NASA: We're Not Building Flying Taxi Software For Uber

News outlets reported on Wednesday that Uber had signed a contract with NASA to develop software for the ride-hailing company's autonomous "flying taxis." A day later, the space agency has clarified its involvement in the project and the specifics of the contract. From the report: Uber's chief product officer Jeff Holden spoke at the Web Summit in Lisbon yesterday where he was promoting the fledgling autonomous taxi project, revealed last year, Uber Elevate. And of course he never claimed that NASA was working on software for his firm, merely explaining that it had inked an agreement to work with the public body on the latter's air traffic control project. Uber told us that while NASA was not "committing funding or anything like that", it said "having their decades of aeronautic experience actively collaborating with our engineers is a huge help for tackling the aviation traffic management hurdles." A NASA spokesperson, meanwhile, told us Uber had indeed signed what it described as a "generic Space Act Agreement" for participation in the programme back in January, joining a "multitude" of others. The project and its members are "researching prototype technologies for a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system that could develop airspace integration requirements for enabling safe, efficient low-altitude operations," according to NASA's website. So no new news on the software front.

NASA Should Perhaps?

[sycodon]

It occurs to me that with everyone and their sister wanting to build a "flying car", there will be as many versions of flight control software as there are versions of Unix/Linux. What is worrisome is that these small companies do not have the knowledge or resources to adequately test this software to the extent that it should be tested. There is no such thing as a fender bender when you are in the air.

It is probably an appropriate use of federal government resources to be the primary certification agency o

Re:

[sycodon]

The FAA are bureaucrats. No disrespect intended, but they manage. NASA, on the other hand has always been at the forefront of atmospheric flight.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

What is worrisome is that these small companies do not have the knowledge or resources to adequately test this software to the extent that it should be tested.

Which is why those companies will probably be lobbying to be exempt from current FAA certification requirements. This ain't rocket science. Seriously, it isn't rocket science, it's civilian aviation, which is already regulated. But the regulations are inconvenient (and expensive), so expect a big push for loopholes and workarounds.

Re:

[Rob Y.]

Thanks for injecting a bit of reality into the discussion. There may someday be flying cars - or some other kind of flying transport for individuals, but this isn't going to be it. And why on earth any news outlet is willing to discuss it as though it's just around the corner - much less going to be provided by Uber is beyond me. What special expertise does Uber have that makes anybody believe they can invent a whole new mode of transportation based on artificial intelligence.

Uber has built a straightfor

Flying taxis won't be landing in your driveway.

[Chrisq]

As somebody pointed out in a previous post, to take off a flying taxi needs to generate down-thrust greater than it's mass (including the passengers). This will be very noisy, and blow down anything not fixed down nearby, including bins (trash cans), garden furniture, pets, little old ladies and cyclists. Regulation will undoubtedly mean that they can only go to and from designated landing pads

Re:

[Hognoxious]

needs to generate down-thrust greater than it's mass

Weight, not mass.

And "its", not "it's".

Re:

[amalcolm]

Before the car arrived, houses were built without driveways or garages. Many survive and owners are forced to part on the road. It's not hard to imagine new houses with purpose build pads (on the roof, maybe?), but this will take along time and older housing stock would be difficult to modify.
This pales in comparison to the other less tractable ones, like maintainance, fail-safety, traffic control, range etc.
With a car you can set off without a reserved parking space at your destination, in the reasonab

Re:

[jcwayne]

This will...blow down...bins (trash cans), garden furniture, pets, little old ladies and cyclists.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Re: Wrong again what a surprise

[Type44Q]

they are no nothing

So they're something.

Hey Taxi!

[wikthemighty]

Up please! [lemon64.com]

Can you use an acronym in an acronym?

[drew_kime]

researching prototype technologies for a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system

Can you use an acronym as one of the "words" in another acronym like that? Seems sketchy.

Re:

[Hognoxious]

You can have recursive acronyms, so why not?

Of course they aren't

[OneHundredAndTen]

Because they can't. This does not amount to besmirching NASA - simply, the technology is not there. Sure, we do have the technology to do what are essentially helicopters, but they will remain noisy, inefficient, expensive and limited. Flying cars, like in Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, Back to the Future, etc. remain as firmly in the realm of Sci-Fi today as when they were posited.

Liars

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is run by liars, fraudsters and rapist. No one should believe or take seriously anything they say.