Once again, we lurch towards our Jetsons-inspired future, this time, courtesy of NASA. The space agency selected The Cafe Foundation, a group of aircraft engineers, to host its Personal Air Vehicle Challenge, a $250,000 contest to see who can design a flying car for the common man. Their belief is that a nation of flying cars will reduce congestion, air pollution, and the time it takes to get to the in-laws.
In the press release, NASA believes that by 2020, "up to 45 percent of all miles traveled in the future may be in PAVs"--Personal Air Vehicles, i.e. flying cars. Putting aside the fact that $250,000 is a pretty paltry sum for such a contest--considering you can win $10 million creating a car that doesn't have to fly--NASA's statement assumes a whole lot of other things that'll have to happen, chief among them, safety. Considering that that nearly 2.6 million people were injured in traffic accidents last year, imagine what will happen when they start traveling along three axes.
In a CNet News article, the Cafe Foundation asserts that "people would be able to get a license to fly PAVs as easily as a driver's license," which indicates that no one at the Cafe Foundation ever went to the DMV. And is everyone who gets into a PAV going to have to go through a metal detector first, or will we just place TSA agents outside everyone's front door?
An equally specious argument is the one around pollution. Says the director of the Cafe Foundation: "We're burning up into smoke 6.7 billion gallons of gas annually (from being) stuck in traffic jams." True, perhaps, but what about the effect of burning gas at altitude? In 1999, an EPA study estimated that by 2010, aircraft could account for up to 10.4 percent of all emissions in some urban areas. Imagine what will happen when, instead of hundreds of airplanes in the sky everyday, there are thousands? And the pollution won't be concentrated in the cities, either. Because NASA's plan assumes a distributed model of PAV's flying into local airports, pollution, of both the air and noise kind, will be spread over a much larger area. Are your neighbors home? You'll know when their teenage son buzzes your house.
Considering that we need to start cutting pollution immediately, we'd be much better off spending our time and money on ideas and technologies that are more down to earth.
Related Stories: | Topics:Technology, technology + computers, NASA, Cafe Foundation, Environmental Issues and Protection, Nature and the Environment, Department of Motor Vehicles |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 3 Total
August 7, 2007 at 12:33am by mark s
I would just like to point out what I see is the benefits, and requirements of a "flying car".
Indeed, emissions can be slightly lower than that of current automobiles. If you check out the "gas mileage" of many private aircrafts, you will find that they generally out perform some of the most efficient diesel cars. All this while traveling at 120MPH+... With a personal high speed transport, the use of commercial airlines will slightly reduce (obviously not for some time). While a larger percentage of vehicle emissions may then be attributed by machines in the air, it will at the same time reduce the emissions from the ground transportation sector (excluding the results from an increase in human population). Point being, flying cars may be able to cause a slight reduction in emissions caused by any form of transportation. The real key is increasing the current internal combustion engine's efficiency from it's glorious approximate 8%.
I don't think that the predominant intent of a flying car is to significantly reduce pollutants, but rather as a faster means of transport. Are you still using a 28.8k dial-up internet connection, or riding a horse-drawn carriage? Not that there is anything wrong with a horse-drawn carriage, but that's simply not what most people want. A flying car can be a luxury for those working in downtown New York, yet want to live somewhere 200 miles away, and be able to do that daily commute in a reasonable amount of time. That's hardly a benefit compared to the many others that a flying car can provide.
As for controls.. If the flying cars essentially had the same controls as a small airplane, well, then wouldn't they just be an airplane? The key is safety....and therefore, taking control away from the hooligans behind the wheel, er yolk, whatever. This means automated flight systems. Kind of like autopilot, except more advanced, with a universal traffic avoidance, and regulatory system. I would imagine that the idea would be to simply punch in a destination address into the computer, and up, up and away you go!
Lastly, you have to be able to drive it around, because not every spot on the earth is an airport. That really means no bulky appendages dangling off of it taking up 5 lanes on the road.
August 7, 2007 at 2:28am by John Stone
Why on earth is Fast Company blogger Michael Prospero so down on this concept? My guess is that this attitude would have insisted on more efficient candle wax rather than investment in the light bulb. What a mess the light bulb was, you had to wire every home, generate the power and think about safety. I, for one, am glad that people are thinking about the PAV. This is a truly disruptive technology that will create a new landscape for how people connect with one another.
August 21, 2007 at 6:03pm by Jenny B.
It's definitely a great idea and it's definitely a worthy cause. If you look at the Texas Institute of Transportion's Annual traffic study, the statistics on urban gridlock are downright horrible and only getting worse.
My major gripe with the flying car concept is that it's been in the sci-fi realm for over 50 years now. You would have thought something would have happened by now...???
Jenny B
----------------------------------
"History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes", Mark Twain
Screen Your Employees