| ▲ | FL33TW00D 12 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I like the comparison, but with aviation on a fundamental level we made it simpler (removing actuation), not added more (senses we dont need) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | adrian_b 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
What counts is the overall complexity, not the complexity of a single subsystem. Using more senses allows simpler processing of the sensor data, especially when there is a requirement for high reliability, and at least until now this has demonstrated a simpler complete system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jkrejcha 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Others in this subthread discussed the comparison of the complexity of different ways of achieving flight itself, but I think there is an interesting discussion in that... well... we do add senses we don't technically need to achieve stable flight (but are very useful for safe flight and have reduced the incidence of aviation incidents and accidents dramatically). Whether it be altimeters based on radio[1] or air pressure[2], avoidance and surveillance systems that use radio waves to avoid collisions with other aircraft[3][4], airborne weather radars[5], sensors that measure angle of attack (AoA), GNSS location, attitude, etc, many aircraft (even unpowered gliders!) have some combination of special sensing systems that aren't strictly necessary to take off, fly to a destination, and land, even if some are required for what many would consider safe flight in some scenarios. Many of these systems have redundancies built in in some form or another and many of these systems are even built into unmanned aerial systems (UASes) big and small. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_altimeter [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_altimeter [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillan... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jeremysalwen 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure I agree. I think just having wings that flex a bit is mechanically simpler than having an additional rotating propellor. After all, rotating axles are so hard to evolve they never almost never show up in nature at a macro scale. Sort of a perfect analogy to lidar actually. We create a new approach to solve the problem in a more efficient way, that evolution couldn't reach in billions of years | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | javawizard 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet engines do not strike me as being inherently simpler than muscles, not by a long shot. They're still the best way we know of going about the business of building a flying machine, for various reasons. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | lisdexan 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I would posit that the human brain is complex, and adding senses is simpler than replicating an aspect of the mind more accurately. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||