Image: Tavis Coburn
More In This Article
The Science Of The Next 150 Years: 50 Years in the Future
When the U.S. civil aeronautics administration certified the Aerocar for operation in 1956, it seemed inevitable, at least to aerospace engineers, that before long the flying car would take its place as a fixture in the garage of the typical suburban ranch home. Yet that was not to be. The Aerocar, which looked like a car but had wings and could take off on a short runway, was too expensive to justify mass production. Aerocar International built only six of these vehicles, leaving the promise of the flying car unfulfilled—except in episodes of The Jetsons.
This article was originally published with the title A Drone in Every Driveway.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add Comment“Ah, the Scientific American!” I exclaimed to my neighbor when I opened the mailbox, “My favorite!” I glanced at the cover, saw that The Future of Science was highlighted, and opened it with high expectations. What do I find? The feature is introduced with a pointless two-page spread which shows cars flying through the air that are identical to modern cars except that the wheels are missing. There’s an article on drones (now renamed The Flying Car, as above), with a picture of a glider-shaped aircraft in a driveway, which has what looks like an area the size of a barnyard to fly out of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn article on nuclear problems describes a fictitious war, and is illustrated with a pointlessly grainy picture of half a rocket taking off. An article on planetary engineering wastes half a page on an equally grainy picture of what seems to be a harvester floating in the air. Another article on the future of computing wastes another half page on a picture of—I have no idea what. I was left feeling as uninformed as if I had visited the creationist museum described on another page.
A well informed, normally excellent science magazine is a vital resource in a society in which 40% of people are said to still believe in a biblical creation. Is it too much to expect that the illustrations will be such as inform on the written content, and not be mere space fillers?
Neville Macaulife,
Ventura County, CA.
Would you prefer no pics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to wager a bet that like most futurist predictions very little of what is disscussed will come to pass. But it is fun to surmise.
I doubt that even totally autonomous air cars will come about. The challenges of making them safe enough to fly just barely over a city (say less than 1000 feet) are daunting to the point of impossibility. When one has a mechanical or control computer issue or is modofied or sabotaged by its owner it is going to fall to the ground and whatever is below is going to be damaged or destroyed. I doubt it would be fuel efficient either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read my article again. My complaint is that more than six pages of the "The Future of Science"" were consumed by illustrations that added nothing of substance, or ease of understanding, to the material, and had very little artistic merit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll that space could have been used for informative illustrations or further text. I don't think this is what any of us expect from the Scientific American.
Neville Macaulife,
Ventura County, CA.
PS: Comment #4 is in reply to Crasher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe futurist scenarios of flying cars for individuals seem to be caught up in the panglossian idea that there is plenty of space for everyone to have a flying car. Always seem to forget to look at the example of individual cars for surface transportation. When cars first were introduced there was plenty of room. Now the roads are clogged and huge amount of space is needed to store the cars when not in use. Imagine millions of individual air transport vehicles in the sky. Every sunrise and sunset obscured by vehicles. Not to mention the danger of poorly trained operators - will it be like it is today with automobiles? Read a book, take a multiple choice quiz and a 5 minute test flight and off you go. I'm late for work or an appointment and safety of others be damned! No, individual air transport is not only infeasible it is patently ridiculous. Where is the science in vetting these ideas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Neville. I stopped subscribing ten years ago, but look at the website occasionally. I find reports that I've already read and articles about articles already written. The report on "hurricane Sandy" [sic] was merely an article extracted almost entirely from Reuters, and had nothing to do with science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover most annoying are the links to juvenile websites like MathDude (or whatever its called) or to reference their images to space.com.
Perhaps in One-Hundred-Years, they will rejoice that in 2112 they can look back on their ancestor's work with admiration that a once well regarded publication, was devoted entirely to children.
I agree with Neville and Diducthat. The quality of articles in SA has declined drastically. Maybe it's because of the economy. Maybe it's because there isn't as much to report on, but I doubt that. Most of the articles seem to be written for "headline" or attention-getting value rather than "scientific journalism". It is a pity. I would guess that some of the staff at SA feel the same way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember those "Popular Science" and "Popular Mechanic's" magazines in the 50's touting those flying cars. I enjoyed those articles as a boy with flights of fancy. Having had a private pilot's license since '72, I can assure you that placing your typical "road-rager" and "redlight-runner" 5,000 feet above the ground with cell phone in hand, will not bode well with the insurance companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably a flying vehicle needs a capable and responsible pilot. Not everyone will qualify.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the experimental or home built kit aircraft, such as auto-gyros can be flown by hobbyists and the qualifications are much less, so a person doesn't need a commercial pilots license and still can fly if they have an itch to do so.
