans continent travel between hubs. Within a hub mass transit and autonomous vehicles will still be the solution.

4

edvorg t1_j1y0ut0 wrote

Also noise, imagine there are thousands of helicopters flying around your city? I'd leave it immediately

3

EC_CO t1_j1xfqh6 wrote

Until we get magnetic levitation going on, I 100% agree with the thrust and backwash problems. However I do disagree about the fuel thing, there's already battery electric full size personal flying vehicles developed. And by the time that AI is ready to do the self-driving, battery technology will be so much further advanced it shouldn't be a thought

2

Mellero47 t1_j1yx7km wrote

Not magnetic levitation, anti-gravity levitation is what we'd need. Some way to nullify it, so a car can be "floated" the same as a submarine in water.

2

EC_CO t1_j1z1j3c wrote

100% correct, this is the right phrasing I was looking for

1

starcrescendo t1_j1xm3hd wrote

We just have to get to mars and unearth the protean ruins about the Mass Effect drives

2

Daemarcus t1_j1z7h4v wrote

Also maintenance If it's not done, parts will fall to the ground....

1

A-Real-Jedi t1_j1xhmyg wrote

Oh yea?? What happens when they reverse engineer the anti-gravity machines, with no propulsion system, that the aliens crashed in, that Bob Lazaar spoke about on the Joe Rogan show, and Joe Rogan and his psychedelics believes him Mr. Smarty pants?!?!? If Joe Rogan says it be true, it be true. Geesh.

−1

Bossbong t1_j1xyo70 wrote

Why does it have to be a helicopter? What if we find a way to send a negatively charged magnetic field or something. I've been thinking about magnet based transportation for a while. Ik that's not exactly how it would work but that's the basis of my theories.

−4

FDisk80 t1_j1wvp4z wrote

Not unless they are 0dB and don't blow the fuck of everything below.

Otherwise it's another helicopter or a plane. And we already have those.

Imagine 100 helicopters going over your house every minute destroying your eardrums and blowing all the shit all over. Yea, not gonna happen.

50

Hum_diddly_dick_kiss t1_j1z9cy1 wrote

Check out Archer, Joby, Cora, Beta, or any other evtol company!

1

FDisk80 t1_j1zfbe5 wrote

And they are all mini helicopters or mini planes that are loud as fuck and blow all the shit around them.

2

anonymous322321 t1_j1wkke2 wrote

Flying cars are already a thing, it’s called a helicopter.. we live in a jetsons world if you’re wealthy you Have most of the luxuries they do

47

BobLoblaw_BirdLaw t1_j1xrutm wrote

Heard a smart man once say. The luxuries that only the wealthy have now, will one day become commodities for everyone.

1

JamesTweet t1_j1wgwrt wrote

The other big problem is if you run out of gas then you fall out of the sky.

19

ItsAConspiracy t1_j1wti6f wrote

I feel like the AI driver would land it first, given that $100 drones do that now.

6

JamesTweet t1_j1xe73a wrote

You are assuming that the gas gauge is working properly. If the engine in your flying car fails for any reason you are then dropping like a stone.

Let me guess that you will come back and say the vehicle could have a parachute. This is true. It would be an expensive piece of equipment. So you would be hoping that one of the service technicians hasn't stolen it. Lookup stolen air bags if you think this can't be true.

6

MrDoulou t1_j1y0l3n wrote

I’d say cars falling from the sky would be the bigger problem at that point

3

Wicam t1_j1xu8a1 wrote

people are dowvoting this person, but this is a common problem now in regular vehicles, why do you think it magically wont be for currently non-existant ai controlled flying planes?

2

Surur t1_j1ya9oz wrote

Because when the risk is higher (such as falling from the sky) you will have multiple levels of redundancy.

1

Wicam t1_j1ybsok wrote

why do you assume that? If the "flying car" is to be a thing, then the restrictions and controls that planes are required to be held up to (such as not flying over dense population areas at low altitudes), pre-flight checks (which are extensive) etc would have to be minimized. ai isn't going to do all of that for you.

Unless we are admitting that this would only be for the elite and not for the average person, in which case they already have access to any form of transport they want anyway.

0

Surur t1_j1yfpoy wrote

> ai isn't going to do all of that for you.

Why? Axiomatically this will not happen if we have to rely on humans. Everyone is talking about the future and you are talking about the present. Did you forget which sub you are in?

