It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flying cars to solve congestion

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
So how do they hover steadily without using anti gravity technology that is denied?




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by orby1976
 


Well according the to members on this thread they only need to hover so they can safely maneuver in for take off and landing, the rest is powered flight.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Jeez. Has nobody on this site heard of Paul Moller? He's been at this for years. His Skycar has been on the cover of Popular Mechanics back in the late 80s-early 90s (can't remember the exact month of the issue).

Here's his website:

Moller International



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
We have enough problems finding enough fuel/energy to accelerate in ONE direction, let alone fuel millions of personal airborne transportation units.

No. It won't be 20 years. The time it takes to make something like that work, is the time it takes to find a new, much more efficient fuel source.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Yes, sorry i'll post a source for you now, was hoping you were more informed.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Not sure if they are all vert lift jets, but I know the Harrier is

www.globalsecurity.org...


The others may, but I didnt read them, was giving the info and something I knew out of experiance.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Oh and if you think it is impossible for smaller craft

www.moller.com...

From the guy working on the Skycar.. the mainstream flying car



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   



They hover. Sorry for shortness but its simple


There is nothing in the article to say that they hover?? Anyhow, how do they expect to generate enough downward thrust to lift the weight of the vehicle, two passengers and luggage off the ground with an electric engine and still have enough energy left to power 200-300 miles of flight? If they DO hover then i'm sure Boeing are clever enough to have figured this out but i'm going on the assumption at present that they don't hover.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
It looks impresive but what about the down blast from its engines. You could see it disturbing the ground.
Wouldn't like one to fly over head lol.
or above my roof and blow the tiles off



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty



They hover. Sorry for shortness but its simple


There is nothing in the article to say that they hover?? Anyhow, how do they expect to generate enough downward thrust to lift the weight of the vehicle, two passengers and luggage off the ground with an electric engine and still have enough energy left to power 200-300 miles of flight? If they DO hover then i'm sure Boeing are clever enough to have figured this out but i'm going on the assumption at present that they don't hover.


Read above and watch video please, its hard for me to explain without going into schematical referance.. (thats how my mind works so its hard to describe)



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Ahhhh "The Flying Car". An Icon of science fiction, I have often pondered a future when personal travel would no longer be confined to ribbons of concrete and blacktop. We would all be able to fly to our destinations "as the crow flies" -- literally.

In the media we have been tantalized by images of the "flying car" in films such as "Star Wars" (remember Luke Skywalker flying across his desert planet and into your imagination?) and "Fifth Element" (with flying cars being so commonplace that Bruce Willis was the driver of a Flying Cab!). And, of course, we do have "the Jetsons", a cartoon which probably brought a generation their first glimpse at the possibilities that the future might hold in store.

Over the years, we have been promised "the flying car" with futuristic mock-ups and artist renditions being released to tease an innate, deep-rooted desire to fly above the clouds like Icarus. The reality is that a flying car would simply take the congestion that we find -- earthbound -- on our freeways and take it skyward. We might not have "congestion" per se but we certainly would have a new set of concerns: air borne crashes, "sky rage", youthful offenders joy-riding outside of prescribed "sky-lanes". We really would be trading one set of problems for another -- another that is potentially fraught with more complications than our present mode of transportation, the automobile.

Nevertheless, the flying car is a staple of our imaginations....



[edit on 5/12/2008 by benevolent tyrant]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
How safe will we be as home owners though, i bought my house away from a main road so my children would be safe. And now cars could be flying overhead. What's to stop them falling out of the sky and crashing through someones home



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Trial and failure.

The first cars werent the safest, still arnt but they arnt as bad anymore I suppose.

Its a new tech with new dangers and new safetys need put in. Its NOT going to be safe right away, just give it time. your house isnt a likey target for some dumb "whats this button do" guy or the one that jus cant seem to go right and turns left.

You need to take tests and such to drive these just like a car, and though shakey at first people will learn eventually



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I suppose its just like the wright brothers really.
keep going till you get it right.
It's the inbetween that worries me



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Better be safe then sorry, or throw caution to the wind for a better advancement? I choose to go ahead and risk when needed(or not)
Its just the way of things with such effect as that. What about the first steam boats, Titanic, The Hercules. They all had different expectations and didnt do proper the first time (the Titanic didnt get a 2nd
)



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
IMO the more realistic future would likely be autopilot cars than flying ones. There will be sensors in the pavement and cars will be completely computerized.

There will no longer be traffic jams because human error, emotion or just plain bad driving will be taken out of the equation. No traffic signs or lights will be needed to impede or stop automobiles as the computers will keep cars rolling equidistant (goodbye tailgater's) at all times. Vehicles can then all be run at high speeds all the time.

I don't know about you but I look forward to getting in my car in the morning and not having to drive it. In the future actual driving will likely be against the law and only allowed on race tracks and the like. Of course we will still have accidents, most caused by people modifying their vehicles so they can override the computer.

Yes, I know! It sounds like something is being taken away, rights, privileges. Well, IMO driving is neither a right or a privilege and to just hand out licenses to everyone just because they are 16 is absolute lunacy. 70% of all drivers don't belong behind the wheel of a car. You're too dumb to get thru school but hey, here's a 3,000 lb projectile for you to play with.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I just want to comment on people who think stuff like there wont be for 50 years etc

If we always think like that nothing would get done, because the people in 50 years will also say not for another 50 years.

The future is NOW! We make the future happen. This is a time of great change, we ARE in the future people have always imagined, it's just not complete yet.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Man, I love journalists who state the obvious. I wonder how long it took him/her to figure it out. That is as obvious as saying, "OMG were running our of oil what do we do?", "I have a great idea!, let's find a new type of energy and write about it.", "By God John your a genius!"



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
IMO the more realistic future would likely be autopilot cars than flying ones. There will be sensors in the pavement and cars will be completely computerized.

There will no longer be traffic jams because human error, emotion or just plain bad driving will be taken out of the equation. No traffic signs or lights will be needed to impede or stop automobiles as the computers will keep cars rolling equidistant (goodbye tailgater's) at all times. Vehicles can then all be run at high speeds all the time.

I don't know about you but I look forward to getting in my car in the morning and not having to drive it. In the future actual driving will likely be against the law and only allowed on race tracks and the like. Of course we will still have accidents, most caused by people modifying their vehicles so they can override the computer.

Yes, I know! It sounds like something is being taken away, rights, privileges. Well, IMO driving is neither a right or a privilege and to just hand out licenses to everyone just because they are 16 is absolute lunacy. 70% of all drivers don't belong behind the wheel of a car. You're too dumb to get thru school but hey, here's a 3,000 lb projectile for you to play with.


Some yes some no. They need an override because, well.. machines fail.
I wouldnt like my driving privilages taken because the future says so, im beyond a good driver, and hope I never decide to take the police for a spin.

I mean by that, I do some things machines dont think to do



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by orby1976
 


Well said OP, the dangers associated with falling wreckage has never truly been addressed in western society, even when it is to do with catastrophes such as aviontic malfunctions.

You'll remember when NASA freaked everyone out with that satelliete that was falling out the sky, and no one knew where it was going to land?

Well, imagine that, but with a million more satellietes.

People'll be living in bunkers for god's sake.

T'wud be somewhat hypocritical for us to deal with the problem only once it reached a noticable standard of hazard, and of course - no one has the kind of cash needed to fit every single house with anti-flaming wreckage roof lining.

The human rights crowd would never ave' it, i reckon.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
There are already such things as flying cars
AIRPLANES



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join