Replacing private cars with Aerodynes.
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept this debate and will argue that aerodynes should not replace cars as the primary means of transportation.
Aerodynes = any heavier than air aircraft that require motion to fly (basically any kind of plane or helicopter)
Other than that,
Alright, as stated in my argument before, I think that cars should be replaced with aerodynes. Roads are getting more and more congested with private cars mainly. Aerodynes have total freedom, while cars must stick to the roads which is inconvinient. Multiple lone aerospace engineers have dedicated themselves to fixing these problems by creating "flying cars"(Mullers Skycar, the Terrafuga project and NASA's puffin being the most commonly known). Of course this transition will require a long time, but it is worth it by my opion. Heavily urbanized centers will have air traffic congestion but this can be off-set by creating a traffic system and by increasing public transportation.
Reasons why cars should not be replaced by aerodynes
1) Aerodynes are expensive as hell, a single military Tilt rotor VTOL costs about $70 million to own and operate meaning that virtually nobody would be capable of owning one. This would bring transportation and commerce to a halt since now people would have no way of getting to work unless they lived there.
2) Aerodynes are very complicated to operate. Even professionals lose control of their aircraft and crash, whereas civilians even with training crash cars all the time. Aerodynes would be difficult to operate, take off, land, or park and the number of people who would die from accidents would be catastrophic.
3) Lets say somehow Aerodynes are suddenly affordable and easy to use, the problem then becomes massively congested airspace where since there are no roads or guides planes regularly have to dodge one another or they crash into them and cause chaos. The more highly populated an area would be, the more mid air crashes you would have. If you are in metropolises then the situation would be out of control. planes would be crashing and careening off of other planes and into buildings, a hundred people would die every day, damage and costs to infrastructure would be massive, nobody would get insured since there is no degree of safety at all.
4) Aerodynes cannot move goods as well as trains or even large trucks, and if aerodynes were made large enough to do so they would become a much more massive threat to other aircraft in the skies which would only increase the threat of collisions and accidents. In the cities again there would only be carnage all around because the airspace in cities is so tightly packed to begin with.
5) There are a huge number of industries made to help people buy, sell, trade, and maintain their cars. All that would be lost if suddenly cars were replaced with these bulky flying death machines
6) There is no easy way to coordinate traffic where everyone owns their own plane in a large city. You cant just rely on public transportation because public transportation only serves to bring people from business hubs to other business hubs, not to bring them to their individual jobs....
7) How would a police car or plane pull someone over? theyd have to shoot them down or go on a 500 miles police chase....
8) It makes it a hell of a lot easier for terrorists to attack buildings if everyone would own their own plane.
9) I already dont trust teenagers driving cars, you think everything will be dandy if they start flying million dollar war machines to high school?
10) I can already only imagine how much gas these things consume and how high it will drive gas prices....
Congestion of roads
Congestion of roads is one of those problems that can be solved better by building more roads rather than do something drastic like replace cars with flying machines.
Roads are meant to help cars get from place to place but they also serve to protect drivers by coordinating the direction of traffic in certain directions to reduce accidents. If the world was paved in concrete so that cars were free then there would be carnage as cars ram into each other all the time. Point is roads give coordination, direction, and safety to cars whereas the sky is an open killing field....
Transition will take a long time
the reason that the transfer from cars to individual flying machines is because these things are expensive, dangerous, impractical, difficult to operate compared to driving a car...
2: Fly-by-wire systems, advanced avionics, simpler controls and instruments. V�ila.
3: Grounded AI that guides the fly-by-wire system using a sophisticated air traffic control systems in urban areas.
4: Debate is about replacing private cars not commercial transports.
5:There wil still be a automobile industry. The aerospace industry willl grow sharply.
6 People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km to get to work.
7:Avionics can detect dangerous flying and the fly-by-wire can land these by which the authorities can pick these people up quite easily.
8: Cars also make it easy for terrorists to terrorize.
9: Not war machines , Civil private aircraft. Again, avionics and fly-by-wire make that extremely unlikely. Why do you say teenagers dont have the mental capacity required to operate simple machines?
Roads/Highways require a long time to build and are expensive.
1) "mall aerodynes wont be expensive if they are mass produced(Mollers large four seater VTOL costs 500000$. Mass produced, it is estimated at 60000$."
The Moller Skycar eh? Well the only one that caosts $500,000 right now is the Moller M400
1) Which has never flown successfully and
2) Has been tested only once and it was hanging from a crane at the time, and STILL failed
Wait, Moller Skycar is made from Moller International right? Well thats a very legit and profitable company right?
