Passenger Drones (Concept of Mine)

[shynung]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Why can't we use them? Because we only have 59,064 days approx. until we run out. Not to mention is a polluting substance. They may work well, but it's running out. This is technology that's supposed to step us up, not keep us where we are until we run out and need to panic.

Tell that to various car companies; it's the best solution for power sources outside of renewable sources.

Most of today's hydrogen come from methane steam reformers. Natural gas, basically. And the production releases carbon dioxide pollution. Electrolized-water hydrogen is energy-intensive, and very expensive.

Most car manufacturers today are betting on either hybrids or full-electric vehicles. Very few of them actually sell production-model hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, and even then, only in limited areas.

So no, hydrogen is not a step-up. At best, it's a diversion that nets us some use in specialized applications. At worst, a waste of time and resources.

Edited August 1, 2016 by shynung

[Green Baron]

 

31 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I'm not disagreeing about it being weaker, but we need an alternative power source. Something not Gasoline or diesel. Hydrogen is the best solution if you don't want to go nuclear, solar, water, wind or geothermic

For cars (on the ground i mean): why not solar and electric in areas where the sun shines ?

Here (La Palma) is a growing number of electric cars of different brands. I see bmw, toyota and renault. Some owners build their own charging station (solar driven) on the roof of the carport. My next car will be electric as well. Yes, for now it is far more expensive than combustion engine (have a diesel right now), the private solar charging station is around 10.000 Euros. New batteries for a car today around 5000 Euros, a small electric car at the moment 20.000 - 30.000 Euros. You can use the charging station for the household if the car doesn't need charging (subject to politics, spain is extremely against private solar installations, guess why ;-)).

Oil producers are pumping at higher rates just to keep their market shares. I bet they'll run into depletion from one day to another in an unknown time, god gave it, god took it, know what i mean ;-) ? The oil fields in the near and middle east are mostly connected underground ... so one stops, the others follow.

Electric propulsion for a flying contraption is at the moment just for freaks (congrats to solar impulse 2 for flying around the world totally on solar power !). Flying is not for everyone, there are rules and knowledge that needs more brain and handcraft than driving a car. Weather plays a role. Once airborne you can't stop to pie or answer a call, you must find an open place, judge wind and ground and land successfully. That's easily said but people have died trying, not everyone's a kerbal ;-)

As you said in the beginning, once automatic systems, maybe worldwide installations are able to take the control of that kind of traffic it becomes an option. But i don't see it the next 50 years ....

Edit: you probably live in an open area where space is no problem. I know many densely populated places where landing even for a helicopter is impossible (or very dangerous). Even for trained pilots in highly motorized emergency helicopters.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Green Baron

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, shynung said:

Most of today's hydrogen come from methane steam reformers. Natural gas, basically. And the production releases carbon dioxide pollution. Electrolized-water hydrogen is energy-intensive, and very expensive.

Most car manufacturers today are betting on either hybrids or full-electric vehicles. Very few of them actually sell production-model hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, and even then, only in limited areas.

So no, hydrogen is not a step-up. At best, it's a diversion that nets us some use in specialized applications. At worst, a waste of time and resources.

Then we need superior sources.

You have complained about hydrogen being weak but the only solution you've provided is gas. We cannot hold on hybrid cars or even electric cars as they both rely on our current issue of burning non renewable resources. Hybrids still burn fuel and Electric hooks up to the mains; which more often than not is coming from a coal burning facility.

Give a better solution that is renewable. Hydrogen is plentiful. Making it may be electrically expensive but it creates no CO2.

[DaMachinator]

1 minute ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Then we need superior sources.

You have complained about hydrogen being weak but the only solution you've provided is gas. We cannot hold on hybrid cars or even electric cars as they both rely on our current issue of burning non renewable resources. Hybrids still burn fuel and Electric hooks up to the mains; which more often than not is coming from a coal burning facility.

Give a better solution that is renewable. Hydrogen is plentiful. Making it may be electrically expensive but it creates no CO2.

Electric cars, and switch the power grid to levitating-toroid fusion reactors?

(I'm kidding)

[ZooNamedGames]

8 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

 

For cars (on the ground i mean): why not solar and electric in areas where the sun shines ?

