<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>gvb</author><text>Nearly infinite odds are that it was canceled because it didn&apos;t work.&lt;p&gt;From TFA:
&lt;i&gt;One declassified memo, which seems to be the conclusion of initial research and prototyping, says that Project 1794 is a flying saucer capable of &quot;between Mach 3 and Mach 4,&quot; (2,300-3,000 mph) a service ceiling of over 100,000 feet (30,500m), and a range of around 1,000 nautical miles (1,150mi, 1850km).&lt;/i&gt; [...] &lt;i&gt;According to the cutaway diagrams, the entire thing would even be capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;VTOL, Mach 3++, 100,000ft - the only thing it was missing for it to be the perfect military aircraft is a Romulan cloaking device.&lt;p&gt;If the &quot;flying saucer&quot; could meet those specifications, it would still be classified.  Q.E.D. it didn&apos;t work.</text><parent_chain><item><author>anonymouz</author><text>I&apos;d like to see what became of the project and why it was apparently canceled.&lt;p&gt;I disagree however with the last statement of the article: &quot;If flying saucers were somehow faster or more efficient or capable of lifting heavier loads, we would almost certainly see them in a commercial setting.&quot;&lt;p&gt;Just because flying saucers aren&apos;t used commercially doesn&apos;t necessarily imply that they are inefficient. It just means that the flying saucer technology &lt;i&gt;we have at the moment&lt;/i&gt; is more inefficient than the fixed wing technology. Fixed wing technology could simply be ahead because it has seen a lot more iterative development.&lt;p&gt;Endeavors of this kind, that carry a huge upfront investment in the initial technology compared to what&apos;s on the market now, tend to be things where a free market really performs badly.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>US Air Force’s 1950s supersonic flying saucer declassified</title><url>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137505-us-air-forces-1950s-supersonic-flying-saucer-declassified</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>roedog</author><text>A blended wing body and flying wing configuration have been flown.  There are similarities to the saucer in that they use lifting body effects.  They benefit from high lift-to-drag ratio.&lt;p&gt;However, the other handling qualities of these designs make them difficult to fly.  Stability can be a real problem.  I would guess that air handling problems were the issues that cancelled the saucer program.  Perhaps the modern fly-by-wire computer control systems used today might make it easier to fly a saucer.</text><parent_chain><item><author>anonymouz</author><text>I&apos;d like to see what became of the project and why it was apparently canceled.&lt;p&gt;I disagree however with the last statement of the article: &quot;If flying saucers were somehow faster or more efficient or capable of lifting heavier loads, we would almost certainly see them in a commercial setting.&quot;&lt;p&gt;Just because flying saucers aren&apos;t used commercially doesn&apos;t necessarily imply that they are inefficient. It just means that the flying saucer technology &lt;i&gt;we have at the moment&lt;/i&gt; is more inefficient than the fixed wing technology. Fixed wing technology could simply be ahead because it has seen a lot more iterative development.&lt;p&gt;Endeavors of this kind, that carry a huge upfront investment in the initial technology compared to what&apos;s on the market now, tend to be things where a free market really performs badly.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>US Air Force’s 1950s supersonic flying saucer declassified</title><url>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137505-us-air-forces-1950s-supersonic-flying-saucer-declassified</url></story>