very true, it's bad if the system can be jammed. But jammers can be detected, counteracted, and can be, in and of themselves, indicators of hostilities.
Countermeasures are easily instituted. A simple and cheap metal shield around the reading station is all that's really needed.
The great advantage of RFID over bar code is that items of any shape can be reliably read. The big drawback of bar codes is that they can't be "deactivated" the way that rfid tags can. bar code systems are often confused by good labels that are "old".
exactly right: the unix api will dominate OS api's because it is uniform and is "good enough" for people to build on. Notice that he excludes graphic programs.
When we in the open source / free community develop and adopt a simple "good enough" user interface standard the same will happen in graphic programs.
I suggest that "eye candy" interfaces push mass desktop users away from our OS of choice. Push them back to MS word, excel, etc. A very simple and uniform user experience is needed.
in addition, I suggest: a interface standard will lead to more programming work, since a wider array of programs would be understandable to "average joe" users.
Therefor, I suggest that every desktop have two modes, the "hyper vanilla", and the personalized. At the click of, say, alt F1, the mode would toggle.
this would dramaticly ease tech support assistance and tutorial creation.
The Economist points this out in their article, and I agree. In fact, I consider it the core issue. Before I invest any time or money in developing an innovative product, I have to wonder whether MS will find it worthwhile to crush my efforts. Because they can and will, if th past is a guide.
IMHO, governments adopting Linux is the ray of light through the clouds. If I target my applications to that market, then I need not fear MS. Sure, I will have to compete with all the rest of you. But we will compete as equals in a free market, not as weaklings against a bully.
Moving mass from the surface of the moon into low earth orbit (LEO) takes 1/7 the energy of the trip from the earth's surface to LEO. There is very good evidence of near-surface water frozen into the lunar soils at the poles. The floors of those craters are very cold, since they are never hit by sunlight. Clementine had an instrument on board that mapped water deposits.
As a practical matter, a rover powered by a radioisotopic generator could easily dig up the soil, and bake out the water. Vast amounts of water are available in this way.
Water containers can be hurled into polar lunar orbit with an electric rail gun. An ion propulsion space tug in polar moon orbit can collect the water containers. They can be shot back at the earth from lunar orbit in the same way: with a rail gun.
This is all off the shelf hardware. We have tested lunar rovers. We have tested radioisotopic generators on flights to the outer planets, and beyond. We have tested various robotic drills and shovels on the moon and on mars.
BTW: Water can be obtained on mars in an analogous fashion.
Water is easy to break down into hydrogen and oxygen, for use as a cryogenic propellant. It may turn out though, to be cheaper and lighter to have a solar powered heater make steam for propulsion, since water is much easier to handle and store than LOX or LH2.
Silicon, Aluminum, and Magnesium oxides are all plentiful in the lunar crust. A solar furnace could purify these structural materials.
In addition, lunar soil can be processed into a sort of cement. This has been done experimentally in recent years.
Please don't dismiss the moon as a source of cheap and valuable materials. All at very low technical risk.
I'm inclined to view Carbon and Nitrogen as harder to aquire, both on the moon, and on mars.
for all your talk about doing grand things while others starve
So, am I to understand, that you would have folks not comment on government spending policy, if they have not personally exhausted all their indvidual resources on the problem they rate most important?
Perhaps you would like to think on that a bit. It seems to me that such a position would have huge adverse effects on free public discourse.
In any case, their are usually many direct and indirect effects arising from public spending. In this case, clean water would reduce public health costs, and add man hours to the economy. There is room for spending on pure research, and it has its benefits. This is something else however. Applied research should, in my view, be directed to the those applications where the payback is highest, and the risk is the least. Thus the comparisons which I cited; to wit: pie-in-the-sky hypesonic transports vs. straightforward public health.
The kinetic energy of a vehicle in low earth orbit needs to be bled off before it can land on the surface. Also bear in mind that the orbital vehicle needs to drop about 125-250 miles, so the gravitional potential energy involved needs to be bled off.
This is like a car useing its brakes going down a hill, and coming to a stop at the bottom.
The kinetic energy is enormous, as it increases as the square of the velocity. A 747 goes about Mach.85, but the shuttle goes Mach 25! So the kinetic energy dominates the problem as a whole. The shuttle has to get rid of about a thousand times more energy, pound for pound, when slowing from cruise to a stop.
