Helicopters and small planes already exist. We might have autonomous helicopters and small planes in the future, but flying car concept is flawed and not because it's hard to build one.
- Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. This is actually good subgoal to work with even without flying cars in mind. Reliable infrastructure that checks and calibrates instruments so reliably that you don't need manual checks would be revolution in aerospace. Just walking from your car into your future Cessna-Android and flying off would be sci-fi for aviators.
- Energy consumption. No matter how energy efficient the engines are, hovering and short takeoffs use lots of energy. Flying with small wings with little lift is equivalent to driving monster trucks in full power. You don't want flying becoming everyday phenomenon until we have abundance of carbon free energy.
- Noise and safety regulations, aviation regulations over urban areas. Flying cars are not happening in the suburbs or anyone where lots of people live. In the meantime try to get new helicopter landing sites approved in your neighborhood. If you have to take car to your flying car hangar, just have a small plane instead. Or walk to a buss station.
I just emailed the people at Moller this week asking them what the biggest challenge in making a flying car was. Their reply was:
Thanks for reaching out to Moller International. Your question is a good one, with a multitude of answers. For now, I’ll explain 3 of the biggest factors. First, there is a lot of FAA and government regulations regarding aircraft. Airworthiness certification is a lengthy process, and depending on the level at which a company wishes to test, operate, and potential sell their aircraft, the process can take anywhere from a few months to a few years. Second, as stated previously, time is a major factor not only for development, but also testing, marketing, etc. In aviation, there are no “unimportant” parts at 10,000 ft. Safety is always a top priority throughout the entire process. Third, and finally, funding. Companies like Moller International depend greatly on their investors and supporters to keep the lights on. Until there is a product being sold, and cash being brought in regularly, a company must depend on some other source of funding. Aircraft programs are not known to be easy and cheap; these programs are some of the more expensive ones out there, especially in the private sector. With all of this said, all of us here at Moller International are working hard to ensure the latter two have as minimal an impact as possible. We have been working in cooperation with the FAA to get things going as quickly and safely as possible. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Moller is going nowhere. He's been advertising the same thing for decades with little progress, adjusting the years on the web site so it always seems to be just a few years ahead. He's been in trouble with the SEC for his fun-raising activities. He's been trying to do VTOL with souped-up Wankel engines, and that just isn't working.
Here's Moller's brochure from 1974.[1] Forty years of hype. That guy is responsible for flying cars having a bad name.
So, Moller claims to have a flying car, but can't afford to get it tested? Or that they could make a flying car, if they had enough money and time to build and test it? No technical challenges?
As long as there's the FAA involved, flying cars are a stupid idea.
They are shitty cars if they're any good at being airplanes, and they're underperforming and over-priced airplanes just because they can somewhat function as a car. Now, if Larry Page's flying car company is also lobbying to gut the FAA's ability to regulate his creation, that's a whole other can of worms.
I don't think personal flight devices are a bad idea, which is why I'm working on my own. Flying cars are so contradictory in construction and purpose that I can't help but get really peeved at any praise directed toward the endeavor. There are more factors than simply "can this 4 wheeler get airborne" to keep at top of mind.
Good luck getting a reasonably priced AME to keep the thing airborne.
>But better materials, autonomous navigation systems, and other technical advances have convinced a growing body of smart, wealthy, and apparently serious people that within the next few years we’ll have a self-flying car that takes off and lands vertically—at least a small, electric, mostly autonomous commuter plane.
The latter half of that sentence is plausible. Flying cars are not. Sorry.
>We noticed that you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the performance and content on Bloomberg.com. For the best experience, please whitelist the site.
More disappointingly, we still can't just walk out of a store with goods and have it charge us. That said, the idea of all the products having RF things on them would be ultra creepy, so I'm guessing that's the limiting factor.
