Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JetZero

jetzero.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 277 posts

Re: JetZero

#221

Post by CalRobert »

EGreg wrote: post #215
CalRobert wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell why even travel when you can just see Venice on a screen.

This question is deeper than you think. Until the 20th century, most people didn't travel even a fraction of that many miles per year. The most prolific travelers, such as Mozart, did not travel nearly as much as a person who's commuting to work every day by car or train -- just to sit in a chair in the office instead of at home. When it comes to transportation, we burn fossil fuels and pollute the planet with CO2 fo…

You’re not wrong. Having traveled a fair bit it does eventually turn in to basically a big theme park experience. I still like looking out the window though

Re: JetZero

#222

Post by jtrip »

dash2 wrote: post #160
kubafu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of us is avoiding more by choosing not to fly.

I hope I'm not overinterpreting, but I get the sense that you think that's morally better than simply avoiding contrails. If so then this is surely a mistake! While an individual who imposes heavy costs on himself to do something socially valuable is certainly demonstrating commitment to the cause, the best solution for society is the one with the lowest costs.

This is an issue, a question of an issue, with the maximalist position. By simply using trains wherever possible and avoiding 'frivolous' travel a huge impact can be achieved on one's carbon footprint.

Re: JetZero

#223

Post by jtrip »

calmbonsai wrote: post #133
Petersipoi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 bar…

Once they have enough airframes flying with the military, the logistics side of the equation should solve itself in quick time.

Re: JetZero

#224

Post by jryle70 »

calmbonsai wrote: post #24

Not this again. They’ve clearly hired a new PR firm Suffice it to say, from stable aeronautics at-edge, jet way footprint efficiency, ground support efficiency, airframe pressurization, cargo & passenger logistics, lifespan, and certification, there are many, many reasons “tube + wings” is the dominant airframe architecture for all non-military aircraft.

If not this again, what would be your ideas of the path forward for aviation?

All of the constraints you mentioned are the results of decades of optimization around the tube-shape aircraft design. Meaning the design has to be proven first. Infrastructure will adapt.

Also, I suspect the first application will be military, such as Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS):

https://www.twz.com/air-force-says-it-needs-more-survivable-...

Re: JetZero

#225

Post by ufmace »

CalRobert wrote: post #148
orphereus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that not travelling is the solution. A lot of people cannot avoid flying.

In many instances there are alternatives. Amsterdam to Berlin is served by good rail (except when DB are crappy) and flight options. NYC to DC or Boston. Maybe, someday, SF to LA, and others.

Ehhhh I think it'd be more accurate to say that in a small percentage of potential routes there are alternatives.

Re: JetZero

#226

Post by jtrip »

calmbonsai wrote: post #139
shrubble wrote: post #79

An experimental/homebuilt of similar but not exactly the same design, the Dyke Delta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_Delta of which about 50 have been built, has its pilots reporting a comfortable ride.

Please lookup the flight envelope, cruise fuel utilization, and stall characteristics of the Dyke Delta along with its cargo capacity. Then you'll understand why so many Cessna 172s were built.

It wasn't more fuel efficient than the standard plane? Was it because of the propeller up front?

Re: JetZero

#227

Post by cassepipe »

wadim wrote: post #195
cassepipe wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to go to an hospital, get an injection, fall asleep and wake up on a bed at another hospital somewhere else.

Apart from just being highly unrealistic and not very practical, hospitals are much worse than airports in every way. Why not just get injected at the airport itself? And why an injection? Why not inhale some dream gas? Less intrusive and scales better.

I don't really care about the implementation, I'll let you figure out the details, work your magic

Re: JetZero

#228

Post by ben_w »

decimalenough wrote: post #169
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coördination stops lateral passenger movement. It does nothing for up and down. (Coördination is also about more than comfort. It keeps the flow attached to the wing. If your passengers are slipping, so is your wing.) In a roll, with a tubular fuselage, everyone—pilot and passengers—feel about the same vertical Gs. OP’s point is in a flying wing, the folks on the tips will lift up or drop down relative to the pilot a…

> Coördination A few years ago, I would your use of diaeresis an admirable quirk. But now, especially given the em-dashes, I'm wondering if you're an LLM overtrained on the New Yorker.

I've been following JumpCrisscross's comments for years, either he's real or he's gone to the trouble of fine-tuning the LLM to sound like himself.

(Myself, I've been doing em-dashes since about 2012, I think I found out by accident that you got them on MacOS from option-shift-minus after finding out by accident you could get en-dash from option-minus)

Re: JetZero

#229

Post by cassepipe »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #213
cassepipe wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you misunderstood what this is about

I thought this was about being able to fly without harm to the environment— which it sounds like we could do if we master clouds.

Sure but you extrapolated to weather modification, the initial idea is to go around/avoid some area

Re: JetZero

#230

Post by cassepipe »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #185
cassepipe wrote: post #183

I love how the last image of the landing page is a model of the most efficient plane ever designed on a pole attached to what may be the least efficient vehicle ever made, the infamous US tax-loophole-pick-up truck

I'm interested in what you are referring to. Do you have link to this truck, the story..

This covers the subject comprehensively : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Post reply on HN