| >they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels Total cost will be lower. >they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity Not electric, though wind may be a problem if the FAA allows a free-for-all, which it probably won't. >airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic With human pilots, sure. With autonomous vehicles, nope. They'll swarm like birds or insects. >it's not sustainable from nature-perspective Airborne wildlife will learn to avoid population centers and "skyways". >flying is inherently weather-bound Only with human pilots. Autonomous vehicles will care only about ice and lightning. Severe wind, sure, but that's fairly rare in most places. >flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers The FAA just relaxed its regulations and will relax them more in the future. Everyone wants the personal airborne vehicle, especially winkled old bureaucrats in Washington. >social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached This may come as a surprise, but policymakers don't really give a damn about what the public wants. Autonomous vehicles will be more safe than human-piloted craft, which is enough, and electric, which is silent. >This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range. Good, because you're going to get it. P.S. Re: +/- several hundred kilometers: There's no such thing as negative range. |