Skyryse envisions a subway system in the sky

[Shawn Knight]

Why it matters: Flying cars have long since been portrayed in works of science fiction as the preferred mode of personal transportation. In the near future, however, reality will intersect speculative fiction and we’ll finally get to see if the hype lives up to the expectation.

Autonomous helicopter startup Skyryse has thrown its name into the hat of companies interested in leading the charge with regard to the future of personal transportation.

On Tuesday, the startup shared a promotional video for its Luna autonomous helicopter platform. Unlike other companies interested in building autonomous flying cars or those powered solely by electricity, the system from Skyryse works with existing helicopters – in this instance, a modified Robinson R44.

According to the company, Luna is capable of managing flight dynamics more accurately and quickly than a human pilot.

While that may very well be true, the platform does have one major disadvantage compared to – say, an autonomous driving system for a car. If something goes wrong in a car, users can simply take over control because… well, most people know how to drive a car. If there is a mishap in a helicopter when you’re thousands of feet off the ground, things probably aren’t going to end well.

Not everyone believes flying cars / small helicopters / large drones will be as glamorous – or safe – as we’ve been led to believe. Elon Musk, who operates a tunnel construction company alongside running Tesla and SpaceX, highlighted the potential noise pollution and safety hazards that flying vehicles present during a public information session for The Boring Company in May 2018.

Masthead credit CNBC

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/83240-skyryse-envisions-subway-system-sky.html

 

[EClyde]

They have bad sandwiches

 

[Uncle Al]

LOL .... actually the "future" flying vehicles are electric, which requires far fewer moving parts = less maintenance, less failures and greater reliability ... as long as the batteries hold out!

 

[Danny101]

Helicopters, and small air crafts in general, aren't inherently a safe way to travel. Not interested.

Are Helicopters Safer Than Airplanes?

Are helicopters safer than airplanes? Explore helicopter safety, how often they have problems and how safe you are on a helicopter compared to an airplane.

www.slackdavis.com

 

[OortCloud]

Noise and massive levels of pollution, what could be wrong with this great idea!

 

[captaincranky]

Not everyone believes flying cars / small helicopters / large drones will be as glamorous – or safe – as we’ve been led to believe. Elon Musk, who operates a tunnel construction company alongside running Tesla and SpaceX, <a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/74704-elon-musk-holds-public-information-session-regarding-boring.html">highlighted</a> the potential noise pollution and safety hazards that flying vehicles present during a public information session for The Boring Company in May 2018.

When Elon Musk starts to make more sense than the people running this startup, you know the project is a scam.

In the city where I live, the average frontage of a row home, is shorter than the span of those rotor blades.

Private dwellings aren't built with enough strength to supp[ort a "helipad" on the roof.

What do people do who live in multi-story apartment buildings?

You would need more yard space than the average suburban house has to park one of these contraptions.

In other words, they might sell a few of these to the uber rich, and people with large tracts of land to patrol, but the rest of us, are merely having, "paranoid delusions of being George Jetson".

 

[Vrmithrax]

I think the key is their analogy to a "subway" to understand their plan. It's not unlike quite a few other startup companies already working on this, including ones sponsored by Uber and the like. In this case, they are looking to leverage existing helicopter machinery, rather than reinventing a new type of vehicle.

People won't be landing these in their driveways, on house roofs, etc. These will be vehicles that service fixed points, specifically assigned pickup/dropoff points that are designed to handle the requirements of a flying vehicle. Much like a subway only has physical stops. But, in these flying taxi kind of cases, you aren't stuck with linear progression, you can hop from any station to any other station.

The concept makes sense, but I have a hard time thinking the costs will be such that it'll be a general consumer kind of application. At least, not for a very long time, until it becomes a much more prevalent service with lots of competing businesses saturating the areas of coverage. Until then, I would agree that this will be mostly for the wealthier population.

 

[captaincranky]

I think the key is their analogy to a "subway" to understand their plan. It's not unlike quite a few other startup companies already working on this, including ones sponsored by Uber and the like. In this case, they are looking to leverage existing helicopter machinery, rather than reinventing a new type of vehicle.

As I see it, the "subway" analogy, is a fantasy designed to make investors believe it's not only possible, but "right around the corner", as it were

People won't be landing these in their driveways, on house roofs, etc. These will be vehicles that service fixed points, specifically assigned pickup/dropoff points that are designed to handle the requirements of a flying vehicle. Much like a subway only has physical stops. But, in these flying taxi kind of cases, you aren't stuck with linear progression, you can hop from any station to any other station.

Well, if you're going to compare this to public transit, or an airline, somebody's got to come up with a miles traveled, versus, cost per pound of flesh moved. Since we're prognosticating these will be small vehicles, only capable of transporting a few people at a time, the cost per mile rises dramatically.

The concept makes sense, but I have a hard time thinking the costs will be such that it'll be a general consumer kind of application. At least, not for a very long time, until it becomes a much more prevalent service with lots of competing businesses saturating the areas of coverage. Until then, I would agree that this will be mostly for the wealthier population.

Owning a light plane is probably the most expensive a hobby a person could have. Would electric power bring operating costs down? More than likely. But until someone comes up with higher energy density & much faster charging batteries, it's a pipe dream, and essentially "dead in the water", or more correctly, "dead on the ground".

I understand why companies the likes of Boeing are screwing around with "flying cars", and it's for the two pronged benefit of a huge tax write off, (one that would even make Trump proud to claim as his own), and the other being, publicity, publicity, publicity. Anything to get the public's mind off the 737 debacle.

I do think an "aerial subway system" (ocymoronic as that might be), needs to find its way into, "Star Citizen", and as soon as Roberts snags another 50 million or so, you'll be able to buy one for as cheap as a grand.

"Look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's a subway car"! (If you catch my drift).