patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,193,118 comments by 13,874 users - Ceffer, Patrick, richwicks online now
California’s high-speed rail project was fucked by the hiring of costly consultants who were big campaign donors
invite response
2019 Apr 28, 10:32am 3,271 views 84 comments
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
41
Patrick
2019 Apr 29, 8:53pm
Patrick
2019 Apr 29, 8:53pm
Trains do have the advantage that they generally stop in the centers of cities, unlike airports, which are almost always on the peripheries.
I lived in Germany for two years and was very impressed with the train system there. Of course it is a much denser country than the US overall.
And trains are actually quite energy efficient, even passenger trains (as long as they are full of passengers).
I lived in Germany for two years and was very impressed with the train system there. Of course it is a much denser country than the US overall.
And trains are actually quite energy efficient, even passenger trains (as long as they are full of passengers).
42
WookieMan
2019 Apr 29, 9:08pm
WookieMan
2019 Apr 29, 9:08pm
kt1652 says
I dislike Musk, don't think he's an honest person. Never said he was a scammer. Never said what he's done was bad, kind of thought it was praise. Ultimately like what he's done so far to the auto industry. Surreal, I know, I guess...
kt1652 says
Not ultimately sure what you've said here. You've kind of proven the population density point though if I'm understanding the few words spelled correctly. TRAINS WORK AND MAKE SENSE IN CHINA!!!! No one here has disputed that. Move on from China. We're talking about the states and I think for many here, specifically, California.
A single train line, from point A to B (who cares what city) is a nothing burger in the USA. It IS going to cost residents that DON'T use it money. It WON'T be profitable or break even. I don't understand the disconnect at this point. If it worked here it would be working ALREADY!!! Money is money at the end of the day and people will find ways to make it. People moving trains, over distances (even 100 miles) is stupid here. Do an Amtrak search, check the prices and get back. Then add speed and all that shit and quadruple the price and you'll understand why trains won't solve shit. Then stop in a city every 8-12 miles and you're essentially going 50 mph when you could be doing 480mph in a jet.
When EV/renewable enervy is bad - Musk is a scammer, Tesla is a accounting pyramid heading to bkcy
I dislike Musk, don't think he's an honest person. Never said he was a scammer. Never said what he's done was bad, kind of thought it was praise. Ultimately like what he's done so far to the auto industry. Surreal, I know, I guess...
kt1652 says
Why don't you try "highest effective utilization of a unit of energy per unit of dustance", at a scale of billions of people context.
Not ultimately sure what you've said here. You've kind of proven the population density point though if I'm understanding the few words spelled correctly. TRAINS WORK AND MAKE SENSE IN CHINA!!!! No one here has disputed that. Move on from China. We're talking about the states and I think for many here, specifically, California.
A single train line, from point A to B (who cares what city) is a nothing burger in the USA. It IS going to cost residents that DON'T use it money. It WON'T be profitable or break even. I don't understand the disconnect at this point. If it worked here it would be working ALREADY!!! Money is money at the end of the day and people will find ways to make it. People moving trains, over distances (even 100 miles) is stupid here. Do an Amtrak search, check the prices and get back. Then add speed and all that shit and quadruple the price and you'll understand why trains won't solve shit. Then stop in a city every 8-12 miles and you're essentially going 50 mph when you could be doing 480mph in a jet.
43
kt1652
2019 Apr 29, 9:59pm
kt1652
2019 Apr 29, 9:59pm
Look I was typing on a phone, on a slow work hour. If you don't think proposing everyone to fly on electric drones as a mass transport solution is absurd, I guess we agree to disagree. In the real world, solutions have to be proven, technically and the economics of the solution simulated extensively. I saw one on YouTube is nonsense.
It us a failure of the state of Calif to not address something so important. Having made no progress for 20 years. We are living the consequences. SFBA RE prices. Can't go back in time.
It us a failure of the state of Calif to not address something so important. Having made no progress for 20 years. We are living the consequences. SFBA RE prices. Can't go back in time.
44
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Apr 29, 10:06pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Apr 29, 10:06pm
Europe is set up differently: Dense Satellite Cities surrounding the Major City.
The US is endless suburbs outward.
In a European Satellite City, their suburbs, the train station is 10-15 blocks from your Dense Residential Apartment Complex, so you walk or bike.
In a US Suburb, the Suburban Train Station is 5 miles from your SFH, you must take a car.
The US is endless suburbs outward.
In a European Satellite City, their suburbs, the train station is 10-15 blocks from your Dense Residential Apartment Complex, so you walk or bike.
In a US Suburb, the Suburban Train Station is 5 miles from your SFH, you must take a car.
45
Bd6r
2019 Apr 30, 8:35am
Bd6r
2019 Apr 30, 8:35am
Patrick says
1. Problem is that I do not live in a center of a city.
2. "They" are talking now of a high-speed train line connecting Houston and Dallas. One reason for why it can't get much out of planning stage is that landowners are dead set against giving up their land. TX landowners already killed Trans-American highway, supported by Rick Perry and nearly every politician/Big Business entity. I am 100% sure they will be able to kill also the train...and Big and Beautiful Border Wall...and anything else that will be encroaching on their land. They are not afraid to stand up for what has been theirs for many generations.
Trains do have the advantage that they generally stop in the centers of cities, unlike airports, which are almost always on the peripheries.
