What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
78 Comments
- inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+26Sorry to ruin that for you but teleportation is the future.
- YodaJones, on 01/12/2009, -3/+27Meet George Jetson....his boy Elroy.....Jane his wife.....daughter Judy...
- Krekko, on 01/13/2009, -2/+18This is sooooo cool.
I want one.
Sadly I have a feeling in 40 years people are going to be looking at these pictures thinking "LOL Look at what thoese idiots thought we would have by the year 250!" Like we ( Or atleast I ) do When I read through old magazines and future books. - elusivebuffalo, on 01/13/2009, -0/+15Space-age technology from the distant year 2000. Right, i'll believe it when I see it.
- r4wr11, on 01/13/2009, -0/+10what the hell did i just see?
- darienphoenix, on 01/13/2009, -1/+10Because we all know anything nuclear glows green and will create a mushroom cloud if blown up.
- benjeye, on 01/13/2009, -1/+10I really hope I live long enough to see futuristic things like this.
- trevordj, on 01/13/2009, -1/+10*Meet George Jetson....his boy Elroy....daughter Judy...Jane his wife
- Volatile36, on 01/13/2009, -1/+10Anyone notice the future is always annoyingly brightly colored?
I'd go for some more realistic coloring, but maybe that's just me. - N1tro, on 01/13/2009, -1/+9I feel my designs were better and I came up with them 20 years ago in kindergarten.
- noknockers, on 01/13/2009, -0/+8propellers and jet engines... wow, really forward thinking.
- Vallsurf, on 01/13/2009, -0/+8Dugg for NASA concepts that look like my old Legos.
- Whiteknight117, on 01/13/2009, -0/+8Define near
- Amavel, on 01/13/2009, -0/+7I thought about this too.. and the ridiculous answer I came up with is....
The planes need to be brightly colored if there will be many in the air at a time so they can see each other and they don't just blend in with the surrounding buildings!
..but then I realized that that doesn't match how things are in the Fifth Element..
..and then this comment crashed and burned. But I'll sacrifice my dignity because I fought a painful migraine to stare at this damn screen and type it.. which took all of two or so minutes..
..with all the pauses..
..better stop while I'm behind. - DemDude, on 01/13/2009, -0/+6I believe the word you were looking for was "awesome".
- iamveryharsh, on 01/13/2009, -0/+5The near future of aviation? How about cheaper fares?
- DemDude, on 01/13/2009, -0/+5"Nucular" - the word is "Nucular."
- Homer Simpson, George W. Bush - tomato1324, on 01/13/2009, -5/+9yea. nuclear planes. that sounds safe.
- aigulf, on 01/13/2009, -0/+4To be fair, the U.S. Navy has never once had a meltdown, or any accidental release of radioactive material...and just about every submarine and aircraft carrier has a nuclear reactor inside.
- jeffkee, on 01/13/2009, -0/+4No personal jetpacks yet?
- OfficialJoe, on 01/13/2009, -0/+3The near future my friend.
- elementop, on 01/13/2009, -0/+3@Culyt: a bit sensationalist, aren't you?
"...after 911 the government are just going to let everyone have their own personal aircraft flying around the city." Uh, yeah, they already do. I own <a href="http://www.gecko-ak.org/N600LW%22%3Emy own airplane</a> (granted, a really small, really slow, really weird looking one -- the air traffic controller at my home airport calls it a lawn chair with wings...), and I fly it around Anchorage all summer long, usually right past the hotels in downtown Anchorage on my way north.
"...if you have ever had a car stall on you, the flying equivalent is a fiery death, not just for you but anyone below you." Sure...if you are totally incompetent. Part of every licensed pilot's training is what to do in the event of an engine failure, and we actually practice it over and over during training (we don't really kill the engine, just reduce power to idle and glide to a landing). Contrary to what you saw on Bugs Bunny, an airplane does not just fall out of the sky if the engine quits. Ever seen a glider? They don't have engines, but they still fly. A powered airplane will do the same thing, except that it descends somewhat faster. A typical light airplane will glide five to seven miles for every mile of altitude it has. A typical cruise altitude is about half a mile above ground level (AGL). That gives you something on the order of 20 - 40 square miles of ground to land in if your engine fails at ~2500 feet AGL. If you can't find a field, road or airport to glide to within a 20 - 40 square mile area near you, you didn't plan your route of flight very well.
Okay, you were talking about flying cars, like in "The Jetsons" or "Blade Runner". They aren't quite as aerodynamic as current light airplanes, and probably would glide more like a brick than a glider. Nevertheless, I still don't think a fiery death is inevitable. Companies like BRS are making ballistic parachutes that are currently able to bring a fully loaded four-place airplane to the ground gently enough to allow the occupants of the airplane to survive (although the airplanes are usually somewhat damaged by the "landing"). You are, however, exactly right about the power requirements for flying cars. That won't happen any time soon unless we see a major revolution in power plants.
