Nowadays, I do deep learning for a living, before that I was doing computer vision. One day I am really pissed off at some compiling issue, with a parallel code and I am like "fuck this, this is a plumbing issue! I should spend my time on algorithms and shit. Not on ordering the damn bytes of the raw pixels. I have done that for years, that should be a solved problem by now."
I go on reddit for some well-deserved outrage-slacking and stumble on the shuttle engine. "Yeah, that's what I am talking about. Now that is engineering." Then I realized it is basically a maze of pipes and pumps.
Uh, yeah, 95% of plumbing (and some metallurgy feats as well). Ok, back to coding my data pipelines then...
> While working, I suddenly heard a noise and looked up to find Robert Hughes, the art critic of Time magazine, staring at me in disbelief. ‘But you’re Philip Glass! What are you doing here?’ It was obvious that I was installing his dishwasher and I told him I would soon be finished. ‘But you are an artist,’ he protested. I explained that I was an artist but that I was sometimes a plumber as well and that he should go away and let me finish.
I suppose someone is thinking that fluid dynamics is plumbing, but it would be a stretch to make that claim over issues like the size and shape of the combustion chamber, its throat and the bell, which are dependent on the characteristics of transonic and supersonic flow.
Signed, Not an aerospace engineer ;)
On the other hand, there's nothing "engineering" about software engineering.
And I would tend to agree with your second point. We might occasionally borrow some formalism and organizational structure from our engineering cousins, but it's different in enough ways that it probably shouldn't bear the same moniker.
I am just allowed to try pressing the red button several times a day instead of once every two years.
Comparing the number of parts underestimates the complexity of a computer system, of course, because the software is a machine with a vast number of parts, on top of the hardware.
In other words, I'm on the side of those who say software is hard to get right for good reason, and not because the practitioners are less competent.
The recent launch was the first commercial Falcon Heavy launch (Arabsat 6a)
(The Apollo 11 command module is there, too!)
Temporarily though. Normally it's exhibited at the Smithsonian in Washington DC (Which is also absolutely worth a visit).
It isn't clear to me that they would.
I suppose if your cooling system was highly optimised the extra energy could tip the balance, or is that what you're saying? But then all ic engines would be cooled by their fuel, its kind of inherent to the process.
The fuel that was used had to withstand fairly extreme conditions before reaching the engine to be burned, which also made it pretty hard to ignite under ordinary conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7
Edit to add:
Different materials expand by different amounts due to heat, and different parts of the aircraft are reaching different temperatures.
If you know all the bits are going to expand x amount in normal flight, then you work back to what size they are when cold, if the shrinkage/expansion is too great you possibly could go with a different material (with various tradeoffs) or you just accept the shrinkage as they did here.
Those seem mutually exclusive?
Do you mean that triethylborane ignites the fuel?
To answer my own question triethylborane is indeed used to ignite the main fuel.
Three words: the Cold War. See also: Project Sunshine, the Oak Ridge Experiments, SDI, etc. Once you start writing blank checks to the military-industrial complex the crazy ideas start pouring forth.
There is a great deal of this in modern life that we successfully ignore until management failure makes it unmaintainable any more.
Von Braun: "So what was the problem?"
But it does explode! It's just that the all the explosion power is arranged to go in the same direction
Does a person need to clarify this point, in order to convey intended meaning in this context?
Deflagration = subsonic combustion
Detonation = supersonic combustion
When people say "explode" they tend to mean detonation.
This is perhaps apocryphal, but I briefly worked with a guy who’d worked on the F-1 engine, and he said they’d use surplus WW2 grenades to simulate distortions/aberrations in the combustion chamber.
...Unless the fuel at that point was already hotter than the turbine exhaust...
Rocket engines are weird.