A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
bloomberg.com
A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#2“The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#3“The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
It's a bit easier to be blasé about testing when your worst-case-scenario is that somebody misses a ride, vs when you kill ~150 people. The rapid cycle of innovation is a tradeoff that SV is able to make (and finds amazingly beneficial) because we're working with soft tools and have backups of our data. I'm certain that were human life so cheap, Pratt and Whitney would have a much shorter dev cycle, too.
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#4“The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
It's a bit easier to be blasé about testing when your worst-case-scenario is that somebody misses a ride, vs when you kill ~150 people. The rapid cycle of innovation is a tradeoff that SV is able to make (and finds amazingly beneficial) because we're working with soft tools and have backups of our data. I'm certain that were human life so cheap, Pratt and Whitney would have a much shorter dev cycle, too.
Curiously, I read that comment as saying: Silicon Valley is too preoccupied with short term profits to be able to concentrate for a long time and come up with such 'tangible' and actual benefits in the domain of transportation. This is not the next 'snapchat/tumblr/facebook' ... That's how I interpreted his comment at least.
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#5“The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
It's a bit easier to be blasé about testing when your worst-case-scenario is that somebody misses a ride, vs when you kill ~150 people. The rapid cycle of innovation is a tradeoff that SV is able to make (and finds amazingly beneficial) because we're working with soft tools and have backups of our data. I'm certain that were human life so cheap, Pratt and Whitney would have a much shorter dev cycle, too.
Shorter project sprints came about to try to fix the problem of project failure. Failure to create a loop that feeds discoveries in to a project's knowledge, and to communicate knowledge between teams is exactly what makes projects come to catastrophic ends, and that's what the shorter cycle time attempts to correct.
The fact the product benefits from faster innovation is a function of more efficiently sharing knowledge and data, not spending less time on individual components.
Designing and testing an engine can be done in an agile style. There's nothing intrinsically "software only" about the methodology.
NB: I ran a startup that made software to manage requirements in big projects. I've spent lots of time thinking about different ways to manage things. Including how not to, but that was after we failed.
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#6“The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
Or it could be that the FAA and other airline regulatory bodies around the world (especially in UK and Europe) keep innovations from happening, and so development times can be long.
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#7> what may be most remarkable about the engines is that they took almost 30 years to develop. That’s about 15 times as long as the gestation period of an elephant
Who the hell is running their analogy department?!?
"Thirty years! That's a big number! We need some kind of comparison that will instantly give the reader perspective. Of course, in this, as in so many other things, the answer lies in pachydermian pregnancy patterns."
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#8“The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
Or it could be that the FAA and other airline regulatory bodies around the world (especially in UK and Europe) keep innovations from happening, and so development times can be long.
If we could distribute a new gear design which fixes flaws in some over-the-air patch it'd be a lot easier to iterate and improve.
Selling thousands of engines too soon and realizing they all suffered from a critical engineering issue could bankrupt your company. There's a lot on the line!
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#9> what may be most remarkable about the engines is that they took almost 30 years to develop. That’s about 15 times as long as the gestation period of an elephant Who the hell is running their analogy department?!? "Thirty years! That's a big number! We need some kind of comparison that will instantly give the reader perspective. Of course, in this, as in so many other things, the answer lies in pachydermian pregnanc…
I thought the next example was even more inane. It goes on to say: "and unimaginably longer than it takes to pop out a smartphone app".
Re: A Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
#1030 years. I do wonder if that is true. Did they actually developed it under a time period of 30 years.
or do they mean it more in a way that it is a continuation of previous models.