Is aerospace still as exciting as it used to be?
Discussion
No man has walked on the moon for 40 years, or travelled further from Earth since.
The re-usable Shuttle programme has been and gone.
Fast military jets are no faster than they were in the 1960s (and are now a lot slower when compared to the SR71 Blackbird).
The Harrier has been and gone (for UK at least).
The Fleet Air Arm has no fixed-wing carrier-borne aircraft for years to come.
Concorde has been and gone.
The RAF has been rationalized and reduced.
The F117a Stealth fighter has been and gone.
Many current airliners, military aircraft and missiles are still evolutions of at least 40 year-old designs.
Whatever new aircraft are being designed seem to take decades to enter service and are then expected to remain in service for many decades more.
With the exceptions of the full double-decker Airbus A380 and the 1990s B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, what major steps forward could average Joe Public actually recognise over what went before? Airline passengers are still getting from A to B at much the same speed and height and in the same size aircraft as they did 40 years ago.
I know fuel economy, emissions, noise reduction, electronics and computing power are all very worthy and complex technologies, but do they really excite the younger generation? I am sure that many future RAF employees would have first been attracted to the profession by seeing low-flying jets regularly streaking overhead, or day-trips to the local RAF or USAF airbase with their parents. These days you can drive from one end of the country to the other and not see a single jet; similarly you can park up at an active airbase for an hour and a half and not see a single aircraft movement. Come to think of it, maybe our X-Box 360 / I-Pad generation offspring would prefer to sit safely at a desk flying a UAV thousands of miles away.
So has aerospace lost its previous lustre?
I don't expect you to agree with me: I'm just interested in your opinions.
The re-usable Shuttle programme has been and gone.
Fast military jets are no faster than they were in the 1960s (and are now a lot slower when compared to the SR71 Blackbird).
The Harrier has been and gone (for UK at least).
The Fleet Air Arm has no fixed-wing carrier-borne aircraft for years to come.
Concorde has been and gone.
The RAF has been rationalized and reduced.
The F117a Stealth fighter has been and gone.
Many current airliners, military aircraft and missiles are still evolutions of at least 40 year-old designs.
Whatever new aircraft are being designed seem to take decades to enter service and are then expected to remain in service for many decades more.
With the exceptions of the full double-decker Airbus A380 and the 1990s B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, what major steps forward could average Joe Public actually recognise over what went before? Airline passengers are still getting from A to B at much the same speed and height and in the same size aircraft as they did 40 years ago.
I know fuel economy, emissions, noise reduction, electronics and computing power are all very worthy and complex technologies, but do they really excite the younger generation? I am sure that many future RAF employees would have first been attracted to the profession by seeing low-flying jets regularly streaking overhead, or day-trips to the local RAF or USAF airbase with their parents. These days you can drive from one end of the country to the other and not see a single jet; similarly you can park up at an active airbase for an hour and a half and not see a single aircraft movement. Come to think of it, maybe our X-Box 360 / I-Pad generation offspring would prefer to sit safely at a desk flying a UAV thousands of miles away.
So has aerospace lost its previous lustre?
I don't expect you to agree with me: I'm just interested in your opinions.
It has reached a plateau as a mature industry.
Technical innovation still abounds in aerospace - but it is in less dramatic and exciting areas - so the general public don't notice it so much.
Also, the media no longer praises achievement or excites people about technical innovation - with the odd exception. So the ordinary punter is more excited by what is happening to celebrities prancing on ice rather than chaps putting their necks on the line for human advancement.
Technical innovation still abounds in aerospace - but it is in less dramatic and exciting areas - so the general public don't notice it so much.
Also, the media no longer praises achievement or excites people about technical innovation - with the odd exception. So the ordinary punter is more excited by what is happening to celebrities prancing on ice rather than chaps putting their necks on the line for human advancement.
It COULD be brought to the forefront - the news each day could open with the latest happenings on the ISS for example, or an attempt on the land speed record, or an expedition to the sea floor. But they are much more interested in scandal (politicians with speeding points, politicians being rude to policemen, phone hacking) and mind-numbing yes/no politics than anything forward-looking or exciting.
I suspect that Mankinds greatest evolutions are driven by a fear of the Unknown, rather than the Known. The cold war was broadly speaking a fear of "possibilites" rather than a fear of "actuallities" so to speak. And the thing about unknowns, is that they are difficult to argue against! So Political and Finanical limitations could be pushed aside under the auspices of progress in the face of aversity (no matter that the averstity was broadly an imaginary one!)
So, the Space Race, the High speed/high altitude military aircraft development, satelites, and much much more was driven through, at huge finincial cost to the population based entirely on the "we can't be behind the Ruskies" line of argument.
These days, thanks in a large part to those technologies that were part developed during the 50s & 60s, we know excatly what our "enemies" (and Allies for that matter) are up to, their capabilites and technologies. So in the 1959, when the CIA just had to know what the Russians Nuclear program was capable of, a practically limitless budget became availible for Lockheed to build the U2/SR-71 programs. No politician or leader could stand up in the Senate and ignore the threat of that unknown
Added to which our understanding and mastery of science and physics means that a modern system design is very much more understood before we start. The days of test pilots lining up on the runway in a brand new plane with practically no idea if it would fly or not, or how it would handle are long gone. These days that same pilot will have hundreds if not thousands of hrs in a simulator, a simulator that has been programmed with data generated during the design and development program.
