SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has been bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
--Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. --Maglevs? One significant track in China. --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models predicted. --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, lookithere:
Commercial jetpack for sale: Max speed: 63mph 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted uranium or even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular gasoline) Range: 31.5 miles
All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. I don't know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from the land of New Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is required.
> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has been > bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. > --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. > --Maglevs? One significant track in China. > --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. > --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models predicted. > --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, lookithere:
> Commercial jetpack for sale: > Max speed: 63mph > 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) > Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted uranium or > even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular gasoline) > Range: 31.5 miles
> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. I don't > know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from the land of New > Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is required.
> -- Ken from Chicago
I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
:: [.. Re: Martin jetpack ..] :: All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months.
: trag <t...@io.com> : I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets : about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't : have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be : considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
Yes, well, even if it got 60mpg, it's probably slightly ineffective to spend 90,000 dollars to save money on commuting costs,
On Mar 12, 12:01 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: [.. Re: Martin jetpack ..] > :: All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months.
> : trag <t...@io.com> > : I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > : about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > : have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > : considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
> Yes, well, even if it got 60mpg, it's probably slightly ineffective to > spend 90,000 dollars to save money on commuting costs,
Well, okay. The fuel cost is kind of lost in the purchase price, isn't it...
> On Mar 12, 12:01 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> > :: [.. Re: Martin jetpack ..] > > :: All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months.
> > : trag <t...@io.com> > > : I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > > : about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > > : have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > > : considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
> > Yes, well, even if it got 60mpg, it's probably slightly ineffective to > > spend 90,000 dollars to save money on commuting costs,
> Well, okay. The fuel cost is kind of lost in the purchase price, > isn't it...
This is being discussed in much greater depth over in the 'Where's my flying car' thread.
trag wrote: > On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> > wrote: >> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has >> been bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
>> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. >> --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. >> --Maglevs? One significant track in China. >> --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. >> --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models >> predicted. >> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, >> lookithere:
>> Commercial jetpack for sale: >> Max speed: 63mph >> 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) >> Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted >> uranium or even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular >> gasoline) >> Range: 31.5 miles
>> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. >> I don't know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from >> the land of New Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is >> required.
>> -- Ken from Chicago
> I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, traffic jams.
-- Mac Breck (KoshN) ------------------------------- "Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone" Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it again."
Mac Breck wrote: > trag wrote: > > I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > > about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > > have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > > considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, > traffic jams.
On the whole, it's easier to have a job with flexible hours so that you don't travel during peak hours.
Brian
-- Day 402 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
>>> I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets >>> about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't >>> have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be >>> considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
>> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, >> traffic jams.
> On the whole, it's easier to have a job with flexible hours so that > you don't travel during peak hours.
In my experience, the flexiblity offered, would have landed me in a traffic jam before and after work, every day, even at both extremes of the flextime schedule. My solution would be to leave for work a couple hours early and leave for home a couple hours late. I'd spend the extra time reading novels.
-- Mac Breck (KoshN) ------------------------------- "Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone" Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it again."
>> > I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets >> > about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't >> > have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be >> > considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
>> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, >> traffic jams.
>On the whole, it's easier to have a job with flexible hours so that you >don't travel during peak hours.
Mac Breck wrote: > Default User wrote: > > On the whole, it's easier to have a job with flexible hours so that > > you don't travel during peak hours.
> In my experience, the flexiblity offered, would have landed me in a > traffic jam before and after work, every day, even at both extremes of > the flextime schedule. My solution would be to leave for work a > couple hours early and leave for home a couple hours late. I'd spend > the extra time reading novels.
I'm sure it varies by city. Here in St. Louis, traffic is pretty reasonable outside of the rush periods.
Brian
-- Day 402 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
trag <t...@io.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 12:01 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > > :: [.. Re: Martin jetpack ..] > > :: All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months.
> > : trag <t...@io.com> > > : I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > > : about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > > : have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > > : considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
> > Yes, well, even if it got 60mpg, it's probably slightly ineffective to > > spend 90,000 dollars to save money on commuting costs,
> Well, okay. The fuel cost is kind of lost in the purchase price, > isn't it...
