• deranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    can we just please get some normal, boring, safe, efficient trains that actually function instead of this gizmo bullshit?

  • bender@insaneutopia.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Joby’s production aircraft is designed to transport a pilot and four passengers at speeds of up to 200 miles (321.87 kilometers) per hour, with a maximum range of 100 miles (160.93 kilometers). I

    Back in my day we called these contraptions “helicopters”

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      And those were considered for use as “flying taxis” and they failed for the same reason these will: Flying and landing in cities is dangerous, which is why airports are built very far away.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also expensive as fuck.

        Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.

        Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.

          Great data, now what’s the equivalent for small scale electric motor based helicopters? Considering you’re essentially talking about the maintenance requirements of chemical powerplants and rotor wings lifting 10+ times the weight. That’s like saying because you have to do pre-operational checks on semi trucks during your trip that it’s too expensive to drive cars.

          Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.

          Do you not realize we already have thousands of aircraft flying that this could already happen to? It’s really strange to have you guys cherry picking this as a thing to be concerned about when aircraft that could fall out of the sky are already over your head right now.

          Redundancy is the name of the game, if you have more than the amount of engines you require, then you can have a couple fail and still remain airborne. It’s also why VTOL designs are safer as they have some lift potential even with a dead-stick scenario.

            • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’ve made several comments throughout this post that are absurd, reductive, and so out of touch with reality as to be ridiculous and/or hilarious. None of them make any rational sense.

              Yeah, unless you know literally anything about aircraft. Which im sure you don’t. Or do you have more years in Aircraft maintenance than me?

                • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks for the strawman, it does however give me an idea of the kind of maintenance he’s talking about and why it’s required on larger platforms but not on smaller electric motors like what eVTOL prototypes use.

                  People are in here claiming that because larger helicopters need a 30 day inspection that electric motors are going to have the same level of maintenance and servicing requirements. In reality we would probably adapt by creating something in between a private pilots license and whatever certifications ultralight and paramotors enjoy to get off the ground. That would no doubt include training and certification on basic operational maintenance.

      • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All the airports I can think of have people living near them. Several are inside major cities.

        Airports are quite large though.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          These drone cars won’t be cheap either.

          Because it costs a lot more energy to keep something in the air and move it forward, than it is to move it forward on the road.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was mostly a noise/airspace crowding concern, helicopters fly in cities all the time and plenty of roofs have active helipads.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          That and seven people died when a helicopter tipped over over on top of a building

          2 minutes, 21 seconds after touch down, at approximately 5:35 p.m., the right main landing gear of the helicopter failed and the S-61 rolled over to the right. All main rotor blades struck the concrete helipad. Four passengers who were waiting to board were struck by the blades and killed. One of the blades, 28 feet, 10 inches (8.787 meters) long and weighing 209.3 pounds (94.9 kilograms) flew out over the building’s railing and fell alongside the building before crashing through an office window on the 36th floor. The main rotor blade broke into two segments, one of which fell to the street below, striking a pedestrian and killing him.

          The airline had two more accidents because helicopters are just an oil leak surrounded by a million parts that want to fly apart

  • Addition@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll never understand the eternal hype around “flying cars”. Fuckers out here can hardly drive on a 2d road. Now you want to introduce a third axis on them?

    I guarantee that if the general public gets their hands on a real “flying car”, it’ll take about 2 weeks before some drunk idiot commits a mini 9/11.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only way flying cars should ever get implemented is if they are 100% automatic.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago
        • Create automatic taxi (impossible)

        • Create flying taxi (impossible)

        Okay, new plan!

        • Create automatic flying taxi (should be possible in the next 5-15 years)
        • pokemaster787@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not saying it’s a good idea, but a lot of the complexity surrounding automated driving is actually because you are confined to a 2D space and have to follow roads/road signs. When you can just lift off and adjust verticality to avoid objects all you really need is a way to detect and avoid obstacles and some navigation logic. Landing is probably the most difficult part to automate.

          Not super easy but it is actually easier than self-driving cars (which is why almost all of a commercial flight is running on autopilot)

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            When you can just lift off and adjust verticality to avoid objects

            You need to navigate between objects on an additional access. Also, manage speed and trajectory with a changing mass, as you exhaust fuel.

            Not rocket science, but its close.

            it is actually easier than self-driving cars (which is why almost all of a commercial flight is running on autopilot)

            Commercial flight follows lanes of traffic with regular well-regulated flight paths.

            One thing that gets helicopters and small engine aircraft pilots in trouble is that they don’t have any of that.

      • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The FAA mandates extensive training for anyone who wants to fly, regardless of the form of the aircraft.

        Apparently not if the mass and maximum speed are both low enough. The Jetson One (which has been taking preorders for at least a couple of years but still isn’t shipping) says it won’t require a license in the US.

        It looks pretty impractical, produces an obnoxious amount of wind during landing and takeoff, and has a range of only 30km, but, still… it or things like it probably will actually be a reality for some rich people pretty soon.

          • Who knew?@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            & you are correct about airspace being regulated. Just because an ultralight doesn’t require a license doesn’t mean you can just fly it anywhere with no training on how to get airspace clearance either. I imagine they will eventually develop something like an automated version of the LAANC clearance process for drone pilots, but it will take a while to develop the regulations for sure, if they even get that far.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Drink idiots hit things in cars all the time.

      Make the test to acquire your license actually difficult to the skill level required instead of the “you can take two left turns and park shitty, here’s your license” level of difficulty that most states use for road vehicles.

      • anthoniix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dog if you make one mistake you can kill so many more people than in a crash. This is a horrible idea.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So require more training and certification for use?