Here (La Palma) is a growing number of electric cars of different brands. I see bmw, toyota and renault. Some owners build their own charging station (solar driven) on the roof of the carport. My next car will be electric as well. Yes, for now it is far more expensive than combustion engine (have a diesel right now), the private solar charging station is around 10.000 Euros. New batteries for a car today around 5000 Euros, a small electric car at the moment 20.000 - 30.000 Euros. You can use the charging station for the household if the car doesn't need charging (subject to politics, spain is extremely against private solar installations, guess why ;-)).

Oil producers are pumping at higher rates just to keep their market shares. I bet they'll run into depletion from one day to another in an unknown time, god gave it, god took it, know what i mean ;-) ? The oil fields in the near and middle east are mostly connected underground ... so one stops, the others follow.

Electric propulsion for a flying contraption is at the moment just for freaks (congrats to solar impulse 2 for flying around the world totally on solar power !). Flying is not for everyone, there are rules and knowledge that needs more brain and handcraft than driving a car. Weather plays a role. Once airborne you can't stop to pie or answer a call, you must find an open place, judge wind and ground and land successfully. That's easily said but people have died trying, not everyone's a kerbal ;-)

As you said in the beginning, once automatic systems, maybe worldwide installations are able to take the control of that kind of traffic it becomes an option. But i don't see it the next 50 years ....

Electric would be a great source; granted unreliable (driving only on a sunny day) and still not at it's peak yet. Granted, a hopeful source.

[shynung]

3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Then we need superior sources.

You have complained about hydrogen being weak but the only solution you've provided is gas. We cannot hold on hybrid cars or even electric cars as they both rely on our current issue of burning non renewable resources. Hybrids still burn fuel and Electric hooks up to the mains; which more often than not is coming from a coal burning facility.

Give a better solution that is renewable. Hydrogen is plentiful. Making it may be electrically expensive but it creates no CO2.

Because gas works. Modern gas engines are a proven, reliable technology that has been continually improved for more than 100 years. It not only delivers respectable amounts of power, but also does it while emitting far fewer pollution than its predecessors. It also runs on a high-energy-density fuel that are relatively safe to handle, and stable enough to be stored for long periods of time.

As I said earlier, electroyizing water for hydrogen is energy intensive. The process itself may release no CO2, but the power plant generating the power needed to run it may well be. And, as you said, that energy more often than not comes from a coal-burner plant. Methane steam reformers end up being cleaner, because the energy needed to run the hydrogen-forming reactions come from burning some of the methane, which burns cleaner than coal.

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, shynung said:

Because gas works. Modern gas engines are a proven, reliable technology that has been continually improved for more than 100 years. It not only delivers respectable amounts of power, but also does it while emitting far fewer pollution than its predecessors. It also runs on a high-energy-density fuel that are relatively safe to handle, and stable enough to be stored for long periods of time.

As I said earlier, electroyizing water for hydrogen is energy intensive. The process itself may release no CO2, but the power plant generating the power needed to run it may well be. And, as you said, that energy more often than not comes from a coal-burner plant. Methane steam reformers end up being cleaner, because the energy needed to run the hydrogen-forming reactions come from burning some of the methane, which burns cleaner than coal.

Gas doesn't work when its gone. It may be energy rich, but it's nearing depletion.

Find something other than gas. Imagine it's gone; no more gas. You got to drive to work; what's gonna power it?

[shynung]

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Gas doesn't work when its gone. It may be energy rich, but it's nearing depletion.

Find something other than gas. Imagine it's gone; no more gas. You got to drive to work; what's gonna power it?

Coal.

As of today, there are technologies designed to make long-chain hydrocarbons from essentially anything containing carbon. Coal, biomass from farms, organic waste, plastics, you name it. It's still in the same class as hydrogen electrolyzers, in that it needs energy to produce the fuels, but the end products are safer, easier to handle, and has greater energy density.

Edited August 1, 2016 by shynung

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, shynung said:

Coal.

As of today, there are technologies designed to make long-chain hydrocarbons from essentially anything containing carbon. Coal, biomass from farms, organic waste, plastics, you name it. It's still in the same class as hydrogen electrolyzers, in that it needs energy to produce the fuels, but the end products are safer, easier to handle, and has greater energy density.

That's non-renewable, and is predicted to be gone before gas. Try again.

[Red Iron Crown]

19 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Then we need superior sources.

You have complained about hydrogen being weak but the only solution you've provided is gas. We cannot hold on hybrid cars or even electric cars as they both rely on our current issue of burning non renewable resources. Hybrids still burn fuel and Electric hooks up to the mains; which more often than not is coming from a coal burning facility.