That should give you a gut sense of the magnitude of the problem.
If you do that with rocket power, you need to have the engines in orbit(not a problem), but you also need the fuel for them. How much fuel do we need? The fuel to put the thing up there (at orbital speed) aproximates what we need to slow the thing back down. Think about that.
Isn't it "cheaper" to just reject the energy the same way a car does? With brakes? The outer shuttle skin is akin to the brake disks. The air friction is like the brake pads. The "brakeing" system is the thermal protection tiles, and the air itself. Obviously, the thermal protection system is much lighter than the "rocket fuel" needed for the alternative.
A huge waste of money in a country that would benefit enormously from potable water. They could treat the hundreds of thousands of folks with leprosy, a disease which is treated with great efficacy everywhere else in the world. And how about child labor? India seems to lead the world there, with more working five year olds than any other country on earth.
In my opinion, their hypersonic pipe dreams are an indicator of the strength of their delusions.
I'm shocked that educated people entertain this nonsense. It seems obscene to me.
I was once told, "if you really want a job, then say anything to get it. Once you get it, you'll figure it out."
The folks getting money from Congress say what they will, but what they really are looking for is experience in design, contruction, and operation of space systems. At some point others enter the process who want to have the joy of the doing (designers, astronaut pilots, experimenters, etc) and their laudable activities may become part of the "pitch" to Congress. But for the moment, there's not much of a business case for humans in space. That's OK. Skylab, the Mir series, and the ISS will make it clear how to work in orbit cheaply and safely. Someone will sooner or later also figure out things to do that are really worthwhile commercially.
Communications satelites have been a good business proposition for some time now. Sooner or later other things will emerge that use what we've learned about orbital access and maned operations in orbit.
My own belief is that the first "hit" will be the manufacture of a material in orbit that can't be made on the surface. If some novel and useful material can be made, like a near-perfect thermal insulator, or a tough and crack-resistant high temperature ceramic, then the real race will be on. Of course, the manufacture of that particular substance will be automated. But the race will be on to put experimenters in orbit.
How about shoe manufacturers putting them into the soles of your shoes? These things can be as small as a grain of sand. Then everywhere you go, those ID'ed shoes can be "read" by floormats, and of course, tied to the customer record of the person who bought them.
I don't mind that they're tracked up to the point where I purchase them. But I want to be able to "fry" the chip as I walk out of the store. And I want automatic (and substantial) tort (damage) remedies for those who use them against me without my consent. Laws can be created to put that into effect.
BTW these things can be put in food. That gives a whole new meaning to "you are what you eat"!
The thing I like about g is the guard intervals that were added. Those really improve clutter rejection, which would be a boon indooors (schools, office buildings, shopping malls). The thing would be like a walkie talkie/cell phone without the cell phone charges.
I'm curious why you would switch back to b. I think the b chip makers are all switching to g, aren't they? They get better capability out of the same silicon real estate, don't they?
GCC is fine. As a long-time C programmer, I can handle that. I'm thinking though, that in any app I write, I'd want to run on Macs, Linux, Windows, Palm, etc, as well as maybe on phones. Porting isn't just a pain, and a waste of time. It also invariably gens feature mismatches. That is bothersome for the users. In addition, you and I might get higher performance from C, but would everybody do their garbage collection right? And stay "in bounds"?
The DSP part sounds exactly right. I'm wondering whether there's a cheap chip for doing some crypto?
A cheap machine ($200-$250)
NO video (adds expense)
MP3 player
802.11g
-- easy ad hoc connection mode with nearby friends
-- IM / IRC ad hoc over the 802.11
-- email via any open 802.11 WAPs
-- share tunes (like with Kazaa), ad hoc over the 802.11
-- simple PK crypto for "private" IM conversations
Java on board (so apps/games can readily be written)
small keyboard (like on palm titanium)
Is that hardware price point impossible for the features?
"Yet India launched its first missile in 1963 and its first cosmonaut in 1984."
As far as I know, only the US and USSR/Russia have launched any people into space. I believe the Indian was launched by the USSR, wasn't it? There have also been passengers from other nations in orbit: Canada, Isreal, France, Japan, and so on. Even a Cuban, I believe.
The Chinese effort seems to me to be a prestige project, much like the Concorde. If that's right, then their efforts may end at the point where fear of "face loss" overcomes their desire for ever-more prestige. As for their "prestige" gains: launching knockoffs of 1960's Soviet rockets and payloads isn't going to impress anybody worth impressing! The Chinese also copied a Boeing 707 back in the 1970's. The thing was so overweight that it couldn't cary a payload!
I'll be impressed if they come up with clean, cheap electric power. Or a simple, cheap way to dispose of sewer water. Or a way to restore large damaged ecosystems to health (like the South China Sea, for example.)
Not only would those impress me as technical acomplishments, they would impress me as examples of wise leadership!
Sure, all other things being equal, an airline prefers to maintain 1 aircraft, rather than three. What really impacts costs though is numbers of types in a fleet. The smaller planes / fewer types model offers scheduleing flexibility, training cost reductions, parts cost reductions, more markets, improved frequencies, lower noise (big planes make more noise), and so on.
Note that the only really profitable carriers these days are those with a single type. The carriers with the most types are the worst shape. Imagine a low cost intercontinental carrier that operates like Ryan Air, or Southwest! That would really hammer the big guys. Small planes, high frequency, flexible scheduleing, serving markets like London - New York by flying from Stansted to Laguardia or Newark, or even that new Southwest destination out on Long Island! Or Seattle to Chitose or Pusan!
3D GPS approaches and free flight (no airways) will also drive the industry in that direction.
A320 be the possessor of the first fully fly-by-wire control system
I think that may be right. Bear in mind though, that fly by wire, like composites, has crept into commercial service bit by bit, starting in the mid 1960's. I believe that the Concorde had some sort of fly-by-wire. Fly by wire was analog back then.
Even the A320 was only introduced with fly-by-wire in the aerodynamic flight controls. The full authority digital engine controls (FADEC) came later. Even today, I believe that the back up for gear extension may be a manual crank back in the cabin.
The first glass cockpit was the 757 / 767 cockpit. The chief engineer was none other that the current head of Boeing Commercial. This was not only a cockpit with glass displays, it was the first non-military (commercially certified) digital cockpit. The design work was done in the 70's and the planes were in went into commercial service in 1980 or so.
As to the use of composites in Airbus products, there has been a steady trend towards increased use of composites in commercial aircraft everywhere, and Airbus has not led this trend by any strech of the imagination. First they were used in fairings, then floors and in some non-critical flight control surfaces such as spoilers, later in primary flight control surfaces, and later as skins in the tail sections. Primary structure such as spars started with the 777 tail. Boeing is now going to build both the fuselage barrel and the wings out of carbon fiber composites. This is very definitely a leap forward!
By the way, Airbus is kind of moving in the same direction with the A380, because the top skin of the body will have some fiberglass glued to the aluminum skin! They call this technical leap "GLARE". Look it up, it's a big advance they say.
But seriously, the highly automated design/build that Boeing is embarking on is the real advance. It will drop Boeings costs to such a degree that they will easily keep whatever share of the market they want, while remaining highly profitable. Boeing Commercial is makeing a 10% return on investment (ROI) even in todays market.
Airbus makes safe airplanes that are comparable in many ways to Boeing airplanes. Remember that the purpose of technology is not to get laid. An engineer may make beautiful things, but what he ALWAYS does is to "make something for a shilling, that any fool can make for a pound".
(quote by the British engineer / author Nevil Shute).
The three main reasons that people fly (or don't) are: PRICE, PRICE, PRICE
The main reason folks choose one airline over another is: PRICE
Secondary reason for frequent flyers is flyer miles.
Secondary reason for others (90% of seats sold) is: schedule (frequency) or non-stop vs. connection
The 747's, DC10's, and L1011s were very successful because the engines had much better fuel consumption (lower cost) than the DC8 and 707.
Boeing's guess is that if the seat/mile cost is the same for the 7e7 and the A380, then the load factors will be higher on the 7e7. Why? Because they can fly many long routes in thinner markets that can't fill up a A380. And when the you have 2000 people/day on route, with a single A380 flight, and 3 7e7 flights, folks will prefer the schedule choices that the 7e7 flights offer. All of which leaves just a few "mega" corridors where it's possible to run 380's.
cheers
[1] the structural efficiency of 737's when compared to the equivelant 318-19-20-21 is 15% better!
[2] the wing has a better l/d ratio
[3] the cockpit is much more flexible, which keeps 737 training/cross training costs lower.
[4] the bagage & freight space is much greater in the 737 too!
[5] for the passengers, the bagage bins are larger, too
Not only have more new-generation (737-600,700,800,900) 737's been built than A318/19/20/21s, but the most profitable airlines all fly 737's. I read not long ago that somone calculated that 85% of worldwide airline profits were coming from 737 operations!
Boeing are going after a different kind of flexibility...
Boeing also favors twins, rather than quads for long range
Twins have a better cheaper flight profile: long range twins get to altitude much faster than quads. a twin needs to be able to take off with an engine out, so the normal "excess thrust" is 50%. With 4 engines, an engine out leaves you with 3 engines, so each engine is not 100% of the needed take-off thrust, rather it's 33%. That means that the excess thrust with all four going is much less. when we compare the A340 to the 777, at the same range, weight, payload etc, the excess thrust of the 777 is 3 times as high as that of the A340. Excess thrust is the source of altitude gains and acceleration. So the 777 usually gets up to cruise speed / altitude in 1/3 of the time. in a Singapore to Europe situation this is 30 minutes vs 90 minutes.
For long-range aircraft, which are optimized for cruise, this has a huge impact on fuel burn. On some routes, the block fuel per passenger for the 777 is 60% of that taken on by the A340!
The twin noise signature is less, too. Noise near airports is also vastly reduced, because the twin climbs out very steeply.
Engine maintenance costs are also reduced, since the number of engines maintained dominates costs, not their thrust.
actually, no.
"Airbus can just install the new engines on its planes" IMHO: true
The composite structure improves costs in three ways: [1] greater structural efficiency (improved payload vs. structure weight PURPOSE: reduced fuel burn)[2] reduced parts count (lowered manufacturing costs, estimated to be only 60% as high as the 777 technology PURPOSE: reduced airlines capital costs) [3] corosion and metal fatigue problems of aluminum are history, so there's reduced structure inspection & maintenance PURPOSE: operational flexibility, improved capital utilization.
Composites had some problems, but less so now:
[1] cost per pound vs aluminum, but that's going down fast [2] water absorption by resin matrix, but there are new resins that overcome this [3] delamination, but finding and fixing delams is now cheap and reliable [4] resins broke down under UV, but new resins don't [5] some resins and pre-preg had to be stored cold, and cured hot at high pressure, but now there are pre-pregs that are room-temp, and some are cured with microwaves at normal pressures [6] layup was labor intensive but is now almost entirely automated (e.g. Boeing's JSF had only 70hr or so of manual composites work) [7] at first it was trial and error, now automated digital design / flexible tooling / digital manufacturing have made the processes extremely predictable and fast in very little floor space with very little equipment [8] nasty solvents and lots of scrap have given way to eco-friendly [9] cutting, drilling, and attaching cured components has become much easier, cheaper, and more repeatable.
cheers
Slashdot Mirror
very true, it's bad if the system can be jammed. But jammers can be detected, counteracted, and can be, in and of themselves, indicators of hostilities.
Countermeasures are easily instituted. A simple and cheap metal shield around the reading station is all that's really needed.
The great advantage of RFID over bar code is that items of any shape can be reliably read. The big drawback of bar codes is that they can't be "deactivated" the way that rfid tags can. bar code systems are often confused by good labels that are "old".
When we in the open source / free community develop and adopt a simple "good enough" user interface standard the same will happen in graphic programs.
I suggest that "eye candy" interfaces push mass desktop users away from our OS of choice. Push them back to MS word, excel, etc. A very simple and uniform user experience is needed.
in addition, I suggest: a interface standard will lead to more programming work, since a wider array of programs would be understandable to "average joe" users.
Therefor, I suggest that every desktop have two modes, the "hyper vanilla", and the personalized. At the click of, say, alt F1, the mode would toggle.
this would dramaticly ease tech support assistance and tutorial creation.
cheers
IMHO, governments adopting Linux is the ray of light through the clouds. If I target my applications to that market, then I need not fear MS. Sure, I will have to compete with all the rest of you. But we will compete as equals in a free market, not as weaklings against a bully.
Live long, and prosper!
As a practical matter, a rover powered by a radioisotopic generator could easily dig up the soil, and bake out the water. Vast amounts of water are available in this way.
Water containers can be hurled into polar lunar orbit with an electric rail gun. An ion propulsion space tug in polar moon orbit can collect the water containers. They can be shot back at the earth from lunar orbit in the same way: with a rail gun.
This is all off the shelf hardware. We have tested lunar rovers. We have tested radioisotopic generators on flights to the outer planets, and beyond. We have tested various robotic drills and shovels on the moon and on mars.
BTW: Water can be obtained on mars in an analogous fashion.
Water is easy to break down into hydrogen and oxygen, for use as a cryogenic propellant. It may turn out though, to be cheaper and lighter to have a solar powered heater make steam for propulsion, since water is much easier to handle and store than LOX or LH2.
Silicon, Aluminum, and Magnesium oxides are all plentiful in the lunar crust. A solar furnace could purify these structural materials.
In addition, lunar soil can be processed into a sort of cement. This has been done experimentally in recent years.
Please don't dismiss the moon as a source of cheap and valuable materials. All at very low technical risk.
I'm inclined to view Carbon and Nitrogen as harder to aquire, both on the moon, and on mars.
So, am I to understand, that you would have folks not comment on government spending policy, if they have not personally exhausted all their indvidual resources on the problem they rate most important?
Perhaps you would like to think on that a bit. It seems to me that such a position would have huge adverse effects on free public discourse.
In any case, their are usually many direct and indirect effects arising from public spending. In this case, clean water would reduce public health costs, and add man hours to the economy. There is room for spending on pure research, and it has its benefits. This is something else however. Applied research should, in my view, be directed to the those applications where the payback is highest, and the risk is the least. Thus the comparisons which I cited; to wit: pie-in-the-sky hypesonic transports vs. straightforward public health.
Cheers
This is like a car useing its brakes going down a hill, and coming to a stop at the bottom.
The kinetic energy is enormous, as it increases as the square of the velocity. A 747 goes about Mach .85, but the shuttle goes Mach 25! So the kinetic energy dominates the problem as a whole. The shuttle has to get rid of about a thousand times more energy, pound for pound, when slowing from cruise to a stop.
That should give you a gut sense of the magnitude of the problem.
If you do that with rocket power, you need to have the engines in orbit(not a problem), but you also need the fuel for them. How much fuel do we need? The fuel to put the thing up there (at orbital speed) aproximates what we need to slow the thing back down. Think about that.
Isn't it "cheaper" to just reject the energy the same way a car does? With brakes? The outer shuttle skin is akin to the brake disks. The air friction is like the brake pads. The "brakeing" system is the thermal protection tiles, and the air itself. Obviously, the thermal protection system is much lighter than the "rocket fuel" needed for the alternative.
Cheers
In my opinion, their hypersonic pipe dreams are an indicator of the strength of their delusions.
I'm shocked that educated people entertain this nonsense. It seems obscene to me.
I was once told, "if you really want a job, then say anything to get it. Once you get it, you'll figure it out."
The folks getting money from Congress say what they will, but what they really are looking for is experience in design, contruction, and operation of space systems. At some point others enter the process who want to have the joy of the doing (designers, astronaut pilots, experimenters, etc) and their laudable activities may become part of the "pitch" to Congress. But for the moment, there's not much of a business case for humans in space. That's OK. Skylab, the Mir series, and the ISS will make it clear how to work in orbit cheaply and safely. Someone will sooner or later also figure out things to do that are really worthwhile commercially.
Communications satelites have been a good business proposition for some time now. Sooner or later other things will emerge that use what we've learned about orbital access and maned operations in orbit.
My own belief is that the first "hit" will be the manufacture of a material in orbit that can't be made on the surface. If some novel and useful material can be made, like a near-perfect thermal insulator, or a tough and crack-resistant high temperature ceramic, then the real race will be on. Of course, the manufacture of that particular substance will be automated. But the race will be on to put experimenters in orbit.
how are RFID tags a violation of your privacy
How about shoe manufacturers putting them into the soles of your shoes? These things can be as small as a grain of sand. Then everywhere you go, those ID'ed shoes can be "read" by floormats, and of course, tied to the customer record of the person who bought them.
I don't mind that they're tracked up to the point where I purchase them. But I want to be able to "fry" the chip as I walk out of the store. And I want automatic (and substantial) tort (damage) remedies for those who use them against me without my consent. Laws can be created to put that into effect.
BTW these things can be put in food. That gives a whole new meaning to "you are what you eat"!
Cheers
The thing I like about g is the guard intervals that were added. Those really improve clutter rejection, which would be a boon indooors (schools, office buildings, shopping malls). The thing would be like a walkie talkie/cell phone without the cell phone charges.
I'm curious why you would switch back to b. I think the b chip makers are all switching to g, aren't they? They get better capability out of the same silicon real estate, don't they?
GCC is fine. As a long-time C programmer, I can handle that. I'm thinking though, that in any app I write, I'd want to run on Macs, Linux, Windows, Palm, etc, as well as maybe on phones. Porting isn't just a pain, and a waste of time. It also invariably gens feature mismatches. That is bothersome for the users. In addition, you and I might get higher performance from C, but would everybody do their garbage collection right? And stay "in bounds"?
The DSP part sounds exactly right. I'm wondering whether there's a cheap chip for doing some crypto?
A cheap machine ($200-$250)
NO video (adds expense)
MP3 player
802.11g
-- easy ad hoc connection mode with nearby friends
-- IM / IRC ad hoc over the 802.11
-- email via any open 802.11 WAPs
-- share tunes (like with Kazaa), ad hoc over the 802.11
-- simple PK crypto for "private" IM conversations
Java on board (so apps/games can readily be written)
small keyboard (like on palm titanium)
Is that hardware price point impossible for the features?
"Yet India launched its first missile in 1963 and its first cosmonaut in 1984."
As far as I know, only the US and USSR/Russia have launched any people into space. I believe the Indian was launched by the USSR, wasn't it? There have also been passengers from other nations in orbit: Canada, Isreal, France, Japan, and so on. Even a Cuban, I believe.
The Chinese effort seems to me to be a prestige project, much like the Concorde. If that's right, then their efforts may end at the point where fear of "face loss" overcomes their desire for ever-more prestige. As for their "prestige" gains: launching knockoffs of 1960's Soviet rockets and payloads isn't going to impress anybody worth impressing! The Chinese also copied a Boeing 707 back in the 1970's. The thing was so overweight that it couldn't cary a payload!
I'll be impressed if they come up with clean, cheap electric power. Or a simple, cheap way to dispose of sewer water. Or a way to restore large damaged ecosystems to health (like the South China Sea, for example.)
Not only would those impress me as technical acomplishments, they would impress me as examples of wise leadership!
Sure, all other things being equal, an airline prefers to maintain 1 aircraft, rather than three. What really impacts costs though is numbers of types in a fleet. The smaller planes / fewer types model offers scheduleing flexibility, training cost reductions, parts cost reductions, more markets, improved frequencies, lower noise (big planes make more noise), and so on.
Note that the only really profitable carriers these days are those with a single type. The carriers with the most types are the worst shape. Imagine a low cost intercontinental carrier that operates like Ryan Air, or Southwest! That would really hammer the big guys. Small planes, high frequency, flexible scheduleing, serving markets like London - New York by flying from Stansted to Laguardia or Newark, or even that new Southwest destination out on Long Island! Or Seattle to Chitose or Pusan!
3D GPS approaches and free flight (no airways) will also drive the industry in that direction.
Cheers
A320 be the possessor of the first fully fly-by-wire control system
I think that may be right. Bear in mind though, that fly by wire, like composites, has crept into commercial service bit by bit, starting in the mid 1960's. I believe that the Concorde had some sort of fly-by-wire. Fly by wire was analog back then.
Even the A320 was only introduced with fly-by-wire in the aerodynamic flight controls. The full authority digital engine controls (FADEC) came later. Even today, I believe that the back up for gear extension may be a manual crank back in the cabin.
cheers
As to the use of composites in Airbus products, there has been a steady trend towards increased use of composites in commercial aircraft everywhere, and Airbus has not led this trend by any strech of the imagination. First they were used in fairings, then floors and in some non-critical flight control surfaces such as spoilers, later in primary flight control surfaces, and later as skins in the tail sections. Primary structure such as spars started with the 777 tail. Boeing is now going to build both the fuselage barrel and the wings out of carbon fiber composites. This is very definitely a leap forward!
By the way, Airbus is kind of moving in the same direction with the A380, because the top skin of the body will have some fiberglass glued to the aluminum skin! They call this technical leap "GLARE". Look it up, it's a big advance they say.