In any real implementation like this, the system will be completely automated and you would not own or control the vehicle.

1

Wicam t1_j1yno17 wrote

my speculation is that no true ai will be driving cars for us and somehow doing all the preflight checks. it will be "AI" in quotes, similar to what we call ai currently.

my speculation is we are smart enough to never adopt flying cars

1

Surur t1_j1ysgus wrote

Well, let's just say I agree we are not smart enough to have flying cars without true AI, so the two are inextricably linked.

1

ifuckinneedcoffeenow t1_j1wukmh wrote

This is some Muskian bullshit. Why not just invest in robust and reliable public transit, instead of this unrealistic, childish pipe dream.

19

Surur t1_j1wwegy wrote

PT is for poor people. Can you please get of it. FFS we are talking about the far future, not you recession babies.

−25

dillond18 t1_j1xc2oo wrote

look at societies that are coveted and fetishized as futuristic such as those in Asia and you see robust and highly developed public transportation systems.

take your racist and classist view of transit and reconsider your perspective of society and technology.

The future we should strive for is one of advanced systems and ever higher level of service for the average citizen.

19

Surur t1_j1y8535 wrote

Please keep your sexual preferences out of this thread lol. Fetishes lol.

> The future we should strive for is one of advanced systems and ever higher level of service for the average citizen.

Exactly, and that means PERSONAL, not public transport.

−13

geek_fit t1_j1x1230 wrote

We have flying cars.

They are called airplanes. Anyone with high enough intelligence can fly one.

If you have enough property, you can fly one from your house.

What you can't do is blast one out of your urban garage with a basic driver's license. Which I hope never happens

13

Zandrick t1_j1wusdd wrote

What makes a helicopter different from a flying car?

8

JamesTweet t1_j1xg2tu wrote

If the engine cuts out in a helicopter the pilot can use the energy still of the rotating blades to land. This is called an autorotation landing. But this is no guarantee of a safe landing.

1

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j1yh8kt wrote

No that is not autorotation. Autorotation involves pitching the blades so they act as a turbine spinning faster as you fall then pitching them back down to create lift just before hitting the ground. It is NOT the leftover energy in the system that is doing it.

2

JimC29 t1_j1y6vtc wrote

You can't drive it to your final destination once you land

1

djd1985 t1_j1wijad wrote

I don’t trust thousands of pounds in the air regardless if it’s a person or an AI controlling the vehicle.

Planes are an exception because flying cars would be all over and flying much lower I’d assume. Planes are at least controlled by a intelligent human with help of technology.

Think of mental illness and people figuring out ways to take over the AI and suicide crash into everything.

No thank you.

5

Reatona t1_j1wwg0l wrote

And, planes are very highly regulated, to an extent that would be impracticable for any appreciable number of flying cars. Even with that, small planes are quite dangerous.

8

-SpaceAids- t1_j1wska4 wrote

>I don’t trust thousands of pounds in the air regardless if it’s a person or an AI controlling the vehicle.

i've got bad news for you dude... this already exists

2

djd1985 t1_j1xu9ut wrote

I know, I mentioned planes. Planes versus a bunch of cars flying around is a big difference. Don’t you think?

−1

Youbettereatthatshit t1_j1womky wrote

The main issue is fuel. It will always be much more energy intensive to fly than to drive. Until we get into an energy positioning where it’s dirt cheap and at a surplus, I don’t see flying cars being viable.

5

Surur t1_j1ww268 wrote

With energy super abundance, why not?

(Solar energy superabundance is where we overbuild solar x 7 for reliability and then use than 6x excess energy for other things. )

0

Elmore420 t1_j1whe7j wrote

The big issue is mechanical failure. The problem with flying cars is they aren’t insurable.

3

crestarthegreat t1_j1wjmzo wrote

We won’t know without expending valuable resources whether a drunk driver slamming their car into the side of a skyscraper is a terrorist attack or not. It’s untenable.

This should not be allowed unless it’s completely automated. Drunk/impaired driving would lead to disastrous results.

3

Aggressive_Oven_896 t1_j1wjwae wrote

What happens if the car ‘breaks down’ suddenly?

What happens if the car runs out of fuel?

How do you actually ‘brake’ in the air’? How do you turn easily? If you’re using fuel for all of these maneuvers this is a short trip you’re gonna be taking.