Give a better solution that is renewable. Hydrogen is plentiful. Making it may be electrically expensive but it creates no CO2.

But why bother with hydrogen if you have electricity in the first place? Just charge the batteries in your electric car rather than losing energy in the water hydrolysis then losing it again by turning it into mechanical energy (likely by turning it back into electricity in a fuel cell).

It's incorrect to think of hydrogen as an energy source, it's really an energy storage medium.

[Kerbart]

17 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Oil producers are pumping at higher rates just to keep their market shares. I bet they'll run into depletion from one day to another in an unknown time, god gave it, god took it, know what i mean ;-) ? The oil fields in the near and middle east are mostly connected underground ... so one stops, the others follow.

That’s not how Progres™ works, though. While pop culture has gotten us used to envision oil coming out if a faucet and that stream suddenly stops, reality is a bit more complex. As an oil field depletes, you just have to work harder (pressurize it, heat it, etc) to get the oil out. As demand starts to outstrip supply, price goes up and suddenly those fields that where not economic to exploit, now are.

I have heard multiple times that, for that reason, we will never run out of oil. Consumption will go down, prices will go up, alternative energy sources become viable (it's already happening). But complete depletion, Mad Max style, is unlikely to take place.

[ZooNamedGames]

3 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

But why bother with hydrogen if you have electricity in the first place? Just charge the batteries in your electric car rather than losing energy in the water hydrolysis then losing it again by turning it into mechanical energy (likely by turning it back into electricity in a fuel cell).

It's incorrect to think of hydrogen as an energy source, it's really an energy storage medium.

Where is the electricity coming from? When you plug in your car at your home; the energy your getting is from burned coal.

Edited August 1, 2016 by ZooNamedGames

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Where is the electricity coming from? When you plug in your car at your home; then energy your getting is from burned coal.

So where is the electricity for electrolyzing hydrogen coming from then?

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

So where is the electricity for electrolyzing hydrogen coming from then?

Solar, Wind, Hydro-electrical, or Geothermic and possibly Nuclear Power Plants that are large enough to benefit substantially enough to power houses, businesses and eventually your car.

Granted since we're talking future hypothetical it should be noted all these sources will improve in time.

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Solar, Wind, Hydro-electrical, or Geothermic and possibly Nuclear Power Plants that are large enough to benefit substantially enough to power houses, businesses and eventually your car.

Granted since we're talking future hypothetical it should be noted all these sources will improve in time.

You can't have it both ways. Either we're getting our electricity from fossil fuels in which case both electrolyzed hydrogen and charging batteries are producing CO2, or they both can draw from clean electricity sources in which case the carbon footprint is minimal.

It's intellectually dishonest when comparing storage media to say that one can only draw from dirty sources while the other gets a pass for drawing from clean sources. If you can crack water with clean power you can charge a battery with it, too.

[shynung]

23 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

That's non-renewable, and is predicted to be gone before gas. Try again.

Nothing in this universe is truly renewable, truly infinite. 5 billion years from now, our Sun will enter the Red Giant phase of its life, possibly devouring all the inner planets, including Earth. Even if humanity was able to move away before then, the Sun doesn't have enough fusion fuel to shine forever. One day, in the far future, it will die, explode in a nova, and turn into a white dwarf, ceasing to shine on the once-solar-system.

Even in the shorter term, solar power (wind power comes from solar energy, so that counts) has limitations in the amount of energy it can deliver for a given space, something we don't have infinite amounts of. The only energy source left with enough power density (if you forgot, power is energy*time) to power our technologies, crossing out fossil fuels, are nuclear fission and fusion fuels. And even then, those aren't renewables, so we'll run out of them given enough time. Geothermal plants has limitations in areas that can have them, because geothermal energy can't simply be found anywhere with a reasonable amount of drilling. As does solar and wind generators; there are areas which don't provide much of either.

So basically, if you want full-'renewable' energy sources (no fossil and nuclear fuels), you're on a limited energy budget. While using them to power cities and battery-electric cars may be well and good, the storage solutions for electricity (batteries) doesn't provide enough energy density for aviation applications carrying any significant amount of cargo, traveling for a significant amount of distance.

Like it or not, for aviation, we're stuck with gas for now. We may have electric cars tomorrow, but flying cars need much more energy delivered at any given moment, and for longer periods of time, the energy density of alternative energy solutions just doesn't cut it. Only hydrocarbon based fuels' does.

Edited August 1, 2016 by shynung

[ZooNamedGames]

3 minutes ago, shynung said:

Nothing in this universe is truly renewable, truly infinite. 5 billion years from now, our Sun will enter the Red Giant phase of its life, possibly devouring all the inner planets, including Earth. Even if humanity was able to move away before then, the Sun doesn't have enough fusion fuel to shine forever. One day, in the far future, it will die, explode in a nova, and turn into a white dwarf, ceasing to shine on the once-solar-system.

Even in the shorter term, solar power (wind power comes from solar energy, so that counts) has limitations in the amount of energy it can deliver for a given space, something we don't have infinite amounts of. The only energy source left with enough power density (if you forgot, power is energy*time) to power our technologies, crossing out fossil fuels, are nuclear fission and fusion fuels. And even then, those aren't renewables, so we'll run out of them given enough time. Geothermal plants has limitations in areas that can have them, because geothermal energy can't simply be found anywhere with a reasonable amount of drilling. As does solar and wind generators; there are areas which don't provide much of either.

So basically, if you want full-'renewable' energy sources (no fossil and nuclear fuels), you're on a limited energy budget. While using them to power cities and battery-electric cars may be well and good, the storage solutions for electricity (batteries) doesn't provide enough energy density for aviation applications carrying any significant amount of cargo, traveling for a significant amount of distance.

Like it or not, for aviation, we're stuck with gas for now. We may have electric cars tomorrow, but flying cars need much more energy delivered at any given moment, and for longer periods of time, the energy density of alternative energy solutions just doesn't cut it. Only hydrocarbon based fuels does.

By the time the sun is no longer an option for power; I have an odd feeling we'd discovered something superior to all our current options. And in short term; renewable is the best option for the next millennium. Every energy source has some limitation; but we're running out of gas faster than we are wind,water or air.

[shynung]

11 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

By the time the sun is no longer an option for power; I have an odd feeling we'd discovered something superior to all our current options. And in short term; renewable is the best option for the next millennium. Every energy source has some limitation; but we're running out of gas faster than we are wind,water or air.

And as I said, those energy sources are limited in terms of power density compared to non-renewables. We can get gas from corn stalks and unused parts of plants, along with organic wastes, so we're not completely limited on that. There won't be as much gas as today when we switch to carbon-liquefaction gas, but enough can be produced to at least prop up specialized applications such as aviation. The rest can run on electricity just fine.

Can we switch the topic back to flying cars?

Edited August 2, 2016 by shynung

[wumpus]

30 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You can't have it both ways. Either we're getting our electricity from fossil fuels in which case both electrolyzed hydrogen and charging batteries are producing CO2, or they both can draw from clean electricity sources in which case the carbon footprint is minimal.

It's intellectually dishonest when comparing storage media to say that one can only draw from dirty sources while the other gets a pass for drawing from clean sources. If you can crack water with clean power you can charge a battery with it, too.

For sufficiently large batteries: cracking water would *become* a battery.  Most of the issues involving fuel cells involve avoiding hydrogen because it is such a horrible fuel, but if you were producing on site you could likely live with it (and use most of it in a 24 hour cycle, so leakage is less of an issue).

But as far as I know, cracking water in any efficient means is a fantasy.  Any one know if an "unlimited" supply of platinum would change this, say a platinum asteroid re-molded into a capsule (largely hollow) shape and delivered into a lake/outback?

[Green Baron]

54 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

That’s not how Progres™ works, though. While pop culture has gotten us used to envision oil coming out if a faucet and that stream suddenly stops, reality is a bit more complex. As an oil field depletes, you just have to work harder (pressurize it, heat it, etc) to get the oil out. As demand starts to outstrip supply, price goes up and suddenly those fields that where not economic to exploit, now are.

I have heard multiple times that, for that reason, we will never run out of oil. Consumption will go down, prices will go up, alternative energy sources become viable (it's already happening). But complete depletion, Mad Max style, is unlikely to take place.

Not every oilfield is suitable for fracking, and we will run out of oil. Maybe later than estimated, nobody knows for sure cause nobody really tells how much they have and knowbody else really knows how much is still there unexplored. But it's not never-ending.

As you said, price is the point. Todays prices are low due to overproduction. One day the party will be over. Would be nice to have an alternative then cause that'll most likely be before there is a planetwide automatic fusion-driven transportation system ;-)

Edited August 1, 2016 by Green Baron

[Snark]

7 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I'm not disagreeing about it being weaker, but we need an alternative power source. Something not Gasoline or diesel. Hydrogen is the best solution if you don't want to go nuclear, solar, water, wind or geothermic

The problem is that hydrogen will not work to power a flying vehicle.

