Mike Sorrenti

My latest Substack is now live: Slacker Index: Why vertical integration is key for rapid hardware development In part 2 of a series, I break down what Slacker Index is and why optimizing lead times is so critical for enabling rapid, agile hardware development. https://lnkd.in/gwZczwdf

89

11 Comments

Iterative Systems Engineering: In Practice is out. Here’s a quick look at what’s inside. ❶ Iteration as Infrastructure: How teams like Anduril use V0–V3 cycles to build confidence fast without skipping rigor. ❷ Specs in Motion: Why top-down goals and bottom-up constraints rarely align on day one and how the best teams reconcile them weekly. ❸ CI/CD for hardware: How modern teams structure V-cycles, link requirements to tests, and evolve architecture with every iteration. Access below

134

23 Comments

Digital Twins I was slightly exasperated to hear from three people this week who disagreed with the name "digital twins." I seriously think by now that train has left the station. There are already more than 20,000 papers on digital twins on Google Scholar in 2025. My colleague Mike Grieves and I have battled these misconceptions since we adopted the name "digital twin" in 2010. One of the early names for the internet was "Intergalactic Computer Network." Similarly, an early name for cybersecurity was "Information Security (InfoSec)." In the early days of the digital twin concept, alternative opinions included digital systems model and even virtual clone. This week, somebody offered a mini-dissertation on the name "phygital twins" to replace it. Oh, good grief! Humpty Dumpty famously stated, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." The widespread adoption by the broad community has voted and chosen the meaning of our term. What’s in a name? Sometimes, it is simply a perfect fit, and that is precisely the case with "digital twins."

108

21 Comments

Hiring great engineers and researchers? We look for two things: they’ve solved something truly hard - and can apply that thinking to our space fast. Here’s how we test for both: 💻 Deep technical ownership We ask: “What’s the hardest technical problem you’ve solved?” Then go deep for 10–20 minutes. A strong sign: they can explain it simply - but also go so deep into the problem and solution that they lose us halfway. Only someone who’s actually done the work can go there. ⚡ Fast problem-solving We present a real challenge we’re facing. Great candidates explore ideas with us, ruthlessly prioritise, and move fast. That ability to reason in new domains is what startups demand - because the next challenge is always around the corner. These signals are almost impossible to fake.

57

4 Comments

I've had lots of conversations with engineers and leaders who ask about our SysML v2 "meta model". I often don't know what they mean by that.  Here's the reality: - Our application is written in a programming language   - SysML v2 is not a programming language   - Our "meta model" is a data schema inspired by the SysML v2 specification  That schema might not align perfectly with what the creators of SysML v2 had in mind. And that's okay.  What's revolutionary about SysML v2 is its specification for how to model systems rigorously-- with incredible precision and expressiveness. It provides the guard rails we need. It sets the foundation for a level of MBSE the industry has never seen.  Implementation details? User workflows? Graphical interfaces?   Leave that to us. Our mission is to build new, powerful tools based on and enabled by the SysML v2 specification, not to treat it as a handbook for how to write software. How is your team thinking about SysML v2 adoption?   Is there confusion in your organization about the difference between a modeling language and a tool?  #MBSE #aerospace #engineering

15

4 Comments

Engineers choose coaxial rotors for two reasons. One is a smart trade-off. The other is a catastrophic trap. One reason is about maximizing thrust. The other is the promise of safety. But that promise can lead to the exact opposite... 👇 ____________________________ Reason 1: The Valid Trade-Off (Thrust Density) There's a physical limit to how much thrust a single propeller can produce, as its tips approach the speed of sound. If your design has a strict diameter constraint, you can't just use a bigger prop. A coaxial system is a brute-force solution: you stack another propeller on top to get more thrust out of the same footprint. It's a trade you make with open eyes: you sacrifice efficiency for pure power density. A valid, if costly, choice. Reason 2: The Catastrophic Trap (The "Redundancy" Myth) The logic seems seductive: a standard quadcopter has 4 single points of failure (SPOFs). By using a coaxial X8 configuration (8 motors), you add redundancy and make it safer, right? Wrong. This is a trap for three reasons: You've Doubled the Failure Points: Without a holistic safety design, you haven't added true redundancy. You've just doubled the number of components that can fail. Your motor failure probability has just gone up. The Brutal Performance Penalty: For the drone to survive one motor failure, the entire system must be massively over-specced. To maintain stability, if one motor dies, the opposing motor's thrust must be reduced to match. This means a 1/8th power loss instantly becomes a 1/4th power loss in practice. The Control System Nightmare: The flight controller needs to be expertly designed and tuned to detect the failure instantly and switch to a completely different, degraded flight mode. This is a massive software and testing challenge. The hard truth: without this holistic approach, your "redundant" system isn't safer. It's just a heavier, less efficient drone with twice the chance of a motor failure. This is why I always stand by this principle: A simple design that is proven to work is always superior to a complex one that promises to work better. If real safety is the goal, better alternatives exist—from a simple parachute system to advanced control algorithms that allow quadcopters flight with failed motors, like the ones developed at ETH Zürich. Have you ever seen "redundancy" actually add more complexity and risk to a project? I'm keen to hear your war stories in the comments. #UAV #RPAS #AerospaceEngineering #Drones #SystemSafety #Redundancy #Avionics

230

73 Comments

Just a few decades ago, most people (and space agencies) didn’t think reusable rockets could work. Then Interlune CEO Rob Meyerson helped build one from scratch, as one of the first engineers at a secretive Seattle think tank (now called Blue Origin). Rob shared a behind-the-scenes look at the earliest days of Blue Origin—plus more stories and insights on what it’s like to build space tech companies from the ground up—in this week’s episode of the Chasing Space podcast with Brenden Swanik. It’s space entrepreneurship at ground zero: if you’re a dreamer AND a builder AND a space junkie, don’t miss this one. Catch the full episode here: https://lnkd.in/ecbEmnWA #SpaceInnovation #Helium3 #SpaceLeadership #ChasingSpace #ReusableRockets #SpaceTech

106

5 Comments