Saw this today https://newatlas.com/aircraft/jetoptera-aircraft-propulsion-system/
Absolutely fantastic and I want one!
It made me wonder, what other sci fi tech already exists?
Saw this today https://newatlas.com/aircraft/jetoptera-aircraft-propulsion-system/
Absolutely fantastic and I want one!
It made me wonder, what other sci fi tech already exists?
what other sci fi tech already exists?
Already exists, or is so much in common usage that we take it for granted now?
Water beds - Robert Heinlein wrote about them decades before they were ever popular (so much that the idea couldn't be patented).
Cell phones and the Apple Watch - go look up the Dick Tracy watch
Go watch 2001:A Space Odyssey - from 1968 - and you'll realize the stuff (like Facetime, flat monitors, and PDA's) that they thought were future tech are all here today.
Standard safety technology that Subaru has - Eyesight Collision Avoidance, with adaptive cruise control and lane centering - isn't QUITE on par with the attempts for self-driving cars that others are doing - but it works a LOT better and is safer.
Absolutely fantastic and I want one!
It made me wonder, what other sci fi tech already exists?
Well, in reading that I would not actually say it "exists". They are barely at even a prototype, and they have some huge hurdles that I do not think it will be able to pass.
Like developing a battery that is 6 times more efficient per weight than current batteries. I think we will see this at about the same time we see a Hyperloop for transportation.
But a great many sci-fi inventions exist, and have for decades or longer. Just read the works of Verne or Wells and that can be seen. Everything from the submarine and tank to aircraft and space rockets.
Like developing a battery that is 6 times more efficient per weight than current batteries.
That would only be necessary for units supplied induction air from electrically powered compressors. According to the site, the current prototypes are powered by compressors driven by gas engines.
Considering that they are claiming a fuel efficiency gain of 10% over traditional gas engine driven prop air craft, there is no reason they couldn't proceed to market with gas powered craft.
Saw this today https://newatlas.com/aircraft/jetoptera-aircraft-propulsion-system/
Absolutely fantastic and I want one!
They aren't the first company to put forward a proposal for a VTOL "flying car".
It turns out the major obstacle isn't technology, it's government/regulatory.
The US government and many other governments around the world have outright refused to consider licensing/regulating such craft like cars rather than like traditional aircraft.
A pilot's license is much harder to get than a driver's license.
The US government and many other governments around the world have outright refused to consider licensing/regulating such craft like cars rather than like traditional aircraft.
A pilot's license is much harder to get than a driver's license.
I think the logical outcome would be that the majority of end users aren't even legally allowed to pilot these things but be limited to be passive passengers in autonomous vehicles, probably with some way of emergency override by a dispatcher service remote pilots on standby.
And the way to enforce that is that they don't own the craft either. Not that it would be prohibited, having a license and such it might still be possible, just that "smart" policies lobbied by interested businesses would make that seem dumb and expensive.
We all know that scheme where you're basically pay a monthly fee to drive a car belonging to the bank. So something alike, just stop pretending, and the vehicle would rather belong to a drive share company (or more probably still to the bank, but leased to that company to subcontract to you).
I could imagine business model where there's:
Level 1 -- opportunistic ride sharing -- plain and simple, paid by services rendered, with no guarantee of timely delivery or service at all;
Level 2 -- priority client fee -- paid either as (relatively small) monthly fee or premium on case-by-case basis;
Level 3 -- guaranteed service fee -- in exchange for a recurring fee of X the service guarantees to get you on transport within Y minutes; there could be multiple combinations of X and Y and/or pre-scheduled plans including regularly recurring; you're still billed per mile, parking costs may incur if vehicle sits unused in a previously booked time;
perks for a special price on top:
+ same vehicle -- if at all possible, the same physical vehicle will pick you up after work every day or react to your random calls (at least 80% chance, or more, accepting some increase in response times)
+ physical pilot -- there's a human in the vehicle, this must be rather expensive I imagine
Level 4 -- exclusive vehicle -- the service provides a vehicle that is used by you and you only; you no longer pay by mileage, but have to pay for fuel/power and have to provide parking and pay for it. You still don't own it, and service still can recall it for checkups, including temporary or permanently replacing it on their whole discretion.
I think the logical outcome would be that the majority of end users aren't even legally allowed to pilot these things but be limited to be passive passengers in autonomous vehicles
If you think the FAA is going to allow autonomous commercial passenger aircraft, you are delusional.
If you think the FAA is going to allow autonomous commercial passenger aircraft, you are delusional.
Between that and many millions of civilian "pilots" who 99.99% of time only manage an automated craft with high level commands anyway, but are still allowed to intervene? Knowing human nature, fully autonomous fleet feel safer, frankly.
fully autonomous fleet feel safer, frankly.
You may feel that way, but the government is not approving fully autonomous ground vehicles for unlimited use on public roads. Which is potentially more dangerous, an autonomous aircraft or an autonomous car?
Between that and many millions of civilian "pilots" who 99.99% of time only manage an automated craft with high level commands anyway
That may be the case for commercial airline pilots flying the big jetliners, but it's certainly not true for most civilian pilots flying smaller (or older) craft.
And in order for either to get a pilot's license, which is a hell of a lot harder to get than a driver's license, they have to demonstrate the ability to safely fly a plane without any of the electronic computer aided controls on the modern jetliners.
That may be the case for commercial airline pilots flying the big jetliners, but it's certainly not true for most civilian pilots flying smaller (or older) craft.
Um. We're discussing case of "flying cars" going mainstream. Those won't be older, and certainly would be very highly automated anyways. Sure, the whole discussion is largely academic in nature because practical and affordable "flying car" is unlikely to happen anytime soon, but if does by some off-chance the costs may force or at least strongly encourage some kind of sharing scheme, with is conducive for limitations.
the whole discussion is largely academic in nature because practical and affordable "flying car" is unlikely to happen anytime soon
And I will repeat what I said upstream. There have been multiple attempts to bring a "flying car" to market.
The problem isn't that the technology isn't there for a practical flying car. Technology is only a problem if you assume something electrically powered, rather than gas powered.
As to cost, costs would come down with economies of scale as potential manufactures are able to ramp up production to mass production levels.
The problem is government/regulatory. The relevant government agencies insist on treating them like regular aircraft.
Which means tighter and more expensive licensing/certification requirements for the vehicles, not just designs, but certification of individual vehicles, and requiring full pilots licenses for operators.
