Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Wars Landspeeders Are Here

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the childhood-dreams-fufilled dept.

Star Wars Prequels 112

smitty777 writes "All you Jedis can stop building fake landspeeders in your driveway now — the real deal is finally here. Wired is reporting on an Israeli company that has been testing one for use as an ambulance called the AirMule. Watch out, Womp Rats."

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672150)

That video totally looks like the a scene from a low budget version of Rise of the Machines.

Now I've had that thought, I want to see that movie.

Re:Skynet (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672822)

You can waste time with your friends when your chores are done.

Re:Skynet (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672886)

Still not as cool as the Star Wars style.

Landspeeder FAIL (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672190)

This is lame, it looks and functions nothing like a land speeder and I'm struggling to figure out why not just use a helicopter?

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672376)

Because this probably costs 10 times as much and when the bureaucrats recommend purchasing this over something else they get a healthy kickback as well.

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672378)

I second that. Just use a damn helicopter (unless they're suggesting that this would be able to fit into places where helicopter rotors would not... in which case - use a hovercraft).

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672396)

Can't, it's full of eels.

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672446)

Hovercraft are incapable of leaving ground effect, and skirted hovercraft cannot pass even moderate slopes.

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672970)

I second that. Just use a damn helicopter (unless they're suggesting that this would be able to fit into places where helicopter rotors would not... in which case - use a hovercraft).

A hovercraft requires ground closer to horizontal than this does. OTOH There was a rotor below craft that suffered from falling like a rock if the engine quit, and this might as well.

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (1)

Stone2065 (717387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674194)

The HUGE difference in application between something like this, and a chopper is BLADES. There are areas of tight quarters that having several hundred pounds of whirling death being too close by isn't a safe option. Now, I'm not saying these are safer than a chopper, but I AM saying that getting this in close to people or delicate property IS a shitload safer than dealing with a large bladed chopper.

Just my .02 worth...

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672738)

It even sounds like a Helicopter from the video, I don't want a Landspeeder, I would rather have a T-16 (Skyhopper) so I can bulls eye womprats...

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (1)

JeffAtl (1737988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674472)

Aren't womprats pretty big though?

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674094)

Because helicopters have massive exposed spinning rotors?

Re:Landspeeder FAIL (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674190)

No rotors to bump into things with? Thus allowing it to slip between buildings and such?

These aren't the landspeeders you are looking for (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672192)

I can see why these aren't in demand any more. I'd also prefer the XP-38 to this noisy thing. And where are your droids supposed to sit?

Re:These aren't the landspeeders you are looking f (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672856)

The droids don't have to rid. They should either be able to run after you or fly using tiny rockets in their 'feet'.

Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (4, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672196)

Landspeeders are unarmed and womprats are just over 2 meters across. It's like hitting a deer.

You want to menace womprats, you need a T-16 Skyhopper...

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673676)

And here I thought they were "swamp rats"!

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36673726)

If there were swamps on Tattooine, would there have been people making a living selling water they extracted from the desert air? :)

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674154)

Swamps? Tatooine? ...

Get out.

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674382)

Those are on Dagobah.

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36673686)

Regardless of what happens to you, if you hit a deer with your car, the deer still loses.

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673846)

I take it you've never seen Tommy Boy.

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674590)

So does your car.

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (2)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674412)

You realize that "Shooting Womprats in Beggar's Canyon" is just a euphamism [topfive.com] , right?

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (1)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674778)

Landspeeders are unarmed and womprats are just over 2 meters across. It's like hitting a deer.

Civilian landspeeders are unarmed, but not the military models.

You want to menace womprats, you need a T-16 Skyhopper...

First thing that went through my head when I read the summary. I need to get out more.

Re:Pfft. Hand in your Star Wars nerd card. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676276)

If you're over the age of 8 and you're still rambling on about Star Wars? You're a fag. So shut your fucking mouth about that faggot shit. Come join us in the human race where we wipe our asses with anything Lucas has ever produced. Otherwise you're just another dumb asshole.

