Live data from Hacker News

Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

bloomberg.com

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#51
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips Where does the column of flying cars go? Do they expand vertically or horizontally as traffic increases? In the underpopulated area's of the US where 10% of the population lives this is a feasible mode of transit, what about the 90% that actually have traffic? If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, if the cars broaden horizontally it's a violat…

> If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, That's the evidence you're giving to dismiss the ability of flying cars to distribute over multiple altitude? Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible. > Also, with the advent of K…

> Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible.

In real world we can't accept this because there are always unpredictable factors, we can only say that probability of a safe flight in a single car is say 99.999%. Then if there are 20 cars one right above another, then probability that none of them crash is only 99.98%, and it could damage all cars below it, so the resulting probability of safe flight in a car reduces to something of order 99.99% instead of 99.999% for a single car. And 99.99% is really not safe enough for everyday flying during many years.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#52

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.

Can you elaborate on how think this development helps to achieve an exit? Also what do you mean by "dumb money"? I ask because I am sincerely interested in hearing your theory.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#53
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips Where does the column of flying cars go? Do they expand vertically or horizontally as traffic increases? In the underpopulated area's of the US where 10% of the population lives this is a feasible mode of transit, what about the 90% that actually have traffic? If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, if the cars broaden horizontally it's a violat…

> If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, That's the evidence you're giving to dismiss the ability of flying cars to distribute over multiple altitude? Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible. > Also, with the advent of K…

> allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely

"Safely" will never mean a 0% crash rate. So, when a failure occurs that causes the vehicle to crash uncontrollably the property damage and casualty level will be determined largely by the vertical density of the vehicles.

> But trucks are less efficient than container ships, and we still use the former when the latter is impossible or too slow

Two issues with this:

a) the cost difference between container ships and trucks is not so large as that of air and ground travel

b) the reason that less efficient trucks are used is exactly because there's an economic demand for delivery and it is the price/time optimal solution.

For someone with a commute that can be shortened from 90 minutes to 15 minutes and makes in excess of $250K a year this is a solution. For everyone else it doesn't make sense.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#54
post #45
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to all the Chinese companies that are in the midst of marketing hexacopters for city transportation...

I'm interested in marketing brochures of said companies. Pray tell where can I find it?

Of course, here you go:

http://www.ehang.com/ehang184

There is also a German project, the e-volo.

http://www.e-volo.com/index.php/en/

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#56
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, That's the evidence you're giving to dismiss the ability of flying cars to distribute over multiple altitude? Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible. > Also, with the advent of K…

> allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely "Safely" will never mean a 0% crash rate. So, when a failure occurs that causes the vehicle to crash uncontrollably the property damage and casualty level will be determined largely by the vertical density of the vehicles. > But trucks are less efficient than container ships, and we still use the former when the latter is impossible or too slow Two issues with this:…

The arguments you're making are no more convincing than historical ones like "it will never make economic sense for an individual to pay for their own computer" or "elevators are an inherently dangerous form of travel".

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#57
post #5

This strikes me as pretty pathetic effort by Uber to make itself appear forward looking Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. The system only becomes useful/safe if you "stack" vehicles on roadways. What happens when one has a failure and crashes? This is either market signaling…

If we approach the problem from a perspective of "How to make flying a viable commute option?" we can come up with atleast a few scenarios 1) Cities near water bodies like SFO, NYC, Miami or even Chicago can benefit from over water flying cars. This provides some safety while making more areas livable within a short commute to downtown. 2) Places like Mumbai, Bangalore where car ownership has outpaced the governments…

The original Hyperloop design relied on an air cushion, but nobody claimed that it was flying. A seaplane is similarly not considered a flying car, and is unlikely to be efficient. Nor is a hydroplane.

As for cities with traffic jams, expecting governments that don't get enough in taxes to improve infrastructure to solve that by expecting the citizens to pay tremendous amounts for flying cars is unreasonable.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, That's the evidence you're giving to dismiss the ability of flying cars to distribute over multiple altitude? Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible. > Also, with the advent of K…

> Once we've accepted the hypothetical that technology allows for a single car to fly from A to B safely (which is almost certainly automated), it seems clear that having cars move at different altitude will be trivially possible. In real world we can't accept this because there are always unpredictable factors, we can only say that probability of a safe flight in a single car is say 99.999%. Then if there are 20 car…

Avoiding a car that crashes in the lane next to you is a lot harder than avoiding a car that falls 100 feet from above. Yet we have multi-lane highways.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#59
post #49
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. For reference, a Cessna 172 flies around 110 knots = 125 miles per hour, and uses about 10 gallons per hour, so it gets about 12 mpg. Granted, that's pretty bad, but that's about 1950's technology, and it's not orders of magnitudes. And in 3D you have MUCH more space (in fact, one reason that there are so relatively few mid air collisions…

I'm glad you make this comparison because it leads directly to my point about why flight (in these forms) is infeasible as a broad consumer commute technology. In 1950 a car cost ~$1.5K in the US, GDP per capita was ~9.6K. So it was around 0.16 of GDP per Capita to purchase a new car. In 2016 GDP per capita had risen to $53k with a new car costing between 17K and 33K depending on how you look at it. This is 0.32 to 0…

True, economics aren't there. Question is whether that's because of unsurmountable physical limitations, or because of current engineering and current regulations. And that is not obvious.

For what it's worth, I don't really see personal aviation take off anytime soon anywhere near as much as personal driving has - but some niches might become feasible with personal electronic VTOL aircraft (PEVA).

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#60
Flying cars aren't the future. I think it's much more in Jetpacks. Once power density is better than Jet-A, we'll be in business for some great options.

Probably dangerous as all get out, but that's part of the fun.

https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/for-christmas-2016-i-give-th...

Post reply on HN