Accidents happen whether it’s machine or human, you do realize who programs the machines right? ‘AI’ is trendy buzzword right now but it isn’t a sentient AI that is better than humans in all areas. It’s just a fancy program in its infancy.

3

LegendaryRed t1_j1xgc84 wrote

Imagine you're sleeping, then you're suddenly awoken and have a good gooddam car sticking out of your roof. Your house burns down and your pets die, so sad

3

neonbuildings t1_j1wscdo wrote

I'd rather have a reliable network of intercity and intracity, highspeed trains.

2

Driftwintergundream t1_j1xclpy wrote

...for the ultra rich. And they'll probably be self driving planes, not cars. But yes, in addition to magnetic 600mph trains, private short distance planes to a variety of landing spots is potentially a way to travel in the next 50 years.

2

Explicit_Tech t1_j1xe7gn wrote

Yeah they're called planes. Unless you want highways in the sky affecting birds.

2

wolfmonkey22 t1_j1whv5e wrote

Can't be great at both (ground driving and flying). So makes sense to separate. If have a mix, then one mode would be dominant and the other mode used sparingly. At least in our lifetimes. Best to have flying vessel to release from the car frame (and then how to handle, reuse, share the car "shell"). Flying cars are a "thing" now, but not practical for the masses.

1

The_Count_99 t1_j1wn17r wrote

Yeah they're called planes lol but no for real you could probably make a larger drone like vehicle that could be usable for far less than the price of a new car

1

Procyon4 t1_j1wndx3 wrote

Self driving flying cars will be the only way imo. That's also not far off. Lyft already put in a proposal to do this

1

MpVpRb t1_j1wq2fo wrote

My prediction, flying cars will happen, but for specific applications that require them. They will not replace surface vehicles

1

micktalian t1_j1wrnms wrote

We already have flying cars, they're called private helicopters. We most likely are not going to "flying cars" in the way high-scifi portrays. These are the 3 major problems that immediately jump out to me, 1) we have a lot of gravity on our planet that vehicles are going to have to fight to stay airborne, 2) vehicles **MUST** have at least a certain mass in order to function and be safe, and 3) the resource cost in terms of energy and material for every single person to have their own flying car the way people have and use cars today would be mind boggling. That last point is really what kills it for me.

1

SoylentRox t1_j1xeh29 wrote

Maybe they could be rented? Like you just take an air taxi when you're in a hurry? (and can afford the fare)

And they only land on top of big buildings, so you either live in one or take a ground taxi to the nearest big building, then an express elevator to the roof?

I could see a world where this is common, but it costs a couple hundred bucks or so - possible for most people to do it occasionally and a few to do it often.

1

austinsoundguy t1_j1wsgrp wrote

Imagine how it would sound outside if everyone had a flying car

1

spaghettilegslee t1_j1wtg3u wrote

Unless we literally figure out a way to make things magically float in the air even while they are broken it will never happen. Even if you take human error out of the equation with piloting, a mechanical failure in the air would cause damage and injury on the ground.

If we gain the technology to make things float without propulsion as we know it, then we'll have way cooler things than flying cars.

1

ItsAConspiracy t1_j1wtsgx wrote

See the book Where Is My Flying Car, which goes into engineering detail and agrees with you.

1

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j1wtvvp wrote

A self-balancing quadcopter is probably not any harder to fly than a car is to drive, but self-flying would be safer. I think the bigger problems would be:

  1. Landing/takeoff space near city centers
  2. Noise
  3. Battery life
  4. Adverse weather (icing, wind)
  5. Bird strike

I hope I’m wrong, but flying to work will likely remain the province of the rich for the foreseeable future.

1

AdhesivenessCivil581 t1_j1wuhob wrote

Sure they'd be safe because tech almost never f##ks up.

1

SoylentRox t1_j1xeol8 wrote

As tech advances more complex tech becomes reliable.

Think about an airbag system. There is a bomb connected to an electronics board in your car. If it goes off at the wrong time you can be hurt or even killed.

It uses a computer, electrical wiring, sensors, and so on. If say you built it with 1960s wiring it would be horrifically unreliable and killing people all the time.

Now airbags usually only kill people if they have an unusual body size or you are unlucky enough to have defective airbags.

