Jump to content

The Future, Now!


NeatCrown

Recommended Posts

A week or so ago, I watched the "Back to The Future" Trilogy (Lazy day). As the second installment came along, I said how ridiculous the future they thought what we'd have today wasn't and couldn't. Afterwards, stumbled upon daily planet, who happened to be showing the concept of a hoverboard using hovercraft technology. (Sorry, couldn't find any pictures for the hovercraftboard) Sure, it's not exactly like the one from movies, but that's close enough for me! We have a flying car already!

transitionhess.jpg

or

aeromobil-flyingcar-9.jpg

(But not the sci-fi type)

Maybe we're not too far off from the Movies' futures after all!

Edited by NeatCrown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.... we might not have flying cars and hover boards for the general public, but i'd still say technology has taken a huge flight since those movies. Just not in the expected direction. We've had pretty much a digital revolution in stead. Even dumbphones weren't even in general use back then; now we practically all have a supercomputer in our pockets with touch screens, and so much connectivity no one could even have dreamed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A week or so ago, I watched the "Back to The Future" Trilogy (Lazy day). As the second installment came along, I said how ridiculous the future they thought what we'd have today wasn't and couldn't. Afterwards, stumbled upon daily planet, who happened to be showing the concept of a hoverboard using hovercraft technology. (Sorry, couldn't find any pictures for the hovercraftboard) Sure, it's not exactly like the one from movies, but that's close enough for me! We have a flying car already!

http://www.vasanth.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/transitionhess.jpg

or

http://images.gizmag.com/inline/aeromobil-flyingcar-9.jpg

(But not the sci-fi type)

Maybe we're not too far off from the Movies' futures after all!

Not really flying cars, just fold up planes. Maybe you can drive them, but you'll never fly them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying them doesn't take much more than a pilots license.

Really the biggest issue preventing any massive flying car revolution is the legal side of it. Suddenly insurance companies would need to take the idea of 'plane' crashes hitting their buildings seriously. The maintenance of these vehicles would HAVE to be at the level of aircraft maintenance which is more intense then the maintenance of your random car which will increase the price, but it would have to be enforced legally. Chances are high that the cars wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a city, meaning that the last leg of your journey to work will be the same crush it always is, but it lets you work from even further away. They'd have to completely redo airtraffic control (which they already are going to have to do for drones, so this point is less of an issue then it was). Inevitably there would be a demand for anti-aircraft weaponry from police agencies, which leads to further increased requirements on regulations, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the answer should be simple: all auto-piloted vehicles. This would not reduce the potential damage from a crash, but it would enable unskilled pilots to fly low around cities and land on extremely short runways. Legal problems might still be difficult to get around.

Personally, I think we should just go with obsessive implementation of mass transit systems; you should ride the train or bus wherever you are gong in a city. Small vehicles like cars should probably just be used in remote areas without special infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inevitably there would be a demand for anti-aircraft weaponry from police agencies

What for¿ There is not much anti-car weaponry either (the only thing that comes to mind are the different types of spikes) and I am pretty sure we don't want to shoot down flying vehicles unless they pose an even greater threat than that. If your carplane breaks some law, then you can follow it (secretly landing and hiding is much more difficult than just taking an unexpected turn to escape a police car on the ground).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the answer should be simple: all auto-piloted vehicles. This would not reduce the potential damage from a crash, but it would enable unskilled pilots to fly low around cities and land on extremely short runways. Legal problems might still be difficult to get around.

Personally, I think we should just go with obsessive implementation of mass transit systems; you should ride the train or bus wherever you are gong in a city. Small vehicles like cars should probably just be used in remote areas without special infrastructure.

You might be interested in moving to Finland (I think it is Finland, it is one of the Scandinavian countries). They have a goal that by 2020 (?) to have this single card that you pay for every month/year. With this car you can say "I need a bike" and swipe it across the terminal at the bike dispenser and now you are renting a bike. Drop it off at any dispenser. Same with cars. The idea is to make it so unnecessary to own your own method of transportation that while you can still own a car, it becomes strictly just a luxury.

