Where's my Holodeck and/or Datajack?

[Meatball]

I mean, c'mon already...

[Fyraltari]

With your jetpack, flying car and moonbase.

[DeTess]

With your jetpack, flying car and moonbase.

We have the first, determined that we can do the second, but it's just not commercially viable (or particularly safe), and bewteen Nasa's current plans and Elon Musk doing Elon Musk things, we'll have the last in under a decade :P

[Fyraltari]

We have the first, determined that we can do the second, but it's just not commercially viable (or particularly safe), and bewteen Nasa's current plans and Elon Musk doing Elon Musk things, we'll have the last in under a decade :P

Do you have any of those, though?

[DeTess]

Do you have any of those, though?

...fair XD

[Khedrac]

To be fair, the Holodeck was a ST:TNG tecnology not original Star Trek, which puts it several hundred years away by Star Trek's own timeline so it is not an invention whose authors were overly optimistic about.

As for datajacks - some people are investigating technological implants etc., but I think neural-connections that are not anywhere close yet.
The closest is probably in the artifical limb area, but datajacks need a UI that ties directly into the brain and that is a long way off.

[Peelee]

determined that we can do the second, but it's just not commercially viable (or particularly safe)

I see them all the time. Hell, every hospital I've seen even has a port specifically built for flying cars. They're commercially available and start at $100,000.

Most people just don't know how to operate them, which is crazy. Mother****er it's just lift vs drag and rotation! video of previous statement not linked for obvious reason.

[veti]

I personally have a pocket communications device that is streets ahead of anything imagined in Star Trek (at least, in TOS or TNG).

Predictions are hard, especially about the future. Lots of things are imagined but never get created. But other things get created that almost nobody imagined. Enjoy reality.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

As for datajacks - some people are investigating technological implants etc., but I think neural-connections that are not anywhere close yet.
The closest is probably in the artifical limb area, but datajacks need a UI that ties directly into the brain and that is a long way off.

I'd say the main difficulty is interpreting brain signals so that you know what the person wants to do, then feeding back the signals from the external system so that the person sees the results in their mind's eye without those signals causing damage. From memory, there's some work been done with people who've suffered spinal injuries, implanting a chip on their brains that can pick up signals and pass them over the injury site to muscles in order to try and get function back, but that's still at incredibly early stages.

There's also a lot of issues with implanting things through the skin so that you can plug and unplug devices into them - having something implanted completely under the skin that can pass signals to an external device wirelessly might work but you'd still have to power it somehow.

[farothel]

There's also a lot of issues with implanting things through the skin so that you can plug and unplug devices into them - having something implanted completely under the skin that can pass signals to an external device wirelessly might work but you'd still have to power it somehow.

This one we actually already have in the form of piezo electricity.
And I recently learned that they have some experimental pacemakers that charges its battery use similar technology: see article here.

[sihnfahl]

As for datajacks - some people are investigating technological implants etc., but I think neural-connections that are not anywhere close yet.

Best we can do are cochlear implants for the moment. Directly stimulating the auditory nerve. It's a rough approximation, but they are improving it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I see them all the time. Hell, every hospital I've seen even has a port specifically built for flying cars. They're commercially available and start at $100,000.

Most people just don't know how to operate them, which is crazy. Mother****er it's just lift vs drag and rotation! video of previous statement not linked for obvious reason.

People - even regular, not-rich although definitely well-off people, have been known to spend 100k on a personal vehicle, so that is not entirely impossible. But the problem with commercially available flying cars is they use expensive fuel, have bad range ("refuel every three hours of operation" bad), and other than hospitals, you can't find a decent parking lot for them anywhere you might want to go to. Using them to avoid the morning commute traffic just won't happen unless you work at a hospital and live at a fuelling station.
Not sure how much more humour we can squeeze out of discussing helicopters in this manner
Grey Wolf

[Mechalich]

There are actually a small number of recently released vehicles that do both fly and drive in the fashion of the traditionally imagined 'flying car.' They are still very expensive, and more importantly many of them aren't clear to legally fly anywhere. The PAL-V Liberty, for example, can be driven around the Netherlands (where its made), but it's not actually allowed to fly yet. Relatedly there have also been significant recent advances in the development of human-carrying flying drones, some of which are battery powered, that could potentially replace helicopters for short, low-level flights.