Maintenance on a rare, unusual, high-performance ducted fan unit is probably not going to be cheap either. All in all, you won't be buying one of these things to save money, unless your alternative is a helicopter (and probably not even then).
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mac Breck wrote: > trag wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > >> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has > >> been bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
> >> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. > >> --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. > >> --Maglevs? One significant track in China. > >> --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. > >> --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models > >> predicted. > >> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, > >> lookithere:
> >> Commercial jetpack for sale: > >> Max speed: 63mph > >> 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) > >> Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted > >> uranium or even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular > >> gasoline) > >> Range: 31.5 miles
> >> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. > >> I don't know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from > >> the land of New Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is > >> required.
> >> -- Ken from Chicago
> > I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > > about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > > have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > > considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, > traffic jams.
> On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago"<kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> >> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, lookithere:
>> Commercial jetpack for sale: >> Max speed: 63mph >> 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) >> Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted uranium or >> even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular gasoline) >> Range: 31.5 miles
>> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. I don't >> know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from the land of New >> Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is required. > I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
What it lacks in efficiency, it more than makes up for in "cool."
Robert Carnegie wrote: > Mac Breck wrote: >> trag wrote: >>> On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago" >>> <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has >>>> been bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until >>>> now:
>>>> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. >>>> --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. >>>> --Maglevs? One significant track in China. >>>> --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. >>>> --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models >>>> predicted. >>>> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, >>>> lookithere:
>>>> Commercial jetpack for sale: >>>> Max speed: 63mph >>>> 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) >>>> Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted >>>> uranium or even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular >>>> gasoline) >>>> Range: 31.5 miles
>>>> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. >>>> I don't know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from >>>> the land of New Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is >>>> required.
>>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>> I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets >>> about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't >>> have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be >>> considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
>> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, >> traffic jams.
> But imagine if everyone else gets the same idea.
At $90,000 apiece? Unlikely.
-- Mac Breck (KoshN) ------------------------------- "Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone" Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it again."
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has been >bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
>--Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base.
I momentarily wackyparsed that as "robotic bees", and thought that at least we're closer than 20 years to that.
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> : (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted uranium or : even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular gasoline)
> Mac Breck wrote: >> trag wrote: >>> On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago"<kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>>> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has >>>> been bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
>>>> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. >>>> --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. >>>> --Maglevs? One significant track in China. >>>> --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. >>>> --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models >>>> predicted. >>>> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, >>>> lookithere:
>>>> Commercial jetpack for sale: >>>> Max speed: 63mph >>>> 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) >>>> Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted >>>> uranium or even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular >>>> gasoline) >>>> Range: 31.5 miles
>>>> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. >>>> I don't know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from >>>> the land of New Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is >>>> required.
>>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>> I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets >>> about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't >>> have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be >>> considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
>> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, >> traffic jams.
> But imagine if everyone else gets the same idea.
Actually, what I imagined was someone with one of those landing in the middle of stopped traffic to thumb his nose at some obnoxious driver and getting run over.
Dimensional Traveler wrote: >On 3/12/2010 5:33 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote: >> Mac Breck wrote:
>>> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, >>> traffic jams.
>> But imagine if everyone else gets the same idea.
>Actually, what I imagined was someone with one of those landing in the >middle of stopped traffic to thumb his nose at some obnoxious driver and >getting run over.
Better to stay in the air, and do to the cars what birds do!
In article <1268462...@sheol.org>, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> > : (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted uranium or > : even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular gasoline)
In the context of aircraft, that qualifies as "regular", which is intended to differentiate from aviation gas. The ~10% difference in price between regular and premium is insignificant compared to the price difference for avgas.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> Robert Carnegie wrote: > > Mac Breck wrote: > >> trag wrote: > >>> On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago" > >>> <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has > >>>> been bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until > >>>> now:
> >>>> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. > >>>> --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. > >>>> --Maglevs? One significant track in China. > >>>> --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. > >>>> --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models > >>>> predicted. > >>>> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, > >>>> lookithere:
> >>>> Commercial jetpack for sale: > >>>> Max speed: 63mph > >>>> 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) > >>>> Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted > >>>> uranium or even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular > >>>> gasoline) > >>>> Range: 31.5 miles
> >>>> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. > >>>> I don't know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from > >>>> the land of New Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is > >>>> required.