And no, trying to make an autonomous "flying car" will do nothing to solve the government/regulatory issues.
And that's why they will be pushed as human delivery "drones", not "aircraft".
Won't work.
They've had huge problems getting government approval for small drones to do package deliveries.
Once you get up into something large enough to carry human passengers, getting fancy about what you call it isn't going to make even a tiny bit of difference with the government regulators.
This isn't aimed at you DS but I can't "reply top topic" so...
Ignoring gov approval, licences etc for a moment. Let's get a bit more practical.
How long do these things fly between refuelling, where would they refuel and would they divert whilst carrying passengers to do so?
How much luggage do they carry?
Child seats?
The family is gong on holiday, can these things get them to the airport without entering restricted airspace?
Do they fly in all weathers? Night, heavy rain, snow etc?
Lastly, for now, where exactly do they land? Wait? Etc. If I need a taxi to get to where they are, it makes them pointless. But many multiple landing zones inside busy cities?
Solving these will be just as challenging as getting past the government regulations. In fact they probably all need to be answered in order to get a licence.
Lastly, for now, where exactly do they land? Wait? Etc. If I need a taxi to get to where they are, it makes them pointless. But many multiple landing zones inside busy cities?
Most of the prior attempts to bring something that can be a called a flying car to market are VTOL capable, in a 4 passenger (counting pilot) model, only slightly larger ground foot print than a typical family car.
You said lets ignore issues of government permission / regulations.
They can take off from and land on the driveway of a suburban family home. In the city, they can take off from/land in just about any open air parking space that will fit a UPS/FedEx delivery truck.
You want to talk a really big, dense city. In LA, up until 2014, any building taller than 75 feet had to have provisions for helicopters to land on the roof (primarily for emergency services/medivac). Even now, they either have to have a rooftop helipad or they can trade the helipad for other additional safety measures.
https://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-skyline-roofs-20140930-story.html
NYC used to have a lot of helicopter commuting to/from many skyscrapers and their airports. That stopped after an accident in 1977.
Access for an air taxi service in a major city isn't a problem for high rise apartment dwellers.
Again, ignoring difficulties around government authorization, it's not a big issue for most commercial properties to install a helipad.
With a high-rise building you have the roof.
Even away from the high rises, any high footprint commercial building with a flat roof has a convenient low use area where a helipad could be installed.
Anything with a surface parking lot could sacrifice a few parking spaces for a helipad.
Any commercial property with a free standing parking ramp could sacrifice a few parking spaces on the top deck of the parking ramp for a landing zone.
The main access problem for an air-taxi would be dense low-rise residential neighborhoods of tract or row houses with little to no off-street parking.
If you wanted to go there, new tract houses could be built with rooftop access for air-taxis and/or personal flying cars.
Parking for personal flying cars in an existing city would be difficult and probably expensive, but there are probably solutions.
My first thought would be roof top landing platforms in single family residential neighborhoods and some kind of air valet parking for high-rise buildings.
Obviously helipad locations exist, I don't think that is the issue, rather the problem is the sheer quantity of 'flying cars' all wanting to operate in 'rush hour'. Simply moving the endless stream of traffic from the highway to the air isn't a solution unless the infrastructure exists to handle such volume.
Could those 'flying cars' forced to wait simply hover? If so how would that effect fuel consumption? If not then how would they 'go around' whilst avoiding collision with the hundreds of others all seeking to land and take off from the same vicinity, plus hundreds more transiting the area?
Granted that if all were centrally controlled it would be possible, that is unlikely since competition would mean several different operators who, based on how things have worked to date, would all use proprietary systems incapable of being integrated seamlessly. Even that makes no allowance for other flight traffic, private aircraft, news helicopters, police and army/air force etc. Let alone those who can afford to purchase their own 'flying car' and operate it outside the tight control of one of the centralised systems.
The only realistic way to control ALL traffic is basically a massively enhanced form of air traffic control, perhaps part automated, but at least a part actual human controllers. Trying to control every movement of every car in LA with ATC...?? Not exactly a task free of monumental errors, resulting in numerous crashes, deaths, lawsuits etc.
Not to mention that government would insist on control, not just to attempt to ensure safety standards, but avoid misuse by nutcases, drunks, hijackers, thieves and other nefarious activities.
A police chase of a flying car in a high traffic zone is either going to bring the entire system to a grinding halt to avoid collisions, or result in collisions. Again not a scenario normally discussed by those waxing lyrical about the wonders of flying cars made available to all in the promised transport utopia.
I don't think that is the issue, rather the problem is the sheer quantity of 'flying cars' all wanting to operate in 'rush hour'. Simply moving the endless stream of traffic from the highway to the air isn't a solution unless the infrastructure exists to handle such volume.
There are two different issues in terms of traffic.
1. Air Taxi services
2. Personal flying cars.
Traffic wise I don't see air taxi services being a major issue.
As to personal flying cars, shear cost will at least initially limit things to the super-rich and air-taxi services.
Simply moving the endless stream of traffic from the highway to the air isn't a solution unless the infrastructure exists to handle such volume.
On this I agree.
But I don't think that the necessary infrastructure for flying car traffic control is that big of an obstacle, because I don't see it as needing that much in the way of physical infrastructure for traffic control.
The technology exists with high accuracy mapping and high accuracy positional tracking to create virtual road lanes at multiple altitudes. And computerized virtual traffic signals for the intersections.
Inside a Major city with a large area of high rise buildings, flying car traffic is going to "naturally" mirror the ground road network, because that's where the corridors of open airspace between the buildings are.
The lane map would be a relatively fixed entity that flying car on board computers would have to download periodically.
A central computer system run by the city to manage the current state of intersection gates and some sort of radio communications network to transmit the current state of intersection gates to in-flight vehicles.
Could those 'flying cars' forced to wait simply hover?
Yes.
If so how would that effect fuel consumption?
How does hovering affect fuel consumption with normal helicopters?
Flying cars would operate more like helicopters than like fixed wing aircraft. However they are powered, fuel capacity, and consumption would be measured in hours/minutes of flight time and low fuel would have to be treated as an emergency.
The gas powered flying car prototypes I've read about were reported to have for a car sized vehicle, a range similar to a normal car.
The only realistic way to control ALL traffic is basically a massively enhanced form of air traffic control, perhaps part automated, but at least a part actual human controllers.
