THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

Fellow Systocrats:

The concept of a flying automobile has captivated us for decades.  When I was but a wee Systocrat, I remember thinking how cool it would be to own a flying car, like George Jetson's ride or the fusion-powered Delorean featured in Back to the Future.  Recently, an old friend reminded me of our childhood scheme, hatched from an ad in the back of a comic book, to build a hovercraft using a vacuum cleaner engine.  

A flying car.  So cool.  But not practical.  Right?  

In response to one of the comments posted to Systocrat No. 1, I recently found myself visiting the website of the "Natural Step" organization, which defines itself as a a "not-for-profit organization founded with the vision of creating a sustainable human society."  These folks are interested in helping other organizations integrate principles of sustainability into their operations - truly fascinating stuff.  I encourage all TSP readers to check out this website. 

One of the principles that the Natural Step folks use to achieve their goals is a principle that they refer to as "backcasting,"  or "starting first by defining a future point of success, and then taking the most effective steps to arrive at that point."  I'm quite taken with this idea - as the Natural Step folks quite rightly state, backcasting "is more effective than relying too much on forecasting, which tends to have the effect of presenting a more limited range of options, hence stifling creativity, and more important, it projects the problems of today into the future."

So, what is the ideal mode of transportation that we should backcast from?  Systocratic principles dictate that in making this determination, we should take the opportunity to revisit every aspect of our current transportation system, including the infrastructure necessary to support our current mode of travel and the environmental effects of the entire system.

Once we adopt this perspective, the flying car, properly conceived, emerges as a superior alternative to the land-based vehicle.  Here are just a few of the reasons why.

First of all, the modern automobile requires a continuous paved surface in order to function efficiently. 

Our local, state and federal governments spend billions of dollars annually for the construction and maintenance of roads for two-dimensional vehicles to travel on.  For example, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") budget request for fiscal year 2009 totaled 40.1 billion dollars.  Up to 39.4 billion of the FHWA budget can be spent on the Federal Aid Highways Program, which provides financial assistance to states for the construction and improvement of the National Highway System, urban roads and bridges. 

In the Hovercar Age, little or no road maintenance is required. The ideal flying car of the future will be able to travel over virtually any surface or grade, rendering a continuous paved surface completely unnecessary and eliminating nearly all of the FHWA costs set forth above. 

The hovercar system also makes it easier and cheaper to add additional lanes of traffic.  Aside from the costs of displacing existing infrastructure in congested areas, which can be considerable, it will be vastly easier and cheaper to create additional "flyways" to ease the flow of traffic in highly congested areas when one is not required to pave the whole continuous distance.  Specifically, to create a flyway, each travel lane will have to be cleared, graded and marked, perhaps with markers set 3-4 feet above the road at regular intervals.  Flyways will not have to be paved, however, which will eliminate a significant portion of the costs in building new roads.

This is a big deal, people.  You might be astonished to learn that most interstate highways in the United States cost at least a million dollars per mile to build.   Depending on the terrain and/or the necessary displacement of currently existing infrastructure, the cost can be much, much more.  The cost of the Big Dig in Boston, the most expensive roadway ever constructed, has been estimated at a billion dollars a mile, and in mountainous regions like West Virginia, the cost of highway construction can be up to 15 million per mile. 

We should also talk about the superior aspects of the hovercar system with respect to winter weather.  In the Hovercar Age, there will no longer be a need to expend money and resources to clear snow and ice covered roads - the hovercar will just glide over them.  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that winter road maintenance accounts for about twenty percent of state DOT budgets and that over 2.3 billion dollars is spent by state and local agencies annually on "snow and ice control operations." 

The hovercar system also renders winter travel far safer than it is now.   The FHWA estimates that "Over 1,300 people are killed and more than 116,800 people are injured in vehicle crashes on snowy, slushy or icy pavement annually. Every year, nearly 900 people are killed and nearly 76,000 people are injured in vehicle crashes during snowfall or sleet."  The hovercar reduces or eliminates these concerns in all but the most severe weather conditions. 

Another advantage of the hovercar is that it will not depend on rubber/synthetic tires, which are a pain in the ass to dispose of in an environmentally sound manner. Although the hovercar may have a minimal set of tires that essentially act as landing gear or serve as emergency ambulation, by evolving into a hovercar system, we can make the bulky rubber tires of today a thing of the past.

Discarded tires pose an enormous environmental hazard.  The  "Scrap Tire Cleanup Guidebook," issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2006, states that in 2003 there were over 275 million tires in stockpiles across the U.S. and that 295 million new scrap tires are generated each year.  With respect to the environmental and health hazards created by scrap tire stockpiles, the Cleanup Guidebook provides as follows:

Large scrap tire stockpiles present a threat to human health and the environment for several reasons.  They present an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes, which can carry and transmit life-threatening diseases such as dengue fever, encephalitis, and the West Nile virus. 

