XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary.
>
> For your sake, I hope you’re missing the point deliberately. Cars
> are becoming more like trains. That’s not something you’ll find in
> a dictionary.
>
>> > Again, all Im
>> > asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense
>> > to have *your* kind of flying car.
>>
>> The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone.
>
> Hardly. Even the Wikipedia page makes it clear that nobody can
> agree what to call all the various different types of personal air
> vehicles. Some of the things listed don’t even have wheels. But
> if you still think otherwise, please state for us all what this
A flying car is a vehicle that can both fly and drive on roads.
Is that so complicated?
>> >> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.
>> >
>> > Assuming nothing but a realistic universe. Yes, I would agree that
>> > self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to
>> > changing norms of car ownership. Same goes for the mythical flying
>> > car, too, so Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work
>> > that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.
>> > Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that
>> > nobody really bothers to think through.
>>
>> Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what
>> you are agreeing with.
>
> Uh, I quoted it. When you’re apparently not even paying enough
> attention to the conversation to know what you’ve said, I have to
> suspect you’re just here to troll.
>
Because you quoted it doesn't mean I said anything about it.
>> Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built.
>
> They are as mythical as a personal jetpack or the space elevator
> that started this thread. Not because of their *impossibility*
> but because of their *impracticality*. Only a crazy person thinks
> they live in the SF world you insist is reality. I have *never*
> found myself next to someone driving a flying car.
>
Get a dictionary.
Mythical does not mean the same thing as impractial.
Your personal experiences are irrelevant.
>> What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success.
>
> Because they’re a stupid idea, which was my point from the start.
In your opinion.
Personally I would have had a lot of use for a flying car when I was
very actively consulting all over the state.
>
>> There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial
>> success.
>
> From a SF perspective, no. Nobody is writing any fantastic stories
> about *any* of the “existing” flying cars. Hell, they’re not even
> writing *terrible* stories about them, because “flying cars” are
> *so* bad in reality that you’d have to be a nut to think of them as
> a cool technology.
>
In your opinion.
And fiction of any kind generally writes about things that might be,
not things that are. That is why it is call fiction.
>> The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too
>> few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go
>> into production.
>
> If exotic cars have a market, so would a respectable flying car.
> If planes can be bought that sit in hangers most of the time, a
> respectable flying car would have a market. What do you think the
> economics of success need to be?
>
A two place machine less than $300,000 with a full fuel payload of
more than 600 lbs and a range of at least 400 nm and a cruise speed
of around 130 kt would likely make the cut.
The Taylor Aerocar came close and got 250 orders but needed 500 to
go into production. That was in 1956.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