I don't agree. See my description above for a possible flying car traffic control system.
You treat it like vertically stacked multiple virtual road grids. Yes, someone could fly outside the defined lanes, but that can happen on the ground now with normal cars.
A police chase of a flying car in a high traffic zone is either going to bring the entire system to a grinding halt to avoid collisions, or result in collisions.
Probably true.
Another possibility would be no need for such chases. Flying cars are likely to be heavily dependent on computer assisted control. It would likely be possible for the police in an emergency situation to lock out the user controls and take over control of the vehicle.
Again not a scenario normally discussed by those waxing lyrical about the wonders of flying cars made available to all in the promised transport utopia.
Yeah, and I'm not one of them. I think the technology exists to solve all of the problems/issues if the political will existed to do it.
But it's easier for the government to just say no, and the incentives of government actors align with saying no. It will never happen because it will never be ing the government's interest to allow it.
Inside a Major city with a large area of high rise buildings, flying car traffic is going to "naturally" mirror the ground road network, because that's where the corridors of open airspace between the buildings are.
And;
You treat it like vertically stacked multiple virtual road grids. Yes, someone could fly outside the defined lanes, but that can happen on the ground now with normal cars.
No..!! What is the point of flying cars if they are restricted to the identical routing as road traffic? The entire point is the ability to go from point A to point B by the most direct route. Requiring a flying car to literally follow existing roads and obey 'one way' systems, ring roads, roadwork diversions etc is ridiculous. Yes during landing and take off they would need to fly between buildings therefore following streets. But a flying car enroute can fly above rather than around buildings, saving time and co-ordination delays.
But I don't think that the necessary infrastructure for flying car traffic control is that big of an obstacle, because I don't see it as needing that much in the way of physical infrastructure for traffic control.
The infrastructure I was referring to wasn't just the physical, which I agree would be realistically manageable. The 'other' infrastructure is a different matter. All the communication and control systems needed, their necessary maximum proximity for full cover range. Not to mention the sheer bandwidth necessary. All of that and more is necessary infrastructure.
How does hovering affect fuel consumption with normal helicopters?
My bad. I stated consumption instead of flight time. Although any system that requires frequent hovering is wasting time, resources and passenger good-will. Not to mention making collisions more probable since most detection systems detect moving objects and only much larger stationary ones. Granted a transponder type unit could identify each vehicle and therefore it's position. But. Military missile defence systems have been known to fail when presented with "too many" simultaneous targets. Tracking every car in an LA rush hour is no easy task, requiring a great deal of processing just to track them, let alone control their every movement individually.
There exists systems that allow several hundred drones to be controlled and their exact movements choreographed. But that does not directly scale up. Especially when attempting to do so with units of different manufacture, varying proprietary software and even something as simple as a single unit not updated to the current software version.
It would likely be possible for the police in an emergency situation to lock out the user controls and take over control of the vehicle.
Current technology would allow that to be fitted to aircraft now. Other than the cost and control centres/staff requirement it would also allow aircraft to be hijacked remotely. Keeping that tech restricted to military drones also prevents access/knowledge by undesirables. Fitting it to vehicles used by anyone is an open invitation to the system being hacked/overridden etc.
Another issue is simple jamming, either localised due to unshielded equipment or for instance, being too close to a cell phone tower or other transmitters often fitted to tall buildings. Not to mention intentional jamming to whatever range can be managed.
Despite all of these issues, the problems are not insurmountable. But possible and probable are not the same. Cost. Safety. Regulation. These and other factors will ensure that the concept of widespread, easily accessible 'flying cars' remains pure fiction.
Perhaps the most welcome effect of such a system being built would be the effect on the "ambulance chasing" breed of lawyers, whose avarice and eager anticipation would hopefully cause them fatal aneurysms.
See? I'm not all 'doom and gloom'.
:)
let alone control their every movement individually.
Which they central traffic control system shouldn't need to do.
Which they central traffic control system shouldn't need to do.
That depends upon how the system works. At the very least each vehicle needs to be assigned a speed and route which are then monitored. How it allows for lane changing, turning, sudden braking for debris, fog, animals etc hasn't been discussed.
If all vehicles are not individually controlled then any sudden change to lane or speed potentially ends in crashes. If as with ATC each 'plane is kept separate from every other 'plane... Well, that works for relatively minuscule numbers of aircraft, (compared to the number of cars on LA roads during rush hour) but makes LA traffic management absolutely ridiculous.
Unless you have a specific control method in mind that you didn't illustrate?
Unless you have a specific control method in mind that you didn't illustrate?
I assume all are individually controlled, either by a human pilot/driver, or by an on-board AI navigation system.
I assume all are individually controlled, either by a human pilot/driver, or by an on-board AI navigation system.
I'm trying very hard not to imagine an LA rush hour in which every vehicle is a flying car controlled by a human pilot without the benefit of ATC...
I'm trying very hard not to imagine an LA rush hour in which every vehicle is a flying car controlled by a human pilot without the benefit of ATC...
Again, existing ATC is designed around fixed wing aircraft. As just once piece of the differences, flying cars would require a tiny fraction of the spacing requirements of fixed wing aircraft.
For flying cars, you would have to start from scratch/first principles, ignoring everything about how existing ATC systems work.
Again, existing ATC is designed around fixed wing aircraft. As just once piece of the differences, flying cars would require a tiny fraction of the spacing requirements of fixed wing aircraft.
Very true. However that tiny fraction is a great deal of space compared to bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic. Not to mention the orders of magnitude difference in numbers.
For flying cars, you would have to start from scratch/first principles, ignoring everything about how existing ATC systems work.
Again true. But it isn't enough to simply dismiss suggestions without supplying alternatives. Stating that something will or won't work without justifying the statement isn't conducive to believability.
However that tiny fraction is a great deal of space compared to bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic.
Maybe not as much as you imagine. Safe following distance for cars is generally stated at around 3 seconds at current speed. I don't see flying cars moving at around typical ground traffic speeds as needing drastically more than that.
But it isn't enough to simply dismiss suggestions without supplying alternatives. Stating that something will or won't work without justifying the statement isn't conducive to believability.
But I've already supplied an alternative.
A virtual road network with defined traffic lanes stacked in vertical layers. At low levels, mirroring the ground road network and possibly getting more complex as you move above the level of building roofs.
You don't like my alternative, supply your own, but don't just say we have no alternative but to use the existing ATC system designed around fix winged aircraft mostly flying at much higher altitudes and speeds except around airport landing corridors.
A virtual road network with defined traffic lanes stacked in vertical layers. At low levels, mirroring the ground road network and possibly getting more complex as you move above the level of building roofs.
Ok. So you suggest several traffic lanes one above the other and all of these between the ground and rooftop level.
So not much vertical separation between layers then. After all, ground level is in use by non flying vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians.
Then above roof top height, it possibly gets more complex...
Ok. So you suggest several traffic lanes one above the other and all of these between the ground and rooftop level.
I'm talking about roof top level for the high rise buildings in the city center. Considerably more vertical space than you imply. Several hundred vertical feet of space to play with.
Several hundred vertical feet of space to play with.
Yup. That is what I thought you meant.
So. You stated several layers, so at least three, add in ground level, so a minimum of four layers. (Three 'flight' layers plus ground layer) So 75 feet per layer, minus the hight of the vehicles, allow extra for the ground level to allow for trucks, overhead cables, etc. Not exactly a wide margin for error even in ideal conditions.
Not exactly a wide margin for error even in ideal conditions.
We are talking about something with the operational flight performance of a quad copter drone with computer assisted controls, not fixed wing aircraft that need several square miles to make a 90 degree turn.
You were on me earlier for for shooting down the idea of using traditional ATC (I don't think it could scale sufficiently*) without offering an alternative. Pot->Kettle.
I'm well aware that my idea is incomplete, it's not meant to be a complete plan, just someplace to start thinking about the problem from.
Nearly all the objections that have been raised by both you and Mushroom are things that are issues now with normal cars, not unique problems that would be created by flying cars.
Also, I think you over estimate the amount of traffic in any given layer.
Flying cars would not be some silver bullet solution to ground traffic problems.
That said, a city of a given population is going to generate a certain amount of traffic. Throwing flying cars in the mix is not going to increase that in any significant way. There are only so many people looking to go from here to there at any given time. Flying cars don't change that number in any meaningful way.
They do however significantly increase the total volume of space available for that traffic to occupy.
*even if it is possible for it to scale, the raw hassle would discourage adoption of flying cars even if they were affordable.
There are only so many people looking to go from here to there at any given time.
So what are all the other people stuck in LA rush hour looking for...?
not fixed wing aircraft that need several square miles to make a 90 degree turn
I was pointing out that the separation between layers you suggested was less than 75 feet. How is "several square miles" relevant?
I was pointing out that the separation between layers you suggested was less than 75 feet. How is "several square miles" relevant?
You didn't just say it was less than 75 feet, you called in minimal and proposed no alternative, so I can only go back to what you have said previously concerning minimal separation rules for fixed-wing aircraft.
You didn't just say it was less than 75 feet, you called in minimal and proposed no alternative, so I can only go back to what you have said previously concerning minimal separation rules for fixed-wing aircraft.
Actually, I did.
So. You stated several layers, so at least three, add in ground level, so a minimum of four layers. (Three 'flight' layers plus ground layer) So 75 feet per layer, minus the hight of the vehicles, allow extra for the ground level to allow for trucks, overhead cables, etc. Not exactly a wide margin for error even in ideal conditions.
However, let us read your comment again. To which I will reply. (Without mentioning "75 feet". Again.
You didn't just say it was less than 75 feet, you called in minimal and proposed no alternative, so I can only go back to what you have said previously concerning minimal separation rules for fixed-wing aircraft.
Oh..!! Now I understand..!!
This discussion is about 'flying cars'. References have been made to current methods of road traffic control as well as ATC.
You suggested several 'layers' between ground and rooftop above city streets. I pointed out the realistic separation distance wouldn't be enough for safety.
So your considered response is to revert to flight requirements for a 747.
I'm so glad you cleared that up. Please do continue. I can't wait to find out why you consider using a 747 in flight to ascertain the flight profile and rules for a flying car. After all, they have so much in common. They both fly...
:)
You suggested several 'layers' between ground and rooftop above city streets. I pointed out the realistic separation distance wouldn't be enough for safety.
And you still haven't given even a remote hint of what you think might be enough for safety.
You suggested several 'layers' between ground and rooftop above city streets. I pointed out the realistic separation distance wouldn't be enough for safety.
And you still haven't given even a remote hint of what you think might be enough for safety.
And you still haven't given even a remote hint of what you think might be enough for safety.
Ok. How about we use your suggestions and split the difference?
Say somewhere between 42 feet and several square miles?
:)
Seriously, I can't answer your question, not because there isn't an optimum answer, but because I can't conceive of a sane reason to calculate it based on your multiple 'levels' of two way flight lanes existing between the buildings of a city and contained below 300 feet to be used by piloted flying cars.
To me that calculation is as pointless as working out the exact amount of thousand island dressing to add to a salad you intend to hurl into an active volcano. I'm sure there is a perfect answer, but really, who cares?
JR, DS, I think you should investigate some of the issues the FAA, airports, and other pilots have had with the operators of Ultra-lights and light sports aircraft as you'll get a darn good idea of how the average idiot Joe on the street would be handling a flying car from how they handle those cheap and easy to get an operator license for aircraft.
JR..?? Isn't he the guy that got shot in Dallas..??
Anyway, if you've followed this thread I hope you'll understand I utterly agree with the outcome of flying cars operated by "the average idiot Joe".
I can't speak for Mushroom, but I think I'm about done. Seems my time could be more constructively spent in calculations of salad and active volcanos.
Now where did that thousand island dressing go..??
:)
Anyway, if you've followed this thread I hope you'll understand I utterly agree with the outcome of flying cars operated by "the average idiot Joe".
Very early on I said I didn't think "flying cars" would ever happen, not because of the technology, but because the government will never allow it.
Someone I forget who suggested taking the government out as an obstacle and how would it work. So I posited a thought experiment on how I thought it could work.
If you reject the whole idea out of hand, fine, no skin off my back, but then why bother engaging with specific objections to specific details of the thought experiment?
JR..?? Isn't he the guy that got shot in Dallas..??
I know being shot in the ass can be a pain, but being shot in the Dallas must really hurt.
I know being shot in the ass can be a pain, but being shot in the Dallas must really hurt.
You just want to get me into trouble for making a smart-arse JFK joke.
You just want to get me into trouble for making a smart-arse JFK joke.