0

The_BoneManXX t1_j1wuirx wrote

How is a flying car an advantage? highly doubtful that they would be able to fly high enough to eliminate roads i.e. no lunar highways like in The Jetsons or Bladerunner

1

SoylentRox t1_j1xf196 wrote

3d space means no traffic jams because everyone going a particular direction just takes off straight up from a flying car pad, then ascends to the flight level that goes the direction they want, then they start flying that direction.

So basically every 50 feet or so vehicles are going a different angle.

It adds vastly more effective 'road space'.

With all the drawbacks of course.

0

NeadNathair t1_j1wuogd wrote

My question is, why are we so obsessed with "flying cars" in the first place? How much faster do we all need to get from point A to point B?

1

Usual-Locksmith4657 t1_j1wx9u9 wrote

I hope that they never do. There’s too many idiots in this world that don’t know how to drive on roads to begin with

1

AUCE05 t1_j1x37ad wrote

Personal auto piloted drones and parking hubs around the city are the way. Kind of like a drone parking deck.

1

misterlee21 t1_j1x3hvi wrote

Just because it looks good in a cartoon doesn't mean its a good idea in the real world. What does it serve to solve? Traffic? By adding traffic into the sky?

1

Do93y t1_j1x3n8l wrote

Not until the anti gravity devices at area 51 are reverse engineered are capable of mass production

1

Dark_Marmot t1_j1x3x1t wrote

There are a number of companies working on flying taxis or personal flying cars. Most will come in the form of point to point auto pilot, but there are newly modified allowances for having something on home property. My buddy is working on designing this https://www.leoflight.com/

1

Kells_BajaBlast t1_j1x5w69 wrote

Flying cars are entirely pointless. You can't just have unregulated flying wherever you want, or you'd have 2 ton flying hunks of steel crashing into each other and falling out of the sky. Therefore you'd need some organization ie "roads" which would then defeat the purpose of a flying car for traffics sake because there would still be traffic, just in a different place. Can't fly particularly long distance because of fuel requirements, and also there's already planes for that. Cost of operation would be significantly higher because you'd have to nearly eliminate the risk of parts falling off or fluids leaking. Noise pollution would dramatically increase from either rotary, jet or something similar providing thrust. They would be too big needing again, rotors or wings. What's significantly more likely is some form of maglev EV, eliminating the need for consumable tires, noise pollution, weight capacity etc.

1

rroberts3439 t1_j1xaejo wrote

Current technology will not allow for a wide spread flying car.

There will have to be some type of force to counter gravity that is NOT spinning blades. We float on top of a crust on the earth so there is no energy required to counter gravity. Instead we have resistance to a forward force in the form of drag. Which we will also have if airborne.

Not to mention there are some really crappy vehicles on the road that are under maintained. Which is for the most part fine because if they fail they just get moved to the side of the road and towed away. They don't suddenly fall out of the sky and kill the people in them and anyone on the ground they crash into. Even brand new cars have problems. I'm a pilot and I can only begin to tell you how expensive maintenance on our aircraft are. Even then they have failures.

Nope, we are going to need some type of easy to build fusion power sources which can power a neutral magnetic or some other force that just allows the vehicles to float up and down. Then another force can be applied forward.

1

axethebarbarian t1_j1xaozb wrote

For things to be the way they're envisioned in sci-fi, we'd really need pretty hefty advancements in propulsion and power sources

1

username_31 t1_j1xbts2 wrote

What purpose would flying cars serve? Aren't helicopters and planes technically flying cars or flying buses?

Would a flying car be a more short range flying vehicle as opposed to helicopters and planes? Would they fly lower? If they fly lower then how do we propel the car upward enough without having negative effects on the ground? Safety issues? How about fuel and its effects on our climate? Would these flying vehicles be more fuel efficient than a normal ground vehicle? How do you suppose we make that happen? Propelling a vehicle forward requires less energy than lifting it upwards and then moving it forward doesn't it?

Just a few questions off the top of my head.

1

hellodon t1_j1xfl65 wrote

“The Flying Car”

I wonder what kind of height flying cars would need to be at to be beneficial.

I can’t think of what would ultimately be better about flying cars if the majority of cars on the roads are self driving. In cities with a lot of buildings around, flying just above self driving traffic seems like it wouldn’t be beneficial to travelers. The only thing that is going to really matter is “speed”. If traffic was AI controlled self driving on the road, you would think increasing speeds would be safe.

