7 ms·

Really it's worse then that. The 737Max is a good example of technical debt. The plane more or less is the same fuselage as a Boeing 707 (with material moderniz

Really it's worse then that. The 737Max is a good example of technical debt. The plane more or less is the same fuselage as a Boeing 707 (with material modernized). Boeing went back to the well one time too many instead of doing a cleanroom design for it's narrow-body fleet. Boeing has hinted several times that they want to look at a Blended Wing Body (BWB) design for the next generation of planes. That time may be now.

CydeWeys 8y ago
It's hard to think of many other legacy systems that have been around since at least the 60s like the 737 MAX has. The NYC subway system is one that immediately comes to mind.
- tyingq 8y ago
  The IBM mainframe would be a good example in our world, though the really strong tie is probably MVS and TPF from the 70's, rather than the 60's.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    That's much more 'legacy' than the 737 is, though. The 737 MAX was projected to be the best selling airplane of the modern era of aviation, and it's a legacy system. Yeah, there's still some old IBM mainframes lingering on in some places, but they're not remotely close to having the same market dominance. Imagine if all of the cloud computing data centers ran off legacy IBM mainframes -- then it'd be a more akin situation. These comparisons are off a bit, though, because development lifecycles in airplanes are longer than for computer hardware.
    - tyingq 8y ago
      The parent didn't have a "market dominant" qualifier...
    - bluejekyll 8y ago
      In our world the Unix operating system might be the best analogy. It’s an old design that’s been modernized in different ways, but ultimately has the same general interface (libc) that is still essentially the same. It’s not a perfect anology, but probably better than systems that aren’t really changing much anymore.
      - jdsully 8y ago
        Unix is a very apt example. We wouldn’t be piping text around if it were designed today - but it does work decently well.
        mjevans 8y ago
        It's not text, it's opaque character streams. (C 'char' type) Practically speaking, for the flavors of UNIX like systems most will work with this is equivalent to streams of 8 bit, clean-transferred, characters. Any other kind of transfer system that you might want to build can be built on top of that. This interlinking design is the minimum viable product, and also the lowest level one. Comparing to a more recent design, such as PowerShell, transfer of objects limits flexibility and requires more shared infrastructure.
      - flo123456 8y ago
        Or Intel‘s x86 architecture.
  - kens 8y ago
    Yes, the IBM System/360's instruction set is still a part of IBM's current mainframes, so customers can still run their 1964 programs. (Does anyone know when IBM dropped backwards compatibility for their 1950s architectures? They provided emulation for 1401 and 709 systems for a long, long time.) It will be interesting to see if the 360 or x86 instruction set lasts longer.
- sitkack 8y ago
  SABRE dates from the 50s.
  - tyingq 8y ago
    Yes, but if you draw the line at where what they had resembled what they offer today, it's around the 1970's.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  The engines on many light single-engine aircraft (e.g. Lycoming O-360). While variants and modest improvements have been made, it is still the same 1950s engine at the core. Safety requirements have evolved massively since then, but if you keep making the same engine with modest changes it can grandfathered. Kind of makes you wonder if grandfathering should have a limit (e.g. 50 years?).