Cars and trucks are relegated to the 2d grid of streets. They consume an inordinate amount of space, and require that all travel occur in series down a road. When an accident occurs, this disrupts the flow of traffic down that path, and also frequently disrupts the flow of surrounding roads as drivers seek alternate routes around the problem. Roads wear down over time, and require maintenance to repair. Salt and chemicals placed on roads to melt ice and snow can have adverse impacts on the local water tables and have other negative ecological impacts.
Air-travel doesn't have those same constraints. Travel could be more point-to-point. An accident by one or two aircraft doesn't need to inhibit the travel of all other crafts flying in the general vicinity. Air space, while regulated and crowded in some urban areas, is largely under-utilized and expansive. It's also not a space that is shared with foot traffic, so pedestrians could reclaim some of the space currently allocated to roads since the volume of vehicular traffic would likely drop.
That's not to say that personal air travel doesn't introduce an entire set of new problems and challenges - it absolutely does, but there are many problems that cars and roads cause which air-travel avoids by-design.
Think of air-travel in the context of this cartoon:
I work around dozens of pilots. Most of them used to own, co-own, share, or lease a plane. Only a few of them actually have a plane they could go fly right now.
Maintenance, upkeep, costs, and regulations are obvious reasons why some would be deterred from owning and using a private plane.
But most everyone of the pilots said, if you want to go to the beach, in general, the best way to get there is a 6 to 8-hour drive in a minivan. The faster you go in the plane, the faster you burn fuel, and the more likely you'll have to land to refuel. Even if you don't refuel, loading, landing, unpacking, and rental cars are all unpleasant time sucks at a small airport in a small plane which saves you maybe 2 or 3 hours on your commute.
There are a number of potential issues they solve:
1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain.
2) Reduce congestion. How much fuel in a car is burnt in traffic? With flying cars, congestion will largely be a thing of the past, you have effectively unlimited road just by changing altitude.
3) Reduce urban sprawl. You can get rid of a lot of the roads that plaster the countryside. There will still need to be some obviously. But less.
4) Reduce national infrastructure costs. As above, you get rid of the roads, you don't need to maintain them anymore.
5) Convenience. You don't need a driveway or garage on your house when you can land on the roof ;)
All in all there are quite a few decent reasons for it. Just depends on whether you can beat that efficiency level.
It would be interesting to see if anyone has done calculations factoring in the cost savings from reducing sprawl and the miles of road that are maintained each year.
You can go faster and in a straighter line, and -- given good communication between autonomous vehicles -- there is essentially no limit to traffic throughput. Also, you don't have to build as many roads, which are expensive and take up lots of valuable land.
This is encouraging. There's no fundamental problem with building a "flying car"; all sorts of strange VTOL craft were built in the 1950s. Many of them ended up in the Hiller Aviation Museum on 101 in San Carlos, CA.
The main problems with VTOL are stability, engine cost, and fuel consumption/range. Pure-thrust lift requires enormous power. Most of the successful pure-thrust VTOLs are jet fighters, which are mostly engine. The Harrier and the F-35 are examples.
Jet engines are expensive, and they don't get much cheaper below 6-passenger bizjet size. This is why general aviation still uses props. A lot of effort has gone into cheaper jet engines, but without much success. (Yes, there are large model aircraft jet engines, which is what the Flyboard Air uses. They're good for a few hundred hours, not the 10,000 hours between overhauls of aviation jet engines.)
Electric VTOL is going to be interesting. There are lots of electric drones, after all. Engine power to weight is good. Siemens has a water-cooled electric aircraft engine in test.
Battery energy density sucks. NASA is talking about aircraft where there's a gas turbine or two driving a generator, with lots of electric props. This could work out. Meanwhile, until the battery situation improves, you can build short-ranged flying cars. There's a cute little one out of China, apparently intended to get China's rich and powerful around Beijing's traffic jams.
It's great seeing a strong push toward aviation as a superior method of transportation. One of the side effects will be people gradual spreading out, away from huge city congestion, which is largely set up due to our transportation. It will enable us to live more in tune with nature, while not giving up the conveniences of having everything we need within short distance. I touched upon this in a blog post: https://medium.com/@eblanshey/the-world-is-undergoing-massiv...
