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

Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 494 posts

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#451

Post by wkat4242 »

throwaway173738 wrote: post #418
wkat4242 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Symbian did have some touch models in the end but they were very poor because they still used resistive touch and the UI was not well laid out for it.

X does not support touch natively. What it does support is mouse emulation from the touch input. This also greatly limits how good you can make it.

Symbian didn't use X in any way. That was Maemo, used on the 770. But there were also some Symbian-based touch devices like the 5800 XpressMusic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_5800_XpressMusic

But Symbian didn't have any roots in Linux. It came from the Psion organiser line originally (and specifically the 5/7 series, not the earlier 3's).

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#452

Post by gamblor956 »

scrlk wrote: post #41
nostrademons wrote: post #21

It'll be interesting to see if they still can design and build a new ground-up airplane design. The last all-new design was the 787, initiated in 2003 and launched in 2009, and its design was fraught with problems. Before then was the 777 in the early 90s (pre-McDonnell takeover), and the 757/767 in the early 80s. There's a phenomena that ofter occurs with large organizations where once their markets mature, everybod…

To add to this & the Jobs interview - an oil industry proverb: a healthy oil company has a geologist in charge, a mature one has an engineer in charge, a declining one has an accountant in charge, and a dying one has a lawyer in charge.

declining one has an accountant in charge, and a dying one has a lawyer in charge.

You would think by now that HN would understand that there is a difference between the accountants and the finance guys. The greatest con that Finance achieved is convincing everyone that the accountants were to blame for everything finance did. But the accountants just handle the transactional details. They don't make the financial decisions.

And generally a dying company should have a lawyer in charge because their mandate is to try to negotiate selling off the company or its assets, or to run it through bankruptcy.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#453

Post by NetMageSCW »

bunderbunder wrote: post #206
mschuster91 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Elon. Snark aside: the goal is Mars because it might be possible to colonize the planet and to have a place that acts as a reserve for humanity should shit really hit the fan (i.e. WW3). The moon isn't suitable as much for that purpose due to a complete lack of any atmosphere and because it's too close to Earth.

That's surface habitation, not an orbital station around the planet or one of its moons. The problem with using a space station as a waypoint on the way to and from the surface of a remote body is that it make the mission more expensive. For example, the Lunar Gateway increases the delta-v requirement by 15-20% (can't remember exact number) compared to a more direct mission. Which then, all else being equal, increase…

The Lunar Gateway exists so that SLS and Orion have a way to get to the Moon, because with it SLS can’t get into LLO and return to Earth, so they need another craft to finish the trip and a place to meet up with that craft. A reasonable question might be why not make Starship HLS act as its own gateway but then you start getting into why is SLS and Orion even needed.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#454

Post by NetMageSCW »

ipython wrote: post #226
mschuster91 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Elon. Snark aside: the goal is Mars because it might be possible to colonize the planet and to have a place that acts as a reserve for humanity should shit really hit the fan (i.e. WW3). The moon isn't suitable as much for that purpose due to a complete lack of any atmosphere and because it's too close to Earth.

Mars isn’t exactly habitable either. Not to mention the myriad of issues we face even getting there, let alone thriving. Read the book A City On Mars recently which had a lot of interesting concerns not widely discussed in the pro space colonization community : https://www.acityonmars.com/ . Highly recommended.

That is a terrible book that starts with the premise that it isn’t possible or desirable. d then arranges its arguments to come to that conclusion. But it turns out that making solar cells on the mean is feasible.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#455

Post by ipython »

tormeh wrote: post #392
ipython wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the future for humanity if the moon is colonized? What does the moon provide us that the Earth does not? One interesting (admittedly small in scope, but huge in impact) thought experiment is the following- let's say that the doomsayers are correct. The Earth has been destroyed and inhabitable, leaving just our extra-planetary outposts. How do we supply the necessary high-tech manufacturing capability to surviv…

Well, we'll never achieve anything if we don't try. But I think as terra starts to become inhospitable the required urgency will arrive. Hopefully after I'm gone, though.

Even a relatively inhospitable earth is much, much more livable than the celestial bodies we can reach in reasonable time. Even living 100% underground would be easier than trying to establish bases on the moon or Mars, with a hope that we could find a way to clean up the mess that we created.

If we find some faster-than-light travel mechanism and a star group that includes a planet like our own, then perhaps there's a way out of here.

