Posted on 03/27/2006 5:22:30 PM PST by KevinDavis
Rockets are not like airplanes. They have very small margins: engines operate at high temperatures and high pressures, and even a small failure can be catastrophic. An airplane that has an engine go out can still glide to a landing. A rocket that loses an engine crashes. Structural failure on an airplane is sometimes survivable (witness B-17 bombers returning to base after getting shot full of holes over Germany), but structural failure on a rocket is always fatal. Rockets are also complex devices, where everything has to go right the first time. That’s why they call it rocket science—although it is really engineering, not science, that is the real profession.
Because of these factors, there is a common perception that the first time any new rocket is launched, it will fail. When SpaceX’s Falcon 1 smashed into the Pacific Ocean on Friday, many people said that although this was disappointing, it was not all that unexpected, after all, most new rockets blow up or crash during their first flights. So Falcon 1 should not be any different, although previously many of these same people had claimed that Falcon 1’s strength was that it was different.
(Excerpt) Read more at thespacereview.com ...
At least those built for transonic performance anyway..
All your rocket are belong to us.
'Engineering is not science,' is a useful distinction, regrettably often lost to the general public.
If the computer models are correct, then the aircraft should fly exactly as expected.
The remaining unknowns are manufacturing errors that can not be mathematically modeled.
> 'Engineering is not science,' is a useful distinction, regrettably often lost to the general public.
Indeed. However, I know from experience that "I am a rocket engineer" brings blank stares, and does nothing to attract the ladies (let's face it, that just about the only reason why any guy does any thing). But "I am a rocket scientist" at least grabs a little attention.
But at least he's trying, and at least he got something off the ground. Hope he can persevere. But there's an old joke:
"Want to make a small fortune in aerospace? Start with a big one".
The truth shall set you free! :-)
Your tagline refers to this?
A good day.
I cook.
I am considered a good cook, by many.
Yet, if I had a comparable set of goals, with the same elvel of technology as our rocket-types, I would suffer far more spectacular and catastrophic failures than I do now.
(PERSONAL FAILURE:My cod cakes were crispy, brown and delicious, although they seemed rather bland.)
But I digress: I consider the technicians and scientists of rocketry, nothing short of genius artisans and experts, worthy of the dignity and respect we give fine chefs, painters and musicians.
Songs should be sung, large-breasted women should clamor to go to the departmental parties. Government subsidies for fine, single-malt scotch, chips and dip should be knee-deep where these unsung heroes dwell.
When I think of the sofa-parked cod cakes who pass judgement on those who take a couple hundred tons of liquid boom, and route it through some plumbing, and then: 'we'll design a pump that will feed it at 'X'/lbs/sec; into some liquid hydrogen, and if the whole thing is built to spec...
... Sorry, but when these silver-sprayed fartcrackers imagine that their critique is useful, valid, needed, or wanted...
I really empathise with the creators of our search for space, and want to show their detractors them my game-gutting techniques.
(Really! I can knock a wannabe or congressional aide down into compact, compostible chunks at about 200Kg/hr. That's about, um, 4 fatasses a day!)
Let's just say it makes me angry.
A good chef always has a few 'booms'... Mine are quieter. Cheaper, too. But I won't get a cod cake out of the atmosphere, either....
When you push the edge the edge often pushes back. Just the way it is. Because every kg of rocket costs tens of thousands of dollars to boost into orbit the mass of the rocket is always designed with as little duplication of structure as possible. You simply can't build as much redundant structure as is possible in an aircraft.
The only difference is that we launch our rockets live on TV, or at least web cast. When the rest of the worlds rockets blow up you never here about it. Or at least not for several years in the case of the Soviet N-1 Moon rocket, that only managed to make craters around it's launch pad.
"Sure wish my business were run like the space program!" he commented.
"Actually, you don't" replied the engineer.
"If that were the case, your newspaper would cost $600, and every few days it would blow up in your driveway."
That was a very entertaining post. Thanks
Saturn V: Best looking rocket ever. (IMO)
98 % of takeoff weight turns into exhaust os useless junk.
2% is useful. less for the shuttle,
do you really want to fly on something
with that little margin?
Have you ever flown on a Boeing 747 between Los Angeles and Tokyo? How much fuel do you expect that 747 to have left, after it's 15 hour flight?
Answer to your question: HELL YES!
for an airplane, I'll just make up some numbers
suppose, 40 percent takeoff weight is fuel,
30 percent airplane, 20 percent payload,
the motive would be to build in lots of safety margin,
with a reasonable payload
as compare to, rocket where you have to stretch everything,
to get 2 percent payload
> Your tagline refers to this?
No, but my screen name does.
</nitpicky engineer mode>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.