The joker there is they've proven the killing shot was a mistake from mishandling his rifle by a Secret Service agaent who had been given a rifle he'd never seen before.
If as with ATC each 'plane is kept separate from every other 'plane... Well, that works for relatively minuscule numbers of aircraft, (compared to the number of cars on LA roads during rush hour) but makes LA traffic management absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah, which is why if it's going to work, you have to treat "flying cars" as cars that can move in 3 dimensions, not treat them the way we treat fixed wing air craft.
Our existing ATC systems are designed around fixed-wing aircraft which can't hold a singular position for even a few seconds.
Outside of the Military there are relatively few helicopters and other VTOL aircraft, so they got tacked onto the fixed wing ATC, rather than designing separate traffic control around them from scratch.
Yeah, which is why if it's going to work, you have to treat "flying cars" as cars that can move in 3 dimensions, not treat them the way we treat fixed wing air craft.
I see many other problems.
For one, you have existing terrain and buildings. So even altitude will have to change, to be above ground level as opposed to sea level.
And say you have 500 feet for East to West, 700 feet for West to East, and 2 more for North and Couth. You will have to then pass through multiple layers safely to get to that "lane" and back down again. Where exactly will that happen?
People just say it is simple, without realizing you are talking about three dimensions here. The complexities go up a great order of magnitude.
I have an idea, because in and around bases overseas, the air space is cut up like that. With all inbound aircraft following a specific flight path, at specific altitudes and speed. That is one of the first things as Air Defense we look for.
The "Safe Air Corridor" may be a mile wide, a few thousand feet in elevation, and a set speed range. Fly outside of that (speed, flight path or elevation), and we are going to start looking at you closely as you might be an enemy.
Some of the most famous friendly engagements of PATRIOT missile in 1990=1991 and 2003 were pilots going outside of their assigned flight paths. In a combat situation if we see a fighter barreling at us at a high speed and not responding to calls to alter course, we will treat it like an enemy. In almost every case, ultimately it was the fault of the pilot for being in an area he should not have been.
Now imagine that with thousands of civilians who get upset if you tell them they can not light a campfire in a city park. Imagine 10,000 Karen's flying all around your house.
And say you have 500 feet for East to West, 700 feet for West to East, and 2 more for North and Couth. You will have to then pass through multiple layers safely to get to that "lane" and back down again. Where exactly will that happen?
vertical traffic lanes.
People just say it is simple
I never said it was simple, I said it was doable.
I have an idea, because in and around bases overseas, the air space is cut up like that.
I was talking about in an urban zone not around a military base. Try to drive an unauthorized car on to a military base...
.
In a combat situation if we see a fighter barreling at us at a high speed and not responding to calls to alter course, we will treat it like an enemy. In almost every case, ultimately it was the fault of the pilot for being in an area he should not have been.
The situation I was defining, there won't be high speed because all the flights are relatively short.
The situation I was defining, there won't be high speed because all the flights are relatively short.
Uh-huh. Flying at low altitudes, taking off and landing all over the place.
Try navigating down a golf driving range safely. Not hard, you know where all the golfers are, and what path the balls are going to take.
Now do it in a 360 degree driving range, where balls all be coming at you from all angles. In your way, cars would be popping up and down all over the place, with no control at all.
You seem to be concentrating on the fact I am talking military, and missing the point that I am making of an example of such "imaginary flight lanes" already existing. And even highly trained and experienced military pilots often ignore or forget about them. Now imagine Chuck who did not even finish High School entering and leaving the ground in their own flying car.
And every block, people at random popping up into the air. One going West, as a few blocks away somebody else does it and goes North. Colliding at 25 mph each 100 feet in the air over your home. Or on top of you in your car on the ground.
Try navigating down a golf driving range safely. Not hard, you know where all the golfers are, and what path the balls are going to take.
I don't accept that as a valid analogy other piloted vehicles are not remotely equivalent to ballistic projectiles.
And every block, people at random popping up into the air. One going West, as a few blocks away somebody else does it and goes North. Colliding at 25 mph each 100 feet in the air over your home.
And the same can happen on the ground with someone pulling out of a driveway.
You seem to be concentrating on the fact I am talking military, and missing the point that I am making of an example of such "imaginary flight lanes" already existing. And even highly trained and experienced military pilots often ignore or forget about them.
And I'm not referring to something that you have to remember. I"m thinking well mapped lanes that will be marked on a visual HUD.
I don't accept that as a valid analogy other piloted vehicles are not remotely equivalent to ballistic projectiles.
And I'm not referring to something that you have to remember. I"m thinking well mapped lanes that will be marked on a visual HUD.
And you miss that the point was I was not talking about the missile system itself. But the simple fact that even highly trained, educated, and experienced pilots will stray out of places they should be, and into places they should not be.
You think that will be any different for others?
And they also have a visual HUD, yet they moved out of approved safe air lanes anyways.
You do not seem to realize that you are in reality supporting my claim. That the operators will not follow the rules.
And also Joy pointed out flight lanes. She says 3, but I see 4 at a minimum. But as I already pointed out (and you ignored), how are they going to get there. Passing through 3 and 4 of them in order to get to the right altitude for their direction of travel without hitting others?
As Kirk famously stated in Star Trek II, you are thinking in two dimensions, in a three dimensional world. You plot these fantasy "lanes", not even considering those would have to pass through other lanes to get there.
And the fact that you over and over dismiss what I say entirely pretty much shows that you are not even comprehending what I was actually saying.
Tell me, how much experience do you have in actually operating in a real world three-dimensional space, with real world objects operating in it? I have quite a bit actually. And can give examples of when it goes tragically wrong.
And also Joy pointed out flight lanes. She says 3, but I see 4 at a minimum.
I said three since 'several' is more than two. I then added ground level as a fourth.
Choosing to use the maximum number that could be interpreted as 'several' seemed a unnecessary twist of the knife.
But as I already pointed out (and you ignored), how are they going to get there. Passing through 3 and 4 of them in order to get to the right altitude for their direction of travel without hitting others?
I didn't ignore it. In reply I suggested adding vertical streets to the virtual street grid. Specific locations for moving from one layer to the next.
And where did you get this idea that each layer is only for one direction of travel, it wasn't from anything I said.
And where did you get this idea that each layer is only for one direction of travel, it wasn't from anything I said.
