Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#31

Post by iaw » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #25

iaw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That only ensures that flying cars will always be more expensive than ground cars, not that per capita income will always be too low to have mass adoption of flying cars. True, but the economics of energy/housing/transit indicate that there never will be mass adoption if it's also the more expensive option.

Cost is not the only concern, if it was then all cars would be the most energy efficient possible and Hummers with similar fuel efficiency to small Cessna aircraft would never have been made.

The ownership cost of a small Cessna drastically exceeds that of a hummer (purchase price + certification + maintenance). I'll take your word that they have equivalent fuel efficiencies.

Cost isn't a big deal when it's less than a 50% increase, we're talking 3-5x here. This is equivalent not to a Hummer but to a Ferrari, that's a difference in sale volume that makes a flying car unit unsustainable give the increased non-traditional expenses.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#32

Post by thearn4 » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

Interesting, I didn't realize Mark had resigned from LaRC. I'd be interested to hear a more complete take on his opinions about NASA Aeronautics, because he sounded a bit disillusioned.

The big caveat when comparing to industry efforts, of course, is that NASA Aero, by design, is not an airline, or an airframe manufacturer, or a regulator. It's an R&D outfit that still very much follows the structure of its predecessor, NACA.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#33

Post by aptwebapps » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

Rant: Since when did VTOL == 'flying car'? A flying car is a hybrid, dual-use vehicle. Is a helicopter a flying car? A Harrier jet? VTOL would be great for an actual flying car and it would be great for small, personal aircraft, but that doesn't make an aircraft that has it a flying car.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#34

Post by FabHK » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

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's a more sensible concept that's also further advanced already.

http://volocopter.com/

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#35

Post by fullshark » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

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.

Or they think burning money on this guy is worth it to get engineers to join the company because it's "cool."

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#36

Post by FabHK » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

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'…

Agreed though that the big problem for electric flight for now are the batteries. Note though that the issue is not so much energy density (energy per volume), but specific energy (energy per mass), currently at around 400 kWh/kg.

Fossile fuel has a specific energy so much higher that it still wins hands down, even though a piston engine converts only about 10% of that energy into mechanical energy.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#37

Post by fullshark » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 5:58 PM UTC

spraak wrote: post #7

This could have equally been an article on the Onion

They are gonna hire this guy next to research Compost Fueled Cars: https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#38

Post by FabHK » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 6:00 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #29

iaw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That only ensures that flying cars will always be more expensive than ground cars, not that per capita income will always be too low to have mass adoption of flying cars. True, but the economics of energy/housing/transit indicate that there never will be mass adoption if it's also the more expensive option.

> 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…

> on the order of 1,000 kilowatts per hour

1000 kW, or 1000 kWh per h. That's the beauty of P = Power = W/t = Energy / Time.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#39

Post by FabHK » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 6:03 PM UTC

aptwebapps wrote: post #33

Rant: Since when did VTOL == 'flying car'? A flying car is a hybrid, dual-use vehicle. Is a helicopter a flying car? A Harrier jet? VTOL would be great for an actual flying car and it would be great for small, personal aircraft, but that doesn't make an aircraft that has it a flying car.

Absolutely. We need a new word for this new category of aircraft (like the eHang, Volocopter, etc.), but "flying car" it is not.

I'm in favour of Personal Electric VTOL Aircraft, PEVA.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#40

Post by FabHK » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 6:04 PM UTC

EJTH wrote: post #18

dexwiz wrote: post #6

Flying cars of the 2010s seem striking similar to solar cars for the 1980s. A few expensive prototypes here and there, some great pontificating from leading engineers, but no serious consumer model.

Depends... I think we are really close to have viable "flying cars" in the form of electric or even hybrid gas-electric multirotors... Give it 5-10 years Im sure we will begin to see multirotors being used for personal transportation.

Predicated on advances in battery tech. The rest is there, agreed.