"It also appears that Dr Moller himself has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It would seem that the final long overdue death-rattle for Moller International and the Skycar can't now be long in coming."
Oh so Moller is riding its M400 right into bankruptcy......
Point is the constant failures of these flying cars (which have been worked on for forty years to no success), along with the failing finances of the company that makes them wont make these cars popular anytime soon. I could easily dive into how $60,000 for a machine is also outside the finances of most families, but the fact that these things dont even fly and that the only company that makes them is filing for bankruptcy negates that their flying cars will create the future.
2) "2: Fly-by-wire systems, advanced avionics, simpler controls and instruments."
So your solution for controlling air traffic is roads in the sky..... And your entire reason for supporting converting cars to planes is because of issues with road construction...... Do you see how this is a little contradictory?
As for the two other things, you cant just say them and have them magically appear. Advanced avionics also dont solve how difficult it is to operate these machines. Cars are difficult to drive but in every scenario planes will always be harder to operate then cars, except that problems flying a plane will lead to death way more likely than problems driving a car.
Simpler controls and instruments also arent things you can just say and they magically appear. Flying cars that exist right now can only be driven by professionals, thus if cars are to immediately be replaced by these machines like you are saying, then those planes will be the ones people have to operate.
3) "Grounded AI that guides the fly-by-wire system using a sophisticated air traffic control systems in urban areas."
So your answer to urban traffic is sky roads which would have to be built, guides that have to be made, and complex air traffic control which doesnt exist and have to be built also. Things which currently do not exist, would be difficult to be built and maintained, and would replace systems that already exist and are successful does not sound like "the future" it sounds like a headache, chaos, and killing commerce
Show that these things can actually be built, dont just magically assume they can be there
4) "Debate is about replacing private cars not commercial transports."
People use cars to move goods and people but these small, inefficient, not functional, and very unstable machines cannot support the load as successful as traditional cars and vans can.
Argument has been dropped by the Pro
5) "There wil still be a automobile industry. The aerospace industry willl grow sharply."
So cars will still be around and can be used even though the resolution in the debate says REPLACING PRIVATE CARS WITH AERODYNES? You cant have both because the debate here is replacing cars with these inefficient flying machine of yours now you have to defend why we should replace all cars with these things.
6) "People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km to get to work."
So then how do people get to a hospital in a hurry if its 1-2 km to get to a station, then fly to a drop off point, then walk another 1-2 km to the hospital, and NOT die?
Making people walk 1-2 km despite owning flying machines that cost them $60,000 to own isnt practical for business, commerce, or industry. It also doesnt help that people would be p*ssed off at being forced to pay a crap load of money to end up walking to work for up to a MILE.
7) "Avionics can detect dangerous flying and the fly-by-wire can land these by which the authorities can pick these people up quite easily."
So the thing you made up will find dangerous flyers, somehow safely land them, and then authorities would walk or bike to pick these people up? Not only is this made up and fictional but its almost ridiculous since half the Pro's first round argument was about having freedom and now he is talking about creating a system where people fly by a wire and if you dont like it your flying machine will be overrided by some authority and then force you to land.....
8) "Cars also make it easy for terrorists to terrorize."
Thanks for avoiding my point, argument is dropped by the Pro
9) "Again, avionics and fly-by-wire make that extremely unlikely"
Once again the answer to a bounty of problems associated with operating these flying machines by people who can barely handle a car by the pro is another imaginary and nonexistant system that would cost trillions to build, operate, and conflict with his original arguments.
This has to be the dumbest argument of them all. If these jet cars that cost $60,000 to buy and they cant even operate on gas or jet fuel, then what makes you think that something even LESS powerful as batteries will eliminate the problem? oh right it does it "magically"
Let me rephrase the question to the Pro's semantics. I can already only imagine how much electricity these things consume and how much it will cost families to charge these things....
Length of transition argument: Dropped
Easier to fix roads then convert to a new system: Dropped
Freedom to fly: Actually the Pro pulled a 180 on this one since now all planes will fly by wire systems which now eliminate any joy rides or freedom you will have to fly these things.
New reasons to be against this
- Personal flying machines are still horribly unreliable and expensive meaning nobody could afford them or even work them
- This now requires the construction of numerous new roads IN THE AIR and advanced systems to coordinate all this traffic which still forces people to walk up to a mile before getting to where they work
- The costs to buy, maintain, and fuel these inefficient death traps right now cost half a million dollars which will place a financial burden on nearly every family. Mass producing a machine that doesnt even work wont drive down the cost either since these things are so expensive and inefficient they are technically worthless.
