208
submitted 9 months ago by Mrkawfee@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Steve@startrek.website 89 points 9 months ago
[-] ThermoToaster@exng.meme 82 points 9 months ago

They will do literally anything that’s not on rails to reinvent the train…

[-] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

Tbf, the NIMBY fuckwads make it difficult to build new train routes

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

The government really needs to grow some balls and get better with this stuff.

Just draw some lines on a map. Offer everyone 1.3x the value of their house (or however much) and take it off them. For the greater good.

[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago

Often you don't even need more property. Just utilize existing rail systems. So much unused or barely used rail in this country.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

Whoops, reinvented trains again.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 55 points 9 months ago

I was completely on-board until the word "autonomous". The gliders need at least a supervising crew if they are to fly anywhere near populated areas.

[-] toast@retrolemmy.com 83 points 9 months ago

Don't worry. The good folks at Boeing have assured us that it is all perfectly safe.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

Tragically, all engineers who dissented have taken their lives.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 9 months ago

I'd imagine it will be forced into having a pilot and a co-pilot on board. Between not trusting autonomous to be foolproof and imagining that the ALPA union probably demanding it, I can't imagine they have a choice.

Besides, you think the glider with 10 tons of cargo is going to do well I'm something bad happens to the lead plane? If need be, you'd want a human in that glider to emergency disconnect the tow rope and go land it off in a field or something. It should be able to glide for a very long time. Long enough to talk with ground and set up a good LZ and get emergency services prepped.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 47 points 9 months ago

take note urban planners: even in the sky, trains work better

[-] mikezane@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago

"Aerolane believes it shouldn't be treated much differently by the FAA than regular ol' recreational gliders. It remains to be seen how the FAA will feel about this."

This is an absurd statement as it completely omits the automated part of the towed airplane. Witch is the major point of this project.

[-] ThetaDev@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago

And the weight. A recreational glider weighs about 600kg. They want to build one that carries 3 and later 10 tons.

If a recreational glider crashes into a house, it usually does not cause a lot of damage except to the pilot, see here:

https://www.tz.de/welt/niedersachsen-segelflugzeug-stuerzt-wohnhaus-zr-2446316.html

Now make that thing 20times heavier. There is a reason drones are regulated by weight class.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

If Boeing passes the bill, why not these guys

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 9 months ago

The problem is the first part of your question.

I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with less regulation than current consumer drones/rc planes.

[-] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago

Interesting idea, but surely the cost savings are largely pushed forward onto the plane towing all the extra weight?

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 6 points 9 months ago

It's certainly going to use more fuel but presumably less fuel than two separate planes. I really have lots of doubts about towed landings, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Anyone who has read a single NTSB accident report will understand what an insane idea this is.

[-] neptune@dmv.social 4 points 9 months ago
[-] Syd@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago

You're towing a bunch of cargo into the crash site.

[-] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 26 points 9 months ago

Imagine miraculously surviving the plane crash only to get twatted by a crate full of dildos from the cargo vehicle.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 14 points 9 months ago
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 15 points 9 months ago

Don't worry, in the event of a malfunction you can just detach the cargo, so now you have two apartment building sized things falling from the sky to completely unpredictable random locations squishing anything they land on top of.

[-] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Uh oh, here comes the plane train

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 9 points 9 months ago

It's not a new idea at least, other than the self-landing part. I sincerely hope they will have to employ and pay a proper aircrew to be in charge of a gigantic flying vehicle though.

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

also don't let Boeing in on the project.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 5 points 9 months ago

Dont let Boeing know you said that, or you may get a "self inflicted" gunshot wound to the head in your car one day

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

it's ok I kind of have a death wish.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 9 points 9 months ago

i bet landing will find more challenges

[-] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

Wouldn't it require the same amount of energy to get airborn / propaget as any other powered aircraft? Because, like, physics...

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

More recently, the US Air Mobility Command tried flying one C-17 Globemaster III some 3-6,000 ft (900-1800m) back from another, "surfing" the vortices left in the lead plane's wake – much like ducks flying in formation – and found there were double-digit fuel savings to be gained.

But Texas startup Aerolane says the savings will be much more substantial with purpose-built autonomous cargo gliders connected to the lead plane with a simple tow rope. With no propulsion systems, you save all the weight of engines, motors, fuel or batteries. There'll be no cabin for a pilot, just space for cargo and the autonomous flight control systems that'll run them.

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 3 points 9 months ago

That's while they're in the air. How much extra power will it take to get the whole shebang airborne?

[-] peak_dunning_krueger@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago

It said "cheaper" not "energy efficient".

Wings are easy, jet engines are hard.

Besides, if you can do it with an electrical locomotive on the ground, the energy conversion to electricity of a power plant should be better than the energy conversion of a jet engine from fuel to movement.

So imo, cheaper seems plausible, energy efficient is a maybe.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 4 points 9 months ago

Now do boats.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
208 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

35123 readers
98 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS