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

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#91

Post by tomcam »

iaw wrote: post #84
jessriedel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's an asinine statement if I've ever read one. I've been present for 2 highways collisions, avoiding them is super easy. Which is why full lane closures and multi-car pile-ups are as infrequent as they are relative to the frequency of two car accidents. A vehicle that falls from 100 feet above will be accelerating unlike vehicles in an accident on a highway which will rapidly decelerate . Furthermore, you now hav…

Upvoted because you're right, but not sure why you felt it necessary to be so hostile

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#92

Post by slededit »

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…

Self driving cars will be a commodity business, there are just too many people working on it with sufficient backing (including pretty much all the car companies at this point). In the end its going to be the brand name that ensures margin.

Predictions of privately owned self driving fleets are interesting, but it would be ludicrous to assume anyone would be a monopoly supplier of those vehicles.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#93

Post by slededit »

zardo wrote: post #43
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…

>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. Which is why birds only ever fly long distances, if it's just a few miles they hop it.

To be fair, birds neither have wheels nor spent most of their evolution in a world with paved roads.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#94

Post by petra »

castratikron wrote: post #75
edblarney wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Their business model has no barrier to entry." Critical mass of drivers, particularly within a specific market area - and brand - are definitely barriers to entry. There are network externalities for sure. If you go to city ABC and 'everyone is on Uber' - as a consumer, you'll probably just use Uber. Drivers? Well, they'll just sign up for Uber if there's little else. A 'new market entrant' will have a 'chicken and…

I've got both Uber and Lyft on my phone, which I guess could be analogous to having two hot dog stands on the same block. Drivers can switch between the two just as easily. You're right though, they do have a well-established brand, and they have spent a lot of effort in getting around all sorts of legal problems. I wonder, though, if the legal things that Uber has paved the way on would ever make it easier for some…

If it's a company market, price signaling and a reasonable market for both companies, long term, seems possible.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#95

Post by iaw »

tomcam wrote: post #91
iaw wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an asinine statement if I've ever read one. I've been present for 2 highways collisions, avoiding them is super easy. Which is why full lane closures and multi-car pile-ups are as infrequent as they are relative to the frequency of two car accidents. A vehicle that falls from 100 feet above will be accelerating unlike vehicles in an accident on a highway which will rapidly decelerate . Furthermore, you now hav…

Upvoted because you're right, but not sure why you felt it necessary to be so hostile

I'm trying to reduce the hostility of my posts. What parts of this do you feel was hostile?

Edit: We've hit the end of the reply chain. I see your point about both the opening and closing sentences. Is there any way to say the first one without coming off as hostile? My goal/point was trying to demonstrate how patently wrong the earlier statements were.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#96

Post by iaw »

rustmemcpy wrote: post #87
FabHK wrote: 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…

"The sky is big" is a fallacy in aviation because aircraft don't move unconstrained in 3D space. Typically they are restricted to narrow corridors where collision probability greatly increases. I imagine the same applies to air commute, considering most people will be converging into a small number of waypoints.

That was my assessment as well. Even worse for commuter vehicles because of the various property laws and regional egress requirements.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#97

Post by grzm »

iaw wrote: post #95
tomcam wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvoted because you're right, but not sure why you felt it necessary to be so hostile

I'm trying to reduce the hostility of my posts. What parts of this do you feel was hostile? Edit: We've hit the end of the reply chain. I see your point about both the opening and closing sentences. Is there any way to say the first one without coming off as hostile? My goal/point was trying to demonstrate how patently wrong the earlier statements were.

I commend your desire to improve your posts. That's something that's always on my mind as well.

From my unsolicited, third-party perspective, two things jump out at me.

- You could do without the first sentence entirely.

- The insinuation that the parent is possibly a shill (an Uber employee)

The rest of it is fairly neutral.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#98

Post by iaw »

Xunxi wrote: post #79
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…

The fact that big money is being funneled into the idea makes it more plausible that ever. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-09/welcome-t... Theres a lot of R&D going on behind the scenes, it no longer a lone wolf undertaking. Its likely all these personal air vehicle will fly-by-wire; perhaps Uber leveraging Otto's core algorithm for other uses? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g6cCYoDWzM

> The fact that big money is being funneled into the idea makes it more plausible that ever.

Big money has been funneled into a number of pipe dreams before, it didn't make them practical.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#99

Post by prostoalex »

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?

Primarily because "be a functioning part of their business" applies to so many other companies. Manufacturers like Tesla or Audi? Sure. Car rental and fleet management companies like Avis or Enterprise? Certainly could be a part of their business. Local couple who owns a car wash and can afford to buy 2-3 self-driving vehicles and keep them clean? Why not, I'd give someone local a try.

What's unique about Uber's know-how to ensure their domination (or in absence of domination, reasonable margins) in the segment?

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#100

Post by tomcam »

iaw wrote: post #95
tomcam wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvoted because you're right, but not sure why you felt it necessary to be so hostile

I'm trying to reduce the hostility of my posts. What parts of this do you feel was hostile? Edit: We've hit the end of the reply chain. I see your point about both the opening and closing sentences. Is there any way to say the first one without coming off as hostile? My goal/point was trying to demonstrate how patently wrong the earlier statements were.

Most cool. Proud of you. grzm said it exactly.
Post reply on HN