ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Back to the Future trilogy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skullislander wrote:
You surely must have wondered to yourself, as I myself have:

---'why don't they crash into each other?!'

Well, uh . . . obviously they DO crash into each other . . . and bounce off unharmed, just like crowds at sports stadiums jostle each other around.

When scientist figure out how to put humming bird brains into fighter pilots, imagine how good they'll be in aerial dogfights! Very Happy

Meanwhile, 1.3 million drivers die in car crashes each year because they drive too fast, or following too close, or text while driving.


Skullislander wrote:
Granted, just transferring modern road problems up to a single limited level just moves the problem up to the sky but I feel flying cars would revolutionize available space for driving.

Agreed. Fewer roads, bridges, and tunnels to build. Distances to destinations would be measured as-the-crow-flies. Time spent in transit would be cut in half. Great advantages, one and all.

The problem, of course, is that all the empty space up there is suddenly not so empty when we launch a few million flying cars into it. And let's be honest, we can't expect people to fly any better than they drive!

You seem to be missing the big difference between conventional aircraft traffic and the much larger number of flying cars we have to plan for.


Skullislander wrote:
Most airplane flights are for traveling overseas, OK the States has loads of internal flights but is a vast nation with loads of airspace.

Still leaves plenty of space for everyone else and their rocket-cars!

That's the point on which we disagree. Remember, we're not talking about this —



— we're talking about the airborne version of this.



And people won't just be flying around for the fun of it ("Hey, look Honey! I can see our house down there!"), they'll be going to work, coming home from work, headed for the mall, traveling to grandma's house for Thanksgiving, so forth and so on.

All these folks will be leaving from one populated area and going to another populated areas, which means lots of folks headed in the same direction — not just buzzing around in random directions like a cloud of insects.

Picture it this way: if you paved a one-square mile piece of flat land and put all those cars in the traffic jam photo neatly lined up around the four-mile perimeter, then you told them to drive across to the opposite side, think about the results.

Something like this, maybe?



I'll mention again that our flying cars can't wander up into the commercial air lanes, because that's where the big airliners and military aircraft race along at hundreds of miles an hour. The driver of a flying car would never see one of those guys coming from the side, and a head-on collision would combine the two aircrafts' speed, so the approach would be even quicker.

The bottom line is simply this: If you put that many flying cars up there, the areas that will have the highest concentration (around the cities) will need strict rules and well-organized traffic patterns that move all those vehicles along safely and efficiently.

After all, a flying car is basically one big "blind spot" except for directly ahead and on the sides. But the driver can't keep glancing out the side windows to be sure another car isn't about to broadside him. It would be worse than constantly driving through the middle of an intersection with no traffic lights, because you'd still have to worry about collisions from above and below! Shocked

So, even though there are advantages to flying cars that get you from point A to point B quicker than snaking around on various roads, we must get the whole process organized so it's NOT like a cloud of insects buzzing around in all directions.

We need it to look more like this. Very Happy




_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:58 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scotpens wrote:
Bud Brewster wrote:
. . . As for that all important visibility, ask any pilot if he'd feel comfortable avoiding other aircraft simply by "looking around" for other planes. Even on a bright and sunny day, he'd have to be able to see above, below, and behind his aircraft. Which is impossible.

It's not only possible, it's done by thousands of pilots every day. It's called VFR (Visual Flight Rules).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_flight_rules

You missed my point, sir. I was pointing out that a pilot can only see what is visible through his windshield — which limits him to what he can see looking straight ahead, left, or right.

Any aircraft directly above him, below him, or behind would NOT be visible. And VFR specifically states that a pilot is only expected to see "where the aircraft is going".

Visual flight rules (VFR) are a set of regulations under which a pilot operates an aircraft in weather conditions generally clear enough to allow the pilot to see where the aircraft is going.

My comment was meant to justify the way the flying cars in Back to the Future were required to stay on the "skyway", which kept them all moving in the same direction, at the same level — thereby minimizing collisions from the side, the top, or the bottom.

Skullislander prefers the "open range" concept of flying car navigation (no limits on direction or altitude), whereas I'm a staunch advocate of strict rules that require drivers to stay on the skyways to minimize accidents.

After all, two flying cars that collide don't just spin out, come to halt, and wait for the tow truck to arrive!

