4 ms·

« It’s never possible to innovate » This is currently the top comment on news.ycombinator.com

by hcks 3y ago

greenthrow 3y ago
So I can count on you to invest in my new startup that will be inventing human flight without any extraneous equipment right?
lelandbatey 3y ago
I think this is a grand tradition on this fair site. I think we all are looking forward to whatever's coming next.
class3shock 3y ago
It's always possible to innovate. It just happens that often the people claiming too are mostly innovating at separating people from their money. If you want to chat why I think this is more the later than the former feel free to reach out, I love talking aerospace.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  So funny thing is you're in a thread about aerospace. If I might hazard a guess, discussing the concrete reasons why you think this is a scam can help educate curious readers about the challenges in this field and can probably start a discussion on the technical details of supersonic aircraft that has less emotional and more technical content. It doesn't always work out that way though shrug. From my own context, the work of certifying the airframe alone takes forever, let alone prototyping another engine and one that requires the thrust requirements a supersonic aircraft needs, so I too am really dubious of the timelines. But I'm curious why you think this is a scam as opposed to general exuberance, or why you think innovation in this space in particular is unlikely. There's other variables here like United's purchase; we all know companies like Theranos have defrauded established players like Walgreens, but do you think United did not do their due diligence here? (I'm also deeply curious on why you feel that high-level criticism of the idea is relevant for this forum but the details of your criticism are not. I feel it'll teach me a lot about what motivates folks to use HN these days, but that's just my own curiosity.)
  - class3shock 3y ago
    I guess my criticism is high level because, in my mind, the timeframe they market and what they claim to be trying to do in it, is so beyond what is reasonable that touching on simple aspects of the project, such as all the steps they need to go through before getting to their goal, is adequate to highlight unrealistic marketing for what it is. If you look at some of my other answers I go more in depth on specific topics to provide more technical content. If you are curious to learn something more you can always ask? Alot of my posts are questions. Edit: I wrote this and then saw there was more to your post I missed (or got added? maybe I'm having a stroke, do you smell toast?), will respond in below.
  - class3shock 3y ago
    I wouldn't call it a scam, I think it's like alot of start ups. It looks good, has lots of cool marketing, and "in theory" could work. But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. If by "innovation in this space" you mean supersonic commercial air travel, then not really. I could see someone making a couple planes that get bought by the saudi's and a few billionares but if you are talking in terms of eventually reaching all commercial air travel... that's a long way off if ever. Going faster takes you in the wrong direction in terms of efficiency (and thus cost and environmental impact), sound, manufacturability (and thus cost), maintenance (and thus cost), you get the picture. As for United, I'm sure it sounded good at some point to someone. I guess we can check back in 5 years and see how that investment is going.
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      >But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. What are the technical reasons they are behind schedule? Is the physics problem just too difficult, and the problem they've set out to solve just too hard without, idk, government backing?
Zigurd 3y ago
Delusional project planning kills products and companies. How many years before Starship rockets achieve rapid reuse after being caught by launch tower chopsticks and are reflown quickly enough to supply a yet to be designed and launched orbiting fuel station before the fuel and oxidizer boil off so that Starship can go beyond Earth orbit? The critical path will bite you in the ass especially if your idea of project management comes from software projects. If you pile on enough dependencies, especially on untried concepts, you might not know which possible critical path will bite the hardest.
- namibj 3y ago
  Boil-off can be prevented by loosely wrapping in 50~100 layers of aluminized mylar ("space blanket"), adding some solar panels and heat rejection panels, and a 2 or 3 stage refrigerator to keep the contents cold enough to not trigger the boil-off safety overpressure valve. If you're clever with the orientation or possibly with a movable sun shade, you might even get by with just using space as a heat dump, by insulating against the earth and the sun and exposing to empty space to radiate the leakage heat away without a refrigerator. I think they have enough experience with orbital electromechanical design to make this not a problem with much suffering.
jahewson 3y ago
It’s not always economical though. When you have the top jet engine manufacturers in the world turning down your business the time has come to ask some tough questions. This is old technology, we know how to do this - what we’ve not figured out is how to make it profitable. There were supposed to be 350 Concorde built but we got 14. Operating an Airline is a brutal business now matter how cool the planes may be.
ryanwaggoner 3y ago
That’s not at all what they said. And the history of aerospace is littered with companies that made lofty claims, raised a bunch of money, and eventually went under. When Boom launched eight years ago, they were telling investors they were going to have a prototype flying in two years. For anyone who has any experience in aerospace, this is unrealistic to the point of being fraudulent. People said as much back then [1]. And sure enough, it took eight years, not two. And the actual hard parts are still ahead of them! 99% chance the full-size supersonic aircraft never flies, and 100% chance it won’t be before 2035. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11334780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11334780
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