Repulsorlift? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672206)

I bet it's just a hovercraft. I remember DIY personal hovercraft with 2-stroke engines.

Re:Repulsorlift? (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672352)

It might be a hovercraft someday, but right now it's mostly photoshop. Look at the shadows. Then notice that every shot with someone sitting in it, it's sitting flat on the ground.

Re:Repulsorlift? (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672522)

He's talking about the subject of the wired article, not the funny quip about DIY landspeeders. Re-parse the summary :)

Re:Repulsorlift? (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673030)

hell even the ones in starwars were hovercrafts with the skirts removed in post

What's with the slowness and 503 errors today? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672208)

Are we getting ddos attacked? Should we change our passwords and disassociate emails from accounts? Can we expect a dump of Slashdot accounts on pastebin soon? I'm scared guys.

Re:What's with the slowness and 503 errors today? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673420)

Slashdot must have gotten linked from Digg, and is now being slashdotted.

The landspeeder comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672236)

is not apt.

Re:The landspeeder comparison (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673502)

Yeah, it looks more like the flying ambulance from Firefly. For that matter, it looks like a lot of sci-fi flying vehicles that aren't Star Wars landspeeders... including Star Wars airspeeders such as the ones used on Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back.

Way to fail, whoever wrote the article/headline.

Siren? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672238)

Aditionally to being the coolest ambulance on earth, with that kind of noise you don't even need a siren !

Re:Siren? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673074)

Aditionally to being the coolest ambulance on earth, with that kind of noise you don't even need a siren !

And this is the stealthy version.

Rank (-1, Troll)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672272)

How does this thing rank among the worlds loudest penis?

Re:Rank (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673006)

A loud penis is just another dickhead full of hot air, also belonging to the specimen of politician.

thanks for wasting everybody's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672278)

ducted fan

Just proves nerds are not above inflating the facts

Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (2)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672290)

boo for making it past Slashdot "editorial" "filter".

Where are those Chinese officials when needed? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672338)

I was thinking the same thing. All those photos need are those 3 Chinese officials there admiring it.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672370)

boo for making it past Slashdot "editorial" "filter".

Yep, just try and draw a line from the tip of the nose shadow thru the tip of the nose, and the tip of the tail shadow through the tip of the tail -- They don't intersect at the sun... that last pic: they go off at very bad angles like:
\------/ instead of \------\ or /------/ or even |------\ or /------|

You may get \------/ on overcast days with lots of ambient light, but not those hard shadows -- Clearly a fake.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673200)

Eyes are a ridiculously easy thing to fool... the apparent shadow inconsistency could easily be explained as an optical illusion caused by inadvertent forced perspective due to the angle of the camera. The same shot could have been retaken 4 or 5 more times from other angles to remove that uncertainty. That this was not done strongly suggests the distinct possibility exists that they were shopped, but it is not irrefutable proof.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673234)

Wouldn't the lines in a proper picture be parallel? The sun casts shadows indistinguishable from parallel for any earth-bound distance.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672398)

Could you be more specific? What visual anomalies do you see in the photos, exactly, that identify them as faked?

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672772)

This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675978)

The shadows aren't parallel.

Of course, with a wide-angle lens, I wouldn't expect them to be. I'd recommend everybody look at the WHOLE video before claiming it's "fake" based off of one little detail. Of course, what do I expect from /.?

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672438)

boo for making it past Slashdot "editorial" "filter".

From the comments on the article with the pictures...

I've had a couple of people say they thought the speeder was photo shopped. It's most likely because of the fact that I use a fill-flash when taking the pics. If you'd like to see more without the flash, and a video of it driving, please check out my web gallery: http://www.reallandspeeder.com
There is also a video of the engine light/ sound effects in the dark too.
Daniel

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672756)

Get it on mainstream media outlet cameras and I *might* believe it.

