Poll & Prediction: Autonomous Car Equipment at 5k by 2019

[Mallette]

1 minute ago, vasubandu said:

It just wasn't operational yet.

 

Doesn't that make more sense than another moving part?

As to your first sentence, my response would be the obvious...if it was not complete, why the hell would passengers be on it????

As to the second, maybe I am just dense but I've no idea what you are asking?

 

Dave

[vasubandu]

I am suggesting that instead of machines that go in front of trains,  we use the tracks to control trains. 

[Mallette]

2 hours ago, vasubandu said:

Doesn't that make more sense than another moving part?

Not really.  Probably just me...

Dave

[DrWho]

On 1/28/2018 at 11:27 AM, dwilawyer said:

No no no no no no no.

 

Flight is much, much more difficult.  The only thing that has been automated is engine and fuel management which takes a crew from 3 to 2.

 

There is no fail safe option like you have in a car (press red button and it safely pulls over to side of road).  

 

The autoland function isn't even automated, it has to be carefully set up by pilot and, as you point out, requires a sophisticated ILS system be installed at that particular airport.

 

A vehicle only has 3 main decision inputs power/acceleration, braking and steering. 

 

An airplane has roll, pitch, yaw, lift (angle of attack and flaps), drag and power (X2 engines).

 

The most sophisticated flight automation engineers in the world are at JPL, and they don't do any flights fully automated.   Lots and Lots of people doing lots and lots of things.

You familiar with the Stealth Bomber?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Avionics_and_systems

"In order to address the inherent flight instability of a flying wing aircraft, the B-2 uses a complex quadruplex computer-controlled fly-by-wire flight control system, that can automatically manipulate flight surfaces and settings without direct pilot inputs in order to maintain aircraft stability.^[91] The flight computer receives information on external conditions such as the aircraft's current air speed and angle of attack via pitot-static sensing plates, as opposed to traditional pitot tubes which would negatively affect the aircraft's stealth capabilities.^[92] The flight actuation system incorporates both hydraulic and electrical servoactuated components, and it was designed with a high level of redundancy and fault-diagnostic capabilities.^[93]"

 

That was 1989. Computers were very basic back then.

 

There are countless examples of similar systems, and all large commercial jets have autopilot now....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

"Autopilots in modern complex aircraft are three-axis and generally divide a flight into taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise (level flight), descent, approach, and landing phases. Autopilots exist that automate all of these flight phases except taxi and takeoff. "

 

It's interesting to note that they don't do autopilot for taxi (driving)....this is because taxiing is not a closed system and requires a human to identify objects.

 

There is definitely more to automate on a plane, but that doesn't make the autonomy more difficult. You guys are thinking like humans....the complexity of automation isn't the same as what is complex for humans. Handling multiple systems in parallel is very easy for computers. The complexity is in the feedback system and how to know what you want the final result should be. Getting the controls to the final result is easy - it's the defining the end goal that is complicated. In flight, the end goal is very straightforward to detect and determine.

 

The misconception of complexity is what concerns me about the legal space. Non-technical people will judge the merits of systems based on a human perspective. This is simply the wrong way to understand automation.

[DrWho]

On 1/28/2018 at 1:03 PM, Mallette said:

That's BS...there is ALWAYS money for such things.  And no one is allowed to bring up politics in my thread and when I say just what I did it's because ALL parties spend what they want regardless of the deficit...so this could be paid for easily.  I think the railroads would pay for this if someone sued them.  The likely reason they are not doing so is union pressure.  Remember, we had firemen on diesel engines for decades before the railroads could eliminate them.

I have a buddy who works for Amtrak and I've pressed him on this issue for years.... The devil is in the details, and the amount of detail is quite overwhelming. I still think this stuff should be fixed, but the costs associated with it are enormous. I wouldn't underestimate the effort that is required - and it would be helpful to be reminded that all passenger trains in this country operate at huge losses. The only reason they exist is because the government mandates them. The only trains that make money are freight, and all of the political capital is spent debating how much more freight can be added by removing the commuter trains.

 

I think you'd be better off focusing on suing the freight companies, but then the loss of life is extremely low there....

[Mallette]

Amtrak is an anachronism.  That from a person who prefers rail travel to all forms...I love it.  But it's time is past, and certainly so with a human at the controls.  Amtrak has attempted to operate as if it were 1955 for all these years.  Low cost locals without engineers would be competitive, at least until the AVs take over.  But I don't expect them to do anything like 21 century thinking.  In that regard, they are just like USPS.  Couple of grand old institutions committing suicide.

 

Dave

[JJkizak]

2 hours ago, Mallette said:

Amtrak is an anachronism.  That from a person who prefers rail travel to all forms...I love it.  But it's time is past, and certainly so with a human at the controls.  Amtrak has attempted to operate as if it were 1955 for all these years.  Low cost locals without engineers would be competitive, at least until the AVs take over.  But I don't expect them to do anything like 21 century thinking.  In that regard, they are just like USPS.  Couple of grand old institutions committing suicide.

 

Dave

 

And your correct. Who wants to travel at 50mph when everybody else in the world is going 250.

JJK

 

[Mallette]

That was a mistake made decades ago, JJK.  It's a bit late for high speed rail...we missed that boat WAY back.  Would have been a great national investment.  Now, perhaps Hyperloop can still be useful, but the general population will be carried by AVs.  

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Mallette said:

That was a mistake made decades ago, JJK.  It's a bit late for high speed rail...we missed that boat WAY back.  Would have been a great national investment.  Now, perhaps Hyperloop can still be useful, but the general population will be carried by AVs.  

Dave

I agree, especially if they get supersonic flight approved over US.  

 

We are too large, too spread out for HST.  The ROW would be cost prohibitive  alone.  