Do you mind if I quote you outside of this thread?
Please.
(I would of course be sure to credit you, it's only polite)
I didn't ignore it. In reply I suggested adding vertical streets to the virtual street grid. Specific locations for moving from one layer to the next.
And where did you get this idea that each layer is only for one direction of travel, it wasn't from anything I said.
OK, so now we are adding in even more layers. Fantastic, so now we have other areas that must not cross any others, and still have to somehow not have cars colliding that are going in opposite directions (or in the same direction at differing speeds).
And where do I get the idea that each layer is for a specific direction of travel? Wow, that is really only common sense. So that is wrong, and each layer will have cars traveling in all different directions?
Holy hell, why even bother with layers at all then? Just make it a free-for-all, and the biggest vehicles win. I know that is not how it works in the real world, but fine. Go ahead and contact all ATC and tell them to stop assigning flight paths by altitude and direction of travel.
As I said, you do not seem to grasp how things actually work in a three dimensional worldspace. AI even tried to show you real world examples which failed, but you reject for some strange reason just because it is "military".
Then add in even more complexity, and then pretty much throw out the only way to do it safely.
Whatever though, have fun trying to make your pasta bowl mess of a system workable.
Fantastic, so now we have other areas that must not cross any others, and still have to somehow not have cars colliding that are going in opposite directions (or in the same direction at differing speeds).
Wow, that is really only common sense. So that is wrong, and each layer will have cars traveling in all different directions?
No, that doesn't remotely resemble what I proposed.
The specific proposal was that each "layer" would represent a virtual street grid, complete with virtual traffic signals (states control by a central system and transmitted to the on-board systems of the "cars")
Individual lanes would move in specific directions and passage through the intersections would be controlled.
As I said, you do not seem to grasp how things actually work in a three dimensional worldspace. AI even tried to show you real world examples which failed, but you reject for some strange reason just because it is "military".
No, I stated the reason I rejected in and "military" really had little to do with it.
I'll state the reason again. I rejected it based on the analogy to fixed wing aircraft.
The entire point is the ability to go from point A to point B by the most direct route. Requiring a flying car to literally follow existing roads and obey 'one way' systems, ring roads, roadwork diversions etc is ridiculous.
Actually the principal point of roads is to enable travel from point A to point B by the most direct route. One way systems and ring roads present a significant, but councils love splashing the cash on virtue-signalling, time-wasting, pollution-increasing road layout designs.
AJ
Actually the principal point of roads is to enable travel from point A to point B by the most direct route.
In theory yes, to a degree. In actuality major roads were built on trading routes and to link significant settlements or places of military significance. Minor roads link villages to each other and to the closest major route.
It depends upon where your points A & B are as to how circuitous the route you need to take. Added to which are the geographic features that prevent direct road links.
For example, the distance between Lydney and Sharpness is about 4km, but the road journey between them is about 54km as they are on opposite banks of the River Severn.
How does hovering affect fuel consumption with normal helicopters?
Hovering is the most expensive flight mode for anything that's heavier than air.
Only airships (helium blips, air balloons, dirigibles) can hover relatively effortlessly although holding station against wind may not be all that trivial either.
For a flying car with even the most rudimentary lifting body there still would be holding pattern loops; much more fuel efficient.
Hovering is the most expensive flight mode for anything that's heavier than air.
It's a known problem, with known parameters, but I'm not convinced that for a helicopter without a lifting body that moving vs hovering makes a significant difference in total flight time.
For a flying car with even the most rudimentary lifting body there still would be holding pattern loops; much more fuel efficient.
Not necessarily. A very rudimentary lifting body might need high speed, only achievable on inter urban flights not usable in intra urban flights before significant aerodynamic lift is achieved.
How does hovering affect fuel consumption with normal helicopters?
Little to no affect. The difference between forward motion and hovering energy consumption is in rotor blade blade angle and craft angle. Hovering still consumes x amount of energy to keep the craft in the air. Forward motion requires enough energy to overcome added air resistance.
Which means tighter and more expensive licensing/certification requirements for the vehicles, not just designs, but certification of individual vehicles, and requiring full pilots licenses for operators.
And also, where do they take off and land from? Are you going to have to drive to an airport in order to actually take off and land? After all, there are already sever restrictions regarding altitude and where aircraft can fly.
And who is going to give clearances for them to take off if not qualified ATC personnel? They also have to be trained in other things, like flight paths, in addition to where they can and can not fly.
And yes, flying cars have indeed been around since 1947 when the Convair 118 was first shown. And in reality, we are no closer to it becoming a reality than we were then.
Are you going to have to drive to an airport in order to actually take off and land?
Under current regulations yes. From a raw technology perspective, there is no reason why a flying car couldn't take off from and/or land in any open air parking space.
And who is going to give clearances for them to take off if not qualified ATC personnel?
And what other than government regulations make it necessary for anyone to give them clearances?
That system of clearances is all predicated on the space needed for fixed wing craft to reach the speed needed for take off and the limited resource of airport run way space.
Take that out of the picture and why are clearances needed at all?
And in reality, we are no closer to it becoming a reality than we were then.
And 100% of the reason why is government bureaucrats and their incentives for "but this is the way it's always been done" thinking.
And yes, flying cars have indeed been around since 1947 when the Convair 118 was first shown. And in reality, we are no closer to it becoming a reality than we were then.
However little, we might be, and while increases in small aircraft efficiency may or may not be important for practicality of such, the real breakthrough is in control systems.
Because, the only realistic way it can be implemented in practice is if the ordinary citizens are made illegal to manually control those things, perhaps with few and well controlled exceptions.
With highly networked, so-called "artificial intelligence" centralized control many of those problems even if doesn't go away entirely are far more feasible, as the safety margins in all dimensions can be greatly reduced.
Heck, even fully automated ground transportation systems could abolish traffic lights, both directions going trough the intersection at full speed constantly, barely missing each other in apparently chaotic manner but no risk -- as far they stay under central control.
Likewise such air control could look very much like insect swarm incomprehensible for naive human observer, consisting of very narrow non-orthogonal, non-linear flight patterns crossing often and wildly, controlled by non-trivial rhythms.
Such environment could be absolutely hostile to any direct human control, as those members would be seen as unpredictable, but some limited accommodation of control illusion for limited fraction of vehicles could possibly be tolerated.
However little, we might be, and while increases in small aircraft efficiency may or may not be important for practicality of such, the real breakthrough is in control systems.
