You get a flying car factory (RAR!)

[Broomstick]

I would just like to remind people that the last time a small aircraft smashed into the White House the airplane wound up like a crumpled ball of tinfoil and they sent someone out to replace the sod divot and dab some paint on the scraped siding. (It was during the Clinton years, if you don't remember)

While I wouldn't want to be run over by one of the things the amount of damage they could cause would be limited. You wouldn't get something like 9/11 unless you used an airplane as large as one of the ones used then. Otherwise, you're looking at the equivalent of a car or truck bomb which, well, we already have those. Still serious stuff, but not some new level of death.

[Purple]

I would just like to remind people that the last time a small aircraft smashed into the White House the airplane wound up like a crumpled ball of tinfoil and they sent someone out to replace the sod divot and dab some paint on the scraped siding. (It was during the Clinton years, if you don't remember)

While I wouldn't want to be run over by one of the things the amount of damage they could cause would be limited. You wouldn't get something like 9/11 unless you used an airplane as large as one of the ones used then. Otherwise, you're looking at the equivalent of a car or truck bomb which, well, we already have those. Still serious stuff, but not some new level of death.

How many car bombs do you know that deliver to the 30th floor? And that is a serious consideration. Even if we assume a building is no easier to topple from the middle than it is from the bottom you still run a high risk of blowing out elevators and fire stairs whilst setting the area above you on fire. Which leaves a lot of people in a rather nasty spot. Well until the police comes to evacuate them with their own flying cars.

[Enigma]

I'd sell off the tech to various corporations before the government decides that the flying car factory is too dangerous to remain in operation. Then retire in style.

[Borgholio]

As asked by other posters, what kind of autopilot does it have? There are issues with safety of course, but possible terrorist acts too. If these flying cars are not capable of manual input (that is, you tell it the address and it flies you there without any user intervention), then issues of dumbass drivers and terrorists are pretty much nullified since they won't be able to be programmed to fly into buildings, or have some hotshot 16 year old take the wheel of dad's skycar and go for a spin. With a safe autopilot, I would start by building only the truck model. Companies like UPS or Fedex would cream themselves over the idea of a skytruck that can cut delivery times to a fraction of what they once were, while also saving a great deal on fuel costs. Once people are used to sky-vehicles being around (and safety concerns alleviated by seeing thousands of delivery skytrucks with no major incidents), I will release the base and sport models for the public to purchase.

I would also license the battery technology to conventional automakers, and the anti-grav technology to aircraft manufacturers and "friendly" militaries to make some extra coin.

If there is no autopilot, or if it's easy to bypass, then I would not sell these things to the public at all. Far too dangerous. Instead, I would simply license out the technology and I would not build the skycars until I could figure out a way to make them idiot and asshat proof.

[Broomstick]

How many car bombs do you know that deliver to the 30th floor?

We already have aircraft with these capabilities We've had them since the 1950's.

Are airplane bombs a chronic on-going problem? No. There was one day of extremely high-profile incidents in 2001 utilizing airplanes much heavier and faster than what's described here. There was a disgruntled guy smashing into an IRS office. There was a disgruntled teenager smashing a small Cessna (similar weight, less speed than what's described in OP) who smashed up a lawyer's office in a skyscraper. Those are the only ones I recall. Can you name any others? The latter two instances caused about as much, or less, damage than a typical car bomb.

It's a threat we've been under for at least 60 years. I don't feel it's enough that would should outlaw what would be a significant advance in transportation.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm going to stick to a modified version of my original plan. Frankly, given the fancy high-capacity batteries It will be much better/safer to simply sell the battery technology to auto companies and create viable electric cars. Sell the other tech to the military and never again mention flying cars except when very drunk (and only then in the same sentence as pink elephants and airborne pigs).

[Borgholio]

How many car bombs do you know that deliver to the 30th floor?

We already have aircraft with these capabilities We've had them since the 1950's.

Are airplane bombs a chronic on-going problem? No. There was one day of extremely high-profile incidents in 2001 utilizing airplanes much heavier and faster than what's described here. There was a disgruntled guy smashing into an IRS office. There was a disgruntled teenager smashing a small Cessna (similar weight, less speed than what's described in OP) who smashed up a lawyer's office in a skyscraper. Those are the only ones I recall. Can you name any others? The latter two instances caused about as much, or less, damage than a typical car bomb.

It's a threat we've been under for at least 60 years. I don't feel it's enough that would should outlaw what would be a significant advance in transportation.