I disagree. Most people do not want to live more in tune with nature when it comes to living in it. They have very little interest in immersing themselves in nature outside of an occasional hike or camping trip. That's made exceptionally clear by how people actively choose to live and the things they choose not to do. There is no great pent-up demand for telecommuting, a very small percentage of the working population wants to do it.
Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way. Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a multiplier for each person you add to a city. Cities are far more vibrant in every regard except for nature, that includes art, science, fashion, social, lifestyle, networking, work, access to resources and public institutions.
What if what we need is frequent in person interaction with other people?
Spreading out further and further, eating up arable land with exurban homes, putting more distance between ourselves and others. It seems unhealthy for us and the "nature" you want to be in tune with.
"Across the study period, 66 595 youths died by suicide, and rural suicide rates were nearly double those of urban areas for both males (19.93 and 10.31 per 100 000, respectively) and females (4.40 and 2.39 per 100 000, respectively)."
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=21950...
We'll all be happier and healthier and have more money for other stuff if we build our cities around walking, biking, and shared transit. Suburbs = unhealthy, inefficient, unhappy (it has been studied - look it up don't just comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere").
> look it up don't just comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere
Instead of this passive aggressive remark, perhaps post links to the research that you believe validates your point? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I bet it's probably possible to find "studies" that back up both sides of the argument.
I contend that people are happier and healthier where the population density is lower, resulting in less crime, less pollution, less noise, lower cost of living, more space, more privacy, etc.
If you want to live in big buildings, packed together like sardines, unable to escape from the noise of your neighbors and everything that goes on in the city outside the window, more power to you. But don't presume to say that everyone else will be happier if they would just do what you prefer.
am I the only one that doesn't want flying cars? I want to be able to look up and see the sky, not traffic. I don't want drunk drivers ramming into buildings. I don't want to have to build a horizontal wall over my backyard for privacy. what benefit do they even have? I'd rather just have fast ground transportation
I think that autonomous vehicles make flying cars possible. On one hand, learning to fly is difficult (the problem has a dimension more than driving on the surface) and people really do not like wreckage falling from the sky. So one needs a highly trained expert to pilot any flying vehicle, or a fully autonomous autopilot.
The second thing is energy, a plane needs to handle a lot more energy than a car, simply because it flies, so it is more expensive. If someone own a flying car, then they are investing a lot into a capability they use very rarely. With a Uber like model of shared transportation one orders a car only when one needs it. And it makes sense to have a flying car in the pool, even at a hundred times the cost of a regular vehicle. So each individual customer will use that flying car almost never, but there are many, and the ones who pay a $100 to shave five minutes of their time are probably in that moment very happy, that they have that option.
Flight takes less energy than you might think. The real issue is landing in city's. You need virticle takeoff and landing which creates a lot of issues.
So, I think there is a difference between a plane which can also function as a car on streets and cars which can take flight but mostly stay on the ground. The former can be lighter the latter would be heavier, using current materials. Primarily planes vs primarily cars.
I've always thought a flying motorcycle makes more sense than a flying car. The power to weight ratios are closer, as are the engine requirements. Something like a long two seater cabin motorcycle with wings that attach like glider wings. Something like this with wings:
Flys like a motorglider. I.e. slow for a plane but faster than a car/bike. Very efficient per mile (for a plane). Tolerates engine failure with a good glide ratio.
Ground to air transitions happen at designated places (mini airports). Wings are left at the airport while you operate the bike in ground mode. Or towed in a narrow trailer just like a glider trailer.
I'm sure this is something Elon Musk would be trying to make, too, because there's a lot of expertise that his companies already have to build something like this: autonomous tech, rocket engineers, batteries, electric powertrains, solar panels, and he has already said he would probably build an electric airplane next.
If only he had the money to experiment with something like this. That's why I'm hoping that Apple buys Tesla eventually and makes Musk its CEO and lets him do whatever he wants with those $150+ billion (maybe $300 billion by then) cash reserves.
