Beyond the car.
Built around the person.

2030 design study

Tidemark

Ground-first modular personal pod

A quiet two-person cabin imagined on a low-speed ground platform. Explore accessible boarding, luggage, serviceability and an understandable interface before any aerial vehicle exists.

Open question: Seats, dimensions and road approval require engineering; this is a visual proposition.

2030 design study

Stratus

Two-seat aerial form study

A speculative personal aircraft silhouette with distributed propulsion. Study aircraft category, energy, noise and emergency landing needs as open questions with qualified engineers.

Open question: No verified lift, range, speed, autonomy or airworthiness.

2030 design study

Nimbus

Far-horizon personal cocoon

What if a journey felt more like a protected chair than a car? A provocative single-seat form study, not the first manufacturing program. Human factors, noise, downwash, energy and failure tolerance remain unanswered.

Open question: A speculative form, not a buildable or validated flight system.

Design rule / Start with a person

Useful before airborne.

First learn whether the ground cabin improves a real journey: boarding, storage, service and understandable controls. A separable aerial carrier is an unresolved hypothesis, not a commercial dependency.

Accessibility, maintenance and community acceptance belong in the first drawing. A beautiful canopy or shroud in a render is not evidence of safety.

No range, speed, lift, payload, autonomy, noise or production-price claim is made.

SYS.01

Human cabin

Boarding, restraints, accessibility, luggage and legible status.

Interface to resolve

Occupant needs → cabin geometry → ground and aircraft requirements.

Evidence before advancing

Accessibility studies and ergonomic mockups with human review.

SYS.02

Structure & attachment

Separate ground and aerial structural requirements; inspectable interfaces.

Interface to resolve

Loads, fatigue and crashworthiness requirements owned by qualified engineering teams.

Evidence before advancing

Analysis plans, materials records and independent structural review.

SYS.03

Energy & thermal

Investigate energy storage, thermal management and isolation.

Interface to resolve

Vehicle demands ↔ thermal system ↔ charging and fire response.

Evidence before advancing

Bench-only characterization and hazard assessment before vehicle integration.

SYS.04

Propulsion research

Compare plausible aircraft configurations without choosing performance numbers.

Interface to resolve

Propulsion ↔ structure ↔ energy ↔ acoustic impact.

Evidence before advancing

Simulation review and contained ground test plans; no flight instructions.

SYS.05

Safety & assurance

Identify hazards, responsibilities, failure responses and evidence gaps.

Interface to resolve

All systems ↔ engineering review ↔ regulator-agreed compliance evidence.

Evidence before advancing

Requirements traceability, independent review and a documented go/no-go process.

SYS.06

Human interface

Clear state, manual operational responsibility and accessible explanations.

Interface to resolve

Human operator ↔ vehicle state ↔ service desk.

Evidence before advancing

Usability studies; no autonomy or aircraft-control software is supplied.

SYS.07

Ground operations

Maintenance, charging, inspection, dispatch and community impact.

Interface to resolve

Vehicle ↔ trained service team ↔ permitted infrastructure.

Evidence before advancing

Tabletop exercises, service procedures and a noise/community research plan.

SYS.08

Digital record

Trace parts, requirements, changes and evidence across the lifecycle.

Interface to resolve

Supplier documentation ↔ quality records ↔ human approval.

Evidence before advancing

Auditable records, limited access and security review; no flight-control connection.

2026 / Define

Choose a problem before a vehicle

Deliverable

User research, ground-first use case, category assessment and initial hazard register.

Go / no-go gate

Qualified engineering and regulatory review of the intended use.

Planning assumption

Illustrative exploration envelope: $100k–$300k

Possible research support

Founder-supported research or appropriately scoped research grants; eligibility unverified.

2027 / Demonstrate

Make the experience tangible

Deliverable

Full-scale non-flying cabin mockup, ground experience studies, supplier RFQs and a traceability prototype.

Go / no-go gate

Human factors, accessibility, safety and cost review before powered integration.

Planning assumption

Illustrative ground-study envelope: $500k–$2m

Possible research support

Research collaborations, grants where eligible and negotiated development services; no partnerships assumed.

2028 / Decide

Earn the next branch

Deliverable

Independent trade study: ground product, aviation research or stop. Develop a regulator-engagement and compliance plan if aviation is selected.

Go / no-go gate

Credible safety, community, financing and certification path; a stop decision is valid.

Planning assumption

Illustrative definition envelope: $2m–$8m

Possible research support

Private strategic financing only after professional legal and financial review; no offer is made here.

2029 / Qualify

Build evidence, not a launch date

Deliverable

Qualified supplier program, reviewed ground integration and documented verification methods. Flight activity requires separate approved programs.

Go / no-go gate

Independent safety assurance and applicable approvals before any aircraft test.

Planning assumption

Aviation program cost is not estimated here; it may greatly exceed prior exploration budgets.

Possible research support

Milestone financing conditioned on evidence, realistic capital needs and applicable law.

2030 / Possible horizon

The year is a question

Deliverable

Publish what was learned and decide whether any permitted ground product or separately certified aviation product is viable.

Go / no-go gate

Certification, operational permission and production readiness are prerequisites, not calendar promises.

Planning assumption

Production capital requires a new bottom-up estimate.

Possible research support

No funds are solicited, securities offered or prototype flight organized by this page.

Ground-first modular mobility

Controlled ground demonstrator with a documented road-compliance plan

• Vehicle classification and applicable FMVSS
• Manufacturer compliance certification
• California registration and road-use requirements
• Local facility and safety requirements

Research judgment: Lowest of these three; still material. No eligibility is established for the rendered designs.

Roadable aircraft

Proven aviation mission and transition concept without assuming road takeoff

• Road-vehicle compliance if intended for substantial public-road use
• Applicable aircraft certification route
• Pilot privileges and aircraft limitations
• Airport and airspace access

Research judgment: High; dual-domain integration. No eligibility is established for the rendered designs.

Two-seat powered-lift

Documented regulatory classification and credible mass/energy/safety feasibility

• Assess MOSAIC eligibility or special-class type-certification route
• Powered-lift pilot category and aircraft-specific type rating
• Part 91 personal operation or distinct commercial operator approvals
• FAA airspace and state/local landing-site approvals

Research judgment: High to very high; route-dependent. No eligibility is established for the rendered designs.

The 2026 MOSAIC fork

Eligible two-seat powered-lift can have a light-sport special-airworthiness route under Part 22 / §21.190. A special-class type-certification route is a separate branch. Neither is assumed for these shapes.

The July 2026 acceptance of ASTM F3840-26 covered powered-lift only at that time, despite its title including multicopters. A generic wingless multicopter must not be treated as automatically eligible.

People & operations

Light-sport aircraft certification does not create powered-lift sport-pilot privileges or general paid-passenger authority. The framework addressed here assumes onboard pilots; autonomous passenger service is not established.

SFAR 120 / Part 194 covers pilot training and operations separately. Experimental authorization does not grant routine commercial passenger permission; two occupants do not qualify as a Part 103 single-occupant ultralight.

Place & community

Aircraft approval does not approve a landing site. LAX airspace, FAA review, Caltrans heliport permits, local land use, environmental review and emergency access need site-specific work. No speculative flight corridor or rooftop is approved here.

Electric imagery does not resolve noise, downwash, fire response or community acceptance. The proposed factory also requires parcel-level review.