The energy density is too low, and the storage hardware too cumbersome and heavy.  Power your flying car with hydrogen, and you won't be airborne long.

Fossil fuels such as gasoline have the drawback that they are not only an environmental hazard, but also non-renewable.  That's true.  But they have the advantage that they actually work to power a flying vehicle.  Nuclear / solar / water / wind / geothermal are energy sources, but they're not energy storage mechanisms and can't be used directly to power a flying car.

6 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Why can't we use them? Because we only have 59,064 days approx. until we run out. Not to mention is a polluting substance. They may work well, but it's running out. This is technology that's supposed to step us up, not keep us where we are until we run out and need to panic.

Tell that to various car companies; it's the best solution for power sources outside of renewable sources.

Actually, no.  Hydrogen's a pretty crappy answer for automobiles, too, which is why nobody's building commercial hydrogen-powered cars.  It's slightly more practical than for flying vehicles, since weight is not so much of a concern and energy requirements are lower.  But it's still not a very good answer.

The best energy storage solution for cars, outside of fossil fuels, is batteries.  Electric cars are a real thing, and they're rapidly getting cheaper and better.  Lots of companies are investing heavily in them.

Of course, they're unsuitable for air transport.  But they're a great solution for cars.

One thing you need to be careful about is casually tossing around the word "power source"-- you're conflating two very different things.  There are energy sources, and then there's energy storage.  They're not the same thing.

• An energy source is "where the energy ultimately comes from".
• An energy storage mechanism is a way of storing the energy in something light and compact enough that you can put it on a vehicle and move it around.

Fossil fuels such as gasoline muddy the waters, because they're both:  we're literally pulling chemical energy out of the ground, and putting it into our cars.  Gasoline is both a source and a storage mechanism.

Nuclear power, geothermal, wind power, water power, etc.:  These are sources, but they're not storage mechanisms.  You can't use them to run a car, directly.  So the only way to use these for vehicles is to find some storage mechanism.

Batteries, and hydrogen, are examples of storage mechanisms; they're not sources.  You have to have a way to charge the battery, or to generate the hydrogen.

So, we've got:

• fossil fuels, which work just fine for flying vehicles or ground vehicles, but is non-renewable and polluting;
• batteries, which work for ground vehicles but not flying ones
• hydrogen, which works for neither.

One additional possibility, which I haven't seen anyone mention, is ethanol.  It has an energy density comparable to fossil fuels (somewhat lower, but not critically so), and supposedly can be generated renewably and in an environmentally friendly fashion, and is non-polluting and carbon-neutral.  I expect you could build a reasonable flying vehicle that's ethanol-powered.

Regarding the renewable, environmentally friendly production of ethanol:  I say "supposedly" because there are numerous political and economic hurdles to actually making it so (at least in the US).  I really don't want to get into the reasons why the way we currently do it in the US is neither renewable nor environmentally friendly, because that would quickly get us into political territory and politics are out of bounds for the forum.  Also, different analyses have come to different conclusions about the net energy budget of ethanol production.  However, it seems at least somewhat plausible that it may be technically doable, aside from legal/political issues.

[Snark]

Regarding coal:

6 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

That's non-renewable, and is predicted to be gone before gas.

Certainly it's non-renewable.  And certainly, it's horrible for the environment.  But it's cheap, it's plentiful, and no, we're not going to run out of it any time soon.  The US is basically the Saudi Arabia of coal.  The US alone has estimated recoverable reserves of 255 billion short tons.  The peak year for US coal production thus far has been 2008, at 1.17 billion tons.  So, that's a couple of centuries' worth right there.

But in any case, regarding your statement,

6 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Solar, Wind, Hydro-electrical, or Geothermic and possibly Nuclear Power Plants that are large enough to benefit substantially enough to power houses, businesses and eventually your car.

Yup.  We really need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel.  Nobody's arguing with you, there.  Fossil fuel is nasty stuff, we've got a serious global warming problem, we're going to run out, it needs to go.

But if you're talking about powering a vehicle, then the answer is simple.  You have a ground vehicle, and you power it with batteries.  The other answer is that you use environmentally-friendly technology that doesn't waste energy.  Replace those incandescent bulbs with LEDs.  Make more efficient electrical appliances.  Drive very energy-efficient cars that aren't any larger or heavier than they need to be, and are nicely streamlined.