They drop out of the sky, crash, and burn!!! Shocked

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow you sure have gave this idea of flying motors a lot of thought Bud------- however if todays congested roads could be thinned out ten-fold this would make a helluva difference: this would mean TEN levels of airborne traffic which I think is feasible considering we have about two miles above us until we hit space.

The photos you show above show the horrendous problems regarding road traffic congestion but thinning this out ten times should be enough to make it workable---also the roads themselves could still be in use for say a third of the traffic, lessening air traffic further-------lets face it not everyone is going to be in a position to AFFORD one of these rocket-cars---what are they gonna cost when they first arrive on the market?! Airborne traffic would take a lot of the pressure off the roads and make ground-level driving more practical again like it used to be.

In the first instance however, I feel the technology is nowhere ready to see this sort of development come about in a mass-market way any time soon---it would take a revolutionary new form of power in a small engine [maybe something really dangerous like atomic power] so maybe until a new breakthrough that is safe enough arrives it will not happen en masse.

At the moment they can only get a jet-pack for one person to fly two miles --that is the only range they can manage due to fuel problems--- regular gasoline does not cut it here!

So imagine the problems in keeping a car 'airborne'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just thinking---in the far future the authorities could put up a powerful projection of criss-cross laser mesh to deter rocket cars from entering forbidden zones up in the sky reserved for regular airplanes, etc!

Anyone flying directly into the laser mesh will get ZAPPED like a fly in an electric fly-killer!

OK this idea is still at least 300 years ahead into the future!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also Bud, it is not only HEIGHT advantages you would exploit with jetcars but also BREADTH: how many freeways cross the breadth of the States Coast-to-Coast?

You could bet your bottom dollar that many extra lanes could be set up for coast-to-coast travel, simply by flying over impenetrable forests , mountain ranges etc.

And think of the panoramic view you would get!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The obvious answer of course, is that the cars would have to be integrated into a "system" where they are completely controlled by a central computer that regulates speed, direction and altitude.

You would fly into a holding pattern and then integrated into the "swarm" with your destination pre registered until you are released for self flight. During your flight you would not be able to deviate from your pre registered flight plan. Safe distancing would be automatically maintained as well. The routes would also be predetermined and regulated. It's almost like an autopilot system.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This sounds practical Gord and perhaps the foundations for this are already being laid with 'driverless cars' which appear to be on the horizon-----they sound like they use pre-determined computerized routes, using only manual control as a last resort.

Inhuman maybe but it could be the way forwards for practical reasons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skull, I think if it's ever to be a reality it would be along these lines.
Of course, the future is not only as strange as you can imagine-----It's stranger than you ever could imagine!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets see what Mr Brewster has to say about this, Gord!

Great thread and an intruiging topic that has crossed my mind many times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Great work, guys! Love all those ideas! (Except maybe the one about the laser grid that zaps the poor folks who wander into the Forbidden Zones. A bit harsh, Skull! Very Happy)

I think I'll just borrow the text I just sent Skull in a PM on this subject. You guys have definitely covered the major concerns about this interesting concept, so I'll contribute a related thought about the movie that inspire this discussion. (Skull, this is rerun for you. Very Happy)
________________________________

The movie's FX of the DeLorean are wonderful, with the rotating wheels that turn into some kind of propulsion system which seems to blow downward. We see dust rise up under it in the early scene of it lifting off in front of Marty's house.

And yet the producers had to cheat by showing the car lift off before the wheels rotated into position, and gently land as the wheels rotated back into position several seconds before it touches down! It's a little like watching a helicopter's blades slow down and completely stop turning . . . while the helicopter is still three feet off the ground!

I'm not criticizing the movie for this. The producers didn't claim to have invented flying cars. Their goal was to make it look good and seem reasonable. They succeeded completely, and I love it.

Flying cars probably won't become a reality until we invent antigravity . If that happens tomorrow, we'd see a revolution in airborne vehicles within a few years.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud I actually--on reflection---think the skyway jams of Back to the Future 2 are Zemeckis' satire on todays' [or 1989s] society: future technology hopes to solve traffic problems but one way or another just ends up with the same old problems, just in a new setting!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really neat shot in FUTURE 2 where the gliding DeLaurean zips down to a ground-level garage, and the panning shot sees the composited model car transform into the real deal in the same continuous shot:

They pulled it off with an elaborate moving split-screen of course--- the model 'wipes' behind a convenient telegraph pole with a corresponding seperate 'wipe' for the real motor------the transition is not quite flawless but I love these older school effects for their one-off ingenuity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skullislander wrote:
Wow you sure have gave this idea of flying motors a lot of thought Bud------- however if today's congested roads could be thinned out ten-fold this would make a helluva difference: this would mean TEN levels of airborne traffic which I think is feasible considering we have about two miles above us until we hit space.