And apparently he's already toying with flying stuff:
> I'm sure this is something Elon Musk would be trying to make
I am not so sure. An electric airplane at least has the effect of lowering greenhouse emissions, thus increasing, even by a minuscule amount, the amount of time we have on this rock.
But flying cars? This is something that would increase the world's energy consumption, for little benefit.
He has already tackled transportation with the Hyperloop. Those are flying cars(or trains, depending on your point of view). Only they are safer, more energy efficient and more economical.
Besides, adding wings to a car doesn't seem like something one would do, if trying to think from first principles.
Also, I think the flying suit was a joke (my inner child is hoping not).
I remember the pulp Science Fiction magazines of the 30's, 40's and 50's. Quite often they had drawn pictures of cities with hundreds of planes going every which way. For a while it was autogyros, helicopters etc.
It never happened. Cars won. A car is supported by the road with zero energy cost except for motion. Any aircraft must waste energy at all times, and the highest energy use is when standing still(hovering).
Ok so they have 100,000 planes flying around LA at 200 miles per hour. Managing that number of planes under automatic computer control is a huge technical challenge. Human pilots = impossible.
Until we have anti g and can hover for zero energy it will never happen.
What would the authorities do to prevent these things, if they existed, from being loaded with explosives and driven into buildings? Even if the idea got off the ground and anyone (who could afford one) could start flying around, how many terrorist attacks would it take before they were outlawed? Do you think, having taken out the white house, the government would stand behind civilians rights to own and fly them? They'd not only ban them, they're probably restrict private use of drones and planes too.
[+] [-] Nokinside|9 years ago|reply
- Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. This is actually good subgoal to work with even without flying cars in mind. Reliable infrastructure that checks and calibrates instruments so reliably that you don't need manual checks would be revolution in aerospace. Just walking from your car into your future Cessna-Android and flying off would be sci-fi for aviators.
- Energy consumption. No matter how energy efficient the engines are, hovering and short takeoffs use lots of energy. Flying with small wings with little lift is equivalent to driving monster trucks in full power. You don't want flying becoming everyday phenomenon until we have abundance of carbon free energy.
- Noise and safety regulations, aviation regulations over urban areas. Flying cars are not happening in the suburbs or anyone where lots of people live. In the meantime try to get new helicopter landing sites approved in your neighborhood. If you have to take car to your flying car hangar, just have a small plane instead. Or walk to a buss station.
[+] [-] JDDunn9|9 years ago|reply
Thanks for reaching out to Moller International. Your question is a good one, with a multitude of answers. For now, I’ll explain 3 of the biggest factors. First, there is a lot of FAA and government regulations regarding aircraft. Airworthiness certification is a lengthy process, and depending on the level at which a company wishes to test, operate, and potential sell their aircraft, the process can take anywhere from a few months to a few years. Second, as stated previously, time is a major factor not only for development, but also testing, marketing, etc. In aviation, there are no “unimportant” parts at 10,000 ft. Safety is always a top priority throughout the entire process. Third, and finally, funding. Companies like Moller International depend greatly on their investors and supporters to keep the lights on. Until there is a product being sold, and cash being brought in regularly, a company must depend on some other source of funding. Aircraft programs are not known to be easy and cheap; these programs are some of the more expensive ones out there, especially in the private sector. With all of this said, all of us here at Moller International are working hard to ensure the latter two have as minimal an impact as possible. We have been working in cooperation with the FAA to get things going as quickly and safely as possible. Let me know if you have any other questions.
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
Here's Moller's brochure from 1974.[1] Forty years of hype. That guy is responsible for flying cars having a bad name.
[1] http://www.downside.com/scams/moller/
[+] [-] jacquesm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techthroway443|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|9 years ago|reply
Uh-huh.
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|9 years ago|reply
They are shitty cars if they're any good at being airplanes, and they're underperforming and over-priced airplanes just because they can somewhat function as a car. Now, if Larry Page's flying car company is also lobbying to gut the FAA's ability to regulate his creation, that's a whole other can of worms.
I don't think personal flight devices are a bad idea, which is why I'm working on my own. Flying cars are so contradictory in construction and purpose that I can't help but get really peeved at any praise directed toward the endeavor. There are more factors than simply "can this 4 wheeler get airborne" to keep at top of mind.
Good luck getting a reasonably priced AME to keep the thing airborne.
>But better materials, autonomous navigation systems, and other technical advances have convinced a growing body of smart, wealthy, and apparently serious people that within the next few years we’ll have a self-flying car that takes off and lands vertically—at least a small, electric, mostly autonomous commuter plane.
The latter half of that sentence is plausible. Flying cars are not. Sorry.
[+] [-] mawburn|9 years ago|reply
Yeah, ok Bloomberg.
[+] [-] rl3|9 years ago|reply
Deliciously ironic considering it represented the fact that mainstream culture had all but written off the idea entirely.
[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo
[+] [-] boulos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MalcolmPF|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtpg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptown|9 years ago|reply
Air-travel doesn't have those same constraints. Travel could be more point-to-point. An accident by one or two aircraft doesn't need to inhibit the travel of all other crafts flying in the general vicinity. Air space, while regulated and crowded in some urban areas, is largely under-utilized and expansive. It's also not a space that is shared with foot traffic, so pedestrians could reclaim some of the space currently allocated to roads since the volume of vehicular traffic would likely drop.
That's not to say that personal air travel doesn't introduce an entire set of new problems and challenges - it absolutely does, but there are many problems that cars and roads cause which air-travel avoids by-design.
Think of air-travel in the context of this cartoon:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-pedestri...
[+] [-] EA|9 years ago|reply
Maintenance, upkeep, costs, and regulations are obvious reasons why some would be deterred from owning and using a private plane.
But most everyone of the pilots said, if you want to go to the beach, in general, the best way to get there is a 6 to 8-hour drive in a minivan. The faster you go in the plane, the faster you burn fuel, and the more likely you'll have to land to refuel. Even if you don't refuel, loading, landing, unpacking, and rental cars are all unpleasant time sucks at a small airport in a small plane which saves you maybe 2 or 3 hours on your commute.
[+] [-] adwf|9 years ago|reply
1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain.
2) Reduce congestion. How much fuel in a car is burnt in traffic? With flying cars, congestion will largely be a thing of the past, you have effectively unlimited road just by changing altitude.
3) Reduce urban sprawl. You can get rid of a lot of the roads that plaster the countryside. There will still need to be some obviously. But less.
4) Reduce national infrastructure costs. As above, you get rid of the roads, you don't need to maintain them anymore.
5) Convenience. You don't need a driveway or garage on your house when you can land on the roof ;)
All in all there are quite a few decent reasons for it. Just depends on whether you can beat that efficiency level.
It would be interesting to see if anyone has done calculations factoring in the cost savings from reducing sprawl and the miles of road that are maintained each year.
[+] [-] jessriedel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vintermann|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nix0n|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
The main problems with VTOL are stability, engine cost, and fuel consumption/range. Pure-thrust lift requires enormous power. Most of the successful pure-thrust VTOLs are jet fighters, which are mostly engine. The Harrier and the F-35 are examples.
Jet engines are expensive, and they don't get much cheaper below 6-passenger bizjet size. This is why general aviation still uses props. A lot of effort has gone into cheaper jet engines, but without much success. (Yes, there are large model aircraft jet engines, which is what the Flyboard Air uses. They're good for a few hundred hours, not the 10,000 hours between overhauls of aviation jet engines.)
Electric VTOL is going to be interesting. There are lots of electric drones, after all. Engine power to weight is good. Siemens has a water-cooled electric aircraft engine in test.
Battery energy density sucks. NASA is talking about aircraft where there's a gas turbine or two driving a generator, with lots of electric props. This could work out. Meanwhile, until the battery situation improves, you can build short-ranged flying cars. There's a cute little one out of China, apparently intended to get China's rich and powerful around Beijing's traffic jams.