Fill-flash does not cause the shadow under the craft to be "harder" than a shadow coming from the roof top. It's the same SUN! If I took the time to photoshop the pics, I wouldn't then say. "Yea. You got me. They are fake." Maybe he is just hiding the wheels or something, but it just don't look right.

It's clever to say "These are not the droids you're looking for." but without the Jedi powers behind the statement my Stormtrooper squad is going to detain you and turn you in for a promotion or duty transfer to some tropical system staffed with female Twi'leks.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (2)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673192)

Get it on mainstream media outlet cameras and I *might* believe it.

Here is another video showing it at a car fair [youtube.com] (skip to 1:30) with other custom cars.

Fill-flash does not cause the shadow under the craft to be "harder" than a shadow coming from the roof top. It's the same SUN! If I took the time to photoshop the pics, I wouldn't then say. "Yea. You got me. They are fake." Maybe he is just hiding the wheels or something, but it just don't look right.

The hardness of a shadow is highly dependent on the distance from the shadow casting object and the ground. Something a foot from the ground will have a harder and darker shadow than something ten feet from the ground, since the edge dispersion and ambient light will both be greater.

His website has pictures of him building it, including the chassis with wheels that are clearly inset enough that they wouldn't be visible in the final vehicle. What is so unbelievable about this to you? It is an electric three wheeler with nicely crafted body, not exactly an impossible feat.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675448)

Don't get me wrong. I think this is cool. This is a well made prop. I just have issues with the images being photoshopped. The website in the op shows photos of the prop in front of a matte painting with studio lighting. The video is edited in a manner that does not give the viewer a great look at the undercarriage. Movie magic, not at it's finest, but present.

Forgive me if I remain skeptical of /. headline and of the pictures being untouched.

Re:Sorry, this is photoshopped. The Shadows. No? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36673476)

Riiight. Have you ever taken a photo with a wide angle lens when the sun is behind you? Go outside and try it. You'll discover that reality is in fact photoshopped.

idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672326)

The plural of 'Jedi' is 'Jedi'.

Re:idiot (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672364)

I thought the singular was "Jedus"

Wow, what great spin on such a lame submission (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672356)

Wow, it's amazing how an article title of "Video: Israeli Landspeeder (Sorta) Takes Flight" becomes "Star Wars Landspeeders Are Here" when the thing look and functions nothing like a Star Wars Landspeeder. Nor would you be shooting womprats in one you fucking poseur since it has no weapons.

Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (4, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672414)

I think everyone is getting tired of these 'flying car' stories, be they on /., Wired, PopSci or wherever.

Just so the editors understand what we're talking about here:

A Flying Car uses some kind of anti-gravity device. It can float. Don't show me a hovercraft, helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft. For greater clarity, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qcMjG1KL2Q [youtube.com]

...and while we're at it, a 'Jetpack' should be good for at least several hour's flight. A 30-second hop is not a 'jet pack.' For greater clarity, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMQwT9z0Jyc [youtube.com]

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672458)

A Flying Car uses some kind of anti-gravity device. It can float. Don't show me a hovercraft, helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft.

Why?

Why can't a flying car have wings?

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (1)

danlock4 (1026420) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672518)

Because the wings would be the first things to get clipped on the freeway. Think side-mirror-that-sticks-out-really-far. ;)

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672606)

Because then it is an airplane. It really doesn't matter what your fuselage looks like. It's kinda like the difference between a horse (airplane), a donkey (car), and a mule (car with wings)... He wants a donkey that misses the ground...

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672620)

Because that would be a small plane, not a flying car.

That the plane can also drive on a road is irrelevant to it being a plane.

A flying car it should be noted doesn't even have wheels to drive on a road, it flies all the time.

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674994)

That the car can also sprout wings and fly is irrelevant to it being a car.

A flying car without wheels is either a helicopter or a seaplane. Maybe a VTOL Jet, except not because a jet without wheels would be far too easy to crash land even if it were VTOL.