1. Problem is that I do not live in a center of a city.
2. "They" are talking now of a high-speed train line connecting Houston and Dallas. One reason for why it can't get much out of planning stage is that landowners are dead set against giving up their land. TX landowners already killed Trans-American highway, supported by Rick Perry and nearly every politician/Big Business entity. I am 100% sure they will be able to kill also the train...and Big and Beautiful Border Wall...and anything else that will be encroaching on their land. They are not afraid to stand up for what has been theirs for many generations.
46
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 8:49am
kt1652 says
Who is saying "everyone"?
As I pointed out yesterday, you only need to get about 10-20% of the daily commuters to get off the freeways (either through air drones, carpooling, telecommuting and light rail) and gridlock in big major cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle and the Bay Area are solved instantly without having to build thousands of miles of new concrete freeway lanes, bridges and tunnels that takes decades to build.
I totally agree with you that we need to find better ways to get people living way out in the suburbs to commute into the city for their jobs to help with the high cost of housing. But how would you do that with high-speed rail in a city like Los Angeles? Would you build 10-20 different train lines going out in every direction in a spoke and wheel pattern to cover the commuters coming from Riverside, Orange County and San Bernardino? That is a pretty difficult thing to build in an already built out city, let alone California. It is alot easier for China to build a train line out into the country and then build a community around it.
I really believe we can get a safe fleet of drone taxis out to market quicker than building thousands of miles of new train lines or extra freeway lanes.
If you don't think proposing everyone to fly on electric drones as a mass transport solution is absurd, I guess we agree to disagree.
Who is saying "everyone"?
As I pointed out yesterday, you only need to get about 10-20% of the daily commuters to get off the freeways (either through air drones, carpooling, telecommuting and light rail) and gridlock in big major cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle and the Bay Area are solved instantly without having to build thousands of miles of new concrete freeway lanes, bridges and tunnels that takes decades to build.
I totally agree with you that we need to find better ways to get people living way out in the suburbs to commute into the city for their jobs to help with the high cost of housing. But how would you do that with high-speed rail in a city like Los Angeles? Would you build 10-20 different train lines going out in every direction in a spoke and wheel pattern to cover the commuters coming from Riverside, Orange County and San Bernardino? That is a pretty difficult thing to build in an already built out city, let alone California. It is alot easier for China to build a train line out into the country and then build a community around it.
I really believe we can get a safe fleet of drone taxis out to market quicker than building thousands of miles of new train lines or extra freeway lanes.
47
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 8:53am
d6rB says
Yep.
But they don't control the big open sky. That's the future.......at least the future I want to live in.
www.youtube.com/embed/JuWOUEFB_IQ
They are not afraid to stand up for what has been theirs for many generations.
Yep.
But they don't control the big open sky. That's the future.......at least the future I want to live in.
www.youtube.com/embed/JuWOUEFB_IQ
48
Bd6r
2019 Apr 30, 9:10am
Bd6r
2019 Apr 30, 9:10am
socal2 says
I recall that there was litigation in 1920's when landowners refused to allow airplanes to fly above their land claiming that the sky above their land is private property. They lost.
But they don't control the big open sky. That's the future.......at least the future I want to live in.
I recall that there was litigation in 1920's when landowners refused to allow airplanes to fly above their land claiming that the sky above their land is private property. They lost.
49
WookieMan
2019 Apr 30, 9:16am
WookieMan
2019 Apr 30, 9:16am
socal2 is spot on. There's really no disputing it. Fact is the drone market is much more scalable. I can't buy my own train. I can buy a car and use the road, but that's the most common means of transportation and congested. Anyone can buy a drone or would be able to like a car. Transportation services, government, individuals. Fixing transportation with trains is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Making trains 100% freight would also save LOADS of money too.
Fly a decent drone. Your opinion will change pretty quick. The tech is coming and coming fast. Just have to get the FAA on board and coordinated with ATC (tech and verbally if needed). Fact is drones work pretty much everywhere with almost ZERO infrastructure changes. Most the changes would be put on the back of private corps, everyone's favorite thing to do. They can build out the roof or ground areas where customers or employees would land. The gov. wouldn't have to touch it, but just let it happen (with some regulation of course).
This is the future. Honestly not even sure what the argument is at this point anymore. Build a train that goes 300mph and stops every 8 miles to average 60mph with 400 greasy ass people on it? Or grab a drone and fly at 40-50mph as the crow flies directly to your destination.
Fly a decent drone. Your opinion will change pretty quick. The tech is coming and coming fast. Just have to get the FAA on board and coordinated with ATC (tech and verbally if needed). Fact is drones work pretty much everywhere with almost ZERO infrastructure changes. Most the changes would be put on the back of private corps, everyone's favorite thing to do. They can build out the roof or ground areas where customers or employees would land. The gov. wouldn't have to touch it, but just let it happen (with some regulation of course).
This is the future. Honestly not even sure what the argument is at this point anymore. Build a train that goes 300mph and stops every 8 miles to average 60mph with 400 greasy ass people on it? Or grab a drone and fly at 40-50mph as the crow flies directly to your destination.
50
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 9:25am
WookieMan says
The cynic in me thinks Progressives love trains because it gives them greater control over people and how we choose to live our lives. They want top down central planned cities like they had in the Communist era where people will be forced to live near the government mandated transportation systems. They hate it that people have fled their failing cities and have moved out to the suburbs to escape the crime, dysfunction, crappy schools, shit on the streets and high taxation.
Drones will give people too much freedom in how we organize our lives and work...........and some people on the Left see that as a bad thing.
