JB-9 Jetpack

>>7655220
Jetpacks have existed for decades. They just have always sucked. They're likely to continue sucking for the foreseeable future.

>>7655220
I don't know why they're claiming it's the "world's only," rocket packs have been around since the late '50s and even the turbine-powered pack has been done before (Jet Pack International has/had a prototype and was trying to bring it to market for quite some time).

Those look like JetCat model jet engines.

>>7655322
>10 min flight time = shit
It's a massive step up from the 20-30 seconds you'd get out of a rocket belt...

>>7655331
Yea,I guess you're right, but it still needs few massive steps to be worth commercializing.

And don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty amazing but we still need to wait a little.

If I had the choice between kissing a beautiful girl on the mouth or the lips, and a jetpack, I would choose the jetpack. 'Cause then you can get all the good girls if you had a jetpack. Fly to them. It's simple. If you have enough fuel.

can you start and stop jet pack?

The old ones had a 30 second chemical reaction that once started couldn't be halted.
If this is 10 minutes of flight time, and you can stop flight at any time, it would make a descent jump pack. Turn on thrust for 10 second, jump over building in single bound, turn off jump pack. Repeat till you've jumped over every building in NYC.

>>7655376
>The old ones had a 30 second chemical reaction
Ok...
>that once started couldn't be halted.
Not even remotely true. The overwhelming majority of rocket packs/belts functioned by decomposing peroxide over a catalyst. Starting and stopping the reaction was as easy as closing and opening a valve.
>If this . . . can stop flight at any time
It can't. It's a turbine, and like all turbines it has a significant spool time, both for starting and for thrust adjustments.

>>7655322
thats really fucking good you dickhead. Considering it used to be 30 seconds.

>>7655230
why is /sci/ so negative. Is it projection from your own failed ideas?

>>7655322
You should delete your pic before you get banned brah. I've been banned so many times from doing that lol.

>>7655220
Jetpacks are an awfully old idea, which has been already implemented in many ways.

The best iteration was by Williams, which used its gas turbine as a power source. It had something like 20 minutes of flytime. Williams also developed the X-Jet, which was an odd flying machine,very compact, with 45 minutes of autonomy.

No personal jet transportation system was developed further because it's a fucking dumb idea.

Every single one of you fucking normies that see a person flying with a jet engine strapped on their back and think the future has arrived should immediately return to iflscience.com

>>7655856
>its a dumb idea because I said so!
The military has been funding it for years.

>>7655864
The military deemed the X-Jet not worth of funding because it hadn't enough autonomy. Not counting that it was basically a noisy expensive single-point of failure flying machine that sucked a ton of fuel to fly a single man with its equipment with no backup system in case of failure except, maybe a parachute.

>>7655864
the military has also funded a jedi mind tricks program

>>7655649

>If you're not wildly optimistic, you're being negative.

>EmDrive! Overunity! Chi! Astral Projection!
>None of those things are real.
>Gosh /sci/, you're so negative.

It's not being negative, it's being realistic. 10 minutes of flight time makes it a really cool *novelty.* Jetpacks as a viable method of genuine transportation is the goal, not, "flies long enough for a youtube video, take your pictures quick, I'm almost out of fuel!"

>>7655322
>sfw board
Just don't post this kind of pics

>>7655220
>loud as fuck

>>7656860
drones fly for 10 minutes they are still useful. This is clearly useful for short leaps over obstacles. Why you are comparing it to the EM drive I dont know. You are also implying that it will never improve.