[2manyredirects]

> If someone one hundred years ago would have said that we would be transporting as many passengers in aircraft as we would in trains, people may have thought , "a steam engine would never fit in an aircraft made of wood and ropes".

That's such an eloquent way of highlighting the need for conceptualisation in engineering but also the struggle to convince others (investors perhaps) that you're not a complete nutcase when you think outside the box.

[avar]

If you're struggling to convince others it's best to leave the Galileo fallacy out of your arguments.

Just because something was thought to be ridiculous in the past and now we know better, that doesn't mean that your seemingly ridiculous idea is just as misunderstood and underestimated as that other idea was at the time.

[astrodust]

Engineers don't necessarily think in terms of today's equipment when writing out models that describe the problem. They think in terms of abstract concepts, like "power source" and "lift generator".

We're already trying to build a space elevator when we don't even know what material can possibly withstand those forces. It's something over the horizon, but we're hopeful we'll find it. Likewise, powered flight was possible, the only problem was finding lighter, stronger materials for the airframe and a lighter, more powerful engine to fly it.

[mablap]

The thing with thinking outside the box is that you never really know if you're doing it right unless you hit the "jackpot". I.e. an idea seems obvious to you, but not to your co-workers/friends/bosses/whatever and is usually met with serious resistance from them. Especially in a work setting where you have to convince "non-technical" people. Sometimes it takes more than nice words to get your message across.

[NikolaeVarius]

But that's all with the benefit of hindsight and survivorship. Most outside the box ideas are nutcase ideas that fly in the face of basic physics and logic.