Fixing transportation with trains is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
The cynic in me thinks Progressives love trains because it gives them greater control over people and how we choose to live our lives. They want top down central planned cities like they had in the Communist era where people will be forced to live near the government mandated transportation systems. They hate it that people have fled their failing cities and have moved out to the suburbs to escape the crime, dysfunction, crappy schools, shit on the streets and high taxation.
Drones will give people too much freedom in how we organize our lives and work...........and some people on the Left see that as a bad thing.
51
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 9:43am
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 9:43am
The tech is coming and coming fast. Just have to get the FAA on board and coordinated with ATC (tech and verbally if needed).
You left out costs. These would be million dollar vehicles with very high insurance costs. Total costs of operating one of these would be at least $500/hr.
You left out costs. These would be million dollar vehicles with very high insurance costs. Total costs of operating one of these would be at least $500/hr.
52
Blue
2019 Apr 30, 9:59am
Energy efficiency matrices is a bit (very) complex. One of the major factors is the number of occupants of any type (avg. maintenance cost + base_cost/commute + cost/passenger/commute)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/cars-weigh-too-much -gives a basic comparison.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/cars-weigh-too-much -gives a basic comparison.
53
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 10:07am
HeadSet says
Maybe the bigger multi-passenger drones will cost a bit more.
But there are smaller single passenger drones that will cost less than a Tesla X and like most electric vehicles, will have very little maintenance or operations costs. Put a ballistic parachute on each unit with tons of external and internal airbags, and this mode of travel would be safer than what I do every day on my 50 mile round trip commute driving buy thousands of terrible drivers on 5 lanes of concrete while they are texting and putting their makeup on.
You left out costs. These would be million dollar vehicles with very high insurance costs. Total costs of operating one of these would be at least $500/hr.
Maybe the bigger multi-passenger drones will cost a bit more.
But there are smaller single passenger drones that will cost less than a Tesla X and like most electric vehicles, will have very little maintenance or operations costs. Put a ballistic parachute on each unit with tons of external and internal airbags, and this mode of travel would be safer than what I do every day on my 50 mile round trip commute driving buy thousands of terrible drivers on 5 lanes of concrete while they are texting and putting their makeup on.
54
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 10:22am
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 10:22am
But there are smaller single passenger drones that will cost less than a Tesla X and like most electric vehicles,
Not so. Price a very simple in comparison Cessna 172. The Cessna has no self fly computers, basic flight controls, and a single air cooled piston engine. Yet a new one will cost about $300k. If you really want a shock, price the cheapest piston powered helicopter.
Even a small 2 seater drone will need the auto fly computers, multiple engines, sensors, instrumentation, communications, and transponders of some sort. You are looking at a million dollar machine. Now add insurance.
Think about it, why does a low end aircraft like the Cessna cost more than a Rolls Royce?
Not so. Price a very simple in comparison Cessna 172. The Cessna has no self fly computers, basic flight controls, and a single air cooled piston engine. Yet a new one will cost about $300k. If you really want a shock, price the cheapest piston powered helicopter.
Even a small 2 seater drone will need the auto fly computers, multiple engines, sensors, instrumentation, communications, and transponders of some sort. You are looking at a million dollar machine. Now add insurance.
Think about it, why does a low end aircraft like the Cessna cost more than a Rolls Royce?
55
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 10:56am
HeadSet says
I think comparing a Cessna to a commuter drone is an apples to oranges comparison. I believe a Cessna is expected to have 30+ years of useful life and designed to fly much longer distances at higher altitudes. My co-worker has a Cessna Cardinal that is nearly 50 years old with a rebuilt engine and brand new avionics. I think commuter drones will be much smaller, lighter and less complex designed only to do short 25 mile trips getting commuters in and out of the big cities.
The makers of the Blackfly flying vehicle are aiming for a price of an American SUV. It will hopefully get even cheaper as they bring the costs of batteries down.
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/blackfly-flying-car-price?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4
In comparison, a single light-rail trolley car can cost over $3 million.........not including the millions it costs to build and maintain the tracks, bridges and tunnels.
Think about it, why does a low end aircraft like the Cessna cost more than a Rolls Royce?
I think comparing a Cessna to a commuter drone is an apples to oranges comparison. I believe a Cessna is expected to have 30+ years of useful life and designed to fly much longer distances at higher altitudes. My co-worker has a Cessna Cardinal that is nearly 50 years old with a rebuilt engine and brand new avionics. I think commuter drones will be much smaller, lighter and less complex designed only to do short 25 mile trips getting commuters in and out of the big cities.
The makers of the Blackfly flying vehicle are aiming for a price of an American SUV. It will hopefully get even cheaper as they bring the costs of batteries down.
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/blackfly-flying-car-price?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4
In comparison, a single light-rail trolley car can cost over $3 million.........not including the millions it costs to build and maintain the tracks, bridges and tunnels.
56
kt1652
2019 Apr 30, 11:28am
kt1652
2019 Apr 30, 11:28am
Blue says
Energy balance and physics.
Man, for a while I was sadden that an entire forum is lacking the understanding of energy expenditure metrics.
Energy/weight density of batteries is abysmally low, extremely unsuitable for aircraft power.
Folks, flying drones will now need to be 4 or 5 seaters or else they are toys.
But their rate of utilization is still a couple hours a day and the cost and watts/mile will go off-chart compare to EV, buses, rail, uber…
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/electric-airplanes-2/
The age of Electric Aviation is just 30 Years Away. Let that sink it.
