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!

Another Pass at the Personal Jetpack

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the time-to-buzz-the-tower dept.

259

Engadget is reporting that dreams of a personal jet pack may not be quite as distant as you might think. Skywalker Jets, created by Rick Herron boasts a 90-pound jet pack capable of propelling a 200-pound pilot through the air for about five minutes without the hassle of charred lower extremities. The production model, which he hopes to run past the FAA soon for approval, will only cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 — so start saving your pennies.

cancel ×

259 comments

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

FAA? (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | about 8 years ago | (#15821493)

The production model, which he hopes to run past the FAA soon for approval [...]

      Ah, yes. The good old "If I run fast enough it looks like my feet are off the ground" ploy.

Re:FAA? (2, Funny)

awesomo2001 (991790) | about 8 years ago | (#15821578)

He sounds very confident that he will get this thing approved by the FAA. I say this might just be a good time to go to law school!

Re:FAA? (2, Interesting)

lottameez (816335) | about 8 years ago | (#15821738)

Declare it an instrumental war-fighting tool in "the war against terror". Slam dunk baby.

Re:FAA? (4, Funny)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | about 8 years ago | (#15821746)

...jet pack capable of propelling a 200-pound pilot through the air for about five minutes...

READ: the average slashdotter will need 2.

Re:FAA? (2, Funny)

vux984 (928602) | about 8 years ago | (#15821889)

READ: the average slashdotter will need 2.

Where would the average slashdotter ever go that would take 5 whole minutes? 2.5 minutes is more than enough to get the average slashdotter to the bathroom and back, even with a side trip to the kitchen.

Re:FAA? (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | about 8 years ago | (#15821925)

Sure, but no slashdotter is average. We are either all 6'2", 130#, or 5'6", 270#.

Re:FAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821664)

Ah yes, another useless toy for some idiot with more money than common sense.

Re:FAA? (2, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | about 8 years ago | (#15821947)

I'm just wondering how the hell you steer the thing. You know that a bunch of idiots wont be able to figure it out and will splatter like a loogie on the side of a building. That's probably the biggest reason the FAA is going to give a big nono to this.

I can just see it now (5, Insightful)

AdvancedLoser (778225) | about 8 years ago | (#15821494)

people who forget to check how much fuel they have left while still hundreds of metres in the air plummetting down like bags of wet cement.

Re:I can just see it now (5, Funny)

gurudyne (126096) | about 8 years ago | (#15821519)

"plummetting down like bags of wet cement."

No, no. They will plummet down SCREAMING. They will SPLASH like bags of wet cement.

Back when I was still flying (5, Funny)

GMontag (42283) | about 8 years ago | (#15821595)

Back when I was still flying (Army National National Guard, rotary wing) the landing checklist no longer included a fuel check (made sense to me).

However, the "old guys" were in the habit of a fuel check before landing.

One flight I finally responded to "fuel check" with "enough to land".

The Pilot-in-Command responded: "How much?"

Me: "Enough to land"

He: "If you did not calculate it how do you know?"

Me: "I don't have to calculate it. With or without fuel we are going to land."

Re:Back when I was still flying (1, Funny)

Tordek (863609) | about 8 years ago | (#15822057)

No wonder you're not flying anymore

Re:I can just see it now (4, Insightful)

Z0mb1eman (629653) | about 8 years ago | (#15821568)

What's the difference from divers who forget to check how much O2 they have before they dive?

Re:I can just see it now (5, Insightful)

Inquisitus (937664) | about 8 years ago | (#15821597)

The divers are only harming themselves.

Re:I can just see it now (1)

linvir (970218) | about 8 years ago | (#15821670)

Their terrifying last moments and painful deaths aren't witnessed by dozens of bystanders.

Error (1)

linvir (970218) | about 8 years ago | (#15821703)

Sorry, did I say "bystanders"? I meant to say "lost customers".

Re:I can just see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821774)


What's the difference from divers who forget to check how much O2 they have before they dive?


The diver will leave a safty margin that is larger than the whole capacity of this unit.

The JetPack capacity is up to 10 minute's flight. (of which, 9 minutes and 45 seconds should be considered reserve)

Re:I can just see it now (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | about 8 years ago | (#15821859)

Being on YouTube within about 15 seconds of hitting the ground.

