5 ms·

"shop by picture phone" yep 2 hours New York to San Francisco: we had planes for this in the 1970s but it was killed by regulatory hysteria. Shaving by chemic

by gok 7y ago

"shop by picture phone" yep 2 hours New York to San Francisco: we had planes for this in the 1970s but it was killed by regulatory hysteria. Shaving by chemical: chemical depilatory actually already existed for over a century by 1950, not sure why they included this A microwave oven? As the captions says, that was already on its way. Water soluble plates: how could this possibly be a good idea? Waterproof furniture: unclear how this actually makes cleaning easier. Electron microscopes, yep, although again these were really invented in the 1930s. Replacing steel with aluminum in construction: never really happened although unclear why this would be a good idea. The reference to a battery powered automatic insulin dispenser is painful. The technology to do this is trivial today but it's not really available due to onerous medical device regulations.

mmaunder 7y ago
Wasn't regulatory hysteria. We just chose a more environmentally friendly and quieter technology to focus our energy. See my other comment about high bypass turbofan engines in this thread.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Symbiote 7y ago
  I think gok refers to the American (and others) ban on supersonic flight over land, which significant restricted the routes Concorde could fly.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Well, yes, but I don't call it regulatory hysteria to ban planes from making sonic booms over land so that wealthy people can get from one coast to the other faster.
    - gok 7y ago
      If you want to be extremely kind to American regulators, you could argue that they banned sonic booms out of an overabundance of caution and wanted to see how bad of a problem it was. But it was clear after years of Concorde flights over Asia and Europe that it was non-issue. They kept the rules on the books as a favor to Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas.
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        Admittedly, I don't know much about this. But how was it clear that it was a non-issue, and not just a different cultural preference?
    - ggreer 7y ago
      It's not a ban on sonic booms. It's a ban on supersonic flight. Even if someone invents a quiet supersonic aircraft, or flies at a higher altitude to reduce noise, the current FAA rules ban it.
    - walshemj 7y ago
      A lot of nimbys with connections to the us plane making industry from a UK perspective and don't get me started on the TSR2
    - lacker 7y ago
      Supersonic flight is going to get cheap.
berdon 7y ago
I appreciated your breakdown and definitely laughed out loud at "how could this possibly be a good idea?".
hcknwscommenter 7y ago
"Water soluble plates: how could this possibly be a good idea?" Compostable plates! They take a LOOONG time to dissolve, but they are water-soluble.
outworlder 7y ago
> The reference to a battery powered automatic insulin dispenser is painful. The technology to do this is trivial today but it's not really available due to onerous medical device regulations. It is only 'trivial' in comparison with the challenges they would have trying to implement the same thing in 1950. This is actually a hard problem. Although medical companies have solved it for the most part, and there are devices available. Still, regulations make sense, as our sensors, advanced as they are, can still provide erroneous readings. You can easily kill someone that way. > 2 hours New York to San Francisco: we had planes for this in the 1970s but it was killed by regulatory hysteria. That's oversimplifying. Yes, prohibiting supersonic flights over land had an effect of mostly allowing for intercontinental flights. Which makes the planes themselves less attractive and contributed to its demise. But by itself it wouldn't have killed it. There were multiple problems. Some of the problems were: 1) Flights were _expensive_ . Supersonic flight is not that fuel-efficient, at least not as implemented by the Concorde. Takeoff (and sometimes climbing) was done on afterburners. It was capable of supercruise so fuel consumption was not much more than a 747 or the equivalent of a business jet (per passenger). It did not carry as many passengers though. 2) The aircraft itself was finicky and required a lot of training – for its 3 man crew. Yes, it still required a 'flight engineer'. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106504293992222300 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106504293992222300 3) Environmental concerns (see 1). There were some discussions about Ozone layer depletion given its high flight altitude. Not sure how real those concerns were, but they existed. 4) The famous crash, and possibly 9/11 (it was scheduled to reenter service that year). Also increased regulations, meaning more time sitting at airports. 3.5h + 3.5h is already close to a full work day, add airport delays due to TSA and the like, and you can't cross the atlantic, have a meeting, and come back in the same day anymore. If it is going to take more than half a day each way, it makes more sense to take a normal flight. 5) Most airlines wanted aircraft that were more fuel efficient and carried more passengers. The Concorde was going exactly on the wrong direction. The regulations just added insult to injury. Not may companies operating them, not many planes in service, not many routes. Any issues would then have an outsized effect. But even more importantly, it prevented development of successors. Sonic booms can be mitigated to a large extent today. There are potentially better designs that would carry more people at higher efficiencies, including flying wings. We don't need miracles, we just need to make it worth it to business and first class travelers(at least, at first). Automation improvements means that we could have a two person crew, just like any other aircraft. And so on. But who is going to absorb that R&D with the Concorde gravestone around? We'll have to be happy with subsonic aircraft for the time being. Unless SpaceX delivers. A suborbital flight probably makes more sense than the Concorde.
scottcha 7y ago
"Replacing steel with aluminum in construction: never really happened although unclear why this would be a good idea." My house, built in 1976 in Washington, actually has aluminum framing as do the few houses next to it built at the same time. From what I heard there was a short period where aluminum was cheaper than wood for framing and caused the switch over. I'm not sure how localized this was. All the contractors I worked with find both the framing and how the house was framed unique but they are still able to work with it.
m0xte 7y ago
> Waterproof furniture: unclear how this actually makes cleaning easier. You don't have kids do you?
michaelbuckbee 7y ago
WRT Aluminium construction think more like the Dymaxion house https://www.thehenryford.org/visit/henry-ford-museum/exhibits/dymaxion-house/ https://www.thehenryford.org/visit/henry-ford-museum/exhibit...
wahern 7y ago
> Replacing steel with aluminum in construction: never really happened although unclear why this would be a good idea. Pros: Corrosion resistant. Lighter and much easier to work with. Cons: Expensive. Fatigue, so prob can't replace steel or wood for big projects. Vinyl siding has replaced aluminum siding but aluminum siding was extremely popular for decades. So long as it's not dented, it looks and wears better as vinyl siding is more prone to sagging and cracking, especially if not installed correctly.
- 3pt14159 7y ago
  Yeah I did a degree in structural engineering and they introduced aluminium like someone would introduce lambdas in python. Right time, right place, but usually a very minor role. Expensive, no resilience, and a host of other problems like how it is very soft, corrosion has strange properties (creates kinda a shell around the material), low thermal capacitance, and expands at a different thermal delta than concrete (unlike steel which is pretty close). Lifting heavy objects is relatively easy so why not use steel? Personally, I prefer wood or glulam over steel and concrete but they all have their places. Stone is nice too, lasts forever even if it is expensive. Ultra High Performance Concretes like Ductal are wild, but unfortunately building codes in most countries haven't kept up.
  - wahern 7y ago
    10+ years ago there seemed to be a rise in interest for precast stone blocks, seemingly part of the larger trend in precast blocks (e.g. foam blocks), which in turn seemed like a precursor to the 3D-printed hotness. One project in particular, using precast faux-limestone blocks, has stuck with me: https://www.scrapbookscrapbook.com/DAC-ART/building-concrete-block-house.html https://www.scrapbookscrapbook.com/DAC-ART/building-concrete... Not sure that's ideal for a humid Alabama climate, but seems perfect for a drier, mediterranean environment like in California. Is that stuff--specifically large, precast stone blocks--forever in the future, at least in terms of wide availability and construction know-how? Have the costs even come down? EDIT: This DAC-ART seaside cottage used aluminum framing for the roof: http://www.concretecottage.com/roof-framework.htm http://www.concretecottage.com/roof-framework.htm That's what initially popped into my head regarding the question of why use aluminum over steel for construction. michaelbuckbee's post about the Dymaxion house elsethread is probably on point regarding what the article author actually had in mind.
novok 7y ago
Glucose monitoring automatic insulin pumps do exist although, or are you referring to something else?

by gok 7y ago

mmaunder 7y ago

Wasn't regulatory hysteria. We just chose a more environmentally friendly and quieter technology to focus our energy. See my other comment about high bypass turbofan engines in this thread.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Symbiote 7y ago
I think gok refers to the American (and others) ban on supersonic flight over land, which significant restricted the routes Concorde could fly.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Well, yes, but I don't call it regulatory hysteria to ban planes from making sonic booms over land so that wealthy people can get from one coast to the other faster.
  - gok 7y ago
    If you want to be extremely kind to American regulators, you could argue that they banned sonic booms out of an overabundance of caution and wanted to see how bad of a problem it was. But it was clear after years of Concorde flights over Asia and Europe that it was non-issue. They kept the rules on the books as a favor to Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      Admittedly, I don't know much about this. But how was it clear that it was a non-issue, and not just a different cultural preference?
  - ggreer 7y ago
    It's not a ban on sonic booms. It's a ban on supersonic flight. Even if someone invents a quiet supersonic aircraft, or flies at a higher altitude to reduce noise, the current FAA rules ban it.
  - walshemj 7y ago
    A lot of nimbys with connections to the us plane making industry from a UK perspective and don't get me started on the TSR2
  - lacker 7y ago
    Supersonic flight is going to get cheap.

berdon 7y ago

I appreciated your breakdown and definitely laughed out loud at "how could this possibly be a good idea?".

hcknwscommenter 7y ago

"Water soluble plates: how could this possibly be a good idea?" Compostable plates! They take a LOOONG time to dissolve, but they are water-soluble.