“The problem is, batteries simply do not offer the power-to-weight ratio or cost needed to be feasible, and will not for some time. The technological advancements that allowed Tesla to squeeze 335 miles from the Model S and Chevrolet to get 200 out of the Bolt are not enough to power anything more than the smallest aircraft for the shortest distance.”
Wishful thinking.
Energy efficiency matrices is a bit (very) complex. One of the major factors is the number of occupants of any type (avg. maintenance cost + base_cost/commute + cost/passenger/commute)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/cars-weigh-too-much -gives a basic comparison.
Energy balance and physics.
Man, for a while I was sadden that an entire forum is lacking the understanding of energy expenditure metrics.
Energy/weight density of batteries is abysmally low, extremely unsuitable for aircraft power.
Folks, flying drones will now need to be 4 or 5 seaters or else they are toys.
But their rate of utilization is still a couple hours a day and the cost and watts/mile will go off-chart compare to EV, buses, rail, uber…
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/electric-airplanes-2/
The age of Electric Aviation is just 30 Years Away. Let that sink it.
“The problem is, batteries simply do not offer the power-to-weight ratio or cost needed to be feasible, and will not for some time. The technological advancements that allowed Tesla to squeeze 335 miles from the Model S and Chevrolet to get 200 out of the Bolt are not enough to power anything more than the smallest aircraft for the shortest distance.”
Wishful thinking.
57
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 11:47am
kt1652 says
And the age of high speed trains in America?
California has just spent 10 years and billions of dollars trying to build a section of track on the easiest and flattest part of the State with tons of political support including Federal funding - and what do we have to show for it in 2019? Latest estimates would put completion out until 2033 and billions over budget.........which is still probably 10-20 years too optimistic. So realistically, we are looking at 30+ years to build it in California.
kt1652 says
All you need is something that can fly about 20 miles and that covers the majority of the big city commuters causing the majority of traffic congestion.
There are so many big cities that are hampered with choke points like bridges and tunnels which would cost TRILLIONS to upgrade to add extra lanes. Commuter drones could solve that problem overnight at a fraction of the cost and be way more convenient and quicker for the passengers. Win win win.....
The age of Electric Aviation is just 30 Years Away. Let that sink it.
And the age of high speed trains in America?
California has just spent 10 years and billions of dollars trying to build a section of track on the easiest and flattest part of the State with tons of political support including Federal funding - and what do we have to show for it in 2019? Latest estimates would put completion out until 2033 and billions over budget.........which is still probably 10-20 years too optimistic. So realistically, we are looking at 30+ years to build it in California.
kt1652 says
he technological advancements that allowed Tesla to squeeze 335 miles from the Model S and Chevrolet to get 200 out of the Bolt are not enough to power anything more than the smallest aircraft for the shortest distance.”
All you need is something that can fly about 20 miles and that covers the majority of the big city commuters causing the majority of traffic congestion.
There are so many big cities that are hampered with choke points like bridges and tunnels which would cost TRILLIONS to upgrade to add extra lanes. Commuter drones could solve that problem overnight at a fraction of the cost and be way more convenient and quicker for the passengers. Win win win.....
58
kt1652
2019 Apr 30, 11:54am
kt1652
2019 Apr 30, 11:54am
So I was right, only Zuckerberg and his friends, can afford it.
For work commute, wouldn't it be easier to get an ap to link people together and carpool in a Tesla model x?
If that model x is autonomous, the rate of utilization goes up 5 - 10x, which will drop the $/mile to 1/3.
Uh, that is the reason Uber is worth $100 billion without making any money yet.
If personal EV drone is not a solution for today, why are we talking about it.
For work commute, wouldn't it be easier to get an ap to link people together and carpool in a Tesla model x?
If that model x is autonomous, the rate of utilization goes up 5 - 10x, which will drop the $/mile to 1/3.
Uh, that is the reason Uber is worth $100 billion without making any money yet.
If personal EV drone is not a solution for today, why are we talking about it.
59
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Apr 30, 11:55am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Apr 30, 11:55am
What happened to the old solution of Rail-Automotive? You drive it onto the rails and sit back and check your cell phone. No more jammed train station parking lots, takes you to one of several points downtown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_transit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_transit
60
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 12:04pm
kt1652 says
Why are we talking about high speed trains when we "KNOW" it takes several decades to build the track and infrastructure?
The California high speed rail project has been a total abject failure. Boosters of high speed rail need to come to terms with this fact.
Even if they managed to finish it by 2033, it will not meet a fraction of its promises in terms of speed and cost to ride and most business people needing to travel between SoCal and NorCal will fly. Poorer people will take buses, ride shares, existing trains or will drive their cars on the existing freeways.
We should learn our lesson and work on different solutions.
If personal EV drone is not a solution for today, why are we talking about it.
Why are we talking about high speed trains when we "KNOW" it takes several decades to build the track and infrastructure?
The California high speed rail project has been a total abject failure. Boosters of high speed rail need to come to terms with this fact.
Even if they managed to finish it by 2033, it will not meet a fraction of its promises in terms of speed and cost to ride and most business people needing to travel between SoCal and NorCal will fly. Poorer people will take buses, ride shares, existing trains or will drive their cars on the existing freeways.
We should learn our lesson and work on different solutions.
61
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 2:45pm
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 2:45pm
I think commuter drones will be much smaller, lighter and less complex designed only to do short 25 mile trips getting commuters in and out of the big cities.