- It is still difficult to operate these things and no among of magic future upgrades the Pro can imagine will eliminate the problem if these flying machines are manufactured today.
- How will these cars be made if the primary manufacturer of flying cars the Pro is relying on is filing for bankruptcy for failing to make a good product for over 40 years?
Thats all I got right now
1) You havent argued against Mass production and its cost redcution abilities, but you have argued against Moller international. They are still working and developing more products:
Also: NASA´s Puffin ;(Discovery Channel)
Some more developments/actual prototypes
2) I have no idea what these sky roads are. Please elaborate. Fly-by-wire Planes are not hard to operate:
Also, simpler controls are literally Fly-by-wire systems
The Heading Indicator and the CDI can be fused
The Magnetic compass is not needed as you already have a compass
The Turn indicator can be incorparated into the Attitude Indicator
The Vertical Speed Indicator can be intergrated into the Altitude meter
This makes much less instruments to look at, some instruments have multiple functions. Even without the changes it is still not a complicated system.
3) I think i didnt explain correctly, Grounded AI systems work together with the Fly-by-wire to fly the aircraft safely untill the destination has been reached.
4) People can also do their shopping in Aerodynes. I dont understand how the argument has been "dropped" by me.
5) Commercial transports that are also Cars can still be used, trucks too. The automobile industry wont just flop around and die like a fish out of water. Replacing Privately owned cars, not commercial transports, my mistake if that wasn´st clear.
6)There are people stationed in a hospital. This has to do with public transportation, and nothing to do with aerodynes so why are you saying "fly"? I also don´t understand why people are using buses/subways (whatever public transportaion you prefer) as transportation when they own a aerodyne.
7) There would be no point in my idea if you just use pure Fly-by-wire. Manual controls still exist. If you dont like dangerous flyers not being grounded after some dangerous movements around other aircraft, I dont understand you.
Why would the police have to walk or bike?
8) Your point was that aircraft make it easy for terrorists to terrorize, my point was so do cars. I hope you understand now.
9)Imaginary and non existant?
Dont be silly.
Length of transition: We both agree that this will take a long time, there is no argument.
Freedom: Fly by wire doesnt have to be absolute, it is essentially only needed in bad weather and ubran areas.
New roads: http://askville.amazon.com..., in short: 1.3 billion for a three mile extension on a highway. Others agree on hundreds of thousands to millions.
The New Resons:
1)This is being debated already in other arguments.
2)Roads are not needed to coordinate traffic.
3)Electricity is cheap, with maintainance i assume you mean repairing the (insert automobile/aircraft part). This is expensive in cars and aircraft, and will be cheaper with Mass production of various parts. (depending on the part of course).
4)Once again, Fly.By.Wire.
5)I am not relying on that company it was just an example.
"You havent argued against Mass production and its cost redcution abilities, but you have argued against Moller international."
First off I dont have to argue against Mass Production because every contraption you have used as an example doesnt even work, so mass producing an item that doesnt work wont fix anything. I argued against Moller International because you mentioned only them, im not going to go out of my way to denounce every company that is trying to make flying cars when the only one you are using filed for bankruptcy 2 years ago.
You mean the ones that will probably never be produced and even if they are will be kept only in the hands of the military?
As for the other wikipedia links the Pro gives,
1- Parajet skycar: "Although the car was designed for two people it never flew successfully with more than a driver / pilot. The flying portion of the expedition eventually ended when inventor Gilo Cardozo crashed into a tree"
2- Terrafugia Transition: "December, 2011 saw the base price increased to US$279,000."
It also needs 10,000 feet of runway to take off....
3- Pal-V: The thing where only 1 exists and can only be maintained properly by trained helicopter mechanics where the price tag is over $200,000?
4- X-Hawk: The machine that so far has only flown up to 3 feet and costs $3.2 million to own?
Each one of the devices the Pro has submitted has either resulted in limited success, killed their inventors, or costs a ridiculous amount of money. Every time I debunk an example the Pro just switches to another one that has the same problems and claims that it is different.
Fly-by-wire is a system that uses electronic signals and computers to fly airplanes by themselves. And the reason I thought that there was no way that is what the Pro could be referring to is because fly-by-wire systems only make everything computerized and can still be horrendously unreliable.
The video above shows what happened to the fly-by-wire airplane
The second video shows the hidden dangers of fly-by-wire aircraft
Fly by wire is a danger to passengers itself which is why I thought that the pro couldnt possibly be using it to argue why it makes planes SAFER, so I did some deeper digging and came to believe that fly by wire meant something completely different. But it turns out he WAS referring to the first one.