outworlder 7y ago

> The reference to a battery powered automatic insulin dispenser is painful. The technology to do this is trivial today but it's not really available due to onerous medical device regulations. It is only 'trivial' in comparison with the challenges they would have trying to implement the same thing in 1950. This is actually a hard problem. Although medical companies have solved it for the most part, and there are devices available. Still, regulations make sense, as our sensors, advanced as they are, can still provide erroneous readings. You can easily kill someone that way. > 2 hours New York to San Francisco: we had planes for this in the 1970s but it was killed by regulatory hysteria. That's oversimplifying. Yes, prohibiting supersonic flights over land had an effect of mostly allowing for intercontinental flights. Which makes the planes themselves less attractive and contributed to its demise. But by itself it wouldn't have killed it. There were multiple problems. Some of the problems were: 1) Flights were _expensive_ . Supersonic flight is not that fuel-efficient, at least not as implemented by the Concorde. Takeoff (and sometimes climbing) was done on afterburners. It was capable of supercruise so fuel consumption was not much more than a 747 or the equivalent of a business jet (per passenger). It did not carry as many passengers though. 2) The aircraft itself was finicky and required a lot of training – for its 3 man crew. Yes, it still required a 'flight engineer'. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106504293992222300 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106504293992222300 3) Environmental concerns (see 1). There were some discussions about Ozone layer depletion given its high flight altitude. Not sure how real those concerns were, but they existed. 4) The famous crash, and possibly 9/11 (it was scheduled to reenter service that year). Also increased regulations, meaning more time sitting at airports. 3.5h + 3.5h is already close to a full work day, add airport delays due to TSA and the like, and you can't cross the atlantic, have a meeting, and come back in the same day anymore. If it is going to take more than half a day each way, it makes more sense to take a normal flight. 5) Most airlines wanted aircraft that were more fuel efficient and carried more passengers. The Concorde was going exactly on the wrong direction. The regulations just added insult to injury. Not may companies operating them, not many planes in service, not many routes. Any issues would then have an outsized effect. But even more importantly, it prevented development of successors. Sonic booms can be mitigated to a large extent today. There are potentially better designs that would carry more people at higher efficiencies, including flying wings. We don't need miracles, we just need to make it worth it to business and first class travelers(at least, at first). Automation improvements means that we could have a two person crew, just like any other aircraft. And so on. But who is going to absorb that R&D with the Concorde gravestone around? We'll have to be happy with subsonic aircraft for the time being. Unless SpaceX delivers. A suborbital flight probably makes more sense than the Concorde.

scottcha 7y ago

"Replacing steel with aluminum in construction: never really happened although unclear why this would be a good idea." My house, built in 1976 in Washington, actually has aluminum framing as do the few houses next to it built at the same time. From what I heard there was a short period where aluminum was cheaper than wood for framing and caused the switch over. I'm not sure how localized this was. All the contractors I worked with find both the framing and how the house was framed unique but they are still able to work with it.

m0xte 7y ago

> Waterproof furniture: unclear how this actually makes cleaning easier. You don't have kids do you?

michaelbuckbee 7y ago

WRT Aluminium construction think more like the Dymaxion house https://www.thehenryford.org/visit/henry-ford-museum/exhibits/dymaxion-house/ https://www.thehenryford.org/visit/henry-ford-museum/exhibit...

wahern 7y ago

> Replacing steel with aluminum in construction: never really happened although unclear why this would be a good idea. Pros: Corrosion resistant. Lighter and much easier to work with. Cons: Expensive. Fatigue, so prob can't replace steel or wood for big projects. Vinyl siding has replaced aluminum siding but aluminum siding was extremely popular for decades. So long as it's not dented, it looks and wears better as vinyl siding is more prone to sagging and cracking, especially if not installed correctly.

3pt14159 7y ago
Yeah I did a degree in structural engineering and they introduced aluminium like someone would introduce lambdas in python. Right time, right place, but usually a very minor role. Expensive, no resilience, and a host of other problems like how it is very soft, corrosion has strange properties (creates kinda a shell around the material), low thermal capacitance, and expands at a different thermal delta than concrete (unlike steel which is pretty close). Lifting heavy objects is relatively easy so why not use steel? Personally, I prefer wood or glulam over steel and concrete but they all have their places. Stone is nice too, lasts forever even if it is expensive. Ultra High Performance Concretes like Ductal are wild, but unfortunately building codes in most countries haven't kept up.
- wahern 7y ago
  10+ years ago there seemed to be a rise in interest for precast stone blocks, seemingly part of the larger trend in precast blocks (e.g. foam blocks), which in turn seemed like a precursor to the 3D-printed hotness. One project in particular, using precast faux-limestone blocks, has stuck with me: https://www.scrapbookscrapbook.com/DAC-ART/building-concrete-block-house.html https://www.scrapbookscrapbook.com/DAC-ART/building-concrete... Not sure that's ideal for a humid Alabama climate, but seems perfect for a drier, mediterranean environment like in California. Is that stuff--specifically large, precast stone blocks--forever in the future, at least in terms of wide availability and construction know-how? Have the costs even come down? EDIT: This DAC-ART seaside cottage used aluminum framing for the roof: http://www.concretecottage.com/roof-framework.htm http://www.concretecottage.com/roof-framework.htm That's what initially popped into my head regarding the question of why use aluminum over steel for construction. michaelbuckbee's post about the Dymaxion house elsethread is probably on point regarding what the article author actually had in mind.

novok 7y ago

Glucose monitoring automatic insulin pumps do exist although, or are you referring to something else?