Smaller and lighter than a Cessna? A Cessna is a thin aluminum can, designed to be as light as possible. Also, only one 4 cylinder air cooled motor. Your drone will have multiple electric engines and the batteries needed to power them. Less complex? Your drone will need stabilization and self flying capability. Using rotors is far less efficient than a wing. Flying 25 miles in a VTOL will takes lots more energy than flying 100 miles in a conventional plane.
Time will tell. Just watch the sticker shock when they come out.
Smaller and lighter than a Cessna? A Cessna is a thin aluminum can, designed to be as light as possible. Also, only one 4 cylinder air cooled motor. Your drone will have multiple electric engines and the batteries needed to power them. Less complex? Your drone will need stabilization and self flying capability. Using rotors is far less efficient than a wing. Flying 25 miles in a VTOL will takes lots more energy than flying 100 miles in a conventional plane.
Time will tell. Just watch the sticker shock when they come out.
62
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 2:57pm
HeadSet says
This guy made one in his garage. The stabilization and self flying software is already available in children's toy drones. Got to believe the Cessna engine alone is 3X heavier than a drone that can carry one or two people 25 miles.
www.youtube.com/embed/GKBNTP6D1ag&t=500s
I don't think these will replace conventional ICE and jet planes in the near future. But they will be good for shorter commutes between the suburbs and the cities which happens to be our biggest traffic problems robbing millions of people of productivity every day and driving housing prices through the roof.
Smaller and lighter than a Cessna? A Cessna is a thin aluminum can, designed to be as light as possible. Also, only one 4 cylinder air cooled motor. Your drone will have multiple electric engines and the batteries needed to power them. Less complex? Your drone will need stabilization and self flying capability. Using rotors is far less efficient than a wing. Flying 25 miles in a VTOL will takes lots more energy than flying 100 miles in a conventional plane.
This guy made one in his garage. The stabilization and self flying software is already available in children's toy drones. Got to believe the Cessna engine alone is 3X heavier than a drone that can carry one or two people 25 miles.
www.youtube.com/embed/GKBNTP6D1ag&t=500s
I don't think these will replace conventional ICE and jet planes in the near future. But they will be good for shorter commutes between the suburbs and the cities which happens to be our biggest traffic problems robbing millions of people of productivity every day and driving housing prices through the roof.
63
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 3:05pm
HeadSet
2019 Apr 30, 3:05pm
But they will be good for shorter commutes between the suburbs and the cities which happens to be our biggest traffic problems robbing millions of people of productivity every day and driving housing prices through the roof.
I would actually like to see that. Just very skeptical. By the way, not that new, from the 1940s:
But notice it never "took off" in mass use.
I would actually like to see that. Just very skeptical. By the way, not that new, from the 1940s:
But notice it never "took off" in mass use.
64
WookieMan
2019 Apr 30, 4:13pm
WookieMan
2019 Apr 30, 4:13pm
Can't remember if I've said it on this thread before or not. Go borrow, or use a higher end drone and come back and tell us it's not the future. As socal2 has said, the brains are literally built into prosumer drones. I have one. Obstacle avoidance is impractical on a Cessna but simple as shit on a quad. You gotta speed to have lift on a Cessna, so you can't stop on a dime and still stay aloft. (Side note - thought new 172's have G1000 glass panels in them. Could be wrong, but pretty sure they can come very close to flying themselves, new of course)
I know people hear stories all over of people crashing their drones, but those people are simple idiots. I have done some brave testing on mine and literally cannot crash it. In the correct mode, we're talking flying at top speed towards a wall and the things stops. Dropping down from 200' towards murky water to test the bottom sensors out. Obstacle avoidance is a non-issue in this conversation.
The weight of the batteries and the payload are the biggest issues as kt has mentioned and I agree with the skepticism to an extent. It's not some insurmountable hurdle to get over though. Going back to what socal2 was saying, we're not proposing 100 mile commuter drones (although I don't think even that is as unrealistic as some believe). These are daily commuters. If the highways are clear(er) of the 5-25 miles commuters, you can then move quicker from 60 miles with a car. And this will still be quicker than a bullet train stopping every 5 minutes so no suburb or neighborhood is left out.
Not sure what they call them in other cities, but think Divvy bike for the sky. Fly, park, charge. Carries one person. You still have your car (probably only one) for grocery shopping, Home Depot runs, road trips, etc. But to get to work you just swing down the block and hop on your Uber, Divvy or whatever you want to call it drone.
At some point the real story is $$$. Skip the drone talk even. Cities can change their density near the city center or force people to move further and then require trains. One costs every tax payer money and the other doesn't. Fix density and outside of freight, trains are dead (obviously not in the inner city). And it's a simple city council vote and you've eliminated a multi-billion dollar infrastructure initiative that no one is going to use anyway. Is this really that complicated?
I know people hear stories all over of people crashing their drones, but those people are simple idiots. I have done some brave testing on mine and literally cannot crash it. In the correct mode, we're talking flying at top speed towards a wall and the things stops. Dropping down from 200' towards murky water to test the bottom sensors out. Obstacle avoidance is a non-issue in this conversation.
The weight of the batteries and the payload are the biggest issues as kt has mentioned and I agree with the skepticism to an extent. It's not some insurmountable hurdle to get over though. Going back to what socal2 was saying, we're not proposing 100 mile commuter drones (although I don't think even that is as unrealistic as some believe). These are daily commuters. If the highways are clear(er) of the 5-25 miles commuters, you can then move quicker from 60 miles with a car. And this will still be quicker than a bullet train stopping every 5 minutes so no suburb or neighborhood is left out.
Not sure what they call them in other cities, but think Divvy bike for the sky. Fly, park, charge. Carries one person. You still have your car (probably only one) for grocery shopping, Home Depot runs, road trips, etc. But to get to work you just swing down the block and hop on your Uber, Divvy or whatever you want to call it drone.
At some point the real story is $$$. Skip the drone talk even. Cities can change their density near the city center or force people to move further and then require trains. One costs every tax payer money and the other doesn't. Fix density and outside of freight, trains are dead (obviously not in the inner city). And it's a simple city council vote and you've eliminated a multi-billion dollar infrastructure initiative that no one is going to use anyway. Is this really that complicated?
65
RWSGFY
2019 Apr 30, 5:15pm
RWSGFY
2019 Apr 30, 5:15pm
WookieMan says
Why not make them powered by ICE then? Military drones are not electric.
The weight of the batteries and the payload are the biggest issues
Why not make them powered by ICE then? Military drones are not electric.
66
WookieMan
2019 Apr 30, 5:31pm
WookieMan
2019 Apr 30, 5:31pm
Hugolas_Madurez says
Don't need the distance that military one's do I would say? Also, drones are loud no doubt, but using an ICE to supply the power adds additional noise. Not good in a commuter to the city either with the exhaust. One thing I don't think a lot of people realize is that the Cessna 172 flying over your house is legit off gassing lead over you. I'm sure the greenies will go after general aviation next though like it's some actual, legit harm.
Like I said, zoning alone can change the conversation in a week if there was the will. Drones are coming as well. At the end of the day though, high speed trains are a boondoggle to those with interests in having them built. It really makes little sense in the states except for a few micro areas.
WookieMan saysThe weight of the batteries and the payload are the biggest issues
Why not make them powered by ICE then? Military drones are not electric.
Don't need the distance that military one's do I would say? Also, drones are loud no doubt, but using an ICE to supply the power adds additional noise. Not good in a commuter to the city either with the exhaust. One thing I don't think a lot of people realize is that the Cessna 172 flying over your house is legit off gassing lead over you. I'm sure the greenies will go after general aviation next though like it's some actual, legit harm.
Like I said, zoning alone can change the conversation in a week if there was the will. Drones are coming as well. At the end of the day though, high speed trains are a boondoggle to those with interests in having them built. It really makes little sense in the states except for a few micro areas.
67
socal2
2019 Apr 30, 5:45pm
WookieMan says
I think single passenger drones will do just fine navigating in the cities.
www.youtube.com/embed/zCz3eq5J2dU
I have done some brave testing on mine and literally cannot crash it. In the correct mode, we're talking flying at top speed towards a wall and the things stops. Dropping down from 200' towards murky water to test the bottom sensors out. Obstacle avoidance is a non-issue in this conversation.
I think single passenger drones will do just fine navigating in the cities.
www.youtube.com/embed/zCz3eq5J2dU
68
HeadSet
2019 May 1, 6:58am
HeadSet
2019 May 1, 6:58am
(Side note - thought new 172's have G1000 glass panels in them. Could be wrong, but pretty sure they can come very close to flying themselves, new of course)
Glass cockpit is just a new way to display altimeter, artificial horizon, heading, and maps. Planes have had auto-pilots for years, but they just hold headings and altitude, and can be set to fly to a waypoint or nav aid. Small plane auto-pilot does not take off and land, and a three axis autopilot is an expensive option. I have been flying Cessnas and Pipers since I was 17, but I stopped flying a few years ago. I would be surprised if a 2019 Cessna 172 had self fly capability.
Glass cockpit is just a new way to display altimeter, artificial horizon, heading, and maps. Planes have had auto-pilots for years, but they just hold headings and altitude, and can be set to fly to a waypoint or nav aid. Small plane auto-pilot does not take off and land, and a three axis autopilot is an expensive option. I have been flying Cessnas and Pipers since I was 17, but I stopped flying a few years ago. I would be surprised if a 2019 Cessna 172 had self fly capability.
69
RWSGFY
2019 May 1, 8:51am
RWSGFY
2019 May 1, 8:51am
WookieMan says
It's negligible compared to the noise produced by the propellers.
using an ICE to supply the power adds additional noise
It's negligible compared to the noise produced by the propellers.
70
WookieMan
2019 May 1, 11:20am
WookieMan
2019 May 1, 11:20am
HeadSet says
You are correct. Obviously misspoke there. Although flying by hand with that gear makes it a whole hell of a lot easier I'd think.
At the end of the day though, my main point was that a Cessna (or most any fixed wing aircraft) requires speed & land (to take off/land) to fly the thing. Obstacle avoidance would be impractical as the whole point is to be above the obstacles. Not sure if it's an upgrade or not, but doesn't a new Cessna have active traffic tracking capabilities anyway? Or isn't there a new rule that all aircraft by 2020 need to be equipped with a device to allow tracking and see other planes (ADS-B)?
I can already fly my drone (I know, smaller scale) 2 miles out at 350' AGL, stop the thing, push one button and swipe the screen and the drone will land within about a 2' radius of where it took off while I go make a sandwich. The current built in obstacle avoidance on my model of drone won't allow it to hit a tree on the way back (my hands are off the controller).
This is a $1,200 drone we're talking about. I know for a fact if you have DJI account flying their drones, they're getting ALL the data on what's working and what's not. Share data both ways with the autonomous car experimenters out there, and you have a massive wealth of obstacle avoidance data, in space where you really need to avoid obstacles. Drones have the benefit of the third axis as well to avoid collision, so probably safer than autonomous cars.
Either way, land based methods are not the way forward long term. Just think about land costs for just 1 mile of track, the stations, the labor just to keep an eye on the operation, and finally the equipment to actually move the people. As with any new tech, I think getting people to trust the automation is the biggest hurdle. Self driving cars are the most immediate solution and better then a train on the backs of tax payers. Fares will be too high to justify using it, so it will be subsidized.
Glass cockpit is just a new way to display altimeter, artificial horizon, heading, and maps
You are correct. Obviously misspoke there. Although flying by hand with that gear makes it a whole hell of a lot easier I'd think.
At the end of the day though, my main point was that a Cessna (or most any fixed wing aircraft) requires speed & land (to take off/land) to fly the thing. Obstacle avoidance would be impractical as the whole point is to be above the obstacles. Not sure if it's an upgrade or not, but doesn't a new Cessna have active traffic tracking capabilities anyway? Or isn't there a new rule that all aircraft by 2020 need to be equipped with a device to allow tracking and see other planes (ADS-B)?
I can already fly my drone (I know, smaller scale) 2 miles out at 350' AGL, stop the thing, push one button and swipe the screen and the drone will land within about a 2' radius of where it took off while I go make a sandwich. The current built in obstacle avoidance on my model of drone won't allow it to hit a tree on the way back (my hands are off the controller).
This is a $1,200 drone we're talking about. I know for a fact if you have DJI account flying their drones, they're getting ALL the data on what's working and what's not. Share data both ways with the autonomous car experimenters out there, and you have a massive wealth of obstacle avoidance data, in space where you really need to avoid obstacles. Drones have the benefit of the third axis as well to avoid collision, so probably safer than autonomous cars.
Either way, land based methods are not the way forward long term. Just think about land costs for just 1 mile of track, the stations, the labor just to keep an eye on the operation, and finally the equipment to actually move the people. As with any new tech, I think getting people to trust the automation is the biggest hurdle. Self driving cars are the most immediate solution and better then a train on the backs of tax payers. Fares will be too high to justify using it, so it will be subsidized.
71
socal2
2019 May 1, 11:30am
WookieMan says
Yep.
I guess I am jaded as I have been driving SoCal freeways for 20+ years suffering through construction traffic while they add a single carpool lane to the freeway - only for it to be just as congested after the construction was done. I also remember watching it take nearly 3 years for CALTRANS to upgrade one small trestle railroad bridge over a small lagoon in Camp Pendleton and thinking how freaking hard and expensive it is going to be to build hundreds of miles of high speed rail track.
California is supposed to be all about the future and "progressive". Why are we dicking around with 18th century transportation schemes?
Either way, land based methods are not the way forward long term. Just think about land costs for just 1 mile of track, the stations, the labor just to keep an eye on the operation, and finally the equipment to actually move the people.
Yep.
I guess I am jaded as I have been driving SoCal freeways for 20+ years suffering through construction traffic while they add a single carpool lane to the freeway - only for it to be just as congested after the construction was done. I also remember watching it take nearly 3 years for CALTRANS to upgrade one small trestle railroad bridge over a small lagoon in Camp Pendleton and thinking how freaking hard and expensive it is going to be to build hundreds of miles of high speed rail track.
California is supposed to be all about the future and "progressive". Why are we dicking around with 18th century transportation schemes?
72
HeadSet
2019 May 1, 11:45am
HeadSet
2019 May 1, 11:45am
Or isn't there a new rule that all aircraft by 2020 need to be equipped with a device to allow tracking and see other planes (ADS-B)?
This is really just an upgrade to the radar and transponder systems of old. Same task, just uses reporting GPS to see your location rather ground based radar and identifying yourself with a squawk code. Does have the advantage of letting one plane see where other planes are, though. Not sure it will apply to general aviation small planes that cannot even reach flight level altitudes (except maybe IFR certified planes).
This is really just an upgrade to the radar and transponder systems of old. Same task, just uses reporting GPS to see your location rather ground based radar and identifying yourself with a squawk code. Does have the advantage of letting one plane see where other planes are, though. Not sure it will apply to general aviation small planes that cannot even reach flight level altitudes (except maybe IFR certified planes).
73
HeadSet
2019 May 1, 11:49am
HeadSet
2019 May 1, 11:49am
Either way, land based methods are not the way forward long term.
So what happened to all "telecommuting" projected years ago? Cannot most office work, call center, meetings, and other tasks be done at home by remoting in?
So what happened to all "telecommuting" projected years ago? Cannot most office work, call center, meetings, and other tasks be done at home by remoting in?
74
socal2
2019 May 1, 11:52am
HeadSet says
It's happening. My commutes on Mondays/Fridays are palpably better which I assume is the result of people working from home those days.
So what happened to all "telecommuting" projected years ago? Cannot most office work, call center, meetings, and other tasks be done at home by remoting in?
It's happening. My commutes on Mondays/Fridays are palpably better which I assume is the result of people working from home those days.
75
WookieMan
2019 May 1, 12:00pm
WookieMan
2019 May 1, 12:00pm
HeadSet says
It's another reason high speed trains are retarded. That's already happening. Even here in lo-tech IL most my buddies in white collar jobs are working from home 2-3 days a week when not traveling.
Self driving cars will be the next wave. And then I think it will be drones. We've had well over a century of trains and it worked very well as the best mode of transportation for that time. But freight has called and they want their tracks back. There are so many more simple ways to travel, that put the costs on the user completely and not the government "making" everyone else pay for something they'll never use. It gets annoying after a while subsidizing Metra (local commuter train by me) riders, who pay fares that don't cover the costs of what they're using. If they raised fares to match actual costs, it would be cheaper to own, insure, fuel and park a car as a commuter and ditch the train. No one would use the train, reducing revenues.