I think the bigger issue is not a bomb exactly, it's the large number of barely-sentient apes that move from 2d travel to 3d travel. I think the havoc that could be caused by taking the average driver off the road and putting them into the sky far exceeds anybody deliberately trying to fly into a building.

[Broomstick]

^This.

I'm not as worried about terrorists as the average drunk/high/innately stupid idiot.

[Simon_Jester]

Right, but ultimately that seems to be the issue most people have in mind.

The number of people who can be trained to be a pilot, and adhere to the kind of strictures that it takes to make a person safe to be trusted with operating an aircraft, is probably a minority of the population. You need things like mid-level mathematical literacy, the responsibility to not fly drunk or stoned, et cetera.

That's why I agree with those who want to do delivery trucks first. Commercial drivers already have a more rigorous licensing process, although adding a pilot's license is a bit onerous. Really, what this is going to do is give us aircraft with the performance and (relative) user-friendliness of a light fixed-wing airplane, and give it the VTOL capability of a helicopter so it can operate at places other than fixed runways.

The repitition does get irksome when you read all six of the original series back to back, true. He learned his lesson and started cutting down on it from book five onwards. And I guess that level of detail is kind of unavoidable if you combine limited third person with a plot full of behind the scenes intrigue and wheeler-dealing. The books might have benefited from not having all the action take place from Geary's point of view, with everything he didn't witness being exposition.

Still, all the exposition is directly relevant to the plot and there's not actually that much of it, so personally I can forgive him that.

It just feels tedious- not because there's so much of it, Lord knows Weber has four times as much exposition in books that take 2-3 times as long to advance the same amount of plot. But because it's all written in this very dry, flat tone, and parts of it are repetitive.

Plus they have their own version of the "does not use contractions" thing going on. I mean, I swear, if he'd just write 'ammo' every time he uses the words 'expendable munitions,' it would shorten the book by thirty pages...

Hemry's writing is pretty dry and passionless, and the characters are kind of cardboardy. Geary himself is the only one who really makes the jump from one-dimensional to two-dimensional, at least in the first several novels.

Weber's not great at writing complex characters, but frankly he did a better job than Hemry.

Again, I think that's mostly down to everything happening from Geary's point of view. It's not until The Lost Stars -which doesn't even have Geary in it at all- that Hemry stops doing that, and it's a noticeable improvement.

Heh.

So maybe it's partly that Hemry needed to improve as a writer, and partly that Geary's perspective on events has a sort of... glassy unreality, a flat psychological affect because he's a fish out of water and everything's a little bit unreal to him?

And only the hippies. Unless these things come with clean reactors on the side all those electric cars will still fill up from coal fueled power stations.

STILL better; you get lower emissions from a single power plant that can have a scrubber fitted than you do from hundreds of thousands of individual vehicles. Also makes it easier to mandate something like carbon offsets- it becomes part of the price of electricity, and you no longer have to tax individuals who burn the carbon.

Speaking of power though here is a thought. Batteries like this could be used for large energy storage. Forget pumped water and dams. Just scale some of these batteries up and you are good to go. This might well revolutionize the utility or renewable sources like solar or wind that depend on the weather.

Agreed!

[Crazedwraith]

... How did you get the stuff from the Lost Fleet Sage imbedded in the middle of your post there Simon?

[Broomstick]

Right, but ultimately that seems to be the issue most people have in mind.

The number of people who can be trained to be a pilot, and adhere to the kind of strictures that it takes to make a person safe to be trusted with operating an aircraft, is probably a minority of the population.

Yes and no. Operating a single-engine prop-driven airplane with, say, tech from about 1950-1980 is about as difficult as driving a stick shift. Actually, considering how shit my stick-shift transmission skills are compared to my flying skills arguably it is LESS difficult. (No, really, probably about the same - I just haven't worked as hard on stick-shift cars.) Navigation can be more difficult, but modern GPS has taken care of a lot of the problem there. A general aviation level flight management system combined with digital/computer engine control so you no longer have to worry about leaning/enriching the fuel mix and such and it's well within the scope of the average driver.

You need things like mid-level mathematical literacy

Not really. For daily use it's basic math using canned formulas.

the responsibility to not fly drunk or stoned, et cetera.

^ THAT's the sticking point.

Flying a small plane isn't hard. Being responsible is hard. I shudder to think of pilots texting while flying. {{{shudder}}} <- see, there's the shudder.

That's why I agree with those who want to do delivery trucks first. Commercial drivers already have a more rigorous licensing process, although adding a pilot's license is a bit onerous.

