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.

 

It is 09 now, and there is still no flying cars in the public

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I have heard many things in my life, like ETs, Psionics, Quantum Reality, etc., and also we have the technology to do it, but why aren't we able to make like, a base or something in mid air?

Also, there is no flying cars in the public streets, but there are everywhere in tech sites, and videos. When will they actually make it for all of us, instead of being greedy?




posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Funding.

The funding is not there.

Nasa wanted a manned mission to Mars, and asked bush for the money, bush giddily said yes, then asked how much, they muttered the numbers, and bush said no, and it was never spoken about again.

We can't be spending money on this stuff, when we're needing it to go to pakistani terrorist, AIG, BoA, etc etc....

I'm sure if NASA went out and started Putting up donation centers all over the US, they could make that money in no time. I'd donate quite a bit for it.


Were the money goes is were the most advances come from, except cancer for some reason.

It's not like the old days when we were coming up with gears and such, we need serious expensive items. And well everyone is kind of content with the world now.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoomoo
 


The ones on the sites, are prototypes, hardly worth trying for mass production, which you'd have to be Bernie Madoff, to afford.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Who will do the air traffic control for a million person city with air cars?

There's your answer.

These aren't coming anytime soon for the Jetson's type daily use. That lovely bubba who cut you off today in traffic? Yeah - imagine him cutting you off with little warning from any and every possible direction.

You think people can't merge in a single plane of movement. Oh man.

The only way I could see this ever happening on any massive scale is if most of the control of each unit was not in the hands of the rider.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
it's all bs. stop trusting in your system, it doesn't work, it never will and it will eventually have a system crash. time for an upgrade!



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Well I don't know about flying cars, but now I would just settle for electric ones.

I kind of see where you're going with this though. All those old movies from the 50's etc. of what life might be like in the future (our present).

Sigh...we had such great potential...didn't we?



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Shoomoo
 


It will not happen until the disclosure process is further along in its trickle down process. We have had Star Wars like technology since at least the sixties. That is why a lot of NASAs theoretical programs were shut down and why a lot of there probe missions fail IMO. We have already been there and done that. IMO the US government is around 3000 years ahead of public technology.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Cars and planes have different basic designs. When you try to merge the two you end up with a vehicle that does nothing very well.

Still, it would be intensely cool.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Trillions are budgeted secretly into black projects my friend....

We are probably far past any of those things and we simply will never know.

Hence why the government has a don't ask don't tell policy....



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by cia212
Cars and planes have different basic designs. When you try to merge the two you end up with a vehicle that does nothing very well.

Still, it would be intensely cool.


You can, helicopters are basically flying cars! The basic fuselage(body) of many helicopters hardly serve any aerodynamic purpose at all, except the tiny vertical fin in the tail in addition to the tail rotor which serve to stabilize it at sufficient forward speed. The symmetric fuselage only serves to avoid any departure from a straight flight.

It would be slightly complicated for a flying car because instead of using large rotors as in a helicopter, it will have to use smaller ones. They are generally more difficult to maintain stability so a fly-by-wire system has to be used.

Also smaller rotors are generally unreliable in case of emergencies - engine trouble/shutting down. A controllable vehicle recovery system has to be used, commonly a huge parachute that will float the vehicle to the ground.


[edit on 17-6-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
There are a few designs, nothing has really gone mainstream though..

Here is a thread about a Honda concept...www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a picture of the car:

(See thread for image credit)



There is also the Skycar:


Google Video Link



The Moller Skycar is a bit older design but it can actually fly somewhat, both the Honda Fuzo and Skycar use VTOL propulsion.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I did recently just see a flying car In developement, that is said to release in 2011

www.terrafugia.com...

I think it is known as the Terrafugia.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Well, I dont think we have flying cars for 2 reasons:

A) technology has not been developed to that point- yet

B) even if we did develop them, the goverment wouldn't let the public have them because they are so greedy

Anyhow, I think that the closest you can get to a flying car is a personal helicopter. However, I think I know how we can easily build one. What if we were to attach a giant mega power fan to the bottom of a small, light weight vehicle? Im sure it would hover.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoomoo
I have heard many things in my life, like ETs, Psionics, Quantum Reality, etc., and also we have the technology to do it, but why aren't we able to make like, a base or something in mid air?

Also, there is no flying cars in the public streets, but there are everywhere in tech sites, and videos. When will they actually make it for all of us, instead of being greedy?


People where I live can barely drive on the ground, let alone in the air!



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by desertdreamer
 


Brilliant!!!


People where I live can barely drive on the ground, let alone in the air!


Enjoy!




posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wilt456
Well, I dont think we have flying cars for 2 reasons:

A) technology has not been developed to that point- yet


The technology has been around ever since the end of WW2. But before Fly-By-Wire control was developed, only seasoned pilots could fly it.

Now even a baby could fly them. There are now fully-featured flying car prototypes flying, propelled by gas-turbine engines, same engines used in helicopters...

But they have similar fuel economy to helicopters.... Imagine if many million of these things are flying simultaneously, it would cause the prices of oil and goods to skyrocket, not good for the economy and the poor.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I agree with DesertDreamer, and Weedwacker.
The last thing we need are a lot of unqualified pilots roaming the skies. There is a reason why pilot training is so intensive and expensive. The majority of the people out there would probably fail the flight physical.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 




Now even a baby could fly them.


Ahem. Yeah. Right.

"...even a baby..."

Uh hum.....sure.

I see your sarcasm, and raise you! :baby:

Oh....no emoticon, yet, for the :baby: ?? Well, perhaps the ATS staff will construct one?

Carrying on....:


There are now fully-featured flying car prototypes flying, propelled by gas-turbine engines, same engines used in helicopters...


Oh, really??? "gas-turbine" engines?? In 'fully-featured' flying car prototypes???

DO TELL!!!!!

Do you even KNOW what a "gas-turbine" engine is?? Or, just thinking of what you've seen from Science Fiction? Oh sure, let's all rally 'round the turbine engine, for automobiles!!!!

Well...it has a cool "whine".....but still.....costs a lot, because we have to find this specialized fuel (JET-A) which is SO expensive!!!! (I mean, at some airports, JET-A is as much as $7 a gallon!!!! OR MORE!!!!

OK...I've had some fun....but seriously........

The [concept] of a flying car? Well, possibly likely. In practical applications, it is, unfortunately, just not feasible UNTIL, and UNLESS all control is allowed to be taken over by some A/I system (yet to be developed).

Because, as pointed out at the beginning....we just don't want a bunch of idiots in flying cars!! We have enough on the flat roads, as it is.......



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
People have had grounded cars for over a 100 years and within that 100 years of practice, they've actually become WORSE drivers. You'll likely be buying a comercial amphibious car before you buy one that flies. The government isn't keeping the cool things for themselves, their protecting the public from their own stupidity.

In the time It took you to read this post, there were 5 car crashes. 2 of which involved alcohol.


[edit on 18-6-2009 by Eitimzevinten]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Do you even KNOW what a "gas-turbine" engine is?? Or, just thinking of what you've seen from Science Fiction? Oh sure, let's all rally 'round the turbine engine, for automobiles!!!!



Glad you asked, I actually built a 'micro-gas turbine' engine from scratch and fueled by cheap lamp kerosene when I was 14! It was of hybrid axial and centrifugal compressor design and axial turbine made of steel - so you could expect it didn't survive to this day!
An improved 'free flow exhaust' design was under way which supposed to be more efficient and reliable, but the secondary fuel chamber exploded during tests, and my parents banned me from doing this project again!


I stand corrected though, while they mentioned gas turbine, they had to settle for a cheaper and higher fuel economy alternative:


A turbine can meet this weight requirement; however, a small 100 HP turbo-shaft can cost $100,000, while a single 1000 HP turbo-shaft can cost $300,000. The smaller turbo-shaft gives a poor specific fuel consumption, while the single engine provides no back up. Any design using turbo-fan engines will expect even higher engine costs. A turbo-fan using disc loading like the Harrier generates only one half pound of lift for every horsepower. Hence, the Harrier requires approximately 40,000 HP with little payload capability in the VTOL mode. To meet the 2 HP/lb requirement in a small fuel-efficient form, only two engine alternatives appear to be possible at an economical cost:

• A turbo-charged or super-charged fuel injected 2-cycle engine. This engine would need to be developed.

• A rotary engine that employs aluminum housings, peripheral porting and an air-cooled rotor. Engines of this design are in existence.


www.moller.com...

They have videos of some test flights too. Browse on and you'll see how they might make it easy enough to be flown by a baby(you don't know that idiom?? What planet are you from??)


[edit on 18-6-2009 by ahnggk]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join