So what happened to all "telecommuting" projected years ago? Cannot most office work, call center, meetings, and other tasks be done at home by remoting in?
It's another reason high speed trains are retarded. That's already happening. Even here in lo-tech IL most my buddies in white collar jobs are working from home 2-3 days a week when not traveling.
Self driving cars will be the next wave. And then I think it will be drones. We've had well over a century of trains and it worked very well as the best mode of transportation for that time. But freight has called and they want their tracks back. There are so many more simple ways to travel, that put the costs on the user completely and not the government "making" everyone else pay for something they'll never use. It gets annoying after a while subsidizing Metra (local commuter train by me) riders, who pay fares that don't cover the costs of what they're using. If they raised fares to match actual costs, it would be cheaper to own, insure, fuel and park a car as a commuter and ditch the train. No one would use the train, reducing revenues.
77
RWSGFY
2019 May 1, 12:05pm
RWSGFY
2019 May 1, 12:05pm
HeadSet says
Yes, it can, but some SV companies are currently discouraging the practice. Most of the biggest players either allow only 1 day WFH or don't allow it altoghether. Especially the ones which provide free food / dry cleaning / gim / yoga studios on-prem.
So what happened to all "telecommuting" projected years ago? Cannot most office work, call center, meetings, and other tasks be done at home by remoting in?
Yes, it can, but some SV companies are currently discouraging the practice. Most of the biggest players either allow only 1 day WFH or don't allow it altoghether. Especially the ones which provide free food / dry cleaning / gim / yoga studios on-prem.
78
kt1652
2019 May 1, 12:21pm
kt1652
2019 May 1, 12:21pm
Debate tactics of the dishonest.
I never said I think high speed rail is the one-and-only mass transit solution.
I said: "You're confusing issues. corruption and inefficiency or incompetence is not inherent of a high-speed rail "
And there are countries that had implement hs rail successfully, just because Calif leaders are corrupt, incompetent does not mean a modern efficient rail line cannot be part of the solution where it will help.
Then I went on to say, by not doing anything in 20 years, things had gone from bad to worse.
True that I spelled badly posting from phone, but login Patnet on work pc would be worse than stupid.
After hours wasted, is half-baked flying electric drone still clinging to life?
I surrender, enough time wasted on "miracle-needed" solutions.
I never said I think high speed rail is the one-and-only mass transit solution.
I said: "You're confusing issues. corruption and inefficiency or incompetence is not inherent of a high-speed rail "
And there are countries that had implement hs rail successfully, just because Calif leaders are corrupt, incompetent does not mean a modern efficient rail line cannot be part of the solution where it will help.
Then I went on to say, by not doing anything in 20 years, things had gone from bad to worse.
True that I spelled badly posting from phone, but login Patnet on work pc would be worse than stupid.
After hours wasted, is half-baked flying electric drone still clinging to life?
I surrender, enough time wasted on "miracle-needed" solutions.
79
WookieMan
2019 May 1, 12:29pm
WookieMan
2019 May 1, 12:29pm
kt1652 says
What? You turning into Yoda?
It's not a debate tactic either. We're just pointing out that after massive investment into high speed, there's little to show for it. Can blame politicians or government all you want. At the end of the day, if it was viable, it would have already happened by now in CA or anywhere meaningfully here in the states. There's a reason for that. It's not possible with the EXISTING infrastructure people can use at a much cheaper cost. Factor in the way cities and outlying suburbs were planned and high speed trains are dead on arrival. We're just looking towards the future and not trying to put the locomotive into a car garage or a rooftop landing pad.
After hours wasted, is half-baked flying electric drone still clinging to life?
I surrender, enough time wasted on "miracle-needed" solutions.
What? You turning into Yoda?
It's not a debate tactic either. We're just pointing out that after massive investment into high speed, there's little to show for it. Can blame politicians or government all you want. At the end of the day, if it was viable, it would have already happened by now in CA or anywhere meaningfully here in the states. There's a reason for that. It's not possible with the EXISTING infrastructure people can use at a much cheaper cost. Factor in the way cities and outlying suburbs were planned and high speed trains are dead on arrival. We're just looking towards the future and not trying to put the locomotive into a car garage or a rooftop landing pad.
80
socal2
2019 May 1, 12:35pm
kt1652 says
But if we can't make it work in California, where else in the US is it going to work? It is time for some real soul-searching about the technological limitations without blaming it all on corruption.
Those other countries you talk about are basically boiled down to Europe whose cities were already built around existing rail lines built 100+ years ago and China which can use slave labor, have little environmental regulations and are building new train lines to build cities around them after the fact.
Trying to put high speed rail in already built out areas is a much more difficult task.
And there are countries that had implement hs rail successfully, just because Calif leaders are corrupt, incompetent does not mean a modern efficient rail line cannot be part of the solution where it will help.
But if we can't make it work in California, where else in the US is it going to work? It is time for some real soul-searching about the technological limitations without blaming it all on corruption.
Those other countries you talk about are basically boiled down to Europe whose cities were already built around existing rail lines built 100+ years ago and China which can use slave labor, have little environmental regulations and are building new train lines to build cities around them after the fact.
Trying to put high speed rail in already built out areas is a much more difficult task.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
It was pure old-school corruption, a specialty of Democrats.