Not really. Hell, at one point I started learning what was needed to get a commercial pilot's license, the main obstacle from my viewpoint was 1) the needed money and 2) no strong motivation to make the upgrade. I got the private license because it was required in order to legally fly the airplanes I wanted to fly. If you're not flying commercially you don't need a commercial license. John Travolta flies a freakin' B-707 on a private pilot license (with type add-on). If I had a surplus of cash :::sound of laughter::: I would have done it for improving my chops and small bragging rights.

Anyhow - no, getting a pilot's license is not that onerous. If you can legitimately get a commercial driver's license you are capable of getting a pilot's license, heck a commercial pilot's license.

Now, the IFR rating, that IS a bit tougher...

Really, what this is going to do is give us aircraft with the performance and (relative) user-friendliness of a light fixed-wing airplane, and give it the VTOL capability of a helicopter so it can operate at places other than fixed runways.

Yep. And if they're less expensive, less complex, and less prone to failure than helicopters rotorcraft will get kicked to the curb for most uses and become the domain of hobbyists and the occasional commercial advertising gimmick just like gyrocopters and airships have.

[Simon_Jester]

... How did you get the stuff from the Lost Fleet Sage imbedded in the middle of your post there Simon?

Reflexive copy-pasting, which I often use to reply to three people in the same post. It betrayed me.

Right, but ultimately that seems to be the issue most people have in mind.

The number of people who can be trained to be a pilot, and adhere to the kind of strictures that it takes to make a person safe to be trusted with operating an aircraft, is probably a minority of the population.

Yes and no. Operating a single-engine prop-driven airplane with, say, tech from about 1950-1980 is about as difficult as driving a stick shift. Actually, considering how shit my stick-shift transmission skills are compared to my flying skills arguably it is LESS difficult. (No, really, probably about the same - I just haven't worked as hard on stick-shift cars.) Navigation can be more difficult, but modern GPS has taken care of a lot of the problem there. A general aviation level flight management system combined with digital/computer engine control so you no longer have to worry about leaning/enriching the fuel mix and such and it's well within the scope of the average driver.

It's not the technical complexity, it's the competence burden, because the consequences of screwing up are more drastic. People already crash cars in vast numbers, but most of those crashes are nonfatal and often even non-harmful to human beings. Speaking as someone who's been the primary person at fault in two accidents involving two and one vehicles respectively... I drive, because I must, and I manage to survive. If I had to fly on a day to day basis I might well have died of CFITitis.

You need things like mid-level mathematical literacy

Not really. For daily use it's basic math using canned formulas.

Have you tried teaching high school math? Trust me, that's mid-level mathematical literacy.

"Can use canned formulas and get the right answer ninety-plus percent of the time" is mid-level. By contrast, "can balance checkbook given time and a pocket calculator" is low-level, and "can derive canned formulas from other canned formulas" is high-level.

I wish it were otherwise.

the responsibility to not fly drunk or stoned, et cetera.

^ THAT's the sticking point.

Not really. Hell, at one point I started learning what was needed to get a commercial pilot's license, the main obstacle from my viewpoint was 1) the needed money and 2) no strong motivation to make the upgrade. I got the private license because it was required in order to legally fly the airplanes I wanted to fly. If you're not flying commercially you don't need a commercial license. John Travolta flies a freakin' B-707 on a private pilot license (with type add-on). If I had a surplus of cash :::sound of laughter::: I would have done it for improving my chops and small bragging rights.

No, no no.

It's not that getting a commercial pilot's license is harder than a normal pilot's license. It's that getting a commercial driver's license is harder than getting a normal driver's license. And there's already a system in place for, at least theoretically, monitoring commercial drivers and punishing them if they start committing dangerous screwups like driving for 20 hours straight or weaving in traffic.

So putting the commercial flying vans/trucks in the air, and requiring existing freight companies to branch out by training commercial driver-pilots, is a good intermediate step.

Anyhow - no, getting a pilot's license is not that onerous. If you can legitimately get a commercial driver's license you are capable of getting a pilot's license, heck a commercial pilot's license.

I agree with everything you just said. That was my point- that implementing this technology for commercial purposes allows people to take trained commercial drivers, retrain them as pilots on a large scale, and 'ease in' the overall systems and infrastructure needed to make mass flying vehicle traffic safe.

[Broomstick]

If you set the system up for commercial drivers the corporations will never allow the masses to fly. I mean, sure, if you're OK with that, fine, but just reconcile yourself to just commercial vehicles (including the equivalent of cabs and limos). If you want to include the masses at some point you'll have to have some involved from the beginning (albeit vetted and trained ones).

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. Fair point.

Although just... only selling the flying vans and trucks would probably do it. Most people wouldn't buy one, but enough small business owners and private citizens with a flying car fixation would be motivated to get a pilot's license that there'd be some civilian access, I'd think.

