4 ms·

Wouldn't it be nice if buying a space launch vehicle were like purchasing a car, instead of (a military) aircraft? For that same matter, maybe that's part of w

Wouldn't it be nice if buying a space launch vehicle were like purchasing a car, instead of (a military) aircraft? For that same matter, maybe that's part of what went wrong with the aircraft manufacturing business in America. The market really should not have been allowed to consolidate that much; to the point where incentives aligned to financial and regulatory capture / stasis (and pilots only certified on one type of flight vehicle), rather than someone skilled to operate a general aviation vehicle. Though with cars we do have a fairly standardized control scheme, at least for the most important parts. Steering wheel, go and stop foot levers.

metalman 1y ago
heres a gaggle og MIGS, but name your flavor https://www.barnstormers.com/cat_search.php?headline=MIG&body=&part_num=&mfg=&model=&user__profile__company=&user__last_name=&user__first_name=&user__profile__country=&specialcase__state=&user__profile__city=&user__profile__uzip=&specialcase__phone=&user__email=&my_cats__name=&price__gte=&price__lte=&search_type=advanced&keyword= https://www.barnstormers.com/cat_search.php?headline=MIG&bod...
cpgxiii 1y ago
> For that same matter, maybe that's part of what went wrong with the aircraft manufacturing business in America. The market really should not have been allowed to consolidate that much ... Consolidation was an inevitable result of the end of the Cold War and massive cuts to defense spending. The defense industry was _encouraged_ to consolidate because the alternative would have been bankruptcy. Obviously, time has shown that this consolidation was bad for the industry and the government, but a lot has happened in the last 35 years that would not have been foreseen then. > to the point where incentives aligned to financial and regulatory capture / stasis (and pilots only certified on one type of flight vehicle), rather than someone skilled to operate a general aviation vehicle The type rating structure really has quite little to do with aerospace industry consolidation (if anything, the industry is too fractured to allow for more generic type ratings). Aircraft, their systems, and their flight dynamics are different enough that trying to create a more general type rating would really be impossible. What you do see are families of aircraft which either completely share a type rating or require very limited additional training to maintain a rating for multiple family types (e.g. all 737s, 757/767, 777/787, A32x/A33x/A35x). Single piston GA aircraft are really the exception, not because they all share the same behavior (there is a truly wild range of flight dynamics and avionics), but because the GA community (particularly in the US) is so large and established that requiring more training/experience is politically impossible. So long as GA accidents don't kill too many bystanders, this will remain the case.
- notahacker 1y ago
  Yep. Two things the space industry and airline industry have in common is that (i) you need to spend an enormous amounts of money to have a remotely viable product, because the physics is hard even without regulation (ii) you don't get that money back unless the product you've spent all that money developing has better unit economics than your competitors for a sufficiently large number of target customers (or your national government steps in to protect you) because there aren't many buyers and the market isn't buying aircraft or payload space because they like the vibe or the aesthetics. That naturally tends towards monopoly (or oligopolies with carefully defined differences in capabilities, some of which turn out to be unprofitable segments...)

metalman 1y ago

heres a gaggle og MIGS, but name your flavor https://www.barnstormers.com/cat_search.php?headline=MIG&body=&part_num=&mfg=&model=&user__profile__company=&user__last_name=&user__first_name=&user__profile__country=&specialcase__state=&user__profile__city=&user__profile__uzip=&specialcase__phone=&user__email=&my_cats__name=&price__gte=&price__lte=&search_type=advanced&keyword= https://www.barnstormers.com/cat_search.php?headline=MIG&bod...

cpgxiii 1y ago

> For that same matter, maybe that's part of what went wrong with the aircraft manufacturing business in America. The market really should not have been allowed to consolidate that much ... Consolidation was an inevitable result of the end of the Cold War and massive cuts to defense spending. The defense industry was _encouraged_ to consolidate because the alternative would have been bankruptcy. Obviously, time has shown that this consolidation was bad for the industry and the government, but a lot has happened in the last 35 years that would not have been foreseen then. > to the point where incentives aligned to financial and regulatory capture / stasis (and pilots only certified on one type of flight vehicle), rather than someone skilled to operate a general aviation vehicle The type rating structure really has quite little to do with aerospace industry consolidation (if anything, the industry is too fractured to allow for more generic type ratings). Aircraft, their systems, and their flight dynamics are different enough that trying to create a more general type rating would really be impossible. What you do see are families of aircraft which either completely share a type rating or require very limited additional training to maintain a rating for multiple family types (e.g. all 737s, 757/767, 777/787, A32x/A33x/A35x). Single piston GA aircraft are really the exception, not because they all share the same behavior (there is a truly wild range of flight dynamics and avionics), but because the GA community (particularly in the US) is so large and established that requiring more training/experience is politically impossible. So long as GA accidents don't kill too many bystanders, this will remain the case.

notahacker 1y ago
Yep. Two things the space industry and airline industry have in common is that (i) you need to spend an enormous amounts of money to have a remotely viable product, because the physics is hard even without regulation (ii) you don't get that money back unless the product you've spent all that money developing has better unit economics than your competitors for a sufficiently large number of target customers (or your national government steps in to protect you) because there aren't many buyers and the market isn't buying aircraft or payload space because they like the vibe or the aesthetics. That naturally tends towards monopoly (or oligopolies with carefully defined differences in capabilities, some of which turn out to be unprofitable segments...)