Scandinavian countries are awesome.

ZetaX: They don't necessarily need much anti-car weaponry (other then the spikes as you point out) because it is quite easy for them to prevent cars from getting to places. They just put their own cars in the way. With a plane, your options are much more limited. Any police agency for a major city is going to be tasked with protecting it from assorted dangers, such as a flying car loaded with explosives. However unlikely this is, they are going to want to be able to say that if there is something like a major baseball game going on, they can take care of the issue. I find this moderately unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they won't use it as an example and thus get their AA weaponry. Remember, for some reason police agencies are managing to acquire military grade MRAPs (mine resistant armored personnel carriers). How often have these been needed in the USA? So rarely enough that quite frankly, they don't need them. If things get to the point where you need a vehicle like that, you should bring in the National Guard or something. Regardless, they will want them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What for¿ There is not much anti-car weaponry either (the only thing that comes to mind are the different types of spikes) and I am pretty sure we don't want to shoot down flying vehicles unless they pose an even greater threat than that. If your carplane breaks some law, then you can follow it (secretly landing and hiding is much more difficult than just taking an unexpected turn to escape a police car on the ground).

Well following a plane is the hard part... you'd need airforce pilots' skills to be able to follow them at close range properly unless your following via chopper which like car/motorcycle if one floors it then the other is left behind since helicopters can't obtain the same speed as a jet engine aircraft unless it's military grade ofc but that comes back to the air force... So anti-air would still be needed... more than likely mobile SAMs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mobile SAMs seem absurd for all but the most ridiculously bad situations/action movies. There is very little justification to begin for taking down an aircraft in a city deliberately. It will crash into buildings, other vehicles, people. And that would not be what most police agencies are going for even in dire situations. I mentioned before the possibility of running these on autopilot mostly, assuming that flying low in an urban area might be difficult for the average driver. If that were the case, most vehicles could be taken over by the police in a serious situation, and landed remotely. More often I think we would have things as they do now, perhaps the police radio you to land, or otherwise 'pull you over'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mobile SAMs seem absurd for all but the most ridiculously bad situations/action movies. There is very little justification to begin for taking down an aircraft in a city deliberately. It will crash into buildings, other vehicles, people. And that would not be what most police agencies are going for even in dire situations. I mentioned before the possibility of running these on autopilot mostly, assuming that flying low in an urban area might be difficult for the average driver. If that were the case, most vehicles could be taken over by the police in a serious situation, and landed remotely. More often I think we would have things as they do now, perhaps the police radio you to land, or otherwise 'pull you over'.

Alright and this will happen- hijacked. All remote connections disabled. How you gonna take it down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if hijacked, the one(s) responsible will probably not be too keen on dying, so at some point they will have to land or leave the city. At worst, they run out of fuel and come down that way, which sounds still more controlled than shooting it down.

If we want these in cities, we probably want them to be autopilot only anyway. Humans are probably neither capable nor responsible enough to this themselves. So don't even add a stiring wheel/joystick/whatever that would use. A simple terminal to enter destinations and such is enough.

Edited by ZetaX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if hijacked, the one(s) responsible will probably not be too keen on dying, so at some point they will have to land or leave the city. At worst, they run out of fuel and come down that way, which sounds still more controlled than shooting it down.

If we want these in cities, we probably want them to be autopilot only anyway. Humans are probably neither capable nor responsible enough to this themselves. So don't even add a stiring wheel/joystick/whatever that would use. A simple terminal to enter destinations and such is enough.

Well I'd say your right about them wanting to return to the ground alive.... but then I'm reminded of 9/11... something tells me those planes were never going to see the ground again in one piece... Same for the hijacked passenger plane destined for the White House... and that WAS piloted by professionals not civilians like we're talking about...

So that's not going to be a problem and besides- if he were to leave the city ITS STILL THEFT! And avoiding arrest... so you STILL cant let them go... and if they run out of fuel- unless its been a while since its last refuel that means you've let him stay in the air WAY to long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism is different, as this is one of the very few cases where shooting them down may reduce the harm caused. But like with other kinds of terrorism, this is a job for the military, not for the police.

