4 ms·

People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and r

by api 3y ago

People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and risk averse. “If it hasn’t already flown it can’t fly.” Not saying this design is the answer but it’s quite clear that the opinions of the big players about novel ideas are to be taken with a certain amount of salt. I’m not sure where this mentality came from. My guess would be many boom bust cycles and shifting political winds causing project cancellation. That probably burned people too many times on new projects. Combine that with a safety at any cost mentality and a lack of incentives to innovate.

WalterBright 3y ago
Developing a new airframe is enormously expensive. This incentivizes reducing the risk of it as much as one can. For example, when I worked on the 757 stab trim gearbox, my lead engineer suggested I do a design study on using a planetary gearbox rather than a differential gearbox. The former was significantly lighter. The study went up a few levels of management, and was nixed because the differential box was a proven and well-understood design on other aircraft (747).
Alpha3031 3y ago
> People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. NASA could have totally gone forward with developing the DC-3 if Nixon didn't cut their funding. The lower cross-range and payload were dealbreakers for the USAF but perfectly acceptable for civil spaceflight purposes.
sofixa 3y ago
> If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and risk averse Was that ever in doubt? > I’m not sure where this mentality came from. My guess would be many boom bust cycles and shifting political winds causing project cancellation. That probably burned people too many times on new projects. Combine that with a safety at any cost mentality and a lack of incentives to innovate. Look into the history of aviation. How many aircraft manufacturers disappeared or barely survived, usually no longer making civilian jets, because they made a wrong bet at the wrong time? How many disappeared because their planes got a bad reputation for being unsafe? Just a small selection off the top of my head: BAC, de Havilland, Bombardier, Lockheed, Dassault, Convair, McDonnel Douglas, Sud Aviation, Dornier. A new jet design is extremely expensive, needs to add concrete benefits to the potential customers (airlines) and needs to be convincing for both airlines and passengers alike. And for the record, Airbus are working on a bunch of radical design moonshots: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen/zeroe https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hyd... , and so are Embraer https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts/ https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts... .

by api 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago

Developing a new airframe is enormously expensive. This incentivizes reducing the risk of it as much as one can. For example, when I worked on the 757 stab trim gearbox, my lead engineer suggested I do a design study on using a planetary gearbox rather than a differential gearbox. The former was significantly lighter. The study went up a few levels of management, and was nixed because the differential box was a proven and well-understood design on other aircraft (747).

Alpha3031 3y ago

> People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. NASA could have totally gone forward with developing the DC-3 if Nixon didn't cut their funding. The lower cross-range and payload were dealbreakers for the USAF but perfectly acceptable for civil spaceflight purposes.

sofixa 3y ago

> If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and risk averse Was that ever in doubt? > I’m not sure where this mentality came from. My guess would be many boom bust cycles and shifting political winds causing project cancellation. That probably burned people too many times on new projects. Combine that with a safety at any cost mentality and a lack of incentives to innovate. Look into the history of aviation. How many aircraft manufacturers disappeared or barely survived, usually no longer making civilian jets, because they made a wrong bet at the wrong time? How many disappeared because their planes got a bad reputation for being unsafe? Just a small selection off the top of my head: BAC, de Havilland, Bombardier, Lockheed, Dassault, Convair, McDonnel Douglas, Sud Aviation, Dornier. A new jet design is extremely expensive, needs to add concrete benefits to the potential customers (airlines) and needs to be convincing for both airlines and passengers alike. And for the record, Airbus are working on a bunch of radical design moonshots: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen/zeroe https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hyd... , and so are Embraer https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts/ https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts... .