There's no way the computer is going to win at Strip Poker.

Is that what those "5 years of experience in every technology ever invented, must be willing to relocate, starting salary $30k no benefits" jobs that litter job listing sites are?

I own a 2001 Honda Insight hybrid modified to be a PHEV and plugged in nightly to charge on geothermal power.... and a Ford Ranger ;) The "why" is obvious, because I have regular needs to carry big heavy things, now that I own land in the countryside. Back when I had no such need... I didn't own any such vehicle.

I guess it's hard for him to imagine that a woman would have a need to carry large and/or heavy items?

And the crazy thing is, they did consult with male colleagues before publishing. The reviewer just assumed that because two women submitted a paper with a conclusion that he disagreed with, that it's specifically because they're women "making ideologically biased assumptions" who refuse to talk to men.

Oh hey, since we've got (assumedly) a lot of physics nerds on this thread, and because my mind hasn't suddenly stopped being curious about random topics even though I grew old: here's one of my more recent things that left me with unanswered questions:

One of the commonly cited tritium-generating reactions is 7Li+n(>2.466 MeV) -> 4He + 3H. But is 7Li not also capable of transmutation to 8Li via slow neutron capture? If so would that not yield a 16.004 MeV beta to 8Be, and then immediately into 2 alphas with an additional energy of 0.092 MeV? If so, is there not potential for a future nuclear reactor? Spallation currently yields neutrons for about 25MeV each. If one could cut that in half or less - which I don't see any laws of physics in the way, just improvements in accelerator efficiencies and the spallation process - could this not yield a net positive, using direct deceleration/capture of the beta to generate power without having to suffer Carnot losses? And if so, would that not be a very desireable reactor - nonproliferative, abundant fuel, harmless waste, high ratio of fuel to energy conversion, direct spacecraft thrust possibilities, etc? Or am I totally off base here?

Haha, my concept as a child was to have a buoyant container on wheels in a tube full of water that would rise up, roll down a ramp on the other side, and re-enter the tube through an airlock on the bottom.

Wish my dad had taken the time to tell me why it wouldn't work rather than just saying "perpetual motion is impossible".

Or, rather than all of physics being wrong, maybe they have an erroneous measurement setup.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't investigate anomalous measurements. But at this stage you shouldn't be writing fluff pieces with page after page of how much your new technology will change spaceflight. You should be publishing a paper with a name like "Measurement of anomalous thrust in a microwave apparatus operated in a hard vacuum" and trying to avoid the media insomuch as possible - and when you need to talk with them, trying to explain "we don't know what's going on... we have some theories but they're controversial... we need to do more testing." etc.

Were you willing to guarantee your projects were defect free? The FAA is an excessively risk adverse organization. In some ways this is good, it's safer to fly from LA to London than it is to drive 10 miles from your house to the airport, even though you're in a metal tube traveling at nearly the speed of sound (so fast that human reaction times are effectively a moot point, once you see an obstacle in your way you are already dead) through all sorts of crazy weather and other challenges. The downside of this is that it is almost impossible to get them to replace a working system, even if the replacement is objectively better than the old one. One problem the FAA runs into on a regular basis is that tertiary technologies (like their network and comms systems) are constantly going obsolete and most of the vendors disappear and the only ones that remain jack their prices up into the stratosphere because they know they have a captive market.

Small prop driven aircraft, ALREADY.

The market was almost nonexistent about five years ago but it's growing quite fast. Don't underestimate what the major and ongoing advances in motors, controllers, and batteries will bring in the future. There's many radically new technologies in the works to partially or completely electrify aircraft transportation, far beyond just electrically driven propellers.

I'd have trouble being whisked around town dangling from a drone under my command without also being in a superhero costume.

Seriously, in our modern age, how else would a superhero get around? A fast car? Pish.

The system is actually not that big. The batteries are small because, despite the weight of the plane, the distances traveled are very short; and electric motors pack a lot of power into a small package. Having it all built into the plane reduces ground delays, ground staff, and additional ground hardware. It's a "pushback and go" system, the pilot can move the instant he gets clearance to, he doesn't have to wait for anyone else. It's estimated to save about 2 minutes over using tugs, which may not sound like a much, but each flight at the gate represents about $100k worth of revenue, so squeezing an extra flight in every couple days is a lot of money.

Ultimately they want to turn it into a fully automated airport traffic flow, where each plane moves from the runway to the gate and vice versa in a fully automated, optimized manner.

"Fast" is not an issue. Electric motors have a much better power to weight ratio than combustion motors, and li-ion batteries have no trouble feeding it. The reason things like solar impulse fly slowly is to reduce air resistance and thus minimize their power consumption needs.

Batteries have advanced tremendously in the past several decades and show no signs of slowing down. The transition of air travel will be more difficult and longer in the making than that of ground travel, mind you.

Before ICBMs became a reality, nuclear-powered planes were significantly researched. Probably the craziest was Project Pluto, whose concept was to have an open to the air nuclear core inside a ramjet housing, acting as the heat source instead of combusting fuel. The unmanned craft was designed to be able to fly around for months at a time holding numerous atomic bombs. When given orders to attack it would have bombed Soviet cities... then with its cargo spent, continued the rest of its lifespan flying low over Soviet territory damaging everything its path with sonic booms and the radioactive plume spewing out the back. Then when finally shot down or out of power, it'd crash as a dirty bomb in Soviet territory.

The engine was actually tested on a railcar, but there were way too many concerns about the craft, and the advancement of ICBMs just seemed a better route. Among the many concerns was that the US didn't want the Soviets to feel that they had to develop a similar such craft as a countermeasure.

There's also some interesting side possibilities of airplane electrification being looked at. I read a research paper at one point which focused on the fact that electric propulsion scales down far better than other forms of aircraft propulsion; they investigated the possibility of having a number of micropropellers along the wing which are run at full power during takeoff and landing but not during level flight. The concept was that though they're not as efficient as the main propeller, they dramatically increase the lift and reduce the stall speed, so you can have aircraft lift off on very short runways or fly at very slow speeds without having to resort to normal VTOL techniques.

Of course, the size of the batteries needed will preclude carrying any passengers or cargo.

There are already electric small airplanes that take a couple people.

Airplanes are obviously the highest-hanging fruit for switching over to electric drive, but they're not impossible. On the pure electric front you're first going to see the current growth trend in small personal electric airplanes continuing and short-range business uses like crop dusting and the like grow. From there you'll move to the little short hop passenger flights between small regional airports, and then increasingly longer ranges and sizes.

There's also hybrid jet technologies being researched, wherein you greatly simplify your jet engines by removing the turbine, and instead drive the compressor with electric power; the casing becomes the stator and the compressor the rotor of an electric motor. The moving part count is greatly reduced and there's far less resistance to the exhaust gases leaving the engine, meaning more power and better fuel efficiency.

But actually, before all that, there's one electrification system that's just now hitting the market, but it's not where most people might think: the wheels. Jet engines are horribly efficient in running at low powers such as taxiing, and planes burn a lot of fuel just moving about and waiting to take off or heading to the gate - on a short flight a plane may burn 5-10% of its fuel just sitting on the ground. There are now small scale pilot projects out there that have battery-driven electric motors in the landing gear so that one doesn't have to waste all this fuel.