So much to ponder when thinking about this becoming a reality, and all that would be involved

1

RavynArcadia t1_j1xfwcf wrote

Unless it’s full autopilot, flying cars would be a horrible thing. You know how bad some drive, imagine that several hundred feet above the ground.

1

ESPiNstigator t1_j1xg5vg wrote

We already have flying cars. They are called planes and helicopters.

1

ThatGirlOverThere9 t1_j1xgklp wrote

Humans are stupid and malicious i wouldnt trust an average person with a flying car.

1

pacificpacifist t1_j1xgt58 wrote

>Once the majority of cars driven on the road are self driven

Imma stop u right there

1

Soup0rMan t1_j1xhss5 wrote

Flying cars is one of the few things Elon got right. Consider the brain dead decisions drivers make on a 2d plane. Now consider what those same people would do when you add a third plane to operate within.

1

vietnams666 t1_j1xnph2 wrote

But wasn't even electric cars not even thought of 100 years ago? I feel like we have no scope, this can even be talking about thousands of years ahead. So yeah probably.

1

JustYourAvgJester t1_j1xqmjd wrote

The answer to weather we get flying cars is the same answer you give when asked if you want two ton gas bombs being flown over your house by your neighbor's recently licenced kid (who just broke up with their partner and is texting furiously)

1

Marcozy14 t1_j1xsdw1 wrote

They’re called helicopters, and the reason nobody owns them is bc they are impractical. Expensive to own/operate, and messy to take off/land. It’s not the technology that’s preventing flying cars, it’s the practicality,

1

Dromfel t1_j1ytmav wrote

and extremely noisy! all planes and helicopters are so loud. it would be hell on earth

1

chuchofreeman t1_j1xv2yf wrote

I hope not, there are already plenty of idiots with a normal car causing damage or killing others, we don't need to add another degree of freedom to them

1

vercertorix t1_j1xz3rd wrote

Ask an air traffic controller if that’s a good idea. People like to say, well the AI can do it, and I’ll admit I’m not as read up on it as I could be, but from what I know of remote sensing platforms, satellites used for mapping and that kind of thing, they couldn’t always tell rooftops from roads, sometimes even trees from roads. Try using the voice input on your phone or something and see if it always picks up what you say correctly. Anytime it doesn’t get it right, imagine that’s someone flying into a building because the sensors couldn’t quite figure out the terrain in front of them. Besides that, even planes with autopilot have pilots to take over if they’re not working right, so now everyone needs a pilot’s license, and if the car is just having engine trouble it still crashes.

1

kaiju505 t1_j1xzk4x wrote

As a pilot, when I think of mass flying cars, I think of Oshkosh fly in… the sheer amount of training, professionalism, and discipline required just to make that airspace not a mass casualty event every year is incredible. I just don’t ever see flying cars being viable.

1

cruisinfor_perusin t1_j1y0yqt wrote

Have you driven in DFW lately? I wouldn't trust drivers to close their own doors let alone operate a flying vehicle. It's like mad max fury road out there

1

lopakjalantar t1_j1y3dtg wrote

Wait fully self driven car really exist? I thought it just tesla car which is doesn't even work that well?

1

strickysituation t1_j1y3p4d wrote

And the USA will be on the Metric system by ...... NEVER!

1

DB377 t1_j1y6mbx wrote

It’s called a helicopter and they’re loud as shit. Boom flying car.

1

hbHPBbjvFK9w5D t1_j1y6x8y wrote

I'd much prefer to have housing, work and essential services close enough together that flying cars weren't even needed. Why fly when you can walk down the street?

1

PeeGlass t1_j1ydbic wrote

We can’t have broke asses just running out of gas in mid air.

1

DRETIME t1_j1ydsp3 wrote

"Flying car" is another word for airplane(s). Think about it, lol

1

Meinfailure t1_j1yhrcx wrote

We already have flying cars. They are called helicopters

1

Ippherita t1_j1yid7g wrote

Technically? Yeah totally plausible.

Commercially? I think implausible. Too many problems, risk of accidents is high, how do you even control the air-traffic?

I can think flying cars will be reserved for super rich, like helicopters now.