Since in N.Ireland and large parts of Scotland a 'tube' is an idiot, we tend to find that YouTube is a name that can be used as an exclamation upon seeing such a video.

Ouch.

Re:I can just see it now (4, Funny)

scottblascocomposer (697248) | about 8 years ago | (#15821882)

Well, the divers can't land on you.

Re:I can just see it now (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821905)

Divers can do a safe ascent without air from more than 60 feet, if needed. If diving with a buddy (generally recommended), you can breathe off the buddy's extra second stage (octopus). Watch a fellow in a jetpack run out of fuel at 60 feet and I think you'll see the difference.

MOD PARENT UP! (0, Offtopic)

hcsteve (814889) | about 8 years ago | (#15822000)

Where's the dang mod points when you need em? This is exactly the difference.

Re:I can just see it now (1)

lionheart1327 (841404) | about 8 years ago | (#15821927)

The difference is that they will fall on me, as opposed to quietly drowning.

Re:I can just see it now (5, Informative)

TFoo (678732) | about 8 years ago | (#15821995)

The difference is the margin of error. Basic scuba diving certification teaches you how to free ascend with no air from the deepest dive you'll ever make without a backup air source (~100ft: beyond that and you start doing things like taking a backup "pony bottle" air source). In a true panic situation where you can't swim up with the air you have left, you quick-release your weight belt, start blowing out (yes, blow out!), and your natural boyancy will take you to the surface -- without weight you'll go up pretty fast. Dropping weights is only for true emergencies -- usually you can just swim up since the air in your lungs will expand as you go up, making it surprisingly easy to ascend even from relatively deep dives without additional air.

Soo, to answer your question:
        forgetting to check your compressed air: lose weight belt, feel stupid
        forgetting to check your jet pack: crash and die.

Big difference.

Re:I can just see it now (1)

mrobin604 (70201) | about 8 years ago | (#15822021)

Divers dive in pairs, and you always have a secondary regulator on your equipment, in case your buddy runs out of air or has an equipment failure.

I don't think that that kind of redundancy is gonna work for the jetpack...

Buddy breathing (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 8 years ago | (#15822033)

Buddy breathing is an option if you're underwater. I think you'll run out of lift pretty quick if your buddy grabs your legs as he falls...

Most divers don't go deeper than about 80ft without doing extensive checks, and doing an emergency ascent from those depths is possible (I've done an emergency ascent from 100ft). I guess parachutes are an option, if you're high enough.

Re:I can just see it now (2, Insightful)

eonlabs (921625) | about 8 years ago | (#15821767)

Won't the darwin awards just love that.

Re:I can just see it now (1)

hurfy (735314) | about 8 years ago | (#15821812)

Hopefully it works like the old paper rolls with a red stripe at the end.

If the jetpack flying over you is putting out red smoke time to duck and cover ;)

Lets see 5 min should get you halfway thru the first lesson....doh

The other problem is it will also get you HALFWAY to work, i guess you can walk the rest of the way :(

Re:I can just see it now (4, Funny)

CptNerd (455084) | about 8 years ago | (#15821841)

Paraphrasing "WKRP in Cincinnati":

"As God is my witness, I thought geeks could fly!"

Re:I can just see it now (1)

jdray (645332) | about 8 years ago | (#15821931)

This guy [google.com] just needs another hot water bottle or two and he's able to go a long ways.

Why? (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 8 years ago | (#15821501)

I mean... sure, it will be nice for a while, when you're the only one who has one. Too many people in the crowd? need ot get through? Just blow over them.

Wait until everyone has one and the crowd is 10 feet off the ground. Bump into someone and suddenly you're plummeting to the ground.

Not to mention the short flight time. 5 minutes? I'm sure the average person would find a 90lb backpack cumbersome to carry all day if it can only carry them for 5 minutes.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

linvir (970218) | about 8 years ago | (#15821682)

The crowd won't exactly be 10 feet off the ground. One guy will be 50 meters up and heading east to his job. Another will be 30 meters up and heading northeast. Another 100 meters up heading south, and so on and so on.

Once they've figured out the jetpack technology, they're going to have to get to work on some pretty clever crash prevention tech as well.

Insurance? (5, Insightful)

Chancer (246051) | about 8 years ago | (#15821515)

whatever about the cost of purchasing, running and maintaining one of these - I can't imagine any insurance company taking on the risk that the pilot won't do serious damage to property and by-standers.

