Probably whenever we can get a long more delta-V than what we've got the capability to produce right now.

In reply to Jarodemo (msg # 3):

It did...

In reply to Sleepy (msg # 5):

Lol! I believe so too, but I know it is a topic that provokes much debate...:)

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 4):

O.o double post cause I didn't see this.

Delta-V isn't the issue with flying cars, fuel is. Delta-v IS a factor, but we know the formula to solve for delta-v and do it with humungous rockets (for those who don't know, delta-v is the amount of force needed to get from one place to another).

Thing is, if we used gasoline, the vehicle would use TONS of fuel just to hover. If we made them lighter, they'd be unsafe in a wreck scenario. We have floating vehicles, but they're extremely slow, or only work over water and similarly smooth surfaces.

In reply to Jarodemo (msg # 6):

It does spark debate and I don't know why. We have equipment up there that you don't have to be an astronaut to use for experiments. That test that was done on The Big Bang Theory isn't made up, that stuff really CAN be done by anyone with knowledge of lasers and lunar trajectory.

Sorry. my 'error' resulted from not deleting the irrelevant part of the quote. I was already aware of all the stuff you were talking about.


Actually delta-V is the maximum change in velocity that can be achieved given the reaction mass contained in the vessel.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:07, Sun 20 July 2014.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 9):

Yeah, but if you explain it like that most people don't understand it still. That's why I go with an easier explanation. If you really simplify it, your gas tank meter is a delta-v solver. It determines how much thrust your car can produce based on how much fuel is in it versus how much different it weighs from full to empty, which is why it fluctuates a bit (inefficient driving wastes more fuel).

We will never having flying cars, they're far too unsafe.  "But we can make them safer..."  No, the problem is that they could be maliciously crashed too easily.  Look at how much traffic DC gets.  Now imagine a dozen flying cars brought up high and dumped on the White House.  That'd be a lot of damage.  Think of all the safety barriers put up on the street in front of Court buildings and such, because people get angry over something and want to cause some damage.  Now imagine trying to extend those barriers over a full half-bubble of space, where a flying car could come from any direction and any angle.

The only defense would be to make something like, "If CarX comes into RadiusY, then a computer will take over and redirect CarX to LocationZ instead" but then you leave open the very real and troubling possibility of a malicious hacker redirecting cars into other buildings.

With society at the state that it's in, there's just literally no way to make mass produced flying cars safe by and for the general public.  And that's why they'll never be allowed and why nobody is bothering to work on them, because it would be an enormous money sink with no chance of recovering the money spent.

I was sitting in my classroom when they rolled in the large screen television. Everyone waited with baited breath. It was a great moment.

After 2001 California held a referendum -- I was an over the road truck driver at the time and was there -- to issue a bond, the entire amount to go to hiring more Police Officers.

The tax payers voted no. That's right. They were demanding more Police, but were completely unwilling to pay for them. Police Officers and Fireman get pay checks too. It's how they pay their mortgage. You know, kind of like you do.

People absolutely refuse to pay for more police, even though they feel "undafe" in their own homes.

What makes any of you think that they're going to "waste money" going back to the Moon, much less Mars?

Why didn't my father's generation "come through" on the Mars trip and "flying cars?"

Because, as a "whole," my generation -- and yours -- refused, and continues to refuse, to finance it.

Sad state of affairs, really.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:13, Sun 20 July 2014.

Now, that makes me wonder: why did we (or, rather, you) go to the Moon in the first place? It wasn't a waste of money back then?

For the hot moon women.

Jeez, didn't you watch Dark of the Moon? We went to the moon to investigate the crash of the Ark. :P

Only explanation that really makes any sense.

Of course it makes sense.  By 1969 America had had three years of William Shatner showing them that space was full of attractive, scantily-clad young ladies who really liked heroic Earth-men.

Actually, I don't consider it a "waste of money." I was discussing the current, prevalent attitude amongst the general public.

Schools need repair, highways need repair, bridges need repair, hospitals need repair. We need more doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, firemen; the list goes on. People on welfare and those collecting unemployment still get a vote and they would rather have another $100 a month, or even a week, rather then spend $30 billion on going to Mars. Overall, people simply aren't going to support it. The general attitude is that it's a waste money.

I think such a journey is exactly what the kids -- and young adults -- today need.

"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

We all thrilled at those words. Those words fed our souls.

I was a kid in school, as I said. So, technically, it was my father, and not "I," that 'went to the moon.'

Better technology enriches our lives in countless myriad ways.  Doing something that can't really be done with current technology will require better technology to complete and will yield more countless improvements to our lives.  For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...pin-off_technologies

"Invisible" braces on your teeth
Scratch-resistant lens in your eyeglasses
The memory foam pad on your bed
Ear thermometers -- every parent thanks God that they don't have to use mercury-filled glass rectal thermometers anymore
Safety grooving in the highways/freeways you drive on
Cordless tools
Water filters

Say what you want about what a boondoggle going to the Moon was, but the technology that's been spun out of that has enriched our lives thousands of times over.  Things are safer, work better, and last longer.

We'll never have flying cars, though.  If those ever look like they're about to go mainstream, I fully expect them to be banned completely.

Your fears concerning the dangers of flying cars . . . are going to be realized much sooner with all the privatized drones that are fixing to fill our skies.

I see Congress and the FAA "rushing" to regulate how they might be operated, but no one's rushing to ban them.

You might not get a World Trade Center from one of them, but a couple of sticks of dynamite tied to one of those new pizza delivery drones?

That's more than enough to take care of you . . . your family . . . your house.

Need I say more?

"Outlaw" flying cars? I don't think so.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:47, Mon 21 July 2014.

Fixed that for you...I'm pretty sure Future Farmers of America isn't too concerned about drone traffic, but the Federal Aviation Administration is probably MUCH more interested in the issue.   *grin*

Don't we already have flying cars, of a sort? They're called 'helicopters'.

They function in a similar way to the concept of the flying car, i.e. they are personal, can transport a small group of people and don't need a full airport to operate. Yes, not as practical or cheap as a normal car but not as expensive or cumbersome as a full aeroplane.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 21):

Lol! I'm sure that the Football Federation of Armenia consider it to be a major issue. :)

In reply to Jarodemo (msg # 22):

Part of the concept of the flying car was that it would be affordable enough that anyone who could afford a car (granted, probably a much nicer car than I can afford) would be able to purchase a car that could fly.  The early promoters of the idea had the idea that their car concept would be as widespread as, say, the entire fleet of Ferrari cars (not everybody has one, but they are common enough that you can see several in just about every major city in America...)

Another part of the concept was that you could take off and land with them anywhere there was sufficient road space to get up to speed.  Helicopters, while they can, technically, go pretty much anywhere, are generally pretty limited in regards to where they take off and land on a regular basis.

In that regard, a better analog to the idea of the flying car would be the ultra-light aircraft, which is generally within the price range of at least half the US populace, is NOT required by law to operate from an airport (although it's a lot more convenient to do so), isn't required to get a specific pilot's license to operate legally (strongly advised that you at least get SOME training, but not required), and doesn't have to file a flight plan (or didn't, back when I was looking at the option of getting one.  It's been a few years...like, almost 25...so some or all of that may have changed...)

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 24):

Ah, okay that makes sense.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 21):

Thanks! I get to typing too fast sometimes. LOL

If you really want to celebrate fly a Kerbal Space Program flight to the Mun

Gerbils fly?  :D