1

Joelsax47 t1_j1yodtr wrote

Not if the FAA has a say. Back in the sixties, major auto manufacturers proposed designs of such aircraft. The idea of cars taking off and landing on highways was a nightmare that the regulators could not abide. Given the capabilities of the typical driver, do you really want them taking to the skies?

Maybe in Alaska?

1

FooltheKnysan t1_j1yozi9 wrote

Why would you spend a bunch of fuel in keeping cars in the air if you can just let them drive themselves on the road?

1

unjust1 t1_j1z17t2 wrote

The environmental impact of thousands of miles of roads is much worse?

1

FooltheKnysan t1_j1zb4ho wrote

With today's status quo, the roads are much cheaper than the amount of fuel or battery required, both financially and environmentally.

If we had a much cheaper and greener energy source maybe, but you can't run star wars speeders based on fossil fuels AND have an ozone layer the same time, and battery manufacturing also comes with an environmental price with the standards we know of.

While it would have benefits, the more you look, the more complicated flying vehicles get.

1

like9000ninjas t1_j1yp14a wrote

Flying cars have been around for a while. Incredibly dangerous. Drone cabs are becoming a thing in certain areas but we're a long ways away from that being the standard. Teslas auto pilot tech is paving the way fir this is becoming a reality

1

Hoosier_Ken t1_j1z0g8u wrote

I can see a couple of obvious problems, first is the cost of the energy needed to keep them aloft and secondly their limited ability to operate in strong winds, rain, freezing temperatures, etc. I don't believe that personal flying autos will ever be feasible but larger public transports probably will be.

1

Thundus1 t1_j1z2pxg wrote

We can barely handel brake and accelerate..You think we can handle pitch and yaw?

1

Mmonannerss t1_j1z971o wrote

I think the idea is fun but they're not practical. I'd rather we work on a form of teleporting that doesn't involve killing your first body and implanting your consciousness in an instantly cloned body at another location.

1

ActonofMAM t1_j1zcjee wrote

Considering the problems that AI currently has driving a car in two dimensions, I'm skeptical that flight AI is anywhere near as close as many people assume.

1

STEAKATRON t1_j1zglrc wrote

Yeah, theres a handful of reasons I doubt flying family cars like that would ever be a thing

  1. I know I wouldn't get on a plane without a pilot, and I doubt many other people would too

  2. I would not trust the common driver with a vehicle capable of 3 dimensional travel. Traffic laws would be insane, drivers going above or below the flow of traffic and likely causing accidents sounds like a nightmare

  3. Anything fails and your ass is done. You run out of gas on the road and it's an inconvenience, in the air its death. Same thing for complete engine failure or something as simple as a air filter issue shutting off the engine. While these could potentially be sorted out, please tell me how safe bailing out of a flying car, potentially with children, would be in an active air traffic scenario of mass acceptance of flying cars.

1

strvgglecity t1_j1zgq1g wrote

Flying cars are just airplanes. The fuel required for air travel is significantly higher than ground travel. What is the positive aspect of this?

1

domods t1_j1zgwwe wrote

Rewatch Flubber to see why a flying corvette is a terrible idea in today's infastructure of power lines, houses, street lights, trees and airplanes.

Even if you had Tony Stark's ark reactor as the power source, a true flying car would need drone blades, a literal jet engine or steal whatever the UFOs are using right now to stay in the air...

We'd probably do better with magnetic hover cars, kinda like how bullet trains work... But they wouldn't be able to get off the ground past the magnetic barrier. Read the book: the uglies, they have whole cities with mag-streets for flying hover cars.

1

riisikas t1_j1zhmwh wrote

Flying cars will never be a thing. It would be the final ecocide against birds and insects.

1

Accomplished_Bus2169 t1_j1zi7yt wrote

I sell cars at a buy here pay here, very few of my customers maintain their cars well enough to make it across town safely let alone FLY!

1

Frisky_Mongoose t1_j1zigna wrote

I don’t trust people driving in a 2D plane, let alone 3D.

1

Matthocleus t1_j1zk0c5 wrote

why would we need a car if we could just fly everywhere?

1

Jjjjjjjyouup t1_j1zlgrc wrote

If flying cars existed 9/11 would happen every day

1

Bloodfart12 t1_j20hru0 wrote

The solution has been around for over two centuries. Theyre called trains.

1

tactical_turtleneck2 t1_j1wztkx wrote

Crackpot futurism at its finest. Sorry you won’t live in the jetsons world, it’s decidedly more like Vonnegut novel

0

rithfung t1_j1x6cnc wrote

nonono absolutly not.

On one hand the so call "self drive car" are no where prefect, plus tons of legal issue are still in argument, no one want to take the responsibility when AI failed and kill someone, not to mention if it involved the risk of crashing from the sky into a house...

​

On other hand look at modern aviation, it is true Boeing and Airbus trying to develop AI pilot system, even want to get certify from ICAO, but you can expected there will be no support from the public AND pilots, because of trust issue.

0

AmazingDom14 t1_j1xa9ot wrote

Imagine highway lanes in the air with constant waiting for clearance from air control towers. It's economically and environmentally the worst idea for transportation ever. Not to mention the noise levels and the fact anyone can become a terrorist. Next.

0

dalekaup t1_j1xos1l wrote

Time machines would be mostly used to go back 30 seconds so you could unsay something to your partner.

Similarly, flying cars only need to be able to fly out of a traffic jam. No more worries about zip merging.

0

syntaxvorlon t1_j1y9ea3 wrote

The central problem here is:why does someone need a car, flying or otherwise? Cars are expensive to buy and run and require infrastructure and real estate, they produce noise and pollution, all of which add to the societal cost of cars. So what problem is it that they solve? People need to get to 1-4 locations on a daily basis, some close, some far, most a middle distance. All of the places people need to go are spread over a wide area and probably not accessible to any public transit. What if we solved the problem itself rather than look to a new technology? Especially one which could make all the problems of cars worse?

0

Surur t1_j1yarus wrote

The problem is other people. (Flying) cars solve that.

1

syntaxvorlon t1_j201rk2 wrote

What? How does flying mean other people don't exist? Traffic corridors exist in the air. Having this would just induce demand for those corridors and create a demand for more and more infrastructure to accommodate air cars. More corridors that can be flown over, more landing zones, more fuel stations. What makes a corridor good to fly over: fewer people who complain of overhead traffic -> more air highways over poor neighborhoods/unused land. And while you're waiting for your car to get clearance to enter the overhead traffic stream, which seems to take long each month, more and more fuel and time gets spent in your flying car. What you need is the ability to get where you need to go, not necessarily the fastest possible means because traffic will inevitably reduce that speed to a crawl. What you need is a train.

1

Surur t1_j203fy2 wrote

Trains are not even 2-dimensional travel, its one dimensional.

That means it's going backwards. Progress is about increasing, not decreasing, our options.

1

syntaxvorlon t1_j22ejl3 wrote

Most trips you take in a car are from one location to a second location and then back. Home to work, work to home. Home to store, store to home. You'll have to go backwards in your flying car too.

Adding another dimension to travel doesn't make it better, and when progress fails to make something better, then that is not good progress. If you want an example of this, check out the notion of 'Induced Demand.' If you widen the roads, the traffic gets worse. Widen them more, even worse. What if the road was as wide as the sky? Then the traffic would block out the sun.

1

Surur t1_j22zzz7 wrote

> Most trips you take in a car are from one location to a second location and then back. Home to work, work to home. Home to store, store to home. You'll have to go backwards in your flying car too.

What PT advocates do not seem to get is that everyone works and lives in different places.

> Adding another dimension to travel doesn't make it better, and when progress fails to make something better, then that is not good progress.

There are plenty of environmentalists who think technology which enables more people to live is bad progress, so I don't think I will leave it up to you to decide what good or bad progress is.

1

ppardee t1_j1ydfgv wrote

Flying cars just make no sense. It's far more efficient to drive. And you know the dumbass driving 90 mph in the rain on tires with the belts showing through because they haven't bothered to fix their alignment? You want them airborne and dropping their car on your house?

Not all sci-fi concepts are worth translating to the real world.

0

wcube1 t1_j1yqxhk wrote

Flying cars are an even more energy-demanding and environmentally harming mode of transport than cars, and I have never understood the fascination with them in pop culture. Even if AI takes over the piloting aspect of the car, it still won't change the fact that you would need to continuosly fight the force of gravity in order to keep the car in the air. This is very energy demanding, and there isn't really a lot of benefit to be had from it.

0

MikeHawkMasterBaiter t1_j1wirob wrote

To be honest we already do have "flying cars" in the form of airplanes, jets, and helicopters.