Because, the only realistic way it can be implemented in practice is if the ordinary citizens are made illegal to manually control those things, perhaps with few and well controlled exceptions.
Which will absolutely never happen.
It is illegal even today to not be active while "piloting" a self-driving car. That is because even the makers of these know that accidents and breakdowns happen. The same reason that the copilot does not take a nap and the pilot of an aircraft go in the back for some coffee. Modern planes can pretty much take off, fly to their destination, and land all automatically. But accidents still happen, which is why a pilot must be awake and prepared to take over in the event of such a failure.
And you want to remove all control, and once again basically put people in flying coffins, in which all they could do in such an event is watch in terror as they crash?
One thing about being so into technology for as long as I have been, is that I have also seen the ways it can spectacularly fail. Over and over again. This is something that even NASA and the military have known for decades, but accidents still happen.
Hell, Dr. Michael Chrichton made his career specifically writing about how technology could fail spectacularly. WestWorld, Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, and as fascinated and involved as he was with new and emerging technology, he also knew that as it got more complex, the capability of it failing only grew exponentially with its complexity.
A power failure, a hardware crash anywhere along the line, a short or failure in the system in the craft itself, a bug in the system, a GPS providing data giving wrong reports, the sources for failure are far to many to even begin to list. And you think the solution is removing people completely.
Well hell, why wait for flying cars? Just tell Congress we need a law to make all cars self-piloting within 5 years. And that all manual controls be removed. Surely that will put an end to all traffic fatalities, right?
Which is potentially more dangerous, an autonomous aircraft or an autonomous car?
Paradoxically, autonomous aircraft is simpler, technologically. Much more dangerous in hands of an unstable/foolish/malicious pilot too. So I would say, piloted aircraft is more dangerous.
You may feel that way, but the government is not approving fully autonomous ground vehicles for unlimited use on public roads.
Once the cost gets low enough to make it possible to provide a service at a low rate I can see the government approving air car controlled services for public transport operations in place of buses, light rail, taxis, and some emergency services but not for general citizen usage.
I do worry it will go the way of helicopter taxis did. Back in the 1960s and 1970s helicopter taxis from the airports to the city centres and between some town centres were all the rage, but proved to be a very fleeting thing in most cases because they weren't commercially viable after 'new' wore off and tickets were only being bought by regular commuters who could afford them. Most of those services closed down after only a few years of operation. Some do still operate, but not many.
Where I live, helicopter taxis are a f*cking nuisance. especially with their penchant for flying illegally low. Pre-covid, some days there didn't seem to be a moment's respite from them.
Now the UK is (hopefully) emerging from covid again, the buggers are slowly coming back.
AJ
Where I live, helicopter taxis are a f*cking nuisance. especially with their penchant for flying illegally low.
Umm... Are you saying that the helos are interfering with your copulatory endeavours?
Or do you find it sexually intimidating to be overshadowed by a huge chopper?
Maybe the extreme low-levels prevent you hearing them cumming?
:)
The local flying club has a reputation for its light planes doing low-flying circles over built-up areas when it's sunbathing weather. What could possibly be the reason ...
AJ
The local flying club has a reputation for its light planes doing low-flying circles over built-up areas when it's sunbathing weather. What could possibly be the reason ...
One possible reason would be a lack of G-Suits thus a training method that encourages blood to rush elsewhere than their feet whilst repeatedly circling?
:)
Answering my own thread, here's another example: both the Dutch and British marines have been doing PR stunts with jet packs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KvlQKdBo8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aACrlsuQgtI
Other examples of tech today that would still feel right at home in a contemporary sci fi story?
Ps am currently reading Al Steiner's Greenies. How come I had never found it before now? Awesome!!
Oh, there's a lot.
There's a lot of growing potential (but in reality still quite small chance) for sudden "technological singularity" type shifts.
Note that also in this (fluidic propulsion) case, even as cool it looks, we don't talk about principal, magnitudial improvements but rather fractional, situational improvements over comparable legacy systems: 15%, 30%, 50%, and even if you multiple potential of fuel efficiency improvements with potential trust increases (what isn't correct to do, of course) the total gains are in ballpark of a factor of 2.3 at most. Sure that's a lot and there might well been further improvements in the future. Quieter than ducted fans, while more efficient than open rotors, and the decoupling of thruster fixture and power source enabling flexible and preferable form factors, it sure has some potential to make open rotor virtually obsolete in aviation. I can see great potential of synergy with turboprop jet engines for F35B style STOVL aircraft as much as rotor replacement in light slow moving vehicles they are currently exploring.
The "flying car" concept as such though has as much sociopolitical problems as technological if not far greater. Practicality discussion aside it seems increasingly likely we would indeed see some explosion of public or semi-public small form short distance air transport in ten to fifteen years, or at least attempts of that, but proper private "flying cars" might be another decade out.
But who knows. Some visionary disregarding profits slow incremental approach could bring may come along (SpaceX exist to provide an example) and paradoxically full automation of aircraft is technically easier than in surface (wheeled) vehicles and far less culturally stigmatized, so it's possible, seemingly literally anytime now.
The major setback of current technological pace is energy, specifically power density. Given a major breakthrough a fast and complete overhaul of the world as we know it isn't out of imaginable.
You look for things that have been in development for decades, limited by iterative growth of scientific knowledge, material availability and/or economo-political as well as cultural resistance.
Micro form fission nuclear power is one. They are currently advertising a reactor generating 10MW electric power + 10MW heat in "standard shipping container" form factor for future (likely exclusively military) clients. Why you won't have that as backup power for your mansion anytime soon seems self explanatory, even if it shouldn't as the issues aren't strictly technical.
Currently it seems that linear fusion reactors will go commercial before ITER tokamak even begins the main experiment program. At least in theory a linear fusion reactor can also be an engine in a very direct way, but yeah, that's still firmly sci-fi territory, for now.
Speaking of space engines, if we have a shot at a proper spaceplane (what Virgin Galactic toy definitely isn't) in a near term, the SABRE engine seems all we have. Their pre-cooler heat exchanger, initially impossibly tenfold to heavy to ever fly and mired by seemingly insurmountable problems of ice forming, now has been validated for temperatures up to 1126°C and may well be an industrial breakthrough of far more impact than "just" enabling single-stage-to-orbit flight all by itself. Btw, they are welding it in a vacuum chamber.