> >>>> -- Ken from Chicago
> >>> I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets > >>> about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't > >>> have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be > >>> considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
> >> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, > >> traffic jams.
> > But imagine if everyone else gets the same idea.
> At $90,000 apiece? Unlikely.
Indeed. If this company builds a hundred of these things, it will be a successful run. If they build a thousand, it will be *astonishingly* successful.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> Mac Breck wrote: >> trag wrote: >> > On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> >> > wrote: >> >> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has >> >> been bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
>> >> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. >> >> --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. >> >> --Maglevs? One significant track in China. >> >> --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. >> >> --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models >> >> predicted. >> >> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, >> >> lookithere:
>> >> Commercial jetpack for sale: >> >> Max speed: 63mph >> >> 10 gph (not 10mph or 10 mpg but 10 gallons per hour) >> >> Tank size: 5 gallons (yes, it runs not on nuclear rods, depleted >> >> uranium or even 1.21 jigawatts of electricity, but rather regular >> >> gasoline) >> >> Range: 31.5 miles
>> >> All yours for only $90,000, ten percent down, lead time: 12 months. >> >> I don't know if shipping and handling is included--since it's from >> >> the land of New Xenalan-er Zealand. Oh and no flying license is >> >> required.
>> >> -- Ken from Chicago
>> > I thought it looked cool for commuting until I realized that it gets >> > about 6 MPG. Sure, you could save some distance because you don't >> > have to follow the roads, but while it might be faster, it would be >> > considerably more expensive than commuting by car or motorcycle.
>> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, >> traffic jams.
> But imagine if everyone else gets the same idea.
>>On 3/12/2010 5:33 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote: >>> Mac Breck wrote:
>>>> Just imagine being able to fly over your regular, thorn-in-your-side, >>>> traffic jams.
>>> But imagine if everyone else gets the same idea.
>>Actually, what I imagined was someone with one of those landing in the >>middle of stopped traffic to thumb his nose at some obnoxious driver and >>getting run over.
> Better to stay in the air, and do to the cars what birds do!
On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has been > bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. > --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. > --Maglevs? One significant track in China. > --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. > --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models predicted. > --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, lookithere:
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I'd be happy with just a stable and non- fossil fuel dependent world economy.
On Mar 12, 5:12 pm, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mac Breck wrote: > > Default User wrote: > > > On the whole, it's easier to have a job with flexible hours so that > > > you don't travel during peak hours.
> > In my experience, the flexiblity offered, would have landed me in a > > traffic jam before and after work, every day, even at both extremes of > > the flextime schedule. My solution would be to leave for work a > > couple hours early and leave for home a couple hours late. I'd spend > > the extra time reading novels.
> I'm sure it varies by city. Here in St. Louis, traffic is pretty > reasonable outside of the rush periods.
It isn't that bad during the rush periods, at least not compared to bigger cities.
Mark Reichert wrote: > On Mar 12, 2:25 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> > wrote: >> SF has long predicted the future, the 21st century, but reality has been >> bitterly disappointing, over and over and over again--until now:
>> --Moon colonies? Sheesh, not even a robotic base. >> --Flying cars? Prototypes but none approved. >> --Maglevs? One significant track in China. >> --Monorails? Isolated locales or theme park rides. >> --Robots? Curiousities, toys, but not the humaniform models predicted. >> --Jetpacks? Nope, not a one-oh, wait a minute, lookithere, lookithere:
> Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I'd be happy with just a stable and non- > fossil fuel dependent world economy.
Nuclear. Then we'll make all the gasoline/methanol/etc.
|
