/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9941272
We already did it in the 50s. Pic related. It wasn't very practical as just like the presented hoverbike it barely flew out of ground effect and had limited speed.
>>9941277
>>9941380
>>9941564
>> plasma and electrostatic propulsion
I don't fucking get the purpose of using these exotic propulsion schemes. What's the advantage pf using plasma or ionic wind to move air over propellers? It's not going to be more efficient. It won't be quieter either because the flow will still need to be fast if we want our bike to be compact and fast flow tends to get turbulent and noisy. Electrostatic propulsion is certainly not compact either. Electrostatic propulsion has to be large because you can only use upto a certain electrical field strength before air breaks down and you get arcing.
>> nuclear power
Fuck no. To even get near the reactor you need assloads of shielding. That's going to be heavy. Even just making a nuclear powered drone would require a fair bit of shielding, because neutrons are so nasty that even the most rad hard of rad hard electronics only last weeks at most. Not to mention there are limits to how compact a reactor can be made due to the critical mass of fissile materials.
>> raw power density of uranium
Sure when used in nuclear bombs. In reality, practical machines don't explode or melt. And as of yet we can't practically convert fission power aside from using heat engines. We can only make heat engines, heat exchangers, and what not so compact today.