But seriously, the highly automated design/build that Boeing is embarking on is the real advance. It will drop Boeings costs to such a degree that they will easily keep whatever share of the market they want, while remaining highly profitable. Boeing Commercial is makeing a 10% return on investment (ROI) even in todays market.
Airbus makes safe airplanes that are comparable in many ways to Boeing airplanes. Remember that the purpose of technology is not to get laid. An engineer may make beautiful things, but what he ALWAYS does is to "make something for a shilling, that any fool can make for a pound". (quote by the British engineer / author Nevil Shute).
Cheers
The main reason folks choose one airline over another is: PRICE
Secondary reason for frequent flyers is flyer miles.
Secondary reason for others (90% of seats sold) is: schedule (frequency) or non-stop vs. connection
The 747's, DC10's, and L1011s were very successful because the engines had much better fuel consumption (lower cost) than the DC8 and 707.
Boeing's guess is that if the seat/mile cost is the same for the 7e7 and the A380, then the load factors will be higher on the 7e7. Why? Because they can fly many long routes in thinner markets that can't fill up a A380. And when the you have 2000 people/day on route, with a single A380 flight, and 3 7e7 flights, folks will prefer the schedule choices that the 7e7 flights offer. All of which leaves just a few "mega" corridors where it's possible to run 380's.
cheers
[1] the structural efficiency of 737's when compared to the equivelant 318-19-20-21 is 15% better!
[2] the wing has a better l/d ratio
[3] the cockpit is much more flexible, which keeps 737 training/cross training costs lower.
[4] the bagage & freight space is much greater in the 737 too!
[5] for the passengers, the bagage bins are larger, too
Not only have more new-generation (737-600,700,800,900) 737's been built than A318/19/20/21s, but the most profitable airlines all fly 737's. I read not long ago that somone calculated that 85% of worldwide airline profits were coming from 737 operations!
cheers
Boeing also favors twins, rather than quads for long range
Twins have a better cheaper flight profile: long range twins get to altitude much faster than quads. a twin needs to be able to take off with an engine out, so the normal "excess thrust" is 50%. With 4 engines, an engine out leaves you with 3 engines, so each engine is not 100% of the needed take-off thrust, rather it's 33%. That means that the excess thrust with all four going is much less. when we compare the A340 to the 777, at the same range, weight, payload etc, the excess thrust of the 777 is 3 times as high as that of the A340. Excess thrust is the source of altitude gains and acceleration. So the 777 usually gets up to cruise speed / altitude in 1/3 of the time. in a Singapore to Europe situation this is 30 minutes vs 90 minutes.
For long-range aircraft, which are optimized for cruise, this has a huge impact on fuel burn. On some routes, the block fuel per passenger for the 777 is 60% of that taken on by the A340!
The twin noise signature is less, too. Noise near airports is also vastly reduced, because the twin climbs out very steeply.
Engine maintenance costs are also reduced, since the number of engines maintained dominates costs, not their thrust.
cheers
actually, no.
"Airbus can just install the new engines on its planes" IMHO: true
The composite structure improves costs in three ways: [1] greater structural efficiency (improved payload vs. structure weight PURPOSE: reduced fuel burn)[2] reduced parts count (lowered manufacturing costs, estimated to be only 60% as high as the 777 technology PURPOSE: reduced airlines capital costs) [3] corosion and metal fatigue problems of aluminum are history, so there's reduced structure inspection & maintenance PURPOSE: operational flexibility, improved capital utilization.
Composites had some problems, but less so now: [1] cost per pound vs aluminum, but that's going down fast [2] water absorption by resin matrix, but there are new resins that overcome this [3] delamination, but finding and fixing delams is now cheap and reliable [4] resins broke down under UV, but new resins don't [5] some resins and pre-preg had to be stored cold, and cured hot at high pressure, but now there are pre-pregs that are room-temp, and some are cured with microwaves at normal pressures [6] layup was labor intensive but is now almost entirely automated (e.g. Boeing's JSF had only 70hr or so of manual composites work) [7] at first it was trial and error, now automated digital design / flexible tooling / digital manufacturing have made the processes extremely predictable and fast in very little floor space with very little equipment [8] nasty solvents and lots of scrap have given way to eco-friendly [9] cutting, drilling, and attaching cured components has become much easier, cheaper, and more repeatable.
cheers