What are you even saying, dude? It's not a flying car if I can't be gunning it on the interstate then take off into the skies. If I have to slow to near stop and gently set down rather than smoothly rolling onto the road, it's a helicopter. This is a really simple concept - if it's not a car, it's not a flying car, either.

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (1, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672700)

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673368)

I'm sorry these flying cars and jetpacks don't live up to your standard. Can we see your flying car and jet pack prototypes? I'd be very interested.

Re:Enough with the "Fake" Flying Cars Already (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676438)

Can we see your flying car and jet pack prototypes? I'd be very interested.

PREDICTION: He will forget the look of pity on your face when he's living on a solar dome in a platform in space.
EXTRAPOLATION: It will be be the future soon, and he won't always be this way.
SUPPLEMENTAL: The things that make him weak and strange will be engineered away. Meatbag.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DATA: I am sorry for calling you a meatbag, meatb - Master.

Why these will never work... (1)

GigG (887839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672474)

Unlike an airplane that can glide and a helicopter that can auto-rotate when the engine dies on these things so does everyone on board.

Re:Why these will never work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672940)

Ballistically deployed Airframe parachute? Hello? Plenty of light airplanes have them today.

Re:Why these will never work... (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673388)

That depends on how fast the chutes open.

combine (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672482)

it looks like one of the armed combine aircraft from HL 2

1950 called... (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672520)

1950 called and it wants it's "amazing flying car of the future" back.
 
Seriously, just like jetpacks with more than a few minutes endurace, hovercars with any real range and performance just aren't in the cards. It's all about the physics, and the physics say that the materials, powerplants, and fuels needed are all unobtanium.
 
Yet somehow, people insist on disbelieving the equations and keep trying anyhow.

Martin Jetpack (1)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672582)

Haven't you seen the Martin jetpack?

Admittedly, it's more like a helicopter that you stand in, but you get a half hour of flight time. Probably long enough to get to work!

Re:1950 called... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672764)

> Yet somehow, people insist on disbelieving
> the equations and keep trying anyhow.

And thank god they do. Progress doesn't come from textbooks, it comes from trying.

Re:1950 called... (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673838)

Yet somehow, people insist on disbelieving the equations and keep trying anyhow.

And thank god they do. Progress doesn't come from textbooks, it comes from trying.

I suppose you think that perpetual motion will become practical some day soon too?
 
Or to put it less politely, you're an ignorant fool parroting bullshit. I said nothing about textbooks, and only an idiot would confuse equations with textbooks - because those equations lie at the foundations of all engineering.

Re:1950 called... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675050)

Logical fallacy count:
1 ad hominem
2 straw man
1 non sequitur

I agree with your main point, that Physics trumps crackpot ideas.

But most breakthroughs in our understanding of Physics came from people who were initially dismissed as crackpots - in your words disbelievers, idiots, and fools.

Yeah but.... (1)

d.the.duck (2100600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672534)

Can I leave this lousy moisture vaporator farm to join the rebellion? More seriously, I'd be way more impressed if they built a Star Destroyer.

Re:Yeah but.... (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676484)

More seriously, I'd be way more impressed if they built a Star Destroyer.

Pfft, I'd prefer a Star Spacecraft Carrier.

Yeah, but... (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672546)

Can it complete the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs?

(And to the trivia nazis, yes I know that was Han Solo's claim about the Millennium Falcon.)

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675606)

Is the kessel run some kind of race where the time is set (24 hours), and the winning metric is distance traveled? Or was that just a mistake in the script?

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675988)

It depends on your cognitive dissonance level.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676008)

Or maybe the Kessel Run was a traveling salesman problem?

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676504)

Of course. Not only that, it gets 25 banthas to the dianoga, and only costs 100 dewbacks.

Junk! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672556)

What an excesively noisy piece of junk!

Terminator (1)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672592)

Looks more like the Hunter-Killers from Terminator than it does a land speeder.

