Hacker News Reader

Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

>A new start-up says that it intends to offer an electric-powered commercial flight from London to Paris in 10 years.

There is no way a startup without any experience in aviation will design, build, certify and sell a commercial 150-seat airplane in 10 years. Not even mention the immense R&D groundwork required to even prove the concept of using batteries to power short haul flights.

Why do they put out bullshit like this? It just hurts their credibility.

View on HN

Magical thinking is a very effective VC cash magnet, especially when you have entered the "fear of missing out" stage.

Uber is a company that has a 60 Billion dollar valuation contingent on the idea that it will somehow both develop driverless cars, and maintain a monopoly on them (dispite having zero expertise in this area whatsoever, and competing against entire industries that do) before they run out of money losing 2 Billion+ a year.

Theranos had promises of technology that was not physically possible, and they knew it. Yet the billions still poured in.

Magical thinking is powerful.

I guess the more realistic exit strategy in the next ten years (strategic acquisition by Airbus or Boeing to work on their own projects with much longer time horizons) is less attractive for PR purposes...

Retrofitting an existing jet seems like a vastly more viable option in 10 years. But, with sufficient funding it's possible to start from scratch and get there in 10 years.

Not when you're dependent on (i) aviation authorities to certify your aircraft and (ii) third parties to improve battery technology to the point where it can happen

Based on another article they are not doing 100% electric. They are basically using battery's to replace the alternator/APU attached to the jet engine. That still adds up to a lot of jet fuel, but is only something like 5% total fuel savings.

That's a little more achievable than the "zero emissions airliner" their website promises and would explain why they're talking about going after the A320 market rather than the ATR one (And a 5% emissions reduction over a 10 year horizon is only half what engine suppliers aim for by improved jet technology, though if it's on top of that improvement it would still be very welcome)

But if what they're building is an APU rather than a new means of propulsion involving radical wing redesigns, I'm not sure why they're talking about building their own airframe rather than getting it certified to go onto the next generation of other manufacturers' airframes

To pull this off efficenctly they are going to want a ~20,000 kg battery pack that's easily swapable on landing. That's going to take a fairly significant change to an airframe and weight distribution is going to an issue. On the other hand they would also want smaller gas tanks if it's really only doing 300 mile trips + buffer.

Longer term, they would want to start using electricity for propulsion and ramp that up as batteries improve.

Normally I'd agree with you but seeing that SpaceX was able to go from zero to sending stuff into orbit in a decade, building a plane in that same time period doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

I'd be more concerned with the realities of battery technology not being ready and existing regulations/testing stretching the timetable v.s. pure technical ability of a team to design something that would be fit for purpose.

SpaceX has re-done something that was already done. It's no small feat, but the proof of concept existed years ago.

An electric plane with 100+ person on board has no POC so far...

Also, SpaceX is fine with having their vehicles occasionally explode. Which is considered par for the course in spaceflight circles, but not so much in jet travel.

Well they're a startup in the traditional sense as rockets tend to "move fast and break things".

Rocket launches have pretty high failure rate of 0.8 - 8%[0]. That is not acceptable for commercial flights. Would you fly a plane that fails mid-air one flight out of twenty?

0. http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8566/what-is-the-su...

Building a space craft quickly is in fact more realistic because you're not operating in the conventional flight market which has extremely high requirements and heavy regulation for safety.

If a space rocket blows up, including passengers, it's okay, part of the business - everyone knows space flight is high risk. If a commercial flight crashes, that is simply not acceptable.

They smartly tested the initial rockets in unmanned missions. (Actually, all of them yet.) So they have two explosions, a few minor problems (and many expected crash landings test) but no one was killed.

For comparison: https://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm

SpaceX? I realise that the world has very few Musks about, but it is possible; highly unlikely but it is possible.

SpaceX was still using "conservative" technology. It was more like a business model innovation than technological per se. And the reusable parts are being developed by steps

It's an important difference.

My guess is that they are trying to create a hype around it to attract investors and make the success a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even if they fail to produce a working electric airplane, they will make a lot of money in the process.

But they do have experience in aerospace, since they're made up of engineers from Boeing, Cessna, and NASA.

SpaceX did more than that in 10 years. Improbable? yes Impossible? no.

Presumably they are hiring people with experience in aviation, though.

"There is no way a startup with no experience in spaceflight will be design, build, certify, and sell an orbiter in ten years." -- Someone just like you in 2002, when SpaceX was founded. It actually only took them six. Acknowledged they are different industries, but I'm wary of confident statements of impossibility, especially without all the relevant facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com