Air cars will never fly (911 more reasons)

Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...l+never+fly%22

It was based on this man's (and other technophiles') naive, unworkable
vision of air cars replacing most ground traffic.

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm

Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin. I hope the
latest reason goes without saying! See subject line.

A.J.





ORIGINAL POST
Subject: Air cars will never fly
12-13-98 (sci.space.policy)

The article on the link below epitomizes the deluded "vision" of many
in the space-colonization movement. If the author thinks air-cars are
practical it's no wonder he thinks space-colonization as a means to
keep society sustainable is feasible too (see other links on the
site.)

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm


Here are some obvious reasons why the air-car concept will never fly:

1) It takes FAR more energy to keep something in the air vs. on the
ground, where no energy must be expended to lift its mass. In the
article the author claims that guv'mint fuel regulations inspired him
to think of the air-car concept, but he is completely deluded. He
yearns for transportation that would create energy nightmares on a
much larger scale.

2) Accidents happen often enough with earthbound vehicles restricted
to lanes. If we expand transportation into the air, millions of
vehicles will have to dodge each other with no lane boundaries and a
third dimension as well. It would be complete mayhem. Driving skill
is poor enough as it is, and most accidents would probably be fatal.
Who would trust a naive 16, 18 or 21 year-old to fly and jeopardize
everyone's safety? What about the elderly or infirm who can barely
keep a car on the pavement? Even top pilots have to concentrate hard
to maneuver aircraft in congested situations.

3) When a mechanical breakdown occurs with an earthbound vehicle it
often just rolls to a stop, out of harm's way. But a breakdown in a
airborne vehicle would result is serious danger to anyone in the area.
Controlling air-cars with computers to prevent accidents makes no
sense since it negates the very freedom they are supposed to offer,
plus computer systems fail, and would inevitably cause tragedies in a
sky packed with cars.

4) Environmentally speaking (and this is where the author is really
nuts, since he was partially inspired by a desire for fewer roads)
air-cars would be a visual and auditory nightmare. With no clear
lanes we would have vehicles buzzing all over the place, ruining peace
and quiet and disrupting areas that were formerly safe from roads of
any kind. Wildlife would be routinely scared and you couldn't go
anywhere (or even sleep at night) for fear of a joyrider slamming into
you. It would be like opening the entire planet to airborne jet-skis.

5) There are close to 200 million cars and trucks in use in America
today, and to replace even a fraction of these with air-cars would be
completely impractical for many reasons (cost alone would be
staggering). One big issue is our dependence on trucks of all sizes
for hauling freight, which would be impractical in high speed flying
vehicles. The author claims that air-cars would allow us to tear up
paved routes that spoil natural scenery, but this would prevent the
movement of vital freight everywhere; totally unworkable. Tearing up
roads would be impossibly expensive and it would just leave erosion
scars.

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night? How would
people park as well? Unless some magic anti-gravity propulsion is
developed we would be subject to annoying air-blasts every time
someone pulled into a Wal-Mart. The takeoff scenario after a major
crowd event would be a hopeless maze of flying objects as everyone
tried to leave first.

The author is a Libertarian who detests regulations, but air-cars
would demand more regulations than he could ever imagine. If anyone
thinks air-cars would be remotely practical (except as toys for the
wealthy) I'd like to see your arguments.

A.J. (reposted from 12-13-1998)

wrote:


6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

"Gilles KERMARC" wrote in message
news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?

Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

-c

Just hit geese and ducks instead.

mike regish

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Gilles KERMARC" wrote in message
news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?

Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

-c

("gatt" wrote)
Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To prove to the raccoon that, yes, it can be done.

--
Montblack

"gatt" wrote in message .. .
"Gilles KERMARC" wrote in message
news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?

Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

-c

You'll just have to settle for pigeons and sparrows.

Regards
Earthling

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:06:51 +0200, Gilles KERMARC
wrote:

wrote:


6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
a crowded space. I've used a GPS handheld extensively and would not
bet my life on its resolution of 14 feet, or even 1 foot if such
accuracy was possible for the public.

Besides, GPS is just one of many flaws in the concept.

A.J.

writes:

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
a crowded space.

But if all GPSs are consistent in their error, then their relative
accuracy w.r.t. each other will serve.

But like others, I don't think aircars are practical for other
reasons. Anyway, why telecommuting isn't being promoted more is a
mystery to me...why not tax subsidies for cheap reliable bandwidth?
For development of large cheap screens? For....

Bob Fry wrote:


But like others, I don't think aircars are practical for other
reasons. Anyway, why telecommuting isn't being promoted more is a
mystery to me...why not tax subsidies for cheap reliable bandwidth?
For development of large cheap screens? For....

Thank you!
All the talk of air pollution, traffic congestion, road rage, etc.
associated with commuting, and the government is strangely silent on
promoting telecommuting which is IMHO an extremely viable option at this
point.
Hell, I do freelance work for people all over the world by email alone.
I hardly ever need to speak to my clients by phone.
The deafening silence on this issue makes me wonder what the government
has at stake by *not* encouraging this business model...
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Recently, Bob Fry posted:

writes:

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
a crowded space.

But if all GPSs are consistent in their error, then their relative
accuracy w.r.t. each other will serve.

Oh? How about relative accuracy w/r/t buildings, houses, and other
obstructions?

IMNSHO, this has to be thought through a bit more. We're running out of
deserted spaces to operate this kind of thing.

Neil