I think I'll be alright (1)

womprat (154589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672622)

What's that? Watch out? It's still no T-16.

Wheels (1)

ionymous (1216224) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672702)

If flying cars were invented first, the improvement would be called the automobile. It would have four wheels that touch the ground. No more flying cars would be falling from the sky. Countless lives would be saved. It would save you thousands of dollars in fuel costs because it doesn't need to hover.

The future is now. Enjoy it.

Landspeeder (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672780)

That's no landspeeder!

Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672922)

Looks more like a poor attempt at a slashvertisement.

Just curious (1)

GReaToaK_2000 (217386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672964)

Why is it that Israel is kicking our ass with so many Army (Read As: Ground forces) technology?

I mean, back when we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq the Israelis had a armored vehicle that could shoot rocket propelled grenades and inbound projectiles and we didn't. Oh wait, Raytheon paid off the government to sacrifice our soldiers for their vehicle that still has YET to be produced.

Before that the Israelis were working on a mobile laser weapon that can shoot artillery shells out of the sky.

They created that modification to guns that allows the military to shoot around corners without risking sticking your head our there.

Now this and whatever else we don't know about.

The Chinese are creating their own stealth technology.

I'm not a "Pro-Military" guy but I would like to see a LOT more money put into research and development as well as spying. To a certain extent the 40's & 50's had it right. Spy and steal technology so you know what they are doing. Protect your companies at home and spend money on your R&D.

Now, since Corporations have global and international ties, they could give two shits who has the tech as long as they make their money.

And since Corporations buy our government, specifically the Republicans but some Democrats too, there isn't much effort in restricting those practices.

I ranted too much here, my apologies.

Re:Just curious (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675726)

Wouldn't the logical conclusion be to kick the arms manufacturers out (setting up government-owned entities to develop and produce equipment)? Of course that runs counter to principles like "the market will solve everything", "politicians love pork" and "the arms manufacturers have deep pockets" so it's both unpopular and unrealistic.

My thought: (2)

Orleron (835910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673322)

"What a piece of junk!"

Re:My thought: (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676522)

"What a piece of junk!"

She might not look like much, kid, but she's got it where it counts.

Oh, and my spacecraft over here is pretty nice also.

Back to the 1950s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36673452)

This reminds me of the Avrocar made by A.V. Roe. "They" had great dreams for it but it never flew off its ground effect. If it tried to go too high or too fast, it had horrible stability problems.

These days you might deal with the stability issue with a computer. That would result in a machine that would crash the millisecond its computer failed though. I will believe this new machine when they demonstrate it flying higher and faster.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/mufonontario/avro/avrocar.html [virtuallystrange.net]

At the risk of coming across as a troll (2)

stenWolf (1172321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673526)


This is a decent piece of engineering that got butchered by spencer's editorial.
As one commenter in the original blog mentioned:

Well's spencer's knowledge on the subject is: Aeronautics is an engineering degree and I have a liberals arts degree in English so I can can blog about anything.

Even more surprising is that not a single slashdotter bothered to check what's really shown, instead relying on BS from Wired
http://www.urbanaero.com/Frame-whatsnew.htm/ [urbanaero.com]
This is an unmanned rapid combat zone casualty extraction vehicle - way cheaper than a helicopter (and thumbs down to all the commentators who couldn't count to 10 without a helping hand) and capable of reaching areas a helicopter would only dream of approaching.
But hey, don't let the facts confuse you - on with the "it's just junk" comments from these who couldn't figure out which way the pilot wasn't seating...

My hearing may be off (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673622)

Ah yes that is the same sound I recall when Luke rode across Tatooine, a extremely loud helicopter sound!

...can't wait 'till it sucks your hair in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674164)

...can't wait 'till it sucks your hair in. (the upper jet nozzle...)

Nothing to fear. (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674770)

It's the young hooligans in T-16s that worry me.

great for more warcrimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674850)

won't leave tracks now when they murder their neighbours.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>