XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
      
   In sci.physics Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   > For your reference, records indicate that   
   > Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Same as the case for GA aircraft.  You need a car at both ends of the   
   >> flight.   
   >   
   > Really?  If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re   
   > really supporting my point.  Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that   
   > these days and just use an app to get a ride.  You’re going to need   
   > to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an   
   > expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic.   
      
   Apparently you do not understand that the entire world is not one   
   big city with Uber at your fingertips.   
      
   Try getting an Uber ride in Gthenburg, NE.   
      
   >> So why not a single device?   
   >   
   > Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great.   
   > Different duties have different engineering requirements.  Same   
   > reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different   
   > functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet   
   > or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere.   
      
   Yet many people have been building working machines since the 1930's   
   so the technology can't be that difficult.   
      
   >   
   >> You probably resisted the idea   
   >> of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.   
   >   
   > Wrong again.  I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in   
   > your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls.   
   > Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make   
   > driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of   
   > aircraft.   
      
   Correct, it is more about the COST of a "newer" kind of aircraft that   
   has been around for almost a century now.   
      
   >   
   > And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of   
   > trains.  Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make   
   > sense in the context of a plane or a car.  Even if you never took   
   > it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of   
   > having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no   
   > different from a regular parking spot.  Yet somehow nobody can   
   > find a market?   
      
   Lots of airplanes are parked in a facility no different from a regular   
   parking spot.   
      
   You continue to demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about aviation.   
      
   >   
   >> >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I?m   
   >> >not asking about that segment of the population.  I?m asking about   
   >> >the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you   
   >> >make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> Why do I need to?  Make the case for a car, period, to someone who   
   >> lives in the Amazon jungle.  The fact that there is no such case   
   >> doesn't mean cars are useless.   
   >   
   > They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle.  But that’s   
   > a straw man; stick to the issue at hand.  No, you don’t *have* to   
   > make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to   
   > do that.  You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try   
   > harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah,   
   > flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas.   
      
   Actually there is one flying car, a dune buggy actually, that is on   
   the market and a portion of the target market is access to remote   
   parts of the world such as jungle areas by people such as missionaries.   
      
   http://www.flyskyrunner.com/   
      
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)