Flying Car

Could the FlyingCar, or something close, become a reality, perhaps assisted or controlled by computers to reduce human error? If everything was computer-controlled, then many of the problems caused by confused, hyper, or inattentive road drivers could be greatly reduced. Only rural areas would allow more user-control. Sure, computers are not perfect, but we already live with risk for the sake of transportation. Road cars are the biggest killer next to health problems.

(Comments about Artificial Intelligence moved below.)

If an engine problem is detected, the computer could calculate the safest landing area based on previous surveys and time-of-day. It also wouldn't allow take-off if the engine fails check parameters. Unlike a 2D roadster check-engine light, there'd be no moving if anything suspicious is detected. If it wasn't detected until in-flight, then the nearest safe landing spot would automatically be sought, barring a special override from the control towers. It would also be locked if there's not enough fuel to reach stated destination.

NASA's Puffin project looks promising as a commuting machine. It's a single-passenger battery-powered capsule that uses vertical take-off and landing. Two-passenger versions are probably possible, but lose the compactness needed to use existing car parking. A downside of the Puffin is that it has no self-rolling while on the ground. Perhaps small wheels could be added to move around in the parking-lot. Roof-tops could be converted for landing strips and parking, with some reinforcement.

It has dual electric propellers that add partial redundancy, at least enough to avoid a crash-landing. The remaining motor perhaps could "run hot" right before the landing to slow it enough. The motor may be useless (unsafe) after, but that's a worth-while trade-off. And remember, this is all fly-by-wire.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/nasa-puffin/

Artificial Intelligence

Note that over-promising ArtificialIntelligence has already killed people - long before a HalNineThousand is technically feasible...

I don't see where AI is really necessary yet. It's just careful application of real-time control systems and statistical analysis.

AI horizon effect alert! (ArtificialIntelligenceIsUnattainableByDefinition) A few decades ago and the kind of RTC systems we have now would have been considered AI.

Perhaps, but I'm considering existing technology, not what may be here 5 or 10 years from now. If somebody said, "It won't work until you solve computing problem X", then it may be an issue. There is no identified need for AI at this point. Fly-by-wire already exists, for example. Finding the best landing spot if there is a problem is just database searching and statistical or weighted ranking (distance versus safety versus estimated severity of failure, etc). Such may resemble AI, but I don't consider it AI. The passenger may have a say also, such as telling the computer that the target emergency landing spot is occupied by people or debris so that a secondary spot is sought.

Standardized Sub-Components for Ground-Based

A ground alternative could be the pod car. You have pod-like mini-car that can come off the wheel base. The larger the pod, the higher the fare. The pod goes through an automatic mechanism that hooks it up to ski-lift-like transportation corridor. The corridor can pack more people per area than current cars such that there'd be no traffic. It can even be multi-layer for high-density areas. The routing system would transfer pods to the various lines as needed.

When your pod exits from the corridor, it is put back on a wheel-base by the dismounting mechanism. The wheel-bases and associated battery packs are generally rented and people have an option of base providers.

The down-side of this is that it requires BigDesignUpFront (or big-construction up-front). I can see it happening in Europe or Asia, but not the US, which prefers incremental approaches. But unlike buses and rail cars, one doesn't have to share "space" with strangers. Privacy is something that Americans seem to prefer. And one can drive around in the pod independently after dismounting, at least on local streets. You wouldn't have to get out to transfer to another line or means of transportation. (Written after a bad commute.)

Getting close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

If we divorce the engine frame from the passenger compartment and standardize sizes and connections, then we get a lot of flexibility. For example, if the "pod way" is down due to construction, terrorism, etc. then you could hook up your pod to your own engine frame, or a locally-rented one, and drive to work the old-fashioned way. (Normally you'd rent the engine at the end of the pod-way trip. You could bring your own on the pod-way, but would pay for the extra weight.) If you want to drive to Vegas on your own, then you can rent a bigger engine/battery to hook to your pod.

There'd typically be these parts:

Passenger "pod" - There would be multiple but standardized sizes.
Engine and front-wheel unit
Rear wheel unit
Transportation corridor(s), which replace "freeways"
Pod bus - Similar to city buses, but for pods.

The rear-wheel unit could perhaps be built into or usually-included in the passenger pod for surface-street usage, having tiny wheels. However, if you want to do heavy-duty driving, then the rear-wheel unit could snap off to be replaced with a bigger one. The corridor system may charge slightly extra for bringing your small-wheel set, as opposed to renting one at the destination. This depends if the extra weight is economically worth tracking by the corridor agency (if the small kind), including factoring in the hassle/time of installing a rear set at destinations.

On second thought, maybe the engine unit should be in back. Leg-room and windshield tilt will generally make the pod be a parallelogram shape tilting toward the back (\...\). This leaves a "slot" in the back to attach and fit the engine. However, some might find it a safety risk because there's no engine in front to act as a de-facto crumple zone. This is not a difference maker if most objects to hit are other pod-cars, but for trees, light-poles, etc. it's still an issue.

Man, one could go to and through Disneyland without ever getting out of one's car (pod).

Open Questions:

Engine on front or rear
A/C and heat
Size limits

Should this topic be renamed FutureOfPersonalTransportation? or the like?

Perhaps, but "flying car" is much more catchy. Esthetics and entertainment sometimes trump logic in the human world. If the non-flying stuff gets big enough, we can split it off to another topic.....like a pod-car unit.

I had read a thing in an old HyperCard stack zine advocating dirigibles for this use. Advantages of dirigibles are natural speed limit so GrandMa? isn't breaking the sound barrier, and in the event of a failure of the propulsion system, the vehicle stays buoyant. You could drive around in car mode then, when you wanted to fly, inflate the dirigible part on the roof from your tank of compressed helium.

The "balloon" portion requires a lot of space, even if deflatable-when-done. It may work in rural areas, but the space could cause problems in suburbs and cities. Older neighborhoods also have a lot of telephone poles.