True, but cars can already navigate traffic autonomously. And there is much more to landing men on the moon than physics.

Check out Tesla's live shipping code:

http://jalopnik.com/teslas-autopilot-system-is-awesome-and-c...

Are you predicting that cars will never be fully autonomous?

As a website commenter I'm not sure I should predict anything. To explain a bit more my previous message, as complex as going to the moon was, it seems a problem scientists knew how to define. One vehicle, 2 planets, the system is describable.

Traffic with lots of agents potentially interacting with every other agent, hence my chaos analogy, lots and lots of variable, ... is blurry.

There's successful research to describe multi agents collision avoidance but I've never seen it used on the field yet.

ps: reminds me airplanes vs car accident rates. Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air. Nobody would crash a car alone in the desert.

> Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air.

Different aircraft are by and large keeping to the same standard routes, altitudes and holding patterns, which is why mid-air collisions are a thing. (The reason they keep to standards is to make air traffic control easier.)

Aight, I pushed it, but how is air density ? and direction, I'm sure routes are designed to avoid blending traffics (incoming) as much as possible.

Good point on air vs car accident rates.

By the way, I find that making a prediction causes me to net out the different aspects of an issue quickly, and snaps me out of the mode of enumerating pros and cons. That's why I asked.

And it's weird how people bring up the idea of an elevator to the moon more often than they bring up putting cars to run on rails. They could be 100% self-driving that way, and accidents would probably be nil.