As far as terrorists rigging them with explosives...possible, but 1) the terrorist bogey man is greatly overrated, IMHO, and 2) why bother with an airplane or flying car? It's much simpler and much more effective to load explosives into a panel van. A van can carry much more explosives than a small airplane. A van can often park either right next to or even directly inside the target building in many cases -- remember Yosef Ramsi in the WTC before 9/11 or Timothy McVeigh in OKC? We are so used to seeing non-descript service vans parked next to buildings that we don't even think twice about it. Furthermore, which one will be easiest to load up with explosives -- an airplane parked in the open on an airport where pilots, mechanics and ATC can watch you filling the airplane full of your explosive of choice or a van parked inside a garage in a rented warehouse? IMHO, the threat of terrorist activity using general aviation is far overrated, now or in the future.
/rant - pfhayter, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2All more room would mean is more economy class seating. All major advancements reinforce the class system which, despite being pronounced dead, is alive and well.
- tgc1, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2Still no flying cars. Whatever.
- gorkaboo, on 01/13/2009, -2/+4Just because most of the animations are goofy looking doesn't mean that these things aren't close. Look at companies like cirrus who have small (relatively) affordable personal jets. I think the biggest problem with most of these ideas are marketability, and efficiency. For instance, the commercial jet with the forward swept wings (last image) as far as I'm concerned could be around today if there was a reason for trying to make commercial jets more maneuverable. But unless you're stuck in an action movie there's no reason to spend money to make a large commercial jet turn sharper at the expense of stability.
That being said I'd be willing to bet that there are military craft in development or possibly prototyped that use similar principles to some of these. They're just probably dull colored and coated in anti radar geometry and paint. And we won't hear about them until they've been out of service for 10 years. - virtualonliner, on 01/13/2009, -1/+3Near? I do not think it is near enough to be in life time of any of us diggers.
- zerton, on 01/13/2009, -1/+3I wish there was explanations
- YodaJones, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2I am corrected!
- DaFunk, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2I was thinking the same thing, although more along the lines of "why did they give a bunch of 1st graders LCD and tell them to draw airplanes?"
- Gordianus, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2Thunderbird 2 (created in 1965) seems just as realistic ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thunderbird2.jpg - 9bpm9, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2That's why you designate a hard deck and landing zones. If a craft goes below the hard deck in a no fly zone, just shoot their asses down.
- wearywanderer, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2Did you mean LSD?
- wearywanderer, on 01/13/2009, -1/+3And I thought it was me... as usual I decided to suffer in silence than ask what may have been a stupid question!
- Tollboi, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2To be honest I am laughing at these now. They look like sketches me and my friends did in class during middle school. Engines all over the place wings that really make no since. The only thing missing are guns and bombs placed all over these beasts.
- trevordj, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2Does one of those look like the Spruce Goose?
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/cb_spruce_goo ...
VS
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gallery/4/2 ... - DRC1, on 01/13/2009, -0/+1Don't drink and fly!
- mbondr, on 01/13/2009, -0/+1Yes, except for the NASA logos. They all be labeled in Japanise, Chinese, Hindi, German, French, etc. The ones with the NASA logos will be pulled by oxen.
- spacester, on 01/13/2009, -0/+1Apparently Inaccurate Title. Most of this stuff is not from NASA: Administrator Griffin slashed funding for Aeronautics research. Read the original Flight Global article: most of these appear to be European or DOD.
- loneraven, on 01/13/2009, -0/+1No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ekranoplan_of_19 ... - elementop, on 01/13/2009, -1/+2There's a bit of a difference between a nuclear submarine moving at maybe 40 knots and an airplane moving at somewhere between 100 knots and 500 knots, however...
- Golfslugger31, on 08/28/2009, -0/+1That right there is a good point, but do remember, man thought we would hardly ever go to the moon, or even fly for that matter, so we've come pretty far. Check out the Airbus beluga.
- Testiculese, on 01/13/2009, -0/+1The military would be aside from my sarcasm, true, though it's screw ups are "training exercises" and buried, so you don't hear about them often (as few as there are).
I was pointing fingers at the general government. - RichardedHarris, on 01/14/2009, -0/+1popular science 1996???
- ubershmekel, on 01/14/2009, -0/+1Sorry to ruin that for you but time travel is the future.
- ahhell, on 01/13/2009, -1/+2I wish we could bury things twice (Gizmodo spam and mklopez spam)
- thezackisback89, on 01/14/2009, -0/+1Affordable personal jets?
The Cirrus Vision SJ50 is going for $1.2 million - I fail to see how it is affordable. Same goes for the other VLJ (very light jet) that Eclipse Aviation is developing (the Eclipse 400). I guess it all depends on how you define affordable.
I'll be impressed the day that turbine aircraft will be in the price range of piston-powered aircraft. - spiker611, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1What size display did they get?
- darienphoenix, on 01/14/2009, -0/+1*you're
- FLUX, on 01/13/2009, -0/+1Thunderbirds Go!
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
