Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#81

Post by bobsil1 » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:33 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

You're thinking too narrowly.

- Solve traffic

- Live in Santa Cruz, commute to SF

- Buy a mansion in Modesto, commute to Palo Alto

- The views!

These will be VTOL, electric, autonomous air taxis, not road-drivable cars.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#82

Post by ohyoutravel » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

overcast wrote: post #69

Spooky23 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? With self driving, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than autonomous cars. Any point in a 30 mile typical travel radius is a <15 minute flight.

Because we need to think realistically, and economically. Improving, and incrementing familiar technology now. Not introducing another mess in the air. We haven't even got self-driving land vehicles, and we're just going to make the jump to aircraft that NO ONE is familiar with? We still rely on primitive controlled explosions to get off our planet. Sure it's a neat idea, but this isn't the Fifth Element world yet. U…

This is probably the argument horse carriage operators made when mass produced cars were just coming into being.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#83

Post by civilian » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:35 PM UTC

nrjdhsbsid wrote: post #44

imgabe wrote: post #26

I hope they fly themselves as well. Humans can barely manage to safely pilot a car in 2 dimensions. I don't want to think of the carnage that would result if we took existing traffic and moved it 10,000 feet up in the air. Every fender bender would become a multiple fatality.

Automatic flight is much easier than autonomous driving. Not much to run into up there :).

Are you familiar with Smeed's Law? I think that it will also apply to flying cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#84

Post by ohyoutravel » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

jpeg_hero wrote: post #15

woofyman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helicopters can land without power (autorotate) or if the tail rotator fails. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation

Yeah, I know a helicopter pilot, I was shocked when he told me that. Would love to hear a aviation enthusiast compare safety differences and failure modes between helicopter autorotation and plane glide...

I am not a pilot, but have talked extensively with them and we have some planes in the family. MUCH better to autorotate land a helicopter than to glide land a plane, for a myriad of reasons. Autorotating heli landings result in a bit of a rougher bump upon landing, but otherwise are no big deal. Crash landing a plane is obviously different and results in destroying the aircraft and, likely, people inside.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#85

Post by sAuronas » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

bobsil1 wrote: post #81

danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

You're thinking too narrowly. - Solve traffic - Live in Santa Cruz, commute to SF - Buy a mansion in Modesto, commute to Palo Alto - The views! These will be VTOL, electric, autonomous air taxis, not road-drivable cars.

+1 travel as the crow flies from Oakland to Mountain View in a fraction of the time. Pagether

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#86

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

frevd wrote: post #25

Why only 4, 8 or 12 rotors? Can a group of much smaller rotors replace the thrust a single bigger one produces? Would add a lot more redundancy and limit the costs.

[deleted]

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#87

Post by bootload » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

nrjdhsbsid wrote: post #44

imgabe wrote: post #26

I hope they fly themselves as well. Humans can barely manage to safely pilot a car in 2 dimensions. I don't want to think of the carnage that would result if we took existing traffic and moved it 10,000 feet up in the air. Every fender bender would become a multiple fatality.

Automatic flight is much easier than autonomous driving. Not much to run into up there :).

"Not much to run into up there :)"

Birds, hills, turbulence.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#88

Post by nether » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

ohyoutravel wrote: post #84

jpeg_hero wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know a helicopter pilot, I was shocked when he told me that. Would love to hear a aviation enthusiast compare safety differences and failure modes between helicopter autorotation and plane glide...

I am not a pilot, but have talked extensively with them and we have some planes in the family. MUCH better to autorotate land a helicopter than to glide land a plane, for a myriad of reasons. Autorotating heli landings result in a bit of a rougher bump upon landing, but otherwise are no big deal. Crash landing a plane is obviously different and results in destroying the aircraft and, likely, people inside.

Yeah, I was an aerospace engineer at a helicopter company for eight years. They practiced autorotation landings (full engine shut off) every day, outside my office. They were non-events.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#89

Post by amelius » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

bobsil1 wrote: post #81

danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

You're thinking too narrowly. - Solve traffic - Live in Santa Cruz, commute to SF - Buy a mansion in Modesto, commute to Palo Alto - The views! These will be VTOL, electric, autonomous air taxis, not road-drivable cars.

> The views!

Obviously, these will be blocked by swarms of flying cars.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#90

Post by lisivka » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #43

overcast wrote: post #41

I'm saying it now. Flying cars for the general population is just not going to happen until the repulsor lift is invented, and ubiquitous with all aircraft. Many, many years into the future. Long after those of us on HN are gone. There is just zero need for this right now, and is just silly nonsense. Work on making our ground systems 100% safe, efficient, and reliable first.

Why not? With self driving, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than autonomous cars. Any point in a 30 mile typical travel radius is a <15 minute flight.

+1. Fliers can solve commute hell. Every building has roof, which can be used as a pad for fliers, which will solve problem with parking.

Nuclear batteries can provide enough electricity for flier for years. We just need to develop safer nuclear batteries (LENR type?), which, in turn, requires better understanding of nuclear physics, which, in turn, requires to shoot some «shut-up and calculate» guys.