Speaking of hydrogen engines, Airbus is toying with idea using it to supercool the whole powertrain into supraconductive mode.
And the hunt for low pressure "room temperature" supraconductor is one of the most exciting in current materials science. That there's the dual qualification is even needed is already huge: very high temperature supraconductors are observed (+15°C if I remember right, up to +200°C already predicted), even if only under insane pressure inside a diamond anvil, but most importantly our understanding is rapidly growing.
The graphene revolution is only spinning up still, even if current applications are seemingly unremarkable and even under-delivering evolutionary upgrades to known products in comparison to the initial and ongoing hype. And graphene isn't even alone, there's almost whole new class of 2D materials and surface layer physics that may even beat the high pressure crystal lattice studies to deliver applied high temperature superconducting solutions.
Of course nothing of the above could ever be possible without processing power enabling to run hydrodynamic equations in ever increasing resolutions (remember the impossibility of a bumblebee? slowly but steadily we're getting there), brute force search through huge numbers of possible crystal lattice variations etc. We already take it for granted, but the mind boggling complexity enabling even the current generation of computers is worth mentioning.
But if quantum computing with remain somewhat elusive on the full scale (and rather would end up as highly specialized subsystem anyway) doesn't sufficiently blow your mind, there's memristors lurking in the shadows. Slowly but steadily looking for "commercial maturity" more than anything else, I suppose. They have potential to fundamentally blur if not entirely remove distinction between processor and memory. A robot brain we could build tomorrow most likely would be 3D stacked memristor neural network, and found intact 10,000 years in future it could still work and still have all the data.
Micro form fission nuclear power is one. They are currently advertising a reactor generating 10MW electric power + 10MW heat in "standard shipping container" form factor for future (likely exclusively military) clients. Why you won't have that as backup power for your mansion anytime soon seems self explanatory, even if it shouldn't as the issues aren't strictly technical.
And there are other ways to use atomic power.
The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) is not exactly new, it was first developed in 1954. It uses neither fusion or fission to generate power, but the heat given up by the decay of an atomic pile. This is what powers a lot of satellites, including the Pioneer and Voyager programs.
For a brief time in the 1960's they even used plutonium powered pacemakers. But the reason why this is almost never used outside of spacecraft is obvious.
A Pu238 RTG generates about .5 watts per gram. SO would use a lot of that element to provide a decent amount of power. And it is limited by the critical mass.
To generate 5 kilowatts of power, you would need a plutonium RTG with 10 kilograms of plutonium. Which is not only incredibly expensive ($4,000 per gram), it is also over the critical mass where such a large amount of plutonium would initiate a spontaneous chain reaction.
I forgot to mention so-called "massless" structural batteries. The idea is that you eventually build significant parts (structure and/or paneling) of the vehicle itself from high strength energy storage panels. Current examples aren't anything breathtaking, but the work is ongoing and supposedly progressing rather quickly.
ETA: And speaking more about network scale energy storage, there's potential for iron-iron batteries.
If you want one that is already certified (in NL): The Dutch PAL-V. Only $599K :D
A couple similar have been put up for certification in the US. Not sure where they are in the process, but the FAA has announced a rule banning marketing such as "flying cars". You have to use the term "roadable aircraft"
The future is already here
No. It isn't.
In the past predictions were made about the future. Those that exist first appeared in the present, which is now the past.
So, more correctly, the title should be. "The past is finally here".
:)
ps. I wrote this in my present to be read in the future, if you got this far, that future is the past.
Or as DA said. "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
joyR
5/4/2021, 11:13:08 AM
Updated: 5/4/2021, 11:13:49 AM
@samsonjasThe future is already here
No. It isn't.
In the past predictions were made about the future. Those that exist first appeared in the present, which is now the past.
Yesterday: The day that never was.
Tomorrow: The day that never will be.
Today: The only day that exists.
Why is this so? Because yesterday, yesterday was today and today was tomorrow and tomorrow, tomorrow will be today and today will be yesterday.
Yesterday: The day that never was.
Tomorrow: The day that never will be.
Today: The only day that exists.
As a specific replicable event in space/time;
The future does not yet exist.
The past no longer exists.
The point at which the future becomes the past is such an immeasurably small quantity that we can only assume it exists.
Gary
Well...
Current front page Nature Electronics research article headlines:
Transferred van der Waals metal electrodes for sub-1-nm MoS2 vertical transistors
Printable and recyclable carbon electronics using crystalline nanocellulose dielectrics
Multi-channel nanowire devices for efficient power conversion
Characterization of through-silicon vias using laser terahertz emission microscopy
Learning human–environment interactions using conformal tactile textiles
A wireless communication scheme based on space- and frequency-division multiplexing using digital metasurfaces
Large transport gap modulation in graphene via electric-field-controlled reversible hydrogenation
Resonant tunnelling diodes based on twisted black phosphorus homostructures
Scaling out Ising machines using a multi-chip architecture for simulated bifurcation
An electrically conductive silver–polyacrylamide–alginate hydrogel composite for soft electronics
Hall effects in artificially corrugated bilayer graphene without breaking time-reversal symmetry
A spin–orbit torque device for sensing three-dimensional magnetic fields
Transistors and logic circuits based on metal nanoparticles and ionic gradients
A hybrid III–V tunnel FET and MOSFET technology platform integrated on silicon
Strain-resilient electrical functionality in thin-film metal electrodes using two-dimensional interlayers
Strain-insensitive intrinsically stretchable transistors and circuits
A cryogenic CMOS chip for generating control signals for multiple qubits
...
Sure, those are research papers, likely not even close to anything applied, but even just the aggregate of headlines seems so convincing we're living in exciting times I couldn't resist a dump.
Lets see
Flying cars (check)
multiple 3 dimensional traffic lanes (check)
Thing coming at you from unknown or unseen direction (check)
3 dimensional Police chase involving flying car (check)
Great now I've got the urge to watch The Fifth Element (1997)
Flying cars in a risk-averse, MSM-driven, lawyer-infested world?
Slim chance.
The same thing goes for the HyperLoop.
Cue news bimbo bewailing the horror of the first flying car to crash (probably on a school playground) or the bodies in a HyperLoop vehicle after the door falls off while in a vacuum.
Ignore the fact that over 3,000 people died that day in auto accidents. Those won't get any coverage, unless someone "important" to the news media is involved.