The insurance premium will be huge.

Re:Insurance? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821672)

The insurance premium will be huge.


Insurance.. you think they're going to insure somebody on one of these things?

Ha...haha.. hahahahah!

I'd have a better chance at getting insurance by wielding a Wiley Coyote bat wing with an Acme rocket rammed up my keester!

Re:Insurance? (2, Informative)

tomherbst (888500) | about 8 years ago | (#15821759)

It will likely be similar to motorcycle insurance -- fairly cheap because the primary
victim of any accident is the now dead operator.

Like small airplanes, these will not inflict major damage to most structures. I'd
agree that it is not a great thing to have fall on your head, but the screams of the
about to die pilot should be enough warning to get out of the way.

tom

Re:Insurance? (1)

fprintf (82740) | about 8 years ago | (#15821906)

Motorcycle insurance cheap? You must not have priced sportbike insurance lately. Even with only basic insurance, for the typical low 20's rider it is in the thousands per year. Add on full coverage including collision and you are looking at multi-thousands. The only cheap bikes to insure are lower horsepower, naked bikes like the Suzuki SV650 (and awesome bike still!). Even Harleys are getting expensive, mostly because replacement parts are outrageously expensive and full replacement cost is so high.

So there is no way this thing is going to be cheap to insure. Insurance has to have a beneficiary in the case of an accident, and is based on the amount covered. If this thing costs $200,000, what would actually be insured? The jetpack? Big bucks. The operator? Given the risk of the activity, big bucks. Anything it collides with? Big bucks!

Skywalker is a great name for a jetpack (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 8 years ago | (#15821524)

Gee, EveryOne Really Gets Excited Laughing Up Cool Aero-vehicles. Still, We're In Luck. Landing Seems Uncompromisingly Easy.

GEORGELUCASWILLSUE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821571)

... for those who missed it :)

Re:Skywalker is a great name for a jetpack (3, Funny)

BronsCon (927697) | about 8 years ago | (#15821754)

Yay! Everyone Soars! HowEver, What If Lucas Litigates?

Re:Skywalker is a great name for a jetpack (2, Interesting)

StikyPad (445176) | about 8 years ago | (#15821809)

I can't believe nobody has pointed out that it wasn't the Skywalkers who used jet packs; it was Boba Fett.

Nerds indeed.

Re:Skywalker is a great name for a jetpack (1)

InterestingX (930362) | about 8 years ago | (#15821862)

... and what ended his part in the ROTJ? Out-of-control jet pack...

Re:Skywalker is a great name for a jetpack (1)

dYnkYn (992384) | about 8 years ago | (#15821960)

I imagine he will have some problem with George Lucas' lawyer... I really think it's stupid to choose this name.

I want the full meaning. (5, Funny)

spysmily1 (962459) | about 8 years ago | (#15821528)

"without the hassle of charred lower extremities"

Instead you just have lightly baked lower extremeties with a touch of fried groins.

Re:I want the full meaning. (1)

gardyloo (512791) | about 8 years ago | (#15821541)

you just have lightly baked lower extremeties with a touch of fried groins.

      Great! I'll get one if Natalie Portman rolls all over my hot grits.

Interesting (0, Troll)

Marko DeBeeste (761376) | about 8 years ago | (#15821543)

Notice there is:

1) No video footage

2) No human being, or any other living thing anywhere near this baby

Re:Interesting (2, Interesting)

Brickwall (985910) | about 8 years ago | (#15821566)

$200,000? I'd rather wait and get a Moller Skycar for $500,000.

Of course, they've been promising that baby for five years now...

Re:Interesting (1)

Marko DeBeeste (761376) | about 8 years ago | (#15821584)

I want the one with in-dash videophone and Smell-O-Vision(TM)

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

MrP- (45616) | about 8 years ago | (#15821586)

cept for that video footage and photos of the guy on the website

Re:Interesting (1)

virgil_disgr4ce (909068) | about 8 years ago | (#15821666)

On the irritating skywalkerjets.com flash website, there is a video of a manned test on the "Test 2" page. He is cabled down with a force sensor. However, there doesn't appear to be any video of somebody actually flying with this.

Why not just parachute? (0, Troll)

ThatGeek (874983) | about 8 years ago | (#15821546)

I don't understand the point of this invention. If you want to experience a couple of minutes of flight, why not just parachute?

