this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
112 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

58143 readers
5618 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

China gives Ehang the first industry approval for fully autonomous passenger-carrying air taxis::Ehang shares have nearly doubled in price this year, before trading was temporarily halted Monday pending a significant announcement.

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Autonomous cars are barely working. How the hell is this a good idea?

[–] TwinHaelix@reddthat.com 35 points 11 months ago (5 children)

To be clear, I definitely agree that this is a bad idea.

However, one of the hardest things about making autonomous cars work is avoiding traffic and pedestrians. If air traffic control can be managed such that these avoid other aircraft (and things like buildings and cell towers, obviously) I could actually see this as easier to get the software working.

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 19 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There's less air traffic now. But if you approve the first autonomous air taxi, you'll soon approve the second and third and before you know it there are thousands of those things whirring through every major city and then you have just as much traffic and one more dimension to worry about.

[–] Brickhead92@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but that's a future problem. People don't care about those problems.

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Still a relatively easily solvable problem. The problem with cars is using infrastructure designed for people. They need to read signs, detect things (humans in particular) in the way, and deal with other human drivers. If these communicate with each other (and don't clog signaling frequencies) they should be able to handle each other autonomously fairly well in the air.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, above trees and buildings there is a lot less air traffic to worry about. But you get into the inherent dangers of air travel. Helicopters are especially dangerous, unlike planes if they lose power they cannot glide at all. In addition they take off vertically, assuming there will be set takeoff landing areas, checking for rapidly ascending and descending aircraft will be very important. Birds are always a concern when it comes to propellers too. And if used in a city up and down drafts created by large buildings like skyscrapers will provide a large controls problem, let's hope those controllers can reliably handle impulse forces.

[–] yogurt@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

Helicopters can autorotate, if quadcopters lose power they tumble with no control at all

[–] tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Specially if things are built from the ground up (pun intended). A new system relying in communication between software and sensors should be relatively easier to deal than the fuzziness of reading signs and reacting to random elements around you.

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 1 points 11 months ago

I hope they have excellent navigation system which at least won't crash the aircraft if the gps/glonass/etc signals suddenly got disrupted (bad weather, interference, military activity, etc). Having a big taxi drone suddenly trying to emergency autoland on your roof due to gps failure would be horrible.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

I can see how the autonomous control part might be simpler due to there being fewer objects to avoid colliding with, but there’s the no-small-matters of the additional dimension to navigate combined with managing complex avionics vs the simpler control mechanisms of a car. Dealing with takeoff, landings, crosswinds, and many other things are much more complicated than driving a car.

[–] vinniep@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

China coming in with the latest in new tech for people with too much money to accidentally kill themselves. The finest innovation in the field since the Cesna.

[–] xia@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

...and you think noise pollution is bad now? Just you wait.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

I mean, it beats moderate intensity artillery shelling...

[–] blendedracer@aussie.zone 11 points 11 months ago

"What could possibly go wrong?" Jeremy Clarkson

[–] Ejh3k@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Nope. Not ever will I ride in an autonomous air taxi. I'll never need to be somewhere fast enough that death is a major possibility.

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

How can we prevent bad guys changing their control modules to remotely drive these choppers through crowds ?

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 3 points 11 months ago

Do they have many non-autonomous passenger carrying air taxis...? Helicopters aren't exactly day to day transport but now you want to skip straight to filling the skies with unmanned vehicles?