Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 242 posts

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#91

Post by wheels »

danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

Two related things that first jump out to me as interesting:

- Opens up a lot of potential living space which is geographically close, but not practically connected via transit arteries

- Opens up living space in areas which are not passable by cars either because of terrain or in-tact wilderness (e.g. an off the grid home on a nearby mountain)

Both would no doubt mostly benefit the rich, but well, nobody's shocked that this is where that's targeted.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#92

Post by beambot »

bobsil1 wrote: post #81
danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

You're thinking too narrowly. - Solve traffic - Live in Santa Cruz, commute to SF - Buy a mansion in Modesto, commute to Palo Alto - The views! These will be VTOL, electric, autonomous air taxis, not road-drivable cars.

> - Live in Santa Cruz, commute to SF

Or we could be more ecologically and energy conscious...

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#93

Post by nrjdhsbsid »

civilian wrote: post #83
nrjdhsbsid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatic flight is much easier than autonomous driving. Not much to run into up there :).

Are you familiar with Smeed's Law? I think that it will also apply to flying cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law

I doubt it, there's just so much space up there. So first, no concept of lanes. Thinking in 2D space, everything becomes a road. Increase that another dimension, so now everything is a road and there's hundreds of levels of road.

As long as the flight software keeps the cars/planes a decent distance from each other traffic will never be an issue when flying.

A much bigger problem will be parking, since no traffic means everyone will fly everywhere all the time. Parking will be an extreme issue for city centers. The wait in traffic will probably turn into a wait to park

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#94

Post by dsr_ »

Ingredients:

One flying car, capable of moving 4 x 100 kg (passengers and baggage).

One self-piloting feature, allowing (or mandating) autonomous movement to the destination.

One timing device and detonator.

400Kg of whatever kind of explosives you can get.

Behold: Uber's cruise missile.

Come to think of it, you can probably load up a lot more payload for less money in a ground vehicle.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#95

Post by sAuronas »

danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

The application for it might be another form of mass(less) transit. Think about dedicated, low-lying air paths for travel between cities in the Bay Area: airBart

It's not about space ...it's about congested roads. Dedicated rail (or tubes for high speed over long distance being the exception) for mass transit is not the way to think about our improving our cities anymore. There will be a hardware - and software - solution.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#96

Post by fisherjeff »

mahyarm wrote: post #77
danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

Bridge choke points, mountain ranges and other small body of water crossings is where electric flying cars / taxis will shine. It would be very useful in cities such as Seattle, SF or NYC. It would also be useful for places like Victoria-Vancouver or Victoria-Seattle. You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m.

But we already have point-to-point 4-seater "air taxis". They're way more expensive than a ferry otherwise they'd be everywhere, and there's no reason to think a flying car would be cheaper.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#97

Post by [deleted] »

dsr_ wrote: post #94

Ingredients: One flying car, capable of moving 4 x 100 kg (passengers and baggage). One self-piloting feature, allowing (or mandating) autonomous movement to the destination. One timing device and detonator. 400Kg of whatever kind of explosives you can get. Behold: Uber's cruise missile. Come to think of it, you can probably load up a lot more payload for less money in a ground vehicle.

[deleted]

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#98

Post by azinman2 »

bootload wrote: post #87
nrjdhsbsid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatic flight is much easier than autonomous driving. Not much to run into up there :).

"Not much to run into up there :)" Birds, hills, turbulence.

Ya. Having just taken a 6 personal commercial plane in stormy, windy weather I'm glad I had two professional pilots driving. It was absolutely terrifying, and I can't imagine your ordinary person feeling comfortable with it. I couldn't wait to get off the plane ASAP and thought we might crash on landing.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#100

Post by knz »

sAuronas wrote: post #95
danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

The application for it might be another form of mass(less) transit. Think about dedicated, low-lying air paths for travel between cities in the Bay Area: airBart It's not about space ...it's about congested roads. Dedicated rail (or tubes for high speed over long distance being the exception) for mass transit is not the way to think about our improving our cities anymore. There will be a hardware - and software - sol…

Air travel means noise and carbon emissions. There is no way it's more efficient than ground based public transportation anytime soon. I work in the aviation industry and the slightest change brings a huge amount of public outcry. Between the noise, visual pollution, and energy issues it's just not going to happen.

Bad existing public transportation doesn't mean that all public transportation will be bad.

Post reply on HN