 Global warming and flying cars., On some George Jetson type of sh*t. |
  |
 Aug 12 2005, 11:29 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 141 Joined: 12-August 05 From: Helsinki Member No.: 7,552  |
So, I was wondering, has there been any info in SR canon about global warming. It is a serious issue of these days, and I suppose it still would be, even more so, after 50 years from now? There has been info about rainforests and nature re-vitalized through magic, but I don't remember reading anything about mages cooling this planet.
And the other one I was wondering, which I guess loosely connects to this, is the issue of flying cars, as I remember reading something about flying cars being the reality in SR in 2070. If I remember wrongly please just ignore this. The thing about flying cars, however, is something that I can't just imagine, the mechanics I mean. How is it going to be possible to make economical flying cars AND makin them work so that they can be used in urban, crowded areas, without bystanders being burned as is the case with T-Birds. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 12:00 PM
Post
#2
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
There's no need to have hot rocket exhaust to get off the ground. Use fans for lift like the vaporware Moller Skycar: http://www.moller.com/skycar/ The skycar uses 4 rotary engines powering 4 propellers for lift. You might lose some skin from the force of the fans, but it won't scorch you. Other ducted fan concepts: http://www.unmannedaircraft.com/ The Bell X-22A tilt fan from the 1960s (300 test flights): http://www.anigrand.com/AA2002x-22real2.jpg As for being economical, such a flying car will probably be about as economical as a helicopter. In other words, fine if you have the budget for a large fuel bill. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 01:18 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
General environmental chaos has occured, although thanks to our advanced technology and the fact that most food is now grown under artificial conditions, we've largely overcome those problems (overcome as in the wealthy still get good food and have nice vacation spots). After the awakening, large tracts of land were reclaimed by nature, however.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 01:28 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
Aye, between the drastic reduction in golbal popluation (yay VITIS) and the planet taking back rather large portions of it self, I think golbal warming might have stopped by then.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 02:36 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
What was the total population decline in percent by the way?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 04:17 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
I would be shocked if there are less than 5.5 billion people on earth. I would also shocked if there were more than 7 billion. I large play as if the plauges and shit jut kept the numbers around the same level.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 04:24 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 807 Joined: 9-October 04 Member No.: 6,741 |
To be honest, even with a severe population decline, I'd be shocked at less than 7 billion. Humans tend to breed fast when their population starts to drop, and I can see metahumans inheriting that. Worse is the species with longer lifespans, plus the people who are effectively immortal, thrown in the mix.
Basically, I can see an easy 8 billion by 2060 with no effort, even with all of the problems they have. We've already proven we can get increase our population by 50% in less than a decade without problems like that cropping up. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 04:58 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 21-July 05 From: San Francisco native Member No.: 7,511 |
I don't think the big issue with flying cars is going to be one of technology.
We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output. The problem is going to be one of air traffic control. Traffic has enough issues letting anybody who can scam the DMV drive in 2D. Put a bunch of drunk frat boys into 3D and traffic will be unmanagable. I suspect this is why they have so many rules over flying vehicles already. Bump the number of things flying around the New York skyline by 10 million and you know you will have issues... |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 05:02 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
ATC is one of the big hold ups for Moller at this point. FAA just doesn't know how to classify it couple that with that it will take a huge chunk out of airline ticket sales for the smaller companies, hurting the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 05:11 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 21-July 05 From: San Francisco native Member No.: 7,511 |
A lot of that reclaimed land is not being put to good use today anyway. It's in use for things like cattle, government restriction, or housing that is ten times larger than international norms... Shift people over to mostly plant diets, with meat from fish farms to about what is healthy (maybe one fish a month or so) rather than the extreme protein excess of today, and you can support a -LOT- more people by switching out cows and other animals for them. And probably have larger forests at the same time - land use is just that poor in the meat industry. If you then switch wood over to bamboo, paper and cloth over to hemp (and -NOT- synthetics - which I will get to in a second) you can further maximize resources. Not here that most strains of hemp lack the chemical found in the marijuana people smoke. Most of it is harder to get high on than smoking goldfish would be... But it is still not used due to pressure from the cotton industry (and the South's power in Washington at the time hemp was outlawed - during an age when mothers preffered heroin over aspirin for their children as it was recommended to be safer). Anyway, why not synthetics? Synthetics like plastic rely on petrochemicals. We have three major sources of those - fossil fuels, plant by products such as corn and hemp, or Jupiter - which is full of the stuff. We're just about on the verge of running out with regards to one of those sources, at which point we will likely learn just how much we really rely on plastic... And, I'm not even sure the second source, plants, is all that viable for this one. So cloth will be much better off in the long run returning to natural fibers like hemp, bamboo, silk, and linen. Anyway... point here is that if you got rid of cotton, lumber, and cattle, the USA could support populations that made China look small and still have plenty of open space. Maximize farming systems (and in the past few decades we've managed things like trippling rice output per acre thanks to simply better water draining systems and such) and ladn -can- be returned to nature safely with an expanding population. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 05:28 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 176 Joined: 8-March 05 Member No.: 7,146 |
There are no enviromental problems in the shadowrun world.
Some tree huger cry babies start protesting your proper utilization of resorces, you just hire a Shadowrun team and Bang! no pesky protesters. The government tryes to get you on some silly regulations about emisions, another team, some incriminating photos of senators with underaged cat-girls, and poof! no emision problems. An investagative reporter wants to run a story about your "Rape of the Earth"? Eather: A, they work for you and HR can take care of them. ("Early retirement"). or B, they work for another megacorp. Mearly inquire about the health of there family, they should get the hint. You see, the enviroment is doing great, and Mr Megacorp is doing his best to watch out for you, your family, and the future. (insert corny 1950's industral promitional film music here) |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 05:33 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
That is untrue.
That is also untrue, especially your claim that land used for agriculture isn't polluting. Cattle are among the top five contributors towards greenhouse gases. Fertilizers are the greatest cause for the dead zone in the Gulf.
Jupiter is full of oil? Pardon? Our oil supply is running out? Excuse me? Keep in mind, synthetics make up less than 20% of our oil usage, and I believe we could make it out of other sources which are less refined naturally, but are frowned upon as a fuel source (but dont' quote me on that).
Getting rid of cotton and lumber is the silliest 'green' idea I've heard in a while. Cattle is a possibility, but I daresay it should be reduced, not removed. Cattle is an important industry that cannot be simply 'removed' in favor of growing edible plants throughout the US. While your basic point is correct, we could support more humans than we currently do with better resource management, your details fail to support you. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 12 2005, 06:04 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
Not sure if it's what he meant, but the moon Titan is (at least on the surface and atmosphere) almost exclusively complex hydrocarbons ranging from simple methane to long chain varieties like those in oil. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 06:30 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
VITAS outbreak #1 killed off 25% of world population at the time, outbreak #2 nailed 10% of population at its time. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 06:33 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Autopilot, my friend, autopilot. When you have cars that can drive themselves and planes that can fly themselves, cars that can fly themselves aren't much of a stretch. The advantage to flying cars is pretty obvious. You can have lanes stacked on top of each other. It saves space. It wouldn't be too difficult to put a brethalizer in every car and have its robot pilot act as a designated driver, either. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:03 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
Actually, I'd think that flying cars would at least be available by the 2060s.
After all, small personal aircraft have been around for quite some time; I'm talking about single-person miniature helicopters and ultralight aircraft, though--not Cessna 172s and the like. And besides, there are at least three amphibious motor vehicles being manufactured right now--two are cars, the third is a motorhome. --Foreigner |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:12 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
That and the thing doesn't actually fly. They tested it last year, it got a whopping 5 feet of the ground, without a pilot. Flying cars have been the dream of many for years. But the reality is still a few decades off. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:21 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
There is a difference though between 'available' and 'economically feasible', don't forget (not that you implied otherwise). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:25 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
nezumi: Indeed. My apologies that my earlier post wasn't clearer. --Foreigner |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:25 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
Funny, their last report on the website says they've had numerous successful, tethered (as required by the FAA) flights for the last few years. Where did you hear about the failed attempt?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:29 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
I didn't say it was a failed attempt. I said they got it 5 feet off the ground without a pilot. They couldn't get it to go any higher. Let alone add a 200 pound man to it.
I watched the video on their website. They call it a success, I call it a failure. Of course if they called it a failure they would lose funding. My point is, they don't have a vehicle that can fly. They have a vehicle that can hover. Lets not even talk about the amount of fuel they need for those 30 second successes. If you watch the video you can see the fuel line attached. The vehicle runs of an external fuel tank, the added weight of an onboard one keeps it grounded. Some 'success'. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:29 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 458 Joined: 12-April 04 From: Lacey, Washington Member No.: 6,237 |
The flying car concepts they're looking at now all make heavy use of automation - you don't fly it so much as tell it where to go. Air traffic control would be a nightmare if there were a lot of them and also around airports and helipads, though. Really, it's hard to see a lot of these in 2070 because there pretty much aren't any in 2064. That's six years for a technology roll out - not enough for something big and infrastructure heavy like that (with high switch costs to boot).\
I run my game with a fair amount of global warming - a lot of hot and muggy weather in Seattle. Don't forget hard rain, either. My players buy chemsuits and respirators just to go outside on the bad days. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Overwatch_* |
Aug 12 2005, 07:48 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Guests |
Check out How Stuff Works for some info on Flying Cars.
As a side note, as a GM i incorporate flying cars in Shadowrun. With all the tech advancements available, it's silly not to. BUT I treat them like toys for the rich and famous. And they are rare due to fuel consumption, cost and logistics. As a player, I once made a character with a two seater flying car made Via rigger 3. it was cheap to build, but it was a short range fuel hog. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:53 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
I had a player make a flying surfboard. Completly within the rules. He built it on a drone fuselage. I forget if it was body 0 or 1. I have heard of some other crazy stuff, like jet packs and flying gloves.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2005, 07:56 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
Thats a nice article but I don't buy it. The 'flys at 350mph for 900 miles' sounds nice, but I have yet to see a video of them even doing a manned flight higher than the 5 foot unmanned ones. I love the conept, and I wish it could be a reality, but where just not there yet. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 12:58 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.