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    The Soyuz definitely counts too. It was designed in the 60s and hasn't changed too much since then. The craziest aspect of the Soyuz that makes it obvious how legacy it is is how its engines are ignited: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19966/russia-actually-lights-it-rockets-with-a-giant-match/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19966/russia... You literally put something not too dissimilar from a wooden chair directly beneath the rocket nozzles, then set it on fire right before launch. When the rocket's engines start up, the fuel is ignited by the fire from the burning wood, and combustion begins. Now that's legacy. It's also reliable enough that they've never had to redesign it.
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      "Wooden chair" seems like a rather drastic oversimplification. Yeah, the bulk of the device, and its combustible material, is made of wood. But it's also got two igniters (for redundancy) and a sensor for ensuring that the device has successfully ignited. Some engineering thought went into this. Comparing it to putting a burning piece of furniture under the rocket nozzles makes the whole design sound a lot more jerry-rigged than it really is.
      - Xylakant 8y ago
        Notably, the ignition device, while seemingly low tech, works pretty much without flaws and fails safely. “This setup is not as simple as a regular match, but it is surprisingly reliable and has worked for six decades on hundreds of rockets” So why attempt to fix such a safety critical thing?
- hoorayimhelping 8y ago
  American Delta rockets and Russian Soyuz rockets come to mind.
- theoh 8y ago
  The T-38 first flew in 1959.
- vpribish 8y ago
  do you use banks?
- iguy 8y ago
  Lots of ammunition is really old, e.g. 1921 (but really a slight tweak of a 1906 design): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG
  - user5994461 8y ago
    That's inaccurate at best. The shell size is mostly unchanged. The powder inside, the materials and the manufacturing have progressed. Just looking at the diagrams in that page, I doubt that measurements were defined with a 0.001 inch accuracy in 1921.
    - iguy 8y ago
      Well, not an expert, but have you got any information here? The technology was pretty mature in 1921, there were a few rounds of refinement before that. Machinists definitely talked about "one thou" back then. The same M2s which fire these things have been in production for over 80 years. I'm sure there have been small tweaks, special versions, etc, but basic compatibility has remained.
    - Treblemaker 8y ago
      Vernier calipers capable of measuring 0.001 inch were available in 1851. Agree on your first point, however.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      The powder really isn't that different. The max pressure allowable is part of the cartridge specification, which hasn't changed since the original design. Otherwise you'd have newer ammunition blowing up older guns, which clearly would be unacceptable. You can take modern .30-06 ammo, which is still a very popular hunting cartridge, and fire it in an M1903 Springfield with no issues.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Lots of good examples in firearms. Forget just ammunition, there's old firearm designs that regularly see use today. Some examples would be the 1911 pistol, or the M2 Browning machine gun (1918). And there's entire classes of firearms that are essentially unchanged from that period, like bolt-action rifles, most of which use a Mauser action which was designed in 1895. The key difference here, I think, is that there haven't been radical new improvements in firearms. You can clearly point out where the faults in, say, legacy airplanes lie, but guns (at least in civilian uses) haven't changed as much. Now, granted, for military uses, the modern assault rifle is a far cry from the aforementioned guns.
- tim333 8y ago
  The B52 since 1955.
  - lutorm 8y ago
    And the C-130. An extremely successful aircraft.
Nomentatus 8y ago
Went back to the well for marketing reasons. Keeping the shape, but only the shape, so they could use the 737 name.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I see there are those who agree with the FAA's decision that the MCAS didn't represent a change worthy of mention, nor new materials, new factories... "nothing to see here folks." I think by now it's obvious that was a "puzzling" decision.