I mean the only reason we don't all have one in our driveways are whatever is because they are so loud for one, air traffic logistics is going to be a nightmare, and if there is an accident in the sky guess what's going to happen with all those debris falling underneath?

You ever see what a penny does thrown off a skyscraper and how dangerous it is?

Imagine hundreds of pieces from an aircraft colliding with another aircraft...

:edit

I get what your saying about automated flying but still, I have my doubts even if they come out with that type of technology because flying through the air isn't simple as driving due arbitrary dangers such as weather conditions.

Look at how many accidents Tesla's automated cars have had.

−1

Chop1n t1_j1ws7kp wrote

"What a penny does thrown off a skyscraper"? Yeah: it hits terminal velocity after about 50 feet. Hurts a little if it hits you in the head, maybe causes more serious damage if by some chance it gets you in the eye. That's about it.

Perpetuating urban myths really hurts your credibility.

3

MikeHawkMasterBaiter t1_j1zodjb wrote

A penny falling off a skyscraper hitting someone in the head is like a bullet, wtf?

1

Chop1n t1_j1zt577 wrote

You couldn't be arsed to spend five seconds googling before writing this comment? Seriously?

It's utterly incapable of causing serious injury. Do you not understand the concept of terminal velocity?

https://www.livescience.com/18832-penny-dropped-skyscraper.html

"Instead, it would flutter to the ground like a leaf. If it did strike you, it would feel like being flicked in the forehead — "but not even very hard," said Louis Bloomfield, a physicist at the University of Virginia. And he should know. He recently used wind tunnels and helium balloons to replicate the fall of pennies from skyscrapers. When experimental pennies struck him, it didn't hurt. "I think one bounced off my face once," Bloomfield told Life's Little Mysteries."

1

MikeHawkMasterBaiter t1_j1zus7b wrote

Alright you win but debris from 2 aircrafts colliding are not pennies.

1

Chop1n t1_j1zx4no wrote

Well that's a goalpost move, isn't it? My criticism was about you perpetuating the urban myth about pennies and nothing else. I didn't go on to say "Therefore your analogy is invalid" or something.

2

MikeHawkMasterBaiter t1_j1zz638 wrote

Alright you win!!!

2

Chop1n t1_j1zzibw wrote

Thank you. I will now eat this slice of cake for breakfast as if I'd accomplished something meaningful.

2

johnp299 t1_j1wqbz0 wrote

Apologies for going off topic but Tesla publishes its accident stats. The autopilot is optional, it’s up to you if you use it or not. But people experience 2x the accidents with it off.

1

OffEvent28 t1_j1wjrg6 wrote

Maybe in a few decades. Maybe.

Too many issues, AI being a large one, but don't forget noise, traffic congestion (yes, there is only so much sky), reliability, cost.

Flying cars piloted by trained, responsible, sober people will be flying long before the AI piloted ones.

−1

Surur t1_j1whgq5 wrote

> Once the majority of cars driven on the road are self driven, we can start crafting flying cars piloted only by artificial intelligence. We wouldn’t really have to worry about people crashing as the AI would be the only ones controlling them and as they improve, the probability of an accident drops significantly.

I agree with you and had the same thought earlier today. The main issue is human reliability, and if we can have AI control we can trust that will no longer be an issue.

−2

DandyGalaxy t1_j1wk1nv wrote

I don’t believe this answer leaves room for a plethora of problems. There are always chances for mechanical failures, glitches or bugs in the software, and many other outside forces. The big problem with flying cars is that IF something goes wrong it’s so much more dangerous than if a car has a similar issue that it’s not really worth it to society to develop. You’re better off with a personal jet pack. And even then, IF something goes wrong, oof.

3

Surur t1_j1wmws0 wrote

I believe reliability issues can be addressed with technology, redundancy and sensors, and a good AI overseeing all of that.

Again, it depends how much we trust the process, and as OP notes, of SDC are fully established and reliable, there will come a point where we trust AI to fly also.

As an illustration, we trust pilots to fly helicopters above our heads all the time, and we know how dangerous those are.

0

Danknug211 t1_j1why8b wrote

Humans can’t drive regular cars now. How are they going to pilot flying cars?

−3

Jalen_1227 OP t1_j1wi1db wrote

You….didn’t actually read the post…did you ?

2