ITS STILL THEFT! And avoiding arrest... so you STILL cant let them go... and if they run out of fuel- unless its been a while since its last refuel that means you've let him stay in the air WAY to long.

So you would suggest stopping theft by killing the thief, destroying the stolen vehicle in the process and possible causing more damage and fatalities on the ground¿ Sorry, but I don't understand the morality behind that.

I would already be against shooting him down even if there will be no damage on the ground; there is no gain for anyone involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism is different, as this is one of the very few cases where shooting them down may reduce the harm caused. But like with other kinds of terrorism, this is a job for the military, not for the police.

So you would suggest stopping theft by killing the thief, destroying the stolen vehicle in the process and possible causing more damage and fatalities on the ground¿ Sorry, but I don't understand the morality behind that.

I would already be against shooting him down even if there will be no damage on the ground; there is no gain for anyone involved.

Well he's a criminal- how is gonna get arrested...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if our technique to catch them is not to- then crime is gonna skyrocket.

If your technike is nuking a city because someone stole a dollar, then your people are gonna die out. Also, protests (leading to more nuking).

A bit more seriously, would you want it to rain cars every time some guy steals one¿

And now in full seriosity, what makes you think that all of them escape¿ It's not like they magically are safe when they leave the city. Still no reason to shoot them down there. Also, you probably have lots of relevant data to track him down later. And if that veficle is fully automatic, police could have a way to take over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your technike is nuking a city because someone stole a dollar, then your people are gonna die out. Also, protests (leading to more nuking).

A bit more seriously, would you want it to rain cars every time some guy steals one¿

And now in full seriosity, what makes you think that all of them escape¿ It's not like they magically are safe when they leave the city. Still no reason to shoot them down there. Also, you probably have lots of relevant data to track him down later. And if that veficle is fully automatic, police could have a way to take over.

Our scenario is that the vehicle is hijacked- all remote connections disabled. He may not be a terrorist but he IS a criminal... how are you going to stop him? Since letting him go isn't an option and auto control has been disabled. So- how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our scenario is that the vehicle is hijacked- all remote connections disabled. He may not be a terrorist but he IS a criminal... how are you going to stop him? Since letting him go isn't an option and auto control has been disabled. So- how?

I follow him till he runs out of gas or lands for other reasons. It's completely the same in many car hijackings: they follow it until there is either a safe way to stop the car without too much danger or untill the driver stops for whatever reason. What they don't do is shooting rocket launchers at the car, despite this definitely being a "working" solution.

And in the car I described above, there is _only_ auto control. No stiring wheel. No manual overide. Just a play "get me to X"-interface and maybe some gimicks like air-conditioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantasy lets us mix two things. In real life, we may not be able to mix them.

A "flying car" is an "aircraft". Either VTOL or take off like a plane. We have both already (helicopters etc). A "flying car" is just a very power hungry VTOL ni a small space. However there are limiting factors on power density and controllability of craft which makes it very hard or difficult.

Should battery tech become cheaper, I could see a prop powered VTOL aircraft about the size of a car for short distance "hops". But the fact we don't already have a petrol version suggest we may never get one.

Some things just don't mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I follow him till he runs out of gas or lands for other reasons. It's completely the same in many car hijackings: they follow it until there is either a safe way to stop the car without too much danger or untill the driver stops for whatever reason. What they don't do is shooting rocket launchers at the car, despite this definitely being a "working" solution.

And in the car I described above, there is _only_ auto control. No stiring wheel. No manual overide. Just a play "get me to X"-interface and maybe some gimicks like air-conditioning.

Well it'll happen eventually... so we're assuming he's using black market goods to add in control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it'll happen eventually... so we're assuming he's using black market goods to add in control.

I find that implausible to work in most real life scenarios. Anyway, that was just an addendum, the main argument is still that you don't shoot them down at all for the reasons given above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...