A final major change imo, is the simply stagering level of complexity in a modern aerospace system, be that from NASA, Boeing or whoever. In this day and age that complexity results in individuals being a small (but vital) cog in a larger machine. The scope for brilliant but perhaps slightly tyranical project leaders (Kelly Johnson for example) driving a small engineering team hard for a relatively short period of time, with few if any restrictions on budget and no or limitied overview/inquisition from above, are long gone.
Perhaps this does make it seem dull compared to the halcyon days of the 1960's but perhaps different is a better way of putting it.
As a new generation of children grow up with a vast information technology capability from their youngest days, i suspect that new excitments and challenges will present themselves. Perhaps not so much a challenge anymore of the "Right stuff" but one of integration and information transfer? Engineering has always been about finding the correct compromise (anyone who uses the words "without compromise" in any engineering arena whatsoever needs to be shot imo!) and this is more so now than ever. It has become a "what capability SHOULD we empower our creation with" rather that a "what capability CAN we empower our creation with"
So, the Space Race, the High speed/high altitude military aircraft development, satelites, and much much more was driven through, at huge finincial cost to the population based entirely on the "we can't be behind the Ruskies" line of argument.
These days, thanks in a large part to those technologies that were part developed during the 50s & 60s, we know excatly what our "enemies" (and Allies for that matter) are up to, their capabilites and technologies. So in the 1959, when the CIA just had to know what the Russians Nuclear program was capable of, a practically limitless budget became availible for Lockheed to build the U2/SR-71 programs. No politician or leader could stand up in the Senate and ignore the threat of that unknown
Added to which our understanding and mastery of science and physics means that a modern system design is very much more understood before we start. The days of test pilots lining up on the runway in a brand new plane with practically no idea if it would fly or not, or how it would handle are long gone. These days that same pilot will have hundreds if not thousands of hrs in a simulator, a simulator that has been programmed with data generated during the design and development program.
A final major change imo, is the simply stagering level of complexity in a modern aerospace system, be that from NASA, Boeing or whoever. In this day and age that complexity results in individuals being a small (but vital) cog in a larger machine. The scope for brilliant but perhaps slightly tyranical project leaders (Kelly Johnson for example) driving a small engineering team hard for a relatively short period of time, with few if any restrictions on budget and no or limitied overview/inquisition from above, are long gone.
Perhaps this does make it seem dull compared to the halcyon days of the 1960's but perhaps different is a better way of putting it.
As a new generation of children grow up with a vast information technology capability from their youngest days, i suspect that new excitments and challenges will present themselves. Perhaps not so much a challenge anymore of the "Right stuff" but one of integration and information transfer? Engineering has always been about finding the correct compromise (anyone who uses the words "without compromise" in any engineering arena whatsoever needs to be shot imo!) and this is more so now than ever. It has become a "what capability SHOULD we empower our creation with" rather that a "what capability CAN we empower our creation with"
James May summed it up pretty well in his 20th Century series by comparing (IIRC) a Vickers Vimy circa 1919, a De Havilland Dragon Rapide circa 1930 and a Boeing 747 circa 1970.....
"In that (Vimy), people were worried they'd simply die, in that (DH Rapide) people were worried they'd get diverted or lost due to bad weather, and in that (747)........people are just worried it won't be showing the latest Bond film"
"In that (Vimy), people were worried they'd simply die, in that (DH Rapide) people were worried they'd get diverted or lost due to bad weather, and in that (747)........people are just worried it won't be showing the latest Bond film"
Whilst externally many aircraft look similar to how they looked 30 years ago, under the skin they are very different beasts. Systems are quite a bit more advanced, avionics are smaller and lighter, engine technology is far more advanced and above all, probably the biggest, and most noticeable advance is the reliability of modern aircraft.
LotusOmega375D said:
I know fuel economy, emissions, noise reduction, electronics and computing power are all very worthy and complex technologies, but do they really excite the younger generation?
If they're engineers (or potential engineers) then yes.Speaking as an (ex) engineer.
I'm always cynical about Vulcan to the Sky claiming that they are inspiring future engineers (by resurrecting a relic).
Type 45.
Astute.
A380.
F1
Aston Martin.
Lotus (whoops)
Rolls Royce (aero obviously)
There's enough inspiration out there.....
annodomini2 said:
Regulation, regulation, regulation.
It's so costly to massively change what was done before that everything is evolution rather than revolution.
Sorry but that's bIt's so costly to massively change what was done before that everything is evolution rather than revolution.
ksShow me the regulation that is preventing a superior product from entering the market. Economics and the maturity of the product are the things which make aerospace "boring".
The reason why you haven't seen any big configurational changes in aircraft is because the mission requirements are still the same as they were in the past and those configurations were arrived at by logical means. Radical changes in configuration are likely to at best produce marginal gains which do no justify the spending to develop them.
What is interesting is that in the unmanned world they see numerous different configurations and technologies and compressed development cycles. It is likely that some of the UAV/networked solutions will actually break the paradigms with conventional manned aircraft (swarms of small platforms, kamikaze craft blurring the line between a missile and a war plane, distributed sensors and launch platforms)
AER said:
The excitment in aerospace is in the unmanned arena. You can tell this by all the hysteria in the press about drones!
In the future, man won't go many places he hasn't been before!
This is what I'm thinking. From nano drones to unmanned space flight to the planets and stars, there is a lot of work going into these. Not all fill me with excitement though. Who wants mosquito sized surveillance?In the future, man won't go many places he hasn't been before!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff