Personal Air-car

[sanman]

An interesting article from space.com :

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/pave_techwed_040818.html

I can't imagine myself ever using such a vehicle, even if one could be
made for the masses. Why risk your life when you could be safer on the
ground? ;)

[Dave]

"sanman" > wrote in message
m...
> An interesting article from space.com :
>
> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/pave_techwed_040818.html
>
> I can't imagine myself ever using such a vehicle, even if one could be
> made for the masses. Why risk your life when you could be safer on the
> ground? ;)

I'm not sure about safer on the ground, But the whole concept gives me the
willies. I don't trust a robot to fly, and most drivers can't handle a car
properly, let alone an aircraft.

[Dan Thomas]

"Dave" > wrote in message >...
> "sanman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > An interesting article from space.com :
> >
> > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/pave_techwed_040818.html
> >
> > I can't imagine myself ever using such a vehicle, even if one could be
> > made for the masses. Why risk your life when you could be safer on the
> > ground? ;)
>
> I'm not sure about safer on the ground, But the whole concept gives me the
> willies. I don't trust a robot to fly, and most drivers can't handle a car
> properly, let alone an aircraft.


The credibility of the whole thing went into the can when I got to
the last few paragraphs of the article. They mention and quote Moller,
as if he was developing a workable flying machine. More suckers lining
up...

Dan

[Harry K]

(Dan Thomas) wrote in message >...
> "Dave" > wrote in message >...
> > "sanman" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > An interesting article from space.com :
> > >
> > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/pave_techwed_040818.html
> > >
> > > I can't imagine myself ever using such a vehicle, even if one could be
> > > made for the masses. Why risk your life when you could be safer on the
> > > ground? ;)
> >
> > I'm not sure about safer on the ground, But the whole concept gives me the
> > willies. I don't trust a robot to fly, and most drivers can't handle a car
> > properly, let alone an aircraft.
>
>
> The credibility of the whole thing went into the can when I got to
> the last few paragraphs of the article. They mention and quote Moller,
> as if he was developing a workable flying machine. More suckers lining
> up...
>
> Dan

Even assuming that a personal craft could be built economically, how
would it improve anything? Just picture the normal traffic on a
freeway translated into the air. Hurts to even think about it.

Harry K

[Rob Schneider]

> Even assuming that a personal craft could be built economically, how
> would it improve anything? Just picture the normal traffic on a
> freeway translated into the air. Hurts to even think about it.

Hand in hand with the developments in smaller "personal" air vehicles
is the development of computer controlled (and extremely automated)
flight control systems that won't just control the individual
aircraft, but act as a management system for ALL of these aircraft in
a given area. People won't fly these things (unless they head out
into the boonies); they'll simply be passengers.

You may have seen examples on TV of the automation systems being
developed to control vehicles on the highway. These systems use a
bunch of different technologies (radar, magnetic sensors, "signposts"
embedded in the roadway, etc.) to take over the driving responsibility
and allow the computer to guide the vehicle at high speed within
inches of the other vehicles on the roadway.

As I understand it, NASA's plan is to extend this type of thing by a
couple of orders of magnitude - into three dimensions (up & down in
addition to left & right and front & back) and with some sort of
artificial intelligence system to guide all the individual planes.
The plane would probably be responsible for keeping itself airborn and
moving at the right speed and in the right direction, but the AI
management system would be telling all the planes where and when to
go. After getting in and telling the computer the destination, the
craft's occupants would simply be along for the ride.

Part of me thinks this is a developing technology looking for a
problem to solve, and part of me thinks it could be a wonderful cure
for traffic congestion in the urban sprawls. Either way, it is so far
away from what this newsgroup is about we might as well be discussing
submarines.

If it they actually make it work and the whole thing takes off, a lot
of people will get a good idea of what the early astronauts meant by
"spam in the can."

IMHO, anyway.

Rob

[Roger Halstead]

On 20 Aug 2004 07:37:33 -0700, (Rob
Schneider) wrote:

>> Even assuming that a personal craft could be built economically, how
>> would it improve anything? Just picture the normal traffic on a
>> freeway translated into the air. Hurts to even think about it.
>
>Hand in hand with the developments in smaller "personal" air vehicles
>is the development of computer controlled (and extremely automated)
>flight control systems that won't just control the individual
>aircraft, but act as a management system for ALL of these aircraft in
>a given area. People won't fly these things (unless they head out
>into the boonies); they'll simply be passengers.

That goes entirely against the grain for almost any driver you can
find. One of the reasons we have so much traffic is the individualism
and feeling of freedom many drivers get from driving their own car and
going where they want when they want.

>
>You may have seen examples on TV of the automation systems being
>developed to control vehicles on the highway. These systems use a
>bunch of different technologies (radar, magnetic sensors, "signposts"
>embedded in the roadway, etc.) to take over the driving responsibility
>and allow the computer to guide the vehicle at high speed within
>inches of the other vehicles on the roadway.

You do realize that at the Chicago World's Fair back in the 30s they
were predicting those things to be common place within the next two
decades. They even had models of traffic systems. Seven decades
later it's still a dream.

>
>As I understand it, NASA's plan is to extend this type of thing by a
>couple of orders of magnitude - into three dimensions (up & down in
>addition to left & right and front & back) and with some sort of
>artificial intelligence system to guide all the individual planes.
>The plane would probably be responsible for keeping itself airborn and
>moving at the right speed and in the right direction, but the AI
>management system would be telling all the planes where and when to
>go. After getting in and telling the computer the destination, the
>craft's occupants would simply be along for the ride.

I think this has about as much practicality as the optimism at the
World's Fair.

>
>Part of me thinks this is a developing technology looking for a
>problem to solve, and part of me thinks it could be a wonderful cure
>for traffic congestion in the urban sprawls. Either way, it is so far
>away from what this newsgroup is about we might as well be discussing
>submarines.

I'd disagree there.
I think that homebuilding and experimentation will play a big part in
any kind of evolution when it comes to navigation.

OTOH to see the personal flight expanded much beyond today's type is
going to take a very large change in our society, not just aviation.

We have the capability to do these things now. The computer
programming would have to be done, but the automation capability is
there. Of course individual flying is far less efficient with fuel
than the automobile, and can you imagine the effects of a terrorist
interfering with the navigation system.

These craft would have to have the capability of using autonomous AIs
on them that could communicate as a group and to take orders from an
outside source. There are actually such programs underway for deep
sea exploration. I've forgotten the actual name which is one of those
yard and a half long monikers but I did some writing for my cousin for
a grant proposal.

Technologically we'd need a complete new revolution in electronics and
computing for this to become financially feasible on a large scale.

No mater how I look at it, to be widely implemented I think it's as
far off as that traffic system from the World's Fair in Chicago.
>

>If it they actually make it work and the whole thing takes off, a lot
>of people will get a good idea of what the early astronauts meant by
>"spam in the can."

I don't think the claustrophobic are going to have to worry any time
soon, if ever.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>IMHO, anyway.
>
>Rob

[GASSITT]

Also Mollers turn gas into noise !!

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(GASSITT) wrote:

> Also Mollers turn gas into noise !!

They also turn money into smoke.

[Rob Schneider]

Roger Halstead > wrote in message >...

Actually, Roger, you and I aren't too far apart in our opinions of
this, with perhaps one exception:

> That goes entirely against the grain for almost any driver you can
> find.

I agree completely.

> You do realize that at the Chicago World's Fair back in the 30s they
> were predicting those things to be common place within the next two
> decades. They even had models of traffic systems. Seven decades
> later it's still a dream.

Yes, and they will continue to be a dream for quite a while longer. I
think the cars are closer to being a reality than the aircraft, but
realistically neither is going to become a reality any time soon.

> >Part of me thinks this is a developing technology looking for a
> >problem to solve, and part of me thinks it could be a wonderful cure
> >for traffic congestion in the urban sprawls. Either way, it is so far
> >away from what this newsgroup is about we might as well be discussing
> >submarines.
>
> I'd disagree there.
> I think that homebuilding and experimentation will play a big part in
> any kind of evolution when it comes to navigation.

I would love to see that happen, but my guess is the model airplane
folks will have more to do with the development of this system than
the homebuilders will.

As I see it, these new planes will be all fly-by-wire and very CPU-
and communications-intensive. That's a big leap from where most of GA
is these days, but not so far way from where the RC folks are.
They've already got fly-by-wire (or perhaps fly-by-wireless, with a
human brain for the CPU), on-board flight data recorders, and active
stabalization systems that will return the plane to straight and level
from any attitude.

You could throw a lot of these things into the air relatively
inexpensively, and best of all nobody would die while working the
kinks out of the system.

Also, I think the airlines might help push this along. People cost
money, and the more they can eliminate from the equation, the more
profitable their business. (Computers don't call in sick, either.*
Well, then again there are viruses and faulty code...)

My guess is GA (and homebuilding in particular) will be squeezed out
of the process from both ends, but like I said I'd love it if I were
wrong about that.

*(I was going to say "Computers don't show up for work intoxicated,
either" but I think that's a bit unfair to the thousands of commercial
airline pilots who do it right every day.)

> OTOH to see the personal flight expanded much beyond today's type is
> going to take a very large change in our society, not just aviation.

Very true. Kind of like the Segway - a good idea but it doesn't fit
well into our current definition of society. Although I think that
was once said about the automobile, too, and probably the horse
sometime long before that.

>
> We have the capability to do these things now. The computer
> programming would have to be done, but the automation capability is
> there. Of course individual flying is far less efficient with fuel
> than the automobile, and can you imagine the effects of a terrorist
> interfering with the navigation system.
>
> These craft would have to have the capability of using autonomous AIs
> on them that could communicate as a group and to take orders from an
> outside source. There are actually such programs underway for deep
> sea exploration. I've forgotten the actual name which is one of those
> yard and a half long monikers but I did some writing for my cousin for
> a grant proposal.
>
> Technologically we'd need a complete new revolution in electronics and
> computing for this to become financially feasible on a large scale.

My guess is the expensive part (at least initially) is going to be
airframes and specifically the mechanical aspects of the fly-by-wire
control systems. Like you said, the rest of it is pretty much here.

> No mater how I look at it, to be widely implemented I think it's as
> far off as that traffic system from the World's Fair in Chicago.

I agree completely, though in this case I think the capabiltiy will be
there long before society is willing to accept it.

> >If it they actually make it work and the whole thing takes off, a lot
> >of people will get a good idea of what the early astronauts meant by
> >"spam in the can."
>
> I don't think the claustrophobic are going to have to worry any time
> soon, if ever.
>

I don't think they were refering to claustrophobia. Those early
astronauts were the cream of the crop from the military aviation
programs, and as I understand it they weren't all that happy about
blasting straight up and then falling back to earth like a stone.
They wanted something they could fly, not just sit in and press
buttons. Don't get me wrong - those early spacecraft were complex
vehicles to pilot, but there really wasn't much "flying" to them at
all.


Again, IMHO...

Rob