Re:Why not just parachute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821567)

Because that would be a couple of minutes of falling.

Re:Why not just parachute? (1)

hdd (772289) | about 8 years ago | (#15821603)

kind of obvious to me...can you take off using parachute?

Re:Why not just parachute? (4, Informative)

RM6f9 (825298) | about 8 years ago | (#15821710)

http://www.sixchuter.com/ [sixchuter.com]
next question?

Yellow bar? (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | about 8 years ago | (#15821550)

Sure glad it's got that yellow bar across the front of it for safety, just in case people can't see the freaking FLAMES and SMOKE, can't smell the FLESH, and can't hear the ROAR and the SCREAMING.

     

Re:Yellow bar? (1)

Apraxhren (964852) | about 8 years ago | (#15821845)

That yellow bar is part of the control box, it has several switches and what looks to be a display screen. The yellow just make it look cool.

copyright George Lucas (1)

mrshowtime (562809) | about 8 years ago | (#15821551)

Although the company's name is cool, it's a shame George Lucas is going to own this jetpack company once he finds out the owner is using one of his precious Star Wars Trademarks.

That's all well and good ... (5, Funny)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | about 8 years ago | (#15821552)

Skywalker Jets, created by Rick Herron boasts a 90 pound jet pack capable of propelling a 200 pound pilot through the air
 
... but what about we Americans?

Re:That's all well and good ... (1, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | about 8 years ago | (#15821561)

Are you questioning whether we'll be shot down by fighter jets, or whether one of our citizens will need one of the jetpacks for each limb?

Nitpick (0)

QuantumFTL (197300) | about 8 years ago | (#15821558)

I don't understand why this is referred to as a "jet" pack, when it is in fact powered by a rocket engine. Of course that doesn't stop me from wanting one to avoid commutes/exes...

Re:Nitpick (3, Informative)

isaac (2852) | about 8 years ago | (#15821640)

This uses air-breathing jet engines. It's a jet pack.

-Isaac

Re:Nitpick (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 8 years ago | (#15821825)

Unless you have a 4 mile or less commute, this is not the jetpack you're looking for.

Re:Nitpick (2, Informative)

6ULDV8 (226100) | about 8 years ago | (#15821953)

The reference article is wrong. It uses engines similar to http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html [jetcatusa.com]

Video Here (1)

NanoWires (530320) | about 8 years ago | (#15821562)

Video Available here. Nothing too exciting ;-) just a dude hanging in wires with RC model Jet engines strapped to his back. http://www.skywalkerjets.com/ [skywalkerjets.com]

Awesome if... (1)

gigne (990887) | about 8 years ago | (#15821634)

this were all spring loaded into a backpack, that once activated exploded you into flight.

You would make an awesome supervillain if you had one of the spring loaded versions. You could even disguise it as an evil hump under a cape.

For range, stick with blades (5, Informative)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | about 8 years ago | (#15821654)

This personal helicopter [acecraftusa.com] can be flow for an hour or so and travels around 55 mph. Not as sexy as a jet pack, but it's far more utilitarian.

Re:For range, stick with blades (5, Funny)

nosredna (672587) | about 8 years ago | (#15821686)

When the personal helicopter is more utilitarian than the product you're marketing, it's probably time to go back to the drawing board.

5 minutes?! (5, Informative)

weasello (881450) | about 8 years ago | (#15821676)

I get upset when my fully loaded Cessna 172 only fits 4 hours of fuel. I can see getting by with two, *maybe* one hour of fuel in a jetpack. But seriously - what can you do in 5 minutes?!?

It's not even enough to consider a form of commuting; you can barely accomplish any task that wouldn't be done easier with a helicopter/climbing ropes/scissor lift, plus the huge pricetag...

For most aircraft, FAA requires your flying vehicle to be able to get you to your destination with 30 minutes of backup fuel for delays, emergencies, or unforseen weather. Having a 5 minute flight time kind of negates all that...

At best, I see this as a backyard novelty at worst and an airshow wonder at best.

Re:5 minutes?! (2, Funny)

Tired and Emotional (750842) | about 8 years ago | (#15821714)

Well, it would allow you to commit suicide by jumping off quite small bridges.

have you seen the jeep commercial? (4, Insightful)

way2trivial (601132) | about 8 years ago | (#15821821)

(is it jeep?) where the guy kisses his wife, and parachutes into the canyon to his car?/ how do you think exactly, he goes from the driveway back to his house...

Re:5 minutes?! (3, Insightful)

Burning1 (204959) | about 8 years ago | (#15821869)

The Bugatti Vayron [bugatti-cars.de] is the worlds fastest production car. It's top speed is 250MPH. At that speed, the only place it can be used is on a speedway. It's fuel supply will last all of 17 minutes.

It's my dream car.

The wright brothers first flight didn't even last a minute. It was worth it.

Utility isn't the only measure of value.

checklist (5, Funny)

AlgorithMan (937244) | about 8 years ago | (#15821683)

[X] Jetpack
[X] Nightvision
[X] Steroids
[X] Medikit
[X] Armor
[ ] holoduke
[ ] atomic health

Re:checklist (1)

misleb (129952) | about 8 years ago | (#15821794)

Don't forget the remote detonated pipe bombs. A jetpack isn't much fun without them, especially when you figure out that you can drop a dozen of them and set them off all at once...

$100,000 Preorder... checks in the mail! (2, Interesting)

jhfry (829244) | about 8 years ago | (#15821687)

Sure, I'll write the check now... considering you've proven that the jetpack managed to lift you a couple of inches on a teather. Of course I'm confident that you will be able to resolve all the issues of flight stability and emergency parachutes etc.

Is anyone else a little skeptical. Who in thier right mind would preorder something that hasn't even been properly demonstrated. Now if this guy managed to take off to about 30ft, hover a bit, then travel for a minute or two while performing some impressive demonstration of the manuverability I might consider this a worthwhile project. Otherwise it is nothing but a pipe dream... anyone can locate a motor of reasonable size and weight then mount it to a backpack... making it fly is the hard part!

Someone already has one (1)

787style (816008) | about 8 years ago | (#15821704)

We had this guy [rocketman.org] fly at one of our parties. The fuel it used was 96% pure hydrogene peroxide, which was some scary stuff to say the least. It was incredibly loud, and woe unto anyone walking underneath with the large amounts of heat this thing generated.

Re:Someone already has one (2, Interesting)

AMSRay (992267) | about 8 years ago | (#15821937)

The Bell Rocketbelt used by The Rocketman was first flown in the early 1960's, and seems to be much more stable and with longer flying time than the Skywalker backpack. I don't know how the cost would compare, but 40 years of flying is a pretty good record for such an experimental device.

For $200k, I'll stick with airplanes... (3, Insightful)

kcbrown (7426) | about 8 years ago | (#15821711)

Lessee...the plane:

  • costs about the same
  • is much faster
  • flies much further
  • has an enclosed, heated cabin for comfort
  • and last but not least, glides in the event of an engine failure

So why, exactly, would I spend money on this? It might have a larger coolness factor, but that'll wear off fast.

Re:For $200k, I'll stick with airplanes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821811)

VTOL

Re:For $200k, I'll stick with airplanes... (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | about 8 years ago | (#15821856)

VTOL stand for Very Tragic Ordeal with Lacerations, right?

looking for capital investment (1)

fermion (181285) | about 8 years ago | (#15821718)

From the web site, it looks like all this guy has in an engine attached to a backpack. This is no simple design feat, and kudos goes out to him for getting this far.

But it look like the publicity is not so much to sell units, which don't exist and may not ever exist, but to search for a partner, probably to help work though the regulatory process.

The technical detail that fails me is how controlled flight is possible when all you have is a rocket pack. I mean you go up when there is thrust, and then come back down when there is no thrust. How do you orient to go forwards. How do you turn?Is simply bending sufficient? I know this has been done before, but only with highly trained persons. Would a small aircraft not be a better value at 200K.

Skywalker? (3, Funny)

dfn5 (524972) | about 8 years ago | (#15821728)

I think a more apt name would've been The Fett Jett.

The video is hilarious (3, Funny)

cryptomancer (158526) | about 8 years ago | (#15821729)

"Cables holding me down.." No, I can just barely see the wires the's suspended by, in his backyard, with his mom watching as he lifts his feet off the ground to pretend that he's flying. ...I'm sorry, even if it's legit and that's not his mom, the video is kinda funny.