The big issue is safety, as aviation control systems simply aren't equipped to handle these kinds of vehicles flying about at relatively low altitudes, especially in the urban environments where their capabilities would have the greatest utility.

[The Glyphstone]

We might not have holodecks, but VR technology is finally starting to see some fruit. A few more integrated accessories for Oculus Rift type techs, like a treadmill, and you've almost got a Ready Player One haptic rig.

[veti]

The big problem with flying cars - ignoring for a moment the issues with fuel consumption, noise pollution, air pollution, traffic control, safety and legality - is that, as an invention, the appeal doesn't scale.

I mean, when you're sitting in a traffic jam, the idea of being able to simply zoom overhead sounds great. But what it ignores is that, by the time I have a car like that, all these other idiots on the road will have them as well. And that sounds much less fun.

[Mechalich]

The big problem with flying cars - ignoring for a moment the issues with fuel consumption, noise pollution, air pollution, traffic control, safety and legality - is that, as an invention, the appeal doesn't scale.

I mean, when you're sitting in a traffic jam, the idea of being able to simply zoom overhead sounds great. But what it ignores is that, by the time I have a car like that, all these other idiots on the road will have them as well. And that sounds much less fun.

There are certain transportation niches where flying cars would be useful. Offshore islands are a decent example. Flying cars would potentially allow bypassing of fairly cumbersome ferry systems. This is also true of rural settlements that might have a decent internal road network but lack effective connections to other localities (there are places in Alaska like this, where the cars locals drive are flown in but can't drive out because there are no roads).

Flying cars/Flying human-carrying drones are also potentially a good replacement for portions of the actual helicopter market right now, due to advantages in where they can land and the types of fuel they use.

[Peelee]

People - even regular, not-rich although definitely well-off people, have been known to spend 100k on a personal vehicle, so that is not entirely impossible. But the problem with commercially available flying cars is they use expensive fuel, have bad range ("refuel every three hours of operation" bad), and other than hospitals, you can't find a decent parking lot for them anywhere you might want to go to. Using them to avoid the morning commute traffic just won't happen unless you work at a hospital and live at a fuelling station.


Grey Wolf

Pft. There's plenty of parking if you don't care about it being for non-flying cars. What are thy police gonna do, put a boot on it?

A lot, I'd wager.

[Fyraltari]

Pft. There's plenty of parking if you don't care about it being for non-flying cars. What are thy police gonna do, put a boot on it?

A lot, I'd wager.

Boot goes on spinny part in either case.

[Bohandas]

We have the first, determined that we can do the second, but it's just not commercially viable (or particularly safe), and bewteen Nasa's current plans and Elon Musk doing Elon Musk things, we'll have the last in under a decade :P

I thought Musk's plan was to give the moon a pass and go straight to Mars :P

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I thought Musk's plan was to give the moon a pass and go straight to Mars :P

Sort of, but SpaceX is still involved in the Artemis mission as a resupply heavy lift purveyor. And they recently were one of three finalists in the Lunar lander design competition too.

The less I say about Musk rather than SpaceX the less work I'll give any resident or passing mods.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Boot goes on spinny part in either case.

Joke's on them, the rotors can stay in place and the cabin spin then!

[Bohandas]

The big problem with flying cars - ignoring for a moment the issues with fuel consumption, noise pollution, air pollution, traffic control, safety and legality - is that, as an invention, the appeal doesn't scale.

I mean, when you're sitting in a traffic jam, the idea of being able to simply zoom overhead sounds great. But what it ignores is that, by the time I have a car like that, all these other idiots on the road will have them as well. And that sounds much less fun.

I disagree. With flying vehicles the number of lanes of traffic isn't inherently limited by the width of the road. By way of analogy imagine if, instead of flying cars, there was a second story of roads atop the main roads; now you've doubled the number of lanes in each direction, which will alleviate traffic. The problem is that a flying car would be so expensive, both in terms of the initial cost and of constantly refueling, that in the long run building additional levels of roads would probably be a more economical solution (plus, the additional road levels solution also adds more parking spaces)

[veti]

I disagree. With flying vehicles the number of lanes of traffic isn't inherently limited by the width of the road. By way of analogy imagine if, instead of flying cars, there was a second story of roads atop the main roads; now you've doubled the number of lanes in each direction, which will alleviate traffic.

As any road designer will tell you, adding more lanes to a highway means more congestion elsewhere. All you'd be doing is moving the congestion closer to the end points - the popular destinations many people are trying to get to, such as CBDs and airports and residential streets. Sooner or later the car has to land, if only to park, and then it's back to jostling for space (and landing slots) with everyone else who's zoomed there.

I can believe flying cars may have a niche. But if it's any more than a niche, I for one will be absolutely frickin' terrified.

[Bohandas]

As I said, if the roads were two levels continuously throughout the entire city it would also double the available parking. Like I'm imagining a full second level with a second sidewalk and a second set of entrences to the buo=ildings and everything

[DavidSh]

As I said, if the roads were two levels continuously throughout the entire city it would also double the available parking. Like I'm imagining a full second level with a second sidewalk and a second set of entrences to the buo=ildings and everything

It would double the on-street parking, but in a truly dense city, most of the parking is in parking garages.

And I've lost track of the various sides of this discussion, but one problem with flying cars at anything like current levels of technology is that they require much greater separation than ground vehicles. If your vehicle gets its lift from pushing air down, either with fixed wings, rotors, fans, or jets, anybody else too close to that moving air will have problems.

[Radar]

It would double the on-street parking, but in a truly dense city, most of the parking is in parking garages.

And I've lost track of the various sides of this discussion, but one problem with flying cars at anything like current levels of technology is that they require much greater separation than ground vehicles. If your vehicle gets its lift from pushing air down, either with fixed wings, rotors, fans, or jets, anybody else too close to that moving air will have problems.

Spacing between flying vehicles is indeed the key problem but it is not just about the generated air flow. It is far more about the required speeds and far worse maneuverability than on the ground: no grip, no breaks, far worse response to wind etc.

Flying cars cannot possibly match the traffic density of regular cars. The only sane way to improve transportation in cities is mass transit and small personal vehicles like bikes, kick scooters etc.

[Bohandas]

Spacing between flying vehicles is indeed the key problem but it is not just about the generated air flow. It is far more about the required speeds and far worse maneuverability than on the ground: no grip, no breaks, far worse response to wind etc.

Flying cars cannot possibly match the traffic density of regular cars. The only sane way to improve transportation in cities is mass transit and small personal vehicles like bikes, kick scooters etc.

I don't think a vehicle that moves at traffic jam speeds by default is going to help. If we were going to go with a smaller vehicle the best bet would be to find a way to improve safety on motorcycles so that you don't automatically break all your bones of you crash one.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't think a vehicle that moves at traffic jam speeds by default is going to help. If we were going to go with a smaller vehicle the best bet would be to find a way to improve safety on motorcycles so that you don't automatically break all your bones of you crash one.

The obvious way is to add a security cage around it. Possibly with wheels on every corner. Then we can throw in a bit of a ceiling and walls, to keep away the rain. That'd be Smart.
sorry not sorry
Grey Wolf

[Tvtyrant]

The big problem with flying cars - ignoring for a moment the issues with fuel consumption, noise pollution, air pollution, traffic control, safety and legality - is that, as an invention, the appeal doesn't scale.

I mean, when you're sitting in a traffic jam, the idea of being able to simply zoom overhead sounds great. But what it ignores is that, by the time I have a car like that, all these other idiots on the road will have them as well. And that sounds much less fun.

I think it does if it is cheap enough. Eliminating roads would make cities indescribably better. Half the surface area or more of a city is just asphalt lanes at this point, and the roads keep getting wider relative to the buildings. There is a road near my house that has double wide side walks, bike lanes, two traffic lanes, and a full sized median/turn lane down the middle. The road is almost as big as the neighborhoods on either side of it, which also have roads to service each street. Just reducing the sheer mass of asphalt and condensing cities would be better for the people and the economy of each city, to say nothing of the environment.

It would ironically reduce the amount of traffic, as a huge amount of it is generated by the sheer volume of land used to make it possible to drive anywhere. Think about how far your closest grocery store would be sans roads and highways inbetween; most people wouldn't have to drive anymore. Which means there would be even less call for vehicles, which means you could make the spaces even shorter.

[Radar]

I don't think a vehicle that moves at traffic jam speeds by default is going to help. If we were going to go with a smaller vehicle the best bet would be to find a way to improve safety on motorcycles so that you don't automatically break all your bones of you crash one.

Motorbikes are still less efficient than buses. The obvious solution is to use mass transit for longer distances and bikes or others for the last few kilometers. This system is implemented in many cities around the world.