[+] [-] eblanshey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|9 years ago|reply
Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way. Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a multiplier for each person you add to a city. Cities are far more vibrant in every regard except for nature, that includes art, science, fashion, social, lifestyle, networking, work, access to resources and public institutions.
[+] [-] zieski|9 years ago|reply
Spreading out further and further, eating up arable land with exurban homes, putting more distance between ourselves and others. It seems unhealthy for us and the "nature" you want to be in tune with.
"Across the study period, 66 595 youths died by suicide, and rural suicide rates were nearly double those of urban areas for both males (19.93 and 10.31 per 100 000, respectively) and females (4.40 and 2.39 per 100 000, respectively)." http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=21950...
[+] [-] joakleaf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xFFC|9 years ago|reply
If it does really work, I think it is one of the best idea I have ever seen !
[+] [-] andys627|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] louthy|9 years ago|reply
Instead of this passive aggressive remark, perhaps post links to the research that you believe validates your point? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I bet it's probably possible to find "studies" that back up both sides of the argument.
[+] [-] alphapapa|9 years ago|reply
If you want to live in big buildings, packed together like sardines, unable to escape from the noise of your neighbors and everything that goes on in the city outside the window, more power to you. But don't presume to say that everyone else will be happier if they would just do what you prefer.
[+] [-] thesimpsons1022|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ape4|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|9 years ago|reply
I guess until everybody starts using them :)
[+] [-] yk|9 years ago|reply
The second thing is energy, a plane needs to handle a lot more energy than a car, simply because it flies, so it is more expensive. If someone own a flying car, then they are investing a lot into a capability they use very rarely. With a Uber like model of shared transportation one orders a car only when one needs it. And it makes sense to have a flying car in the pool, even at a hundred times the cost of a regular vehicle. So each individual customer will use that flying car almost never, but there are many, and the ones who pay a $100 to shave five minutes of their time are probably in that moment very happy, that they have that option.
[+] [-] flavor8|9 years ago|reply
A cessna gets between 15mpg and 22mpg.
http://www.cessna150152.com/faqs/performance.htm
[+] [-] Retric|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johngalt|9 years ago|reply
https://peraves.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/roger_susan_mono...
Flys like a motorglider. I.e. slow for a plane but faster than a car/bike. Very efficient per mile (for a plane). Tolerates engine failure with a good glide ratio.
Ground to air transitions happen at designated places (mini airports). Wings are left at the airport while you operate the bike in ground mode. Or towed in a narrow trailer just like a glider trailer.
[+] [-] mtgx|9 years ago|reply
If only he had the money to experiment with something like this. That's why I'm hoping that Apple buys Tesla eventually and makes Musk its CEO and lets him do whatever he wants with those $150+ billion (maybe $300 billion by then) cash reserves.
And apparently he's already toying with flying stuff:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740723195431538689
[+] [-] outworlder|9 years ago|reply
I am not so sure. An electric airplane at least has the effect of lowering greenhouse emissions, thus increasing, even by a minuscule amount, the amount of time we have on this rock.
But flying cars? This is something that would increase the world's energy consumption, for little benefit.
He has already tackled transportation with the Hyperloop. Those are flying cars(or trains, depending on your point of view). Only they are safer, more energy efficient and more economical.
Besides, adding wings to a car doesn't seem like something one would do, if trying to think from first principles.
Also, I think the flying suit was a joke (my inner child is hoping not).
[+] [-] thomasahle|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nxzero|9 years ago|reply
Core issue is that flying spreads people out, and given how hyper connected people are, this makes no sense.
Real focus should on condensed living areas, not flying people around, which is a massive waste of energy.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
Silicon valley tries to create the future
[+] [-] aurizon|9 years ago|reply
Until we have anti g and can hover for zero energy it will never happen.
[+] [-] dave2000|9 years ago|reply