CydeWeys 8y ago

It's hard to think of many other legacy systems that have been around since at least the 60s like the 737 MAX has. The NYC subway system is one that immediately comes to mind.

tyingq 8y ago
The IBM mainframe would be a good example in our world, though the really strong tie is probably MVS and TPF from the 70's, rather than the 60's.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  That's much more 'legacy' than the 737 is, though. The 737 MAX was projected to be the best selling airplane of the modern era of aviation, and it's a legacy system. Yeah, there's still some old IBM mainframes lingering on in some places, but they're not remotely close to having the same market dominance. Imagine if all of the cloud computing data centers ran off legacy IBM mainframes -- then it'd be a more akin situation. These comparisons are off a bit, though, because development lifecycles in airplanes are longer than for computer hardware.
  - tyingq 8y ago
    The parent didn't have a "market dominant" qualifier...
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    In our world the Unix operating system might be the best analogy. It’s an old design that’s been modernized in different ways, but ultimately has the same general interface (libc) that is still essentially the same. It’s not a perfect anology, but probably better than systems that aren’t really changing much anymore.
    - jdsully 8y ago
      Unix is a very apt example. We wouldn’t be piping text around if it were designed today - but it does work decently well.
      - mjevans 8y ago
        It's not text, it's opaque character streams. (C 'char' type) Practically speaking, for the flavors of UNIX like systems most will work with this is equivalent to streams of 8 bit, clean-transferred, characters. Any other kind of transfer system that you might want to build can be built on top of that. This interlinking design is the minimum viable product, and also the lowest level one. Comparing to a more recent design, such as PowerShell, transfer of objects limits flexibility and requires more shared infrastructure.
    - flo123456 8y ago
      Or Intel‘s x86 architecture.
- kens 8y ago
  Yes, the IBM System/360's instruction set is still a part of IBM's current mainframes, so customers can still run their 1964 programs. (Does anyone know when IBM dropped backwards compatibility for their 1950s architectures? They provided emulation for 1401 and 709 systems for a long, long time.) It will be interesting to see if the 360 or x86 instruction set lasts longer.
sitkack 8y ago
SABRE dates from the 50s.
- tyingq 8y ago
  Yes, but if you draw the line at where what they had resembled what they offer today, it's around the 1970's.
Someone1234 8y ago
The engines on many light single-engine aircraft (e.g. Lycoming O-360). While variants and modest improvements have been made, it is still the same 1950s engine at the core. Safety requirements have evolved massively since then, but if you keep making the same engine with modest changes it can grandfathered. Kind of makes you wonder if grandfathering should have a limit (e.g. 50 years?).
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  The Soyuz definitely counts too. It was designed in the 60s and hasn't changed too much since then. The craziest aspect of the Soyuz that makes it obvious how legacy it is is how its engines are ignited: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19966/russia-actually-lights-it-rockets-with-a-giant-match/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19966/russia... You literally put something not too dissimilar from a wooden chair directly beneath the rocket nozzles, then set it on fire right before launch. When the rocket's engines start up, the fuel is ignited by the fire from the burning wood, and combustion begins. Now that's legacy. It's also reliable enough that they've never had to redesign it.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    "Wooden chair" seems like a rather drastic oversimplification. Yeah, the bulk of the device, and its combustible material, is made of wood. But it's also got two igniters (for redundancy) and a sensor for ensuring that the device has successfully ignited. Some engineering thought went into this. Comparing it to putting a burning piece of furniture under the rocket nozzles makes the whole design sound a lot more jerry-rigged than it really is.
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      Notably, the ignition device, while seemingly low tech, works pretty much without flaws and fails safely. “This setup is not as simple as a regular match, but it is surprisingly reliable and has worked for six decades on hundreds of rockets” So why attempt to fix such a safety critical thing?
hoorayimhelping 8y ago
American Delta rockets and Russian Soyuz rockets come to mind.
theoh 8y ago
The T-38 first flew in 1959.
vpribish 8y ago
do you use banks?
iguy 8y ago
Lots of ammunition is really old, e.g. 1921 (but really a slight tweak of a 1906 design): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG
- user5994461 8y ago
  That's inaccurate at best. The shell size is mostly unchanged. The powder inside, the materials and the manufacturing have progressed. Just looking at the diagrams in that page, I doubt that measurements were defined with a 0.001 inch accuracy in 1921.
  - iguy 8y ago
    Well, not an expert, but have you got any information here? The technology was pretty mature in 1921, there were a few rounds of refinement before that. Machinists definitely talked about "one thou" back then. The same M2s which fire these things have been in production for over 80 years. I'm sure there have been small tweaks, special versions, etc, but basic compatibility has remained.
  - Treblemaker 8y ago
    Vernier calipers capable of measuring 0.001 inch were available in 1851. Agree on your first point, however.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    The powder really isn't that different. The max pressure allowable is part of the cartridge specification, which hasn't changed since the original design. Otherwise you'd have newer ammunition blowing up older guns, which clearly would be unacceptable. You can take modern .30-06 ammo, which is still a very popular hunting cartridge, and fire it in an M1903 Springfield with no issues.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  Lots of good examples in firearms. Forget just ammunition, there's old firearm designs that regularly see use today. Some examples would be the 1911 pistol, or the M2 Browning machine gun (1918). And there's entire classes of firearms that are essentially unchanged from that period, like bolt-action rifles, most of which use a Mauser action which was designed in 1895. The key difference here, I think, is that there haven't been radical new improvements in firearms. You can clearly point out where the faults in, say, legacy airplanes lie, but guns (at least in civilian uses) haven't changed as much. Now, granted, for military uses, the modern assault rifle is a far cry from the aforementioned guns.
tim333 8y ago
The B52 since 1955.
- lutorm 8y ago
  And the C-130. An extremely successful aircraft.

Nomentatus 8y ago

Went back to the well for marketing reasons. Keeping the shape, but only the shape, so they could use the 737 name.

Nomentatus 8y ago
I see there are those who agree with the FAA's decision that the MCAS didn't represent a change worthy of mention, nor new materials, new factories... "nothing to see here folks." I think by now it's obvious that was a "puzzling" decision.