Excuse me? Space is generally thought to begin at an altitude of around 60 miles.

Or did you mean "commercial airspace"? Passenger jets normally fly at altitudes between 30,000 and 40,000 feet (roughly 5.5 to 7.5 miles).


Gord Green wrote:
Skull, I think if it's ever to be a reality it would be along these lines.
Of course, the future is not only as strange as you can imagine-----It's stranger than you ever could imagine!

Just Imagine!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK Scotpens--if we have SIXTY MILES up to space then I am convinced there is more than enough space to fit rocket-cars for the entire worlds' population!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skullislander wrote:
OK Scotpens--if we have SIXTY MILES up to space then I am convinced there is more than enough space to fit rocket-cars for the entire worlds' population!!!!!

Absolutely!

Assuming of course that they're built to be pressurized like conventional aircraft — and that means the windshield, the back window, and the rear window will have to be made like the ones in airplanes.

Here's what I got when I Googled the question What is the thickness of a commercial aircraft window?

The outer pane of an aircraft window is 0.47 in ( 12 mm ) thick and the inner pane is 0.16 in ( 4 mm ) thick. They are separated by a 0.23 in ( 6 mm ) air chamber, making a total thickness of 0.87 in ( 22 mm ) for the entire window, which may seem thin, but the outer pane is thicker than the plane's fuselage.

And there are lots of places in a regular car that wouldn't hold the pressure, like the rubber seal around windows and doors. The air intake for the heater/AC would need a way to seal up too when the interior is pressurized.

I think for the sake practicality, flying cars should just be flying cars and not small car-shaped full-fledged aircraft. Also, you've still got the problem of keeping flying cars (with unlicensed pilots) out to the commercial airspace used by those fast-moving jetliners.

Finally, I don't know what the FAA rules have to say about all this, but I suspect they would only allow flying cars to occupy fairly low altitudes.

I'm convinced that Gord's plan about the computer-controlled system that would keep all the cars in their proper lanes would solve the problem of a large number of cars flowing along at one time.

After all, the only reason modern freeways develop traffic jams is because so many of the drivers do a lousy job of merging with traffic, moving along at a safe and sane speed, staying in one lane, and not cause death, dismemberment, and destruction when some damn fool slams into another car and brings everything to a literal screeching halt! Sad

Naturally Skull is quite right about the need for a few different levels, because these elevated skyways will be going in different directions (north, south, east, west, etc.), and we'll need for the computer system to coordinate the "cloverleaf" areas where (for example) the northbound skyway travelers will have to switch to westbound skyways to reach their final destination.

The junctions will actually look just this (but without the road and the ground around it), because the situation is exactly the same! Each vehicle will need to curve away from the skyway it's on and merge with the skyway going in a different direction.



Here's the ironic part. Since the current highways connect the same major cities that the skyways will connect, the skyways will (to some degree) end up being positioned directly above the existing highways!

The skyways will be somewhat straighter, of course, because their routes will NOT be influence by the hills and valleys which conventional highways had to deal with when they were built.

But they still won't be simple "bee lines" from one major city to another. They'll need to wander around a bit to bring them closer to some of the smaller cities, so that drivers who leave from those cities can reach the major skyways without making a long trip when they leave those areas and merge with the major skyways.

In other words, our computer control system can't be expected to control too many cars on individual, non-skyway flight paths, with vectors in all different directions. The beauty of this system is the simplicity and safety we get if most of the flying cars are flowing along in well-organized lanes, with a measured distance between them, flying at a specified altitude and speed.

Naturally it would put a tremendous load on our computer system if it had to control millions of cars that were headed in every conceivable direction, all trying to travel straight from their point of origin to their final destination, without ever allowing the computer control system to simplify the task by letting it organize the millions of moving vehicles into a logical, efficient pattern.

God, I LOVE figuring out stuff like this! I want to thank you guys for being part of this great discussion. This is what All Sci-Fi is for! Very Happy

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:59 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 4 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group