spaceandshit

Wikipedia has a good article on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_company

I agree, I did the same thing.

I always wondered why people think building an app is the best way to get users. Maybe it’s that a large number of phone users these days are used to downloading an app for a function versus visiting a website just to get sucked into endless notifications. Maybe it’s development preferences by the creator. Maybe we’re the odd ones out and people actually do download apps just to try them out.

Aerospace engineer, focus in controls and system design. Looking for new opportunities.

Location: Seattle, WA

  Remote: No


  Willing to relocate: Yes


  Technologies: Aerospace Controls, model-based development, requirements development, systems engineering, software engineering. C++, Python, MATLAB/Simulink.


  Résumé/CV: Please see LinkedIn


  Email: Please see LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sujitshivaprasad/

Unfortunately, that kind of arrogance is common on this forum.

You would have a difficult time finding an airborne system that does not already do this:

> I just hope these are thoroughly tested and actually solve real world problems

Changing from a legacy style to a new one is not cheap, and aerospace companies are not the type to spend money on useless, less reliable technology.

Only one of many competitors: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2019/06-11-...

Joby makes the electric motors for this aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joby_Aviation (title image)

I see a few positions related to autonomy on your website. What kind of experience levels are you expecting? I can’t tell if those are 20+ years experience or entry-level.

However, people need to travel. And they will travel. Calling it a doomed industry is bogus.

Not OP, but yes that would be correct. I think they meant lower altitude, higher pressure. 787s are at around ~6000ft pressure altitude, and most others are at 8000ft. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization

Thanks for the link, I was not familiar. I'm not sure if any current commercial systems use these methods. I know the defense industry uses a lot of advanced techniques because they're their own regulators.

Are you familiar with DO-178? Basically outputs have to be deterministic.. so you can't really use advanced control techniques.

I haven't worked on flight control (but control on specific aircraft systems, which are at the same level), and they're all basically PID control thrown together.

Some Hindus bury, fyi

Convince regulators that advanced control techniques can be used on flight software (model-based predictive control, optimal control, etc.)

We know how to do these, maybe not as safe as we can with simpler methods today, but convincing the public and regulators will always be the challenge in aviation/aerospace.

Probably the only realistic (software related) method in today's world without a materials/battery improvement, but we won't get there for a while.

> Reducing idling time and improving routes both increase fuel efficiency without changing the airplane

Do you think idling time is a software problem? Aircraft idle for various time based on other requirements and needs, for example, spooling up the engines or inerting the fuel tanks.

Routes are already optimized by air traffic for the fastest, and cheapest route. They have no incentive to increase flight times as there would be fewer aircraft flying then.

That was my instinctive response when I made my first search; would be a great addition.

You have a lot of trust in strangers.

Do lego sets appreciate?

Thank you for correcting a common (HN/SW) perspective I've seen recently. "Software will fix all problems, everywhere"

Joe Rogan recently talked to the organization's founder for a second time, and discussed some of these things.

https://youtu.be/whRVyywTov4

Which Etymotic product in particular?

There are a few in the Puget Sound such as Blue Origin, Collins Aerospace, SpaceX and some other smaller ones. Your point is valid though.

Ah, I guess you're right. In the aerospace world, engines typically mean one type of device. I stand corrected :)

Some still do. I suspect you only know a very small percentage of the total number of employees.

If commercial aircraft go electric (which as the other commenter pointed out, won’t be happening for a while), the number of engines would be 0. Electric motors are not the same as gas turbine engines.

I love seeing these false statements on HN, where most users have no idea what the aerospace industry is like.

If you have sources please, provide them.

I've always felt that phys.org is a reliable, less-sensationalized source for interesting science articles. Is it common for them to "make claims that go way beyond what the paper justifies"?

This is HN, where a majority of the readers are in the software/tech industry.

Which company?