3 ms·

There are many reasons for a lot of things, until you overcome those reasons. That's the point of innovation. There are many reasons not to make a reusable roc

There are many reasons for a lot of things, until you overcome those reasons. That's the point of innovation. There are many reasons not to make a reusable rocket too.

trueno 3mo ago
theres just some serious serious challenges here i dont think any of them are impossible to overcome but it would span so many more years and so much more funding to get thru. fuselage pressurization which they claim to have worked around (sus) is one of the spookiest imo. traditional looking commercial jets, their designs, their manufacturing processes, their innovations (yes boeing/airbus do innovate and have for a long time even though it doesnt seem that way) have all been shaped heavily by human blood. to some degree a radical new design almost guarantees more deaths at a commercial level there's really no shortcutting this without it. dont get me wrong im super open to the possibility that something like this is possible itd be better for the whole world, but there's no way we get there without re-experiencing some hard lessons if we want to push it pash some sort of proverbial finish line
- margalabargala 3mo ago
  If some letters were capitalized it would be easier to read but without this gets downvoted as wordsalad. Almost illegible. Punctuation exists for a reason.
  - trueno 3mo ago
    the misery it takes to make these types of comments lmao. behold lifes hidden fruits of simply scrolling past something that makes you irritable
    - margalabargala 3mo ago
      Consider dropping spaces too. It'll make your comments even more Unique and Quirky! And it won't impact readability in a way you care about!
      - trueno 3mo ago
        you ok man
        margalabargala 3mo ago
        Probably not. Is anyone? Look at this world we live in. Billionaires are living it up and climate change is wrecking winter and here we are in the mud, someone like you can't even afford a simple shift key. It's all so crushing.
        trueno 3mo ago
        wtf im being poor shamed for lack of caps by the rss feed bourgeois
- ryanjshaw 3mo ago
  > have all been shaped heavily by human blood This assumes the lessons were specific to the body type and aren’t generalizable?
  - imoverclocked 3mo ago
    Even small changes to time tested designs provide significant risk. A completely new body style will inevitably provide completely new failure modes. Pressurizing a tube vs pressurizing a pancake (or flattened sphere, or some other easy approximation) will have very different mechanical loading characteristics. Turbulence (differences in air speed/pressure) across a large flat-ish surface that also has a signifiant pressure differential will also prove challenging to design for and scale up. Aerospace is a very high dimensional design process. Doing anything different puts you into unknown territory real fast.
calmbonsai 3mo ago
Yes, but this "innovation" (as sold) must exist as a viable commercial airplane. So far, I see zero evidence that this company has addressed any of the aforementioned challenges beyond theoretical fuel consumption and theoretical passenger logistics. As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert, I absolutely abhor the stagnation of general and commercial aviation due, largely, to certification barriers, BUT even having a viable flight-worthy blended-wing concept does not make for a viable mass market product. Not related, see the near half-century of "alternative" wing and airframe designs that are absolutely better at a few pieces of the puzzle, but also absolutely failed to be viable when integrated into a fully functional and safe airplane. This company needs to focus on success in a niche product role before addressing the safety, integration, and manufacturing needs of the mass commercial aviation market. They are not (atm) backed by this sort of "patient capital". Not related, see all of the VC and failures required by Whittle (in wartime no less) to develop the jet engine or Tesla's corporate journey from Roadster -> S -> Y.
- stickfigure 3mo ago
  > As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert, FFS, have some self-awareness! This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in practice.
  - calmbonsai 3mo ago
    I don't see how having a marginal amount of single-engine aviation flight experience is relevant to Dunning-Kruger. If anything, it's taught me how little I know about "real flying" compared to CFD and systems engineering. Commercial aviation is conservative because aviation is "hard" and mistakes in aviation are "extremely costly".
    - carabiner 3mo ago
      It's a lot like saying, "as someone 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's honda civic, I believe that future stability control algorithms in self-driving cars..." Or the difference between a (noob) software user and a software engineer.

