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

Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#61

Post by bduerst »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #26
_red wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "self driving car" meme is petering out, so they are attempting to create some hype in order to keep the Ponzi investment flows churning.

By which you mean, coming to fruition? I'm not the biggest fan of Uber on a number of issues but I think the biggest problem they have is that their investors were planning on having a monopoly on livery. That is clearly not going to happen. Flying cars and self driving cars are actually significantly more sound than their business model and are much more likely to provide a decent ROI. If and when Uber runs out of s…

Which could be true if Uber's self driving car project lasted longer than a week. Other companies have already logged tens of thousands of road hours into their self-driving car research.

At this point, it seems more like these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring, like the previous commenter said. You don't need to see the end product to know if progress is being made.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#62

Post by Retric »

Pigo wrote: post #28
_red wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "self driving car" meme is petering out, so they are attempting to create some hype in order to keep the Ponzi investment flows churning.

I still don't think I understand why self-driving cars is nothing more than a publicity stunt for them. I've heard people say it's not working, and the cars they have on the road are for show. But why can it not ever be a functioning part of their business when there are cars that can do this?

Uber expanded in large part because they did not need to buy cars or taxi medallions to compete. So, they could use subsides to attract new customers. If they now need to buy or even lease a few million cars they simply can't afford to do that globally. So, it's likely going to be the next round of well funded startup that wins.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#63

Post by geodel »

aetherson wrote: post #3

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.

So Uber is basically giving a flying fuck to investors by calling it a Flying car.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#64

Post by FabHK »

ordinarySeeker wrote: post #48
iaw wrote: 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…

Yes, I think one of the first places where personal electric VTOL aircraft (PEVA) will take off are places where the rich use helicopters now - Sao Paolo, Jakarta, etc., basically geographically compact places with terrible traffic and massive income inequality.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#65

Post by FabHK »

EJTH wrote: post #54
lolc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Where the later (the Volocopter) is more advanced in its development, I think (they've already had unmanned and manned test flights, and preliminary government approvals), as well as a better concept all in all (what with 18 rotors above the cockpit, rather than on 8 rotors on knee-level).

Full disclosure: I've invested a trifling sum in the Volocopter, so I'm a believer... :-)

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#67

Post by EthanHeilman »

bduerst wrote: post #61
EthanHeilman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By which you mean, coming to fruition? I'm not the biggest fan of Uber on a number of issues but I think the biggest problem they have is that their investors were planning on having a monopoly on livery. That is clearly not going to happen. Flying cars and self driving cars are actually significantly more sound than their business model and are much more likely to provide a decent ROI. If and when Uber runs out of s…

Which could be true if Uber's self driving car project lasted longer than a week. Other companies have already logged tens of thousands of road hours into their self-driving car research. At this point, it seems more like these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring, like the previous commenter said. You don't need to see the end product to know if progress is being made.

They did hire some of the top self-driving car (can we call them autocars?) researchers.

>"these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring"

My view is that they are attempting to develop a more solid business model. Why wouldn't they try? Even if they fail to turn it into business it creates value that can sell to the companies that do succeed. Besides if they need a shiney for their investors, faking it seems to be just as much work as actually doing it.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#68

Post by castratikron »

aetherson wrote: post #3

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.

Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#69

Post by lutusp »

FabHK wrote: post #34
lutusp wrote: post #27

Projects like this will eventually produce an airborne commuter vehicle, but: * It will resemble a scaled-up quadcopter (for which there's already an early prototype: http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11882458/ehang-passenger-qu... ) * It will only happen when batteries are much better than they are now -- more energy density, longer lived, more efficient. The bottom line is that this idea, like so many around us, is…

I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. The Volocopter, by way of contrast, has the rotors above the cockpit, has 18 rotors for redundancy, and is actually already flying for both unmanned and manned test flights, with preliminary approval by German authorities. In my view, it'…

> I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind.

I think it's only because they're the first, their craft is really a rough prototype, and in five years they'll likely be forgotten.

> With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders.

That's my reason for thinking they're engineers who aren't thinking of the needs and vulnerabilities of end users -- they aren't really thinking about end-user issues.

> The Volocopter, by way of contrast ...

* Much safer design, better protection against any single-point failure (the eHang can't afford to lose even one of its props and remain controllable).

* But soo ugly. :)

To me, the first large quad with protective shields around its props will signal a level of seriousness consistent with the supposed goal (end-user acceptance, non-prototype).

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#70

Post by dllthomas »

iaw wrote: post #46
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> True, but the economics of energy/housing/transit indicate that there never will be mass adoption if it's also the more expensive option. That depends largely on any negative value that's charged against living in an undesirable location, and on the subjective value a person ascribes to living in a desired location. And that subjective value can remain constant, while the cost of energy and transit decrease, and th…

My formal training is in mechanical engineering and economics. You are completely right about the gradual reduction in cost and increases in efficiency over time for all mechanical technology. There are two things I feel you neglect: a) These increases happen in parallel, meaning that as air vehicles get better so too do ground vehicles. Meaning it's unlikely for the relative advantage of cars to change with technolo…

As air and ground vehicles become less expensive, the real question is what happens to the difference between them.
Post reply on HN