Stockpiles may also catch fire as a result of lightning strikes, equipment malfunctions or arson.  Some experts no longer consider the question of "if" a stockpile will catch fire, but when it will burn . . . When ignited, scrap tire piles generate dense, black smoke containing partially combusted hydrocarbons.  The smoke plume can negatively impact residences and businesses in its path as well as the air quality in a broad area for a long time.  In addition to smoke, some tire fires produce large quantities of pyrolytic oils which contain hazardous compounds.  Under certain conditions, these oils can penetrate porous soils to contaminate groundwater that may be used as drinking water.  The oils can also reach surface water and cause substantial fish kills, as the oils quickly deplete dissolved oxygen levels.  Finally, the residuals (ash, wire and unburned rubber) from a tire fire often require special handling and disposal. 

These are just a few of the reasons why the hovercar sytem, properly considered, is a superior alternative to our current two-dimensional transportation system. 

So, how do we build the car of the future?  I'm no engineer, but here are a couple of thoughts re: how we can trace our steps backwards from the hovercar described above to what's possible today.  

Besides being able to fly, the hovercar of the future should feature a clean, cheap, renewable energy source. That means no bullshit petroleum/hybrid nonsense.  Right now, my best guess is that the car of the future runs on electricity provided by some clean, cheap, abundant source of power.  For example, hydrogen will fit the bill once a more efficient technique is perfected for extracting it from the environment. 

In order to maximize efficiency, the hovercar of the future will also have to be built from lighter composite materials, like the thermoplastic advanced composite materials currently being marketed by Fiberforge, an offshoot of the Rocky Mountain Institute formerly known as Hypercar, Inc.  Fiberforge claims that its composite material is 60% lighter and 600% stiffer than steel and 30% lighter than aluminum. 

In his excellent book 2002 "The Hidden Connections," Fritjof Capra discusses some of the benefits of using ultralight composite materials instead of steel in the construction of the Hypercar developed by the Rocky Mountain Institute:

Making a car ultralight generates a cascade of secondary effects, many of which result in further weight reductions.  A lighter car can function with a lighter suspension to support the reduced weight, a smaller engine to move it, smaller brakes to decelerate it, and less fuel to run the engine.  Moreover, certain components do not merely become smaller but are eliminated altogether.  Power steering and power brakes are not needed in ultralight vehicles . . . The new fiber composites are not only ultralight but also extraordinarily strong.  They can absorb five times more energy per pound than steel.  This is, of course, an important safety element . . . In addition to protecting their own occupants, lightweight cars are also less dangerous for the passengers in the vehicles they collide with.  

Believe it or not, there are a few "flying cars" in existence today.  First, there's the Skycar, billed as the world's first bio-fueled flying car, which elevates by means of a rear propeller and a flexible fabric wing.  There's also the Terrafugia Transition, a car with retractable wings which completed its first successful test flight on March 5, 2009. 

I think the flying car of today that most resembles my flying car of tomorrow, at least in theory, is the Moller M200G Volantor.  This car achieves its lift by virtue of 8 fans beneath the car, which in turn are each powered by a rotary engine.  The altitude of the car is limited to 10 feet, and it can fly over any surface - land, water or ice - with equal ease.   Apparently, the M200G is also built with composite materials and can run on an ethanol/water fuel mixture.  All steps in the right direction. 

So, you probably want to know why I'm not cruising around town in my tricked out M200G, right?  First of all, this thing is not really fuel efficient.  Eight separate motors - yikes!  Second, although Moller has reportedly not sold a single one of his "volantors," the projected price is around $100,000 per unit. 

Most importantly, Mr. Moller has a history of overstating the capabilities of his flying cars, which recently landed him in hot water with the SEC.  Although there are a few grainy videos on the Internet which purport to demonstrate the M200G in operation (attached to a crane . . . ), there are at least as many allegations of fraud circulating as well.  In sum, the M200G may be nothing more than a cool idea that has not yet been fully realized.

So . . . although we are not yet at the immediate threshold of the Hovercar Age, it seems to me that three-dimensional travel should be the ultimate goal of any proposed private transportation system, given the significantly reduced costs, increased safety and relatively minimal effect on our environment.  However, by no means do I claim a monopoly on "out-of-the-box" ideas in this regard.  The purpose of this post was to hopefully inspire the reader to think about other "ideal" solutions, using the principles of backcasting and systocratic thought. If you have a proposal for an "ideal" private transportation system, please send it to me at td@systocracy.com or post a comment below.