Cars have advanced so much that they are now capable of off road, four wheel drive, and can go practically anywhere except up vertical cliffs and such, which has removed a lot of the reason for the flying car.
Probably a ground effects vehicle would be much more likely to be practical than the flying car, being able to go a lot of places, in ground effect, perhaps flying a couple of feet off the ground so clearing minor obstacles and going over lakes and streams.
Some of the biggest issues are legal, trespassing over people's property.
If there is actual need of a flying vehicle with ground transportation capability, I think a flying motorcycle would be much more likely. It could use the same engine, fly to local airports and then use ground transportation via the motorcycle to make local trips.
Carrying passengers is just not a good idea, unless a person has a commercial flying license, since there is so much liability involved, as well as personal risk to pilot, passengers, and people on the ground.
What good is a flying car? When all cars fly, traffic will be as dense and regulated as ground traffic. Probably more so. So you won't just be able to lift off from your driveway and fly a straight line to your job or the mall. If the car can do 100 miles an hour, moderate trips might be more bearable, but coast to coast will still be 24 hours. You won't have a car that can rival jetliners for speed. An autopilot is pretty much essential, but if we have cars that can drive themselves (and we're close to it) we can probably raise rural interstate speed limits to over 100 and get most of the benefits a flying car can offer with readily foreseeable technology. If we build hybrid wheeled and ground-effect cars, we can do away with a lot of the expense of road construction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm thinking that very few of the commentors above have pilot licenses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the light sport pilot license requires training and certification and has significant restrictions designed to force such pilots to avoid excessively dangerous situations. One of which is a maximum gross weight of 1,430 pounds.
Can / will it happen? That's up to regulators and economics 101.
Do I hope it comes to pass? Without a doubt.
I'd like to join crasher's bet that most/none of this will come to pass. This kind of unscientific speculation is a waste of space. I've been reading about flying cars for 30 years but it is just one example that relies on the notion of progress continuing indefinitely on a finite planet and on societies that hold together, allowing trivial, unnecessary activities to go on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Guys. Don't be so quick to complain about SA. This is a very timely article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYesterday they ran an article by their own Zeeya Merali, admittedly taken from Nature magazine, describing 'Quantum Gas goes below Absolute Zero'. http://www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=595
Now if you had read that article you should have noticed this,
"For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity."
Got it? Hey...??
So maybe anti-gravity cars aren't so far away after all.
As a licensed pilot, I am looking forward to this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.BigAnon.tk
Until we have unlimited free energy, you really wont see much change at all. Internal combustion engines, commercial planes with people packed in them like sardines, and trains that can only hit 350MPH. Imagine what you could build if you could generate an infinite amount of electricity with little or no cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAirliners today can practically fly themselves. Google is making great progress on the "self driving car". Why not an aerocar that is fully automated and flies in perfect safety without the need for a human pilot?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter all, what could possibly go wrong?
Airliners today can practically fly themselves. Google is making great progress on the "self driving car". Why not an aerocar that is fully automated and flies in perfect safety without the need for a human pilot?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter all, what could possibly go wrong?
Airliners today can practically fly themselves. Google is making great progress on the "self driving car". Why not an aerocar that is fully automated and flies in perfect safety without the need for a human pilot?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter all, what could possibly go wrong?
Airliners today can practically fly themselves. Google is making great progress on the "self driving car". Why not an aerocar that is fully automated and flies in perfect safety without the need for a human pilot?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter all, what could possibly go wrong?
The automovil concept, invented two centuries ago is the same that we use today and no one with as many master's degrees and doctorates that are created around the world as never before (the planet is actually a virtual University City), nor with the billions in research, like never have spent many years, nobody has been able to overcome such a concept. Equally the concept of the flight of the Wright brothers, nobody has not been able to overcome such a concept, nor the electronic - computing created by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, or the theory of relativity of Einstein or the Mozart's music. And what about Bell and Edison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this¿did until when we understand, that the talent not provides it the University?, this is a natural gift
My Name is Mwizerwa Pierre Celestin, I'm living in China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the concept of how a Flying can can be and I'm sure of it. How can I do to bring it to Engineers so that it can be built?
Thank you very much.