There are many reasons for a lot of things, until you overcome those reasons. That's the point of innovation. There are many reasons not to make a reusable rocket too.

trueno 3mo ago

theres just some serious serious challenges here i dont think any of them are impossible to overcome but it would span so many more years and so much more funding to get thru. fuselage pressurization which they claim to have worked around (sus) is one of the spookiest imo. traditional looking commercial jets, their designs, their manufacturing processes, their innovations (yes boeing/airbus do innovate and have for a long time even though it doesnt seem that way) have all been shaped heavily by human blood. to some degree a radical new design almost guarantees more deaths at a commercial level there's really no shortcutting this without it. dont get me wrong im super open to the possibility that something like this is possible itd be better for the whole world, but there's no way we get there without re-experiencing some hard lessons if we want to push it pash some sort of proverbial finish line

margalabargala 3mo ago
If some letters were capitalized it would be easier to read but without this gets downvoted as wordsalad. Almost illegible. Punctuation exists for a reason.
- trueno 3mo ago
  the misery it takes to make these types of comments lmao. behold lifes hidden fruits of simply scrolling past something that makes you irritable
  - margalabargala 3mo ago
    Consider dropping spaces too. It'll make your comments even more Unique and Quirky! And it won't impact readability in a way you care about!
    - trueno 3mo ago
      you ok man
      - margalabargala 3mo ago
        Probably not. Is anyone? Look at this world we live in. Billionaires are living it up and climate change is wrecking winter and here we are in the mud, someone like you can't even afford a simple shift key. It's all so crushing.
        trueno 3mo ago
        wtf im being poor shamed for lack of caps by the rss feed bourgeois
ryanjshaw 3mo ago
> have all been shaped heavily by human blood This assumes the lessons were specific to the body type and aren’t generalizable?
- imoverclocked 3mo ago
  Even small changes to time tested designs provide significant risk. A completely new body style will inevitably provide completely new failure modes. Pressurizing a tube vs pressurizing a pancake (or flattened sphere, or some other easy approximation) will have very different mechanical loading characteristics. Turbulence (differences in air speed/pressure) across a large flat-ish surface that also has a signifiant pressure differential will also prove challenging to design for and scale up. Aerospace is a very high dimensional design process. Doing anything different puts you into unknown territory real fast.

calmbonsai 3mo ago

Yes, but this "innovation" (as sold) must exist as a viable commercial airplane. So far, I see zero evidence that this company has addressed any of the aforementioned challenges beyond theoretical fuel consumption and theoretical passenger logistics. As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert, I absolutely abhor the stagnation of general and commercial aviation due, largely, to certification barriers, BUT even having a viable flight-worthy blended-wing concept does not make for a viable mass market product. Not related, see the near half-century of "alternative" wing and airframe designs that are absolutely better at a few pieces of the puzzle, but also absolutely failed to be viable when integrated into a fully functional and safe airplane. This company needs to focus on success in a niche product role before addressing the safety, integration, and manufacturing needs of the mass commercial aviation market. They are not (atm) backed by this sort of "patient capital". Not related, see all of the VC and failures required by Whittle (in wartime no less) to develop the jet engine or Tesla's corporate journey from Roadster -> S -> Y.

stickfigure 3mo ago
> As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert, FFS, have some self-awareness! This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in practice.
- calmbonsai 3mo ago
  I don't see how having a marginal amount of single-engine aviation flight experience is relevant to Dunning-Kruger. If anything, it's taught me how little I know about "real flying" compared to CFD and systems engineering. Commercial aviation is conservative because aviation is "hard" and mistakes in aviation are "extremely costly".
  - carabiner 3mo ago
    It's a lot like saying, "as someone 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's honda civic, I believe that future stability control algorithms in self-driving cars..." Or the difference between a (noob) software user and a software engineer.