« It’s never possible to innovate » This is currently the top comment on news.ycombinator.com

by hcks 3y ago

« It’s never possible to innovate » This is currently the top comment on news.ycombinator.com

So I can count on you to invest in my new startup that will be inventing human flight without any extraneous equipment right?

lelandbatey 3y ago

I think this is a grand tradition on this fair site. I think we all are looking forward to whatever's coming next.

class3shock 3y ago

It's always possible to innovate. It just happens that often the people claiming too are mostly innovating at separating people from their money. If you want to chat why I think this is more the later than the former feel free to reach out, I love talking aerospace.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago
So funny thing is you're in a thread about aerospace. If I might hazard a guess, discussing the concrete reasons why you think this is a scam can help educate curious readers about the challenges in this field and can probably start a discussion on the technical details of supersonic aircraft that has less emotional and more technical content. It doesn't always work out that way though shrug. From my own context, the work of certifying the airframe alone takes forever, let alone prototyping another engine and one that requires the thrust requirements a supersonic aircraft needs, so I too am really dubious of the timelines. But I'm curious why you think this is a scam as opposed to general exuberance, or why you think innovation in this space in particular is unlikely. There's other variables here like United's purchase; we all know companies like Theranos have defrauded established players like Walgreens, but do you think United did not do their due diligence here? (I'm also deeply curious on why you feel that high-level criticism of the idea is relevant for this forum but the details of your criticism are not. I feel it'll teach me a lot about what motivates folks to use HN these days, but that's just my own curiosity.)
- class3shock 3y ago
  I guess my criticism is high level because, in my mind, the timeframe they market and what they claim to be trying to do in it, is so beyond what is reasonable that touching on simple aspects of the project, such as all the steps they need to go through before getting to their goal, is adequate to highlight unrealistic marketing for what it is. If you look at some of my other answers I go more in depth on specific topics to provide more technical content. If you are curious to learn something more you can always ask? Alot of my posts are questions. Edit: I wrote this and then saw there was more to your post I missed (or got added? maybe I'm having a stroke, do you smell toast?), will respond in below.
- class3shock 3y ago
  I wouldn't call it a scam, I think it's like alot of start ups. It looks good, has lots of cool marketing, and "in theory" could work. But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. If by "innovation in this space" you mean supersonic commercial air travel, then not really. I could see someone making a couple planes that get bought by the saudi's and a few billionares but if you are talking in terms of eventually reaching all commercial air travel... that's a long way off if ever. Going faster takes you in the wrong direction in terms of efficiency (and thus cost and environmental impact), sound, manufacturability (and thus cost), maintenance (and thus cost), you get the picture. As for United, I'm sure it sounded good at some point to someone. I guess we can check back in 5 years and see how that investment is going.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    >But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. What are the technical reasons they are behind schedule? Is the physics problem just too difficult, and the problem they've set out to solve just too hard without, idk, government backing?

Zigurd 3y ago

Delusional project planning kills products and companies. How many years before Starship rockets achieve rapid reuse after being caught by launch tower chopsticks and are reflown quickly enough to supply a yet to be designed and launched orbiting fuel station before the fuel and oxidizer boil off so that Starship can go beyond Earth orbit? The critical path will bite you in the ass especially if your idea of project management comes from software projects. If you pile on enough dependencies, especially on untried concepts, you might not know which possible critical path will bite the hardest.

namibj 3y ago
Boil-off can be prevented by loosely wrapping in 50~100 layers of aluminized mylar ("space blanket"), adding some solar panels and heat rejection panels, and a 2 or 3 stage refrigerator to keep the contents cold enough to not trigger the boil-off safety overpressure valve. If you're clever with the orientation or possibly with a movable sun shade, you might even get by with just using space as a heat dump, by insulating against the earth and the sun and exposing to empty space to radiate the leakage heat away without a refrigerator. I think they have enough experience with orbital electromechanical design to make this not a problem with much suffering.

jahewson 3y ago

It’s not always economical though. When you have the top jet engine manufacturers in the world turning down your business the time has come to ask some tough questions. This is old technology, we know how to do this - what we’ve not figured out is how to make it profitable. There were supposed to be 350 Concorde built but we got 14. Operating an Airline is a brutal business now matter how cool the planes may be.

ryanwaggoner 3y ago

That’s not at all what they said. And the history of aerospace is littered with companies that made lofty claims, raised a bunch of money, and eventually went under. When Boom launched eight years ago, they were telling investors they were going to have a prototype flying in two years. For anyone who has any experience in aerospace, this is unrealistic to the point of being fraudulent. People said as much back then [1]. And sure enough, it took eight years, not two. And the actual hard parts are still ahead of them! 99% chance the full-size supersonic aircraft never flies, and 100% chance it won’t be before 2035. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11334780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11334780

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]