          Are you guys all seriously hung up on the word “car” here and trying to imply that eVTOLs can’t just come with its own infrastructure and pilot requirements independent of what we currently have?

          It doesn’t have to be like cars, where the skill level of the driver can be non existent and still pass licensing.

          I just can’t believe I’m in the tech community of a supposedly leftist website having to argue for a technology that beyond small local airstrips (literally a grass field with charging stations and basic rest stop equipment) needs no additional ground infrastructure.

          The opposition? Begin large scale rail projects that will require we carve through a lot of natural resources as well as acquire the resources to build it with.

          I just have to double check to make sure I didn’t fall into the wrong internet rabbit hole.

          • anthoniix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Im saying that it doesnt matter if the requirements are super high, it’s still dangerous and I don’t really see how the use cases are justifiable. It also doesn’t scale well with a lot of people. You could easily just build rail or use a bus and make a bus lane.

          • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I just can’t believe I’m in the tech community of a supposedly leftist website having to argue for a technology that beyond small local airstrips (literally a grass field with charging stations and basic rest stop equipment) needs no additional ground infrastructure.

            The opposition? Begin large scale rail projects that will require we carve through a lot of natural resources as well as acquire the resources to build it with.

            🤣

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I got my driver’s license when I was 18, after studying for the test and practicing for several months on a learner’s permit.

        Now I’m 40. I’ve never been retested. I have completely forgotten what’s on the exam. I’ve developed a whole bunch of bad driving habits, particularly with the advent of smart phones. And nobody is going to challenge my license renewal so long as I can pass an eye exam every 10 years.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. Only the promise of a single-person direct-to-destination fee-for-service that ends up being a giant scam.

      We will never build mass transit in this country. You can’t make us.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where America is going to come unstuck is with the electric car.

        Either you guys are going to have to build up more electrical infrastructure which you don’t want to do, or you’re going to have to develop public transit options, would you also don’t seem to want to do.

        Then the GOP will somehow try and turn it into a political issue (because they are lunatics) and nothing will get done, and then no one will be able to go anywhere because they will be stuck living in a country that is designed for a mode of transit that no longer exists, and no one has bothered to update it in any way. And then your kids are going to overthrow the government because they won’t be able to understand why everyone in Europe can go wherever they want.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A few major metro areas with big finance and tech sectors will get a bunch of pilot programs that cost way too much and never get fully implemented.

          Then we’ll get told that the tech is too expensive and we can’t do it.

          Meanwhile, China will be building a BRI that moves people at 600 mph from Beijing to Rabat.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you have any idea how much time and resources it would take to construct high speed rail across the US compared to small local airstrips for VTOLs?

      • mplewis@lemmy.globe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah and think of how many more people a single five-person helicopter can move per hour! An obvious choice

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you know how much more utility and efficiency actual public transport has?

        Flying is a horrible option for short range public transport.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Jesus Christ I don’t even know why I bother arguing with people who will constantly move the goal posts. We aren’t talking about cargo, we are talking about transporting people, fucks sake.

          This place really did take the dumbest of reddit.

  • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus fuck. It’s just like some auto execs to pull shit like this. Completely fuck up transportation infrastructure on the ground to your own benefit and everyone else’s detriment, then use your winnings to build taxis that can fly over the carnage you’ve wrought. We are living the Cyberpunk future.

  • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    We already have “flying cars”. They’re called helicopters, and you need training and a license to fly them. Just like you’ll need for this thing and just like you need for a normal road-going car.

  • rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ohio is also the state which has the highest per-capita production of astronauts, with only New York and California producing more in terms of raw numbers.

    I wonder, what is it about Ohio that encourages people to flee the planet with such zeal?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, we’re just gonna burn more fuel. Wtf. We need legislative change to prevent shit like this.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Around the world, electric vertical takeoff and landing, or eVTOL aircraft are entering the mainstream, though questions remain about noise levels and charging demands.

    Still, developers say the planes are nearing the day when they will provide a wide-scale alternative to shuttle individual people or small groups from rooftops and parking garages to their destinations, while avoiding the congested thoroughfares below.

    Joby’s decision to locate its first scaled manufacturing facility at a 140-acre (57-hectar) site at Dayton International Airport delivers on two decades of groundwork laid by the state’s leaders, Republican Lt. Gov.

    Its financial package wasn’t the largest, but the chance to bring the operation to the birthplace of aviation — with a workforce experienced in the field — sealed the deal, he said.

    Bevirt said operations and hiring will begin immediately from existing buildings near the development site, contingent upon clearing the standard legal and regulatory hurdles.

    Toyota, a long-term investor, worked with Joby in 2019 to design and to successfully launch its pilot production line in Marina, California.


    The original article contains 862 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Who knew?@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m hoping regulations get in the way of this. The FAA is barely comfy letting people fly a drone beyond line of sight with a waiver, fully automated flight for untrained passengers is going to take some doing.

    • Syringe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m making this claim based on the Wright Bros exhibit at the Smithsonian Air and space museum…

      One of the genius things that they did was invent scaled testing (I’m not 100% sure I can make this claim, but I’d be happy to learn it I was wrong). Rather than building the device and testing it, which killed a lot of people through history, they built miniature components and tested them individually to prove concepts, and THEN built their production version in iterations.

      Like, to test airfoil designs, they built a table top sized wind tunnel, put a miniature airfoil in, and evaluated its performance, and made determinations for the final product. This SIGNIFICANTLY lowered design costs and prototyping at the time.

      This also happened to result in an airplane.