I think the chances “flying taxis” become a thing before fully autonomous cars is actually pretty high.
It’s an easier technical problem I’d think, and the regulatory issues are probably about the same.
But a flying, electric, quiet, self-flying drone taxi will mean no traffic issues, as-the-crow-flies travel, and higher top speeds. It may eventually mean the death of roads and the ability for people to live 100 miles from where they work, possibly solving a lot of housing issues in metropolitan areas.
Also it’d be a better way to get around watery/mountainous areas, not to mention just a few helipads to clean off after snowstorms.
Flying cars or taxis will (IMHO) never take off for various reasons:
- they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels
- they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity
- airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic
- it's not sustainable from nature-perspective. Current air traffic accounts for quite some insect & bird loss. Imagine a multitude of current airtraffic; it would be disastrous for the already dwindling quantity of airborne creatures
- flying is inherently weather-bound. Especially for relatively small aircrafts this is true. Taxis fit this property. This means service is limited to a subset of all weather conditions; YMMV depending on the area of flight.
- flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers. Obviously, startups can overcome these barriers, but they don't help in solving the overall problem
- social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached. Until that time, there will be fierce opposition to add any type of aircraft for mass-use to the airspace
This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range.
> they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels
assuming it can be harvested cleanly, energy isn't inherently a problem until we start getting close to capturing a significant fraction of total solar irradiance. we get better at this every year, so eventually it will be a non-issue.
> they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity
imo, this is probably the biggest obstacle. like you say, there's really no plausible breakthrough that could reduce the noise level to something that could be acceptable in a dense environment.
> airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic
idk what country you live it, but this is probably only true at higher altitudes and in the immediate surroundings of airports.
> airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic
this is important, but people won't necessarily care.
the other items in your list would probably delay adoption but not prevent it altogether.
Not sure that’s really an issue. Imagine the surface of your city had no obstacles and were basically one huge road. Surely, that’s a lot of space to drive. Now imagine many horizontal layers of that, so you could eg easily separate by direction of travel (as is done in aviation).
Next, one problem in traditional aviation is of course that planes can’t stop in the air. Drones, however, can.
While air space and ATC for many air taxis surely present a regulatory and technical challenge, I don’t think they’ll severely limit large scale deployment in principle, particularly if it’s more or less random point-to-point traffic.
If everyone is trying to get to a specific location at a specific time (an event), that might get complicated.
There's no nature-perspective, there's the question how to keep the environment the way we like it (or accustomed to). Flying insects/birds loss is a tiny part of the equation that needs to be taken into account.
>they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels
Total cost will be lower.
>they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity
Not electric, though wind may be a problem if the FAA allows a free-for-all, which it probably won't.
>airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic
With human pilots, sure. With autonomous vehicles, nope. They'll swarm like birds or insects.
>it's not sustainable from nature-perspective
Airborne wildlife will learn to avoid population centers and "skyways".
>flying is inherently weather-bound
Only with human pilots. Autonomous vehicles will care only about ice and lightning. Severe wind, sure, but that's fairly rare in most places.
>flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers
The FAA just relaxed its regulations and will relax them more in the future. Everyone wants the personal airborne vehicle, especially winkled old bureaucrats in Washington.
>social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached
This may come as a surprise, but policymakers don't really give a damn about what the public wants. Autonomous vehicles will be more safe than human-piloted craft, which is enough, and electric, which is silent.
>This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range.
Good, because you're going to get it.
P.S. Re: +/- several hundred kilometers: There's no such thing as negative range.
> But a flying, electric, quiet, self-flying drone taxi will mean no traffic issues
At certain levels of demand there are air traffic control and collision avoidance issues that need to be dealt with. Birds, other air taxis, consumer drones, aircraft small and large.
Also, departure and landing sequencing - what happens when a few hundred air taxis need to depart a large apartment complex for their commute, or a thousand or so air taxis descend for a large sports or entertainment event.
> I think the chances “flying taxis” become a thing before fully autonomous cars is actually pretty high.
Not sure. They will become profitable only at a point where you can sell many flying taxis, at which point the airspace becomes crowded and the problem becomes harder than autonomous cars.
If they are truly autonomous, then you could just manage the airspace centrally and tightly as would happen with a city full of autonomous cars. That extra dimension to work with provides a lot more leeway.
You can't really fly one helicopter under another due to downdrafts. At least you need a lot of vertical separation. Any flying machine creates a "wake" which is many times larger than the actual vehicle.
As much as I wish for flying cars in the future, Elon said they would be too loud and dangerous to be feasible. You can watch what exactly he said on the ted interview, would be interested in an counter argument to his position.
Noise quickly becomes a non issue with altitude. But, yea you would probably notice someone next door taking off or landing.
IMO and his major point the issue/risk is falling cars. NYC for example does not have many safe places to crash, or just have a hubcap fall off. Aircraft tend to mostly hit empty fields and mountains because that's what most of the US is covered with. Still, plenty of people have died sitting at home as an aircraft failed and making that 10,000x as bad seems like a significant issue.
> Aircraft tend to mostly hit empty fields and mountains because that's what most of the US is covered with.
Also because the route takes them that way. People are going to be doing short commute runs in these flying taxis (airport to city, house to work, etc). That's not over lots and lots of nothing in the general case.
NYC specifically knows exactly what it's like to have a lot of aerial taxi traffic, as helicopter shuttles were really popular there until the crash on the PanAm building and withdrawal of all permits for on-building helipads. The risks are far too great to allow flying machines in city centres.
Being quiet is probably the hardest challenge. A lot of the noise from helicopters is from the rotor, a collection of smaller propellers with the same lifting power is worse, and small and fast is worst. There are few, if any, options for improving this that have not already been exploited.
More pragmatically, it will be a way to leapfrog gridlock. The traffic in Indonesia, the Philippines, China, India, Vietnam make the American traffic look like a joke.
I agree with most of your post, but I can't agree with this:
> the regulatory issues are probably about the same
The issue is, flying cars are by far more dangerous than road vehicles.
Sadly, transportation advances come at a cost of human lives.
Today we take road fatalities for granted. Think of the dangers of crossing the road 150 years ago vs now.
But even today getting injured or killed by a motor vehicle requires being near a road or a thoroughfare where it can pass. Imagine taking it to a whole new level: even if you're standing on your balcony or even inside your apartment, you can get killed by an idiot flying his mini-plane on ecstasy. Tiny drones with toy functions and limited traffic are already dangerous. Imagine super-powered flying machines that can lift a ton.
> possibly solving a lot of housing issues in metropolitan areas
Sprawl does not solve housing issues. Let’s say the metropolitan range is expanded by 100 miles, all that’s happened is now the 100 mile area will soon get filled up with low density housing full of new NIMBY homeowners. It’s much better to approve new housing near existing transportation infrastructure than spend billions building out a speculative technology to fix a problem with an easily understood solution.
Hmm, you might be right about the problem being easier, or at least parts of it. Though, besides what others said about loudness and danger, I think the main point is cost. Even if they can be deployed earlier than fully autonomous cars, if they are too expensive (compared to alternatives) the adoption will be quite limited (and hence, not really working as "taxis" as I see it). Still cool though.
It’s an easier technical problem I’d think, and the regulatory issues are probably about the same.
But a flying, electric, quiet, self-flying drone taxi will mean no traffic issues, as-the-crow-flies travel, and higher top speeds. It may eventually mean the death of roads and the ability for people to live 100 miles from where they work, possibly solving a lot of housing issues in metropolitan areas.
Also it’d be a better way to get around watery/mountainous areas, not to mention just a few helipads to clean off after snowstorms.
It would also be super cool, jetsons-style!