[Broomstick]

In that price range, sure - have it as we do now, anyone meeting minimum qualifications (physical and mental) can seek qualification. Keep the difficulty level for certification the same as for now and it will probably work out. A pilot's license is $5-10k US right now, so it requires some motivation but it's not a insurmountable obstacle.

A major obstacle to entry into aviation these days is not the cost of the license, it's the cost of the airplane. You have choice between 1950's tech at $25,000 a pop on an old machine that requires watchful maintenance, or 2000's tech that's more user-friendly and reliable at $100,000-150,000 at rock bottom. Drop the price down to that of a car it gets a LOT more attractive.

[Batman]

The OP gives us the price range...and it's a hell of a lot less than a whole lot of sports cars that nevertheless get bought by the truckload cost.

[Zor]

The Aircars currently have autopilots comparable to modern civilian aircraft, save for an emergency descend feature (if the power cell is nearly exhausted, the car will slowly descend to prevent a crash). This feature can be upgraded. To deal with the problem of people flying drunk, aircars have built in breathalyzers.

Zor

[Broomstick]

It's not just alcohol. There are a number of over the counter medications that it is perfectly safe to drive while taking that can nonetheless impair a pilot sufficiently to cause an accident, in addition to various prescription medications that will make you an unsafe pilot even if you can safely drive under their influence. On the flip side, there are some conditions were you must take your medication properly to fly safely but it is not so critical for drivers.

This is why we'd probably need to maintain the current system of medical exams and authorization as well. Just maintain the requirements for aircraft, these "aircars" will slot into the current US system just fine.

[Borgholio]

The Aircars currently have autopilots comparable to modern civilian aircraft, save for an emergency descend feature (if the power cell is nearly exhausted, the car will slowly descend to prevent a crash). This feature can be upgraded. To deal with the problem of people flying drunk, aircars have built in breathalyzers.

Zor

Broomstick is probably more of an expert on autopilots than I am (my autopilot was my Trainer...heh), but I was always under the impression that while autopilot was very very good at controlling a plane, they did require a fair bit of training to program correctly. If that's the case, given the number of people who have issues with the coffee cup holder slot in the computer breaking, or who try to surf the web through Outlook Express...that still means only a fraction of the population would be qualified to even set the autopilot.

[Broomstick]

Depends on the autopilot, really. Some are about a difficult to use as a car's cruise control. Others, yes, require extensive training.

[Wicked Pilot]

At any rate an autopilot is a luxury, not a replacement for lack of skills on the pilot's part. And the more sophisticated they become the better a pilot you have to be to get them to do what you want. Remember the autopilot only replaces the 'monkey skills' of flying, which in my opinion is the easiest part to master.

My sim partner in the CRJ, who unfortunately went on to fail two type checks and was booted from training, had by far the most difficulty with managing the automation.

[Starglider]

At any rate an autopilot is a luxury, not a replacement for lack of skills on the pilot's part.

Readers two decades from now would be thiking, 'what a quaint 20th century viewpoint'. The trajectory for road cars is now pretty clearly automation to the point where a qualified driver does not need to be present; the concepts for robot cars are all 'relax in the back while the car drives itself'. Aviation will lag for the usual reasons - primarily extremely high certification costs - but automation of the entire flight to the point of just dialing in a destination is technically possible and will be implemented (it is already for certain drones). Moller Skycar for all its faults did get this part right; full autopilot control with centralised, automated, dynamic flight-planning as the primary mode of operation.

[Esquire]

Have you got any actual evidence for that? Because I, for one, really don't want to die in a fiery aircar crash because some programmer forgot a zero somewhere in the autopilot system architecture. We find incredibly obvious AI errors in games all the time; do you really think the infinitely-more-complex real world will somehow be immune to them?

[Purple]

Have you got any actual evidence for that? Because I, for one, really don't want to die in a fiery aircar crash because some programmer forgot a zero somewhere in the autopilot system architecture. We find incredibly obvious AI errors in games all the time; do you really think the infinitely-more-complex real world will somehow be immune to them?

As a programmer I resent that. AI programing for video games is radically different from the kind of programing we are talking about here. Especially if a lot of the work is done from ground stations as was implied. Bottom line is, no programer is going to be under pressure to make your automobile AI work WORSE than it could so that it poses a challenge to the driver.

This said, I personally do not think a proper flying car AI could be done safely with our modern hardware. But that's another story entirely.

[Broomstick]

I think I'll take the word of the professional pilot over the AI programmer on this one.