So, what you don't do:  you don't make incredibly wasteful, energy-hungry flying vehicles, when you could use nicely efficient ground vehicles instead.  And even if you didn't care about the wastage, you still wouldn't power them with hydrogen because it simply doesn't pack enough energy to keep them airborne for long enough to be useful.

TL;DR:  "flying vehicles for everyone" is a non-starter.

[ZooNamedGames]

5 minutes ago, Snark said:

Regarding coal:

Certainly it's non-renewable.  And certainly, it's horrible for the environment.  But it's cheap, it's plentiful, and no, we're not going to run out of it any time soon.  The US is basically the Saudi Arabia of coal.  The US alone has estimated recoverable reserves of 255 billion short tons.  The peak year for US coal production thus far has been 2008, at 1.17 billion tons.  So, that's a couple of centuries' worth right there.

But in any case, regarding your statement,

Yup.  We really need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel.  Nobody's arguing with you, there.  Fossil fuel is nasty stuff, we've got a serious global warming problem, we're going to run out, it needs to go.

But if you're talking about powering a vehicle, then the answer is simple.  You have a ground vehicle, and you power it with batteries.  The other answer is that you use environmentally-friendly technology that doesn't waste energy.  Replace those incandescent bulbs with LEDs.  Make more efficient electrical appliances.  Drive very energy-efficient cars that aren't any larger or heavier than they need to be, and are nicely streamlined.

So, what you don't do:  you don't make incredibly wasteful, energy-hungry flying vehicles that waste huge amounts of power.  And even if you didn't care about the wastage, you still wouldn't power them with hydrogen because it simply doesn't pack enough energy to keep them airborne for long enough to be useful.

TL;DR:  "flying vehicles for everyone" is a non-starter.

Can I jump ship from this conversation now?

[kiwi1960]

This has often been discussed in magazines since the 1930's... in my case, mainly popular mechanics and popular science.... they all say somehting like "within ten years...."
 

But they said the same about Moon colonies and everyone being able to go into space.... never happened, and till the politics of a moon colony is sorted out, it never will happen....

(who owns the colony, what if they declare independence..... )

However... it looks like this might happen... even in a limited way.... it won't be in every day use, but it will be allowed similar to flying a private air plane or glider ... with limited places they can be used. A machine discussed in the OP and in the video will have definite no fly zones.... not over residential areas and will come with a whole heap of laws and regulations.

The argument that a computer will be safe was never viable, not since the Titanic sank and with it,... claims that it was unsinkable....

besides.... no one has mentioned the obvious, criminals could use these to evade Police or land on banks because the rook is probably less protected than the front door....

So..... yes... it will happen.... give it ten years....

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by kiwi1960

[magnemoe]

7 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

This has often been discussed in magazines since the 1930's... in my case, mainly popular mechanics and popular science.... they all say somehting like "within ten years...."
 

But they said the same about Moon colonies and everyone being able to go into space.... never happened, and till the politics of a moon colony is sorted out, it never will happen....

(who owns the colony, what if they declare independence..... )

However... it looks like this might happen... even in a limited way.... it won't be in every day use, but it will be allowed similar to flying a private air plane or glider ... with limited places they can be used. A machine discussed in the OP and in the video will have definite no fly zones.... not over residential areas and will come with a whole heap of laws and regulations.

The argument that a computer will be safe was never viable, not since the Titanic sank and with it,... claims that it was unsinkable....

besides.... no one has mentioned the obvious, criminals could use these to evade Police or land on banks because the rook is probably less protected than the front door....

So..... yes... it will happen.... give it ten years....

Moon colonies is in large degree an economical question, we could have had them if we was willing to invest money, same with most other megaprojects, its an cost and an need, 
Yes cost here will go down and need increase however its an slow progress.

An flying car is more about pure technology, I see it would be an marked among users of helicopter today, This is for the classical flying car design, fans for VTOL and an lifting body to help once airborne. Benefit over helicopter would be that it would be both easier to land and you can drive it on roads to the takeoff area, it also look cool. 
So it would sell even if costing a million dollar.

Computers are safe as in most modern planes use fly by wire, no computer and the plane crashes, an fan design is easier here as long as enough fans run for it to land stable. 
You typical have an emergency computer who simply land you as fast as possible if the mains are out. If the main is running it would use the map to find an safe place to land.

You could also land on an bank with an helicopter, don't think it has been done but it has been prison escapes with helicopter.