Re:The video is hilarious (and a scam) (2, Insightful)

airuck (300354) | about 8 years ago | (#15821776)

The video suddenly pixelates when he lifts his feet. It is a scam.

Overpriced! (1)

pilot-programmer (822406) | about 8 years ago | (#15821730)

For $200,000 you can get a nice used Cirrus SR-22 or a nice Piper Seneca. Either would have much more utility for me than a personal jet pack, and will probably be much cheaper to insure.

Human Molotov Cocktail (1)

raftpeople (844215) | about 8 years ago | (#15821752)

Should sell pretty well in the ME.

To put this in context (1)

jd (1658) | about 8 years ago | (#15821755)

You can buy a single prop aircraft [barnstormers.com] for almost a third of the price, a Tiger Moth [warbird.at] for under half, or even a YAK [flyingfighters.com.au]

Re:To put this in context (1)

MadEE (784327) | about 8 years ago | (#15821999)

1. You cannot compare something that is new to something that is used. There is a large drop in value upon delivery alone; this is true for pretty much anything mass produced. 2. One of the largest factors in value for the plane is the avionics, something those planes are lacking in. Granted I don't see much value in this other then as a novelty but to be honest most of these classes of planes (lacking large fuel tanks and cabin space) are that too.

Copyright infringement... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821822)

So what happens after they get sued for every last cent they have by George "Mr. Skywalker" Lucas?

Yeah, naming it "Skywalker" was entirely coincidental, yep. Try telling that to the judge.

This is cool... (1)

chord.wav (599850) | about 8 years ago | (#15821828)

...that deserves its own category in the Darwing Awards!

Emergency Rescue (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 8 years ago | (#15821839)

With that sort of price tag and flight-time, I'm not sure of it's uses as a personal toy, but it might very well be useful for rescue efforts. On his site, the guy says there will be two production models, one with the capacity to lift one person, and another with the capacity to lift two. That might be quite useful for rescuing people in situations where an air-lift from a helicopter is just too difficult or dangerous.

one other little thing (1)

hurfy (735314) | about 8 years ago | (#15821865)

"A prototype build solicited a bid over 10 grand from a hopeful buyer (or helpless Star Wars fan)"

SO someone was willing to pay 10k for one.
Sales price will be 200k.

hmmmmmmmmm

Re:one other little thing (2, Insightful)

UncleJam (786330) | about 8 years ago | (#15821948)

The prototype can hardly leave the ground.

Rocketman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15821893)

If you read up on the history of jet/rocket packs (2, Insightful)

merreborn (853723) | about 8 years ago | (#15821968)

... You'll find that one of the main reasons they've never taken off, aside from the extreme risk and cost, is they're *incredibly* hard to control! The throttle's extremely sensitive, the power is immense, and if point it the wrong way, you'll either spin out of control, or plummet.

Cue up Chris Rock voice (1)

loki_ninboy (992401) | about 8 years ago | (#15821969)

"George Lucas gonna sue somebody!"

Come on people.... (3, Informative)

Cherita Chen (936355) | about 8 years ago | (#15821980)

What is with all the hubbub regarding the name? His company is called "Skywalker Jets", not "Luke Skywalker Jets", not"Anakin Skywalker Jets", and not "Skywalker Studios Jets". Think about it... The folks at "Thompson Food Group" aren't suing the folks at "Thompson Building Materials", are they? Even if Lucas is peeved about the name, just give the guy a Jetpack, that ought to pacify him as well as be a great PR stunt.

P.S. It is important to note that Mr. Herron holds the trademark for "Skywalker Jets". If you're interested in finding out more about trademarks, or searching the database, go here [uspto.gov]

For those that can't wait . . . (1)

ManoSinistra (983539) | about 8 years ago | (#15822025)

You can try what this guy did [google.com] .

I can see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15822039)

The new chicken... who can get the highest and still get down. sweeeeet!

ok... (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 8 years ago | (#15822063)

"price of jet fuel for 4 minute flight: $62.34"

"price of jetson-era backpack: $200,000"

"look on girlfriend face when you crash through her bedroom window, cutting yourself to shreds on the broken glass: priceless"

saving pennies!!! (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | about 8 years ago | (#15822066)

At the current price of copper at $0.023/penny, you only need to save 8,820,798 pennies (before 1982)! Just need to find a way to sell the copper....
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>