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

Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 218 posts

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#111

Post by cpncrunch »

outworlder wrote: post #102
Nokinside wrote: post #21

Helicopters and small planes already exist. We might have autonomous helicopters and small planes in the future, but flying car concept is flawed and not because it's hard to build one. - Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. This is actually good subgoal to work with even without flying cars in mind. Reliable infra…

> Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. Omg, this. The amount of checks required for any sort of aircraft is ridiculous. A lot of it involves button pushing and checking status. This could be automated. For instance, for a cessna 150: STARTING ENGINE Mixture – RICH Carb heat – COLD Prime – AS REQUIRED Master switch…

With modern FADEC engines, all of this is automated (from what I read...I've never actually flown anything with FADEC).

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#112

Post by cpncrunch »

kordless wrote: post #69
Nokinside wrote: post #21

Helicopters and small planes already exist. We might have autonomous helicopters and small planes in the future, but flying car concept is flawed and not because it's hard to build one. - Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. This is actually good subgoal to work with even without flying cars in mind. Reliable infra…

The primary problem with flying things is that they currently rely on atmospheric lift. Loss of lift equals death of occupants and vehicle. It's only when we transition to alternate means of lift that flying will be "safe" for public consumption and operation.

There are safety measures such as autorotation and airframe parachutes that can safely land the aircraft after an engine failure.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#113

Post by alphapapa »

andys627 wrote: post #92

We'll all be happier and healthier and have more money for other stuff if we build our cities around walking, biking, and shared transit. Suburbs = unhealthy, inefficient, unhappy (it has been studied - look it up don't just comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere").

I contend that people are happier and healthier where the population density is lower, resulting in less crime, less pollution, less noise, lower cost of living, more space, more privacy, etc.

If you want to live in big buildings, packed together like sardines, unable to escape from the noise of your neighbors and everything that goes on in the city outside the window, more power to you. But don't presume to say that everyone else will be happier if they would just do what you prefer.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#114

Post by outworlder »

mtgx wrote: post #5

I'm sure this is something Elon Musk would be trying to make, too, because there's a lot of expertise that his companies already have to build something like this: autonomous tech, rocket engineers, batteries, electric powertrains, solar panels, and he has already said he would probably build an electric airplane next. If only he had the money to experiment with something like this. That's why I'm hoping that Apple b…

> I'm sure this is something Elon Musk would be trying to make

I am not so sure. An electric airplane at least has the effect of lowering greenhouse emissions, thus increasing, even by a minuscule amount, the amount of time we have on this rock.

But flying cars? This is something that would increase the world's energy consumption, for little benefit.

He has already tackled transportation with the Hyperloop. Those are flying cars(or trains, depending on your point of view). Only they are safer, more energy efficient and more economical.

Besides, adding wings to a car doesn't seem like something one would do, if trying to think from first principles.

Also, I think the flying suit was a joke (my inner child is hoping not).

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#115

Post by alphapapa »

cpncrunch wrote: post #112
kordless wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary problem with flying things is that they currently rely on atmospheric lift. Loss of lift equals death of occupants and vehicle. It's only when we transition to alternate means of lift that flying will be "safe" for public consumption and operation.

There are safety measures such as autorotation and airframe parachutes that can safely land the aircraft after an engine failure.

And what happens when a Cessna parachutes onto the roof of your house? Onto the middle of a busy street? etc. If we were all using flying cars, this would become a regular occurrence. It's just not practical at that scale.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#116

Post by Animats »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #79

I just emailed the people at Moller this week asking them what the biggest challenge in making a flying car was. Their reply was: Thanks for reaching out to Moller International. Your question is a good one, with a multitude of answers. For now, I’ll explain 3 of the biggest factors. First, there is a lot of FAA and government regulations regarding aircraft. Airworthiness certification is a lengthy process, and depen…

Moller is going nowhere. He's been advertising the same thing for decades with little progress, adjusting the years on the web site so it always seems to be just a few years ahead. He's been in trouble with the SEC for his fun-raising activities. He's been trying to do VTOL with souped-up Wankel engines, and that just isn't working.

Here's Moller's brochure from 1974.[1] Forty years of hype. That guy is responsible for flying cars having a bad name.

[1] http://www.downside.com/scams/moller/

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#117

Post by nsxwolf »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #83
jackhack wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>In the meantime try to get new helicopter landing sites approved in your neighborhood. Which takes us right back to the noise issue which needs to be solved, first. 'Till then, no way. Helicopters (nicknamed 'choppers' for good reason) buzzing over neighborhoods aren't exactly the average homeowner's dream. The "whapwhapwhapwhap" of a helicopter overhead, reverberating through a home, is just as desirable as open-p…

I don't think cities have the ability to regulate helicopters. Airspace is regulated by the FAA, which pre-empts the states from regulating them further. I remember reading an article about some city where helicopter noise had become a problem and they couldn't do much about it. Although I suppose with enough complaints the FAA might change their rules.

Increase the amount of helicopter-style traffic by 10x, and eventually congress will make the FAA enact new regulations.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#118

Post by kuschku »

boulos wrote: post #85
rl3 wrote: post #34

Every time I see an article on flying cars, I can't help but be reminded of an old IBM commercial[0] from 2000. Deliciously ironic considering it represented the fact that mainstream culture had all but written off the idea entirely. [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo

More disappointingly, we still can't just walk out of a store with goods and have it charge us. That said, the idea of all the products having RF things on them would be ultra creepy, so I'm guessing that's the limiting factor.

Well, in some stores, RFID on all products already exists.

Especially as they were originally added to prevent theft, and are now kinda for free, it’s quite cheap to add that feature.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#119

Post by NegativeK »

6stringmerc wrote: post #101
bencollier49 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article implies that these vehicles would be autonomous.

It might imply that some would be autonomous, but that's not a genuine "flying car" now is it? It's an "autonomous passenger transport pod" that could describe anything from a hyperloop to an automated self-propelled wheelchair. All this dancing around to try and make it seem like the idea isn't a fool's errand is interesting, I will grant that.

You're associating "car" with "something a homeowner can regularly control." I associate "car" more with "a personal vehicle."

I'd rather high speed chunks of metal not be under individual control, personally. Road or air.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#120

Post by kuschku »

adwf wrote: post #54
daveguy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) Efficiency. I expect it will always be more efficient to roll an object on wheels than to keep an object lifted under power and moving forward at the same time. Rolling friction is not very high. This and safety are major reasons we don't have flying cars today. Prop planes are in the sub 20 mpg range and jets are in the gallons per mile. >2) Reduce congestion I think that autonomous cars (on the ground) will so…

You have to take into account more than just the pure physical efficiency of rolling cars vs. flying. There is the practical efficiency too. When I drive my car to work, I have to take a big dogleg out to the motorway, sit in traffic for 5 minutes to join, then drive down the motorway which is winding between the towns but mostly going the right direction, then take another big dogleg off + traffic, and finally I'm a…

Or one could increase the density of where you live, and build a transit network.

The metro also usually goes in straight lines.

Post reply on HN