On the other hand, why not try to achieve something like ... getting along better here? We could find ways to create more clean energy here on Earth, clean up existing messes, better harness the 3/4 of the globe covered by water, etc.

Plus we have a lot of societal issues to try to address. How would living on another planet solve distinctly human problems like war, conflict, need to pollute the natural environment of a new planet, etc? Why not look at how we can improve our own self-governance? After all, if we do escape this rock, it's not like we're magically going to become more altruistic, compassionate, etc. We'll still suffer from the same problems we do here, just with even more stressors like "my body boils over if I dare step outside unprotected". Sounds super depressing to me.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#456

Post by mrguyorama »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #230
mrguyorama wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 737-MAX is not "unstable by design". It has the exact same positive stability as other planes in 99% of it's flight envelope. The remaining exception is that, at a certain AoA, speed, thrust, etc, there is a case where adding thrust pushes the nose up more than it does for the normal 737 The nose push is not abnormal, it is not unsafe, it is not unexpected. All planes with engines below the inertial "center" of t…

This is not correct and a gross simplification of the true issue. All aircraft with underslung engines have similar pitch up tendencies to varying degrees and different handling characteristics between models are fine. As seen with 757/67, 777/787 and A330/40/50 sharing type ratings despite being massively different aircraft. > As the nacelle is ahead of the C of G, this lift causes a slight pitch-up effect (ie a red…

If every aircraft has such pitch up tendencies, why did only the 737MAX violate regulation?

That reg says:

>No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall.

(how do airbus planes pass that I wonder....)

I guess most planes are "not abnormal" but the behavior of the MAX crossed into "abnormal"

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#457

Post by insane_dreamer »

lisper wrote: post #47
nostrademons wrote: post #21

It'll be interesting to see if they still can design and build a new ground-up airplane design. The last all-new design was the 787, initiated in 2003 and launched in 2009, and its design was fraught with problems. Before then was the 777 in the early 90s (pre-McDonnell takeover), and the 757/767 in the early 80s. There's a phenomena that ofter occurs with large organizations where once their markets mature, everybod…

> with large organizations where once their markets mature, everybody who can build a product end-to-end leaves or gets forced out, leaving only people with highly specialized maintenance skillsets It's not just building a product end-to-end. Tim Cook is a supply-chain guy. He knows how to build a product. What he doesn't know how is how to design a new one. This is the reason that all of the "new" stuff that has com…

> riffs on old degrees of freedom: thinner phones. New colors. Different UI skins.

you forgot Apple Silicon -- a _huge_ leap forward

you also forgot the Apple Watch, which has become almost the standard watch these days in the US, worn by nearly everyone I see, from baristas to CEOs

AirPods have become almost ubiquitous (and every other brand now copies them)

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#458

Post by insane_dreamer »

bigiain wrote: post #271

Boeing today is so obviously a different organisation to the one that built their rapidly dwindling reputation. The 747 was an amazing engineering marvel. They started designing it in '65, the first one rolled off the production line in '68, and they were still making and selling them right up to 2023. I have a book here somewhere that talks about how so many of the design decisions were based on cold hard physics fa…

That's because Boeing is primarily a defense contractor these days.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#460

Post by coredog64 »

baud147258 wrote: post #89
imoverclocked wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest tell will be just how over budget the development process becomes. Another issue in large companies trying to build something new is the scope creep which leads to committees and then decision by committee. If the folks leading this effort in Boeing are smart, they will keep the size of the team as small as possible. Maybe they will even hire some people back to lead this effort... assuming they can find…

> If you want passengers to want your plane, design it without sardines in mind; People don't like being sardines. Isn't that something that's more the responsibility of the airlines, who decide how many seats are put in a plane, following the limits of the aircraft? Like if you want more legroom you take a more expensive ticket from a company that doesn't try to cram as many passengers in each plane

In airline parlance, this is called "buyer furnished equipment". Boeing sells the airframe (without the engines, even if there's only one choice) and the seats, lavatories, etc. are all provided by the customer. The certifying authority (e.g. FAA/JAA) will have a maximum passenger count for the type. I'm reasonably certain that the BFE has to be certified as well, as you couldn't evacuate the type limit if the aisle wasn't in the center or you mixed 3-2 and 2-3.
Post reply on HN