Flying by wire doesnt solve any problems caused by difficulty to operate an aircraft, it causes even more problems to those who are not trained well enough, and they can even override what the pilot wants and end up killing people. Everything else the Pro ties to fly-by-wire is more future upgrades hes using to hide behind the fact that as of today flying such aircraft is very difficult and complex.
3) "Grounded AI systems work together with the Fly-by-wire to fly the aircraft safely"
Grounded AI systems ARE fly-by-wire systems, and making everything rely on computers only makes them more prone to failure,
Making everything more prone to failure does not fix how in urban areas the millions of planes flying everywhere would cause chaos as they crash everywhere.
4) " People can also do their shopping in Aerodynes. I dont understand how the argument has been "dropped" by me"
The problem with all aerodynes is that they have a very low carrying capacity, meaning that they struggle with even small loads because they cannot sustain a lot of weight. So when I brought up how this would be a problem since cars can handle weight much better than aerodynes, you didnt offer an explanation of how this can be fixed. Instead you mistook my arguments for referring to trains, and then replied by saying "people can still shop in them" where in reality they CANT. Thus you dropped the argument.
5) "Commercial transports that are also Cars can still be used, trucks too."
Cars can be used to both transport goods and used for being private vehicles, so what exactly are these things supposed to replace because as far as I can see these things shouldnt replace anything because their instability with small loads make them very unreliable and unsafe.
6) "I also don´t understand why people are using buses/subways" - Pro in round 4
" Heavily urbanized centers will have air traffic congestion but this can be off-set by increasing public transportation." - Pro in round 1
You yourself said that people would have to use public transportation, such as subways and buses, in urban cities.
" I also don´t understand why people are using buses/subways (whatever public transportaion you prefer) as transportation when they own a aerodyne." - Pro in round 4
"People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km to get to work." - Pro in round 3
They cant use their aerodynes because youre making them leave them somewhere and then walk up to a mile to get to work.
Im done going in circles over this, Pro has not given a clear solution over how the urban traffic problem would be countered.
7) "There would be no point in my idea if you just use pure Fly-by-wire"
That thing that makes even seasoned pilots struggle when trying to stay alive wont help stop criminals flying 200 mph to suddenly come to a safe stop. I also dont appreciate you putting words in my mouth.
The walking or biking thing refers to the fact that these aerodynes replace all cars, meaning that police not in airplanes would have to walk or bike to pick him up since you yourself said "People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km" Apparently though you like to pick and choose who gets to keep cars and not argue the resolution that cars should be replaced with aerodynes.
8) "Your point was that aircraft make it easy for terrorists to terrorize, my point was so do cars"
You still have dropped the argument since planes pose a much larger threat to buildings and infrastructure then cars do, and potential terrorists could do much more damage to cities with plane than with cars.
9) + 10)
The Pro cites existing technology as evidence for why he thinks that in the future they will all be suddenly upgraded enough to eliminate problems that affect all aerodynes rather than address how all of the current problems with aerodynes limit how effective they could be in replacing private cars.
"Freedom: Fly by wire doesnt have to be absolute it is essentially only needed in bad weather and ubran areas.
But in urban areas people arent even allowed to fly, they have to walk up to a mile to get to and from work...
- Unreliability: Pro claims this is being debated but hasnt given a solution anywhere
- Coordinating all the traffic: Pro wants to rely on fly-by-wire to fix this even though it doesnt magically solve all problems associated with flying
- Cost of these things: Pro believes that mass production will fix this even though mass producing aerodynes that dont work doesnt mean maintainance will be cheaper since mass production doesnt make them invincible. Parts have to be repaired not replaced and no normal person is going to know what to do.
- Difficulty to operate: Pro believes FBW will fix this even though seasoned pilots struggle with FBW...
- Ones he cites dont work or are expensive: ......
Leman-Russ forfeited this round.
Reasons why cars should not be replaced by aerodynes
- 1 - Aerodynes are too expensive for the average person to own.
- 2 - As of right now there arent even any working models
- 3 - Coordinating these cars in urban areas but be chaotic, kill people, and cause thousands of dollars worth of damage
- 4 - These small aircraft are terrible with weight and are very hard to fly
- 5 - Even technology couldnt make these things so easy to drive that a teenager could master it
I thank the pro for a fun debate and I thank the voters for reading I will now take my leave but before I do though I would like to say Pro that you will always remember this as the day that you almost defeated....
Captain.... Jack.... Sparrow....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.