Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 12 2017, @08:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-future-is-complete dept.

Over the next four weeks, BBC News will be offering a snapshot of the day in the life of a city - looking at how technology is transforming our urban landscapes, now and in the future.

Their first snapshot? What it will be like to commute by jetpack.

We start as urban dwellers around the world begin the day - with the morning commute. In the future, that may mean hailing a jetpack.

"Jetpacks will be part of future cities," Peter Coker, vice-president of innovation at KuangChi Science, Martin Aircraft Company's major Chinese shareholder.

"I see it as being the Uber of the sky."

Martin Aircraft Company, based in New Zealand, already has a working prototype that can fly at 2,800ft (850m) at 45km/h (27mph) for 28 minutes.

And Mr Coker says commuters will be able to hail an unmanned jetpack via a smartphone app.

Futurism is always fun. How would you prefer to get to work, by jetpack, Hyperloop, or VR?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:41AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:41AM (#452914) Homepage
    I've seen futurism's output in person for about 40 years, but of course I've seen earlier predictions as they get rolled out again later (often purely for comic effect), and to be honest, most of it is utterly tawdry. So little of it seems to pay attention to little things like the laws of physics (such as the amount of energy input required for the effect desired, and the energy dissipated too).

    What I look forward to in the future is the implementation of things that have been not just good ideas but practically possible for decades. Things like Thorium reactors.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:48AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:48AM (#452916) Journal

    Wanna have fun with futurism? Put Next Big Future in your RSS feeds.

    Hybrid Fusion Fission Molten Salt Reactor [nextbigfuture.com]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @08:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @08:06PM (#453039)

    All that needs to happen is someone thinking it's a grand enough idea to invest money to make it happen.
    So far, no takers.

    Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal are getting the investments.
    ...and, at the end of the lifetimes of those devices, they won't leave radioactive structures to deal with.
    The future appears to be one that is renewable and more distributed.

    Now, if Thorium reactors were to be used to consume the tens of thousands of tons of existing radioactive waste from the nuke plants that were based on bomb-making notions, THAT -would- be a good thing.
    Not holding my breath.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:34AM (#453154)

      It's too bad we need gobs of power *right now*.
      Only nukes can fill that carbon-free power gap in the immediate term. The world can't wait.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:37AM (#453155)

        I forgot to add that because we need the reactors immediately, they will have to be technology that is ready now: uranium.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:46AM (#453158)

          A nuke takes a decade to get into operation.

          A neighborhood can be solarized in a week.

          Your argument is nonsense.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]