 

That's for passenger travel.  I think rail freight will be around for quite awhile until something can compete with the pricing. 

[Travis In Austin]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/31/16956902/california-dmv-self-driving-car-disengagement-2017

 

GM and Google are leading the pack.

 

Tesla's testing model is downright scary. 

[Mallette]

Just now, dwilawyer said:

I agree, especially if they get supersonic flight approved over US. 

Don't hold your breath.  We went through that back in the 70s and it was banned due to sonic booms.  Not yet economically practical anyway, though Musk's BFR may fix that.  

2 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

I think rail freight will be around for quite awhile until something can compete with the pricing. 

Doing away with engineers MIGHT help...but doing away with truck drivers is going to really up the competitiveness of trucks.  Like Amtrak, the railroads are still operating on very old models.  They need to be able to move containers to an AV truck with no human involvement in small towns.  Further, I've said for years that we should give trucking companies rebates for every mile that their freight rides the rails.  The railroads, receivers of the greatest subsidies of any other industry in history in the 19th century, have gotten nothing for years while taxpayers have toted the note for trucks.  Makes no sense.  
Dave

[Travis In Austin]

5 hours ago, DrWho said:

In flight, the end goal is very straightforward to detect and determine.

It's to be able to walk away from the landing. 

 

All of those autopilot settings are entered and adjusted during flight by a human.  

 

They crashed a B-2 right after takeoff because of misreadings in the sensors.

 

The problem is you have to automate for contingencies such as the instruments and gauges are supplying incorrect information.  You also have to automate for loss of power on one side, and also total loss of power.  With a total loss of power it has to pick and find a safe place to land, it has to dump fuel, and about 100 other things.  It can be done, but planes are not flown in an autonomous fashion.  Just the opposite, a Captain is there in case something goes wrong and a First Officer in the event something goes wrong with the Captain.

 

Military drones are not even automated.  When that happens you might begin to see it move towards civilian aviation. 

[Travis In Austin]

54 minutes ago, Mallette said:

The railroads, receivers of the greatest subsidies of any other industry in history in the 19th century, have gotten nothing for years while taxpayers have toted the note for trucks.  Makes no sense.  

Rail freight gets no direct subsidies. 

 

Trucking companies are massively subsidized by the difference in motor fuel tax collected and the greater amount spent on road construction and repairs.

[Mallette]

11 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Rail freight gets no direct subsidies

Precisely my point, and I am suggesting indirect playing field leveling to correct that.  How would the trucking companies fare if they had to build their own roads? 

 

As to the B-2, that is ancient tech.  

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Mallette said:

We went through that back in the 70s and it was banned due to sonic booms.  Not yet economically practical anyway, though Musk's BFR may fix that.  

I'm referring to the Boom jet out.of Denver...Virgin Atlantic has ordered the first 10 and JAL has ordered 20.

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

56 minutes ago, Mallette said:

Precisely my point, and I am suggesting indirect playing field leveling to correct that.  How would the trucking companies fare if they had to build their own roads? 

 

As to the B-2, that is ancient tech.  

Dave

 

 

Freight rail builds and maintains all of their tracks and they own the land the track is on.  (The land was a subsidy, but that ended in aboiut 1900).  The only indirect subsidies they receive are whatever government contracts they get to move stuff.  Rail is much cheaper per mile on long haul than trucking.

 

Trucking on the other hand only pays about 60% of cost of roadways.  The other 40% is paid by non-users.  Passenger air travel only covers about.50% of cost of FAA. 

 

The B2 may be ancient but it is our most advanced long range bomber until the B21 comes on line.  The latest B21 drawings in Aviation Week have seats and controls for a pilot and co-pilot.  

[Mallette]

 

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

I'm referring to the Boom jet out.of Denver...Virgin Atlantic has ordered the first 10 and JAL has ordered 20.

Tech lover that I am, still a bad idea without a serious breakthrough in engines.  The SST was a beautiful design and I was stricken when it was cancelled...but they were dead right and Concorde proved it.  Concorde only flew with massive subsidies and commercial supersonic flight was, and remains, banned over CONUS.  This design, while 4 times more efficient than Concorde, is still impractical.  These folks MAY have trimmed enough to make it feasible for the 1% flying overseas, but this is not technology useful to the rest of us.  While a few hundred may be built, they will only be curiosities for most of us.

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

15 hours ago, Mallette said:

 

Tech lover that I am, still a bad idea without a serious breakthrough in engines.  The SST was a beautiful design and I was stricken when it was cancelled...but they were dead right and Concorde proved it.  Concorde only flew with massive subsidies and commercial supersonic flight was, and remains, banned over CONUS.  This design, while 4 times more efficient than Concorde, is still impractical.  These folks MAY have trimmed enough to make it feasible for the 1% flying overseas, but this is not technology useful to the rest of us.  While a few hundred may be built, they will only be curiosities for most of us.

 

Dave

The sonic boom of these modern wing designs (Boom and.Lockheed) are 30X quieter than the Concorde, they will get FAA approval to fly supersonic coast to coast along special corridors that avoid big cities.

 

The wing design that will allow this to happen . . . courtesy of NASA.  Nearly 400 million has been budgeted and approved for NASA to go from model to build demo plane and test over cities.  

 

 

 

 

[Khornukopia]

I have driven on packed highways six lanes wide, every car travelling forward at 60 to 75 MPH, that if you back off to leave three car lengths of space between you and the car in front of you, then someone will pull their car or truck into that "empty space" to get into the apparent faster lane. How do self driving cars deal with these "logically unsafe" human conditions? 

[Mallette]

30 minutes ago, Khornukopia said:

How do self driving cars deal with these "logically unsafe" human conditions? 

Same as with any other obstacle or issue.  They will back off to their own safe response distance, which is closer than a humans as their response time is much faster.

 

Dave