Why it's so hard to build a jet engine
www.construction-physics.com
Civilization's toughest technical challenges are those that require extraordinary (and constantly improving) performance to be delivered at a low cost.
  • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    2 days ago

    The way they explain how advancements are possible by throwing money at it and ramping up man-hours doesn‘t sit right with me. That’s not how it really works. There‘s a reason why the US suddenly caught up to the technology in the mid 1940s. The engineers and scientists who joined their jet engine force weren‘t just random university grads that suddenly spawned.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      I mean… That’s basically how you accomplish this kind of thing. You throw educated people and resources at the problem for as long as it takes. Often you can do it faster with more people working on the problem. How is that not how it really works?

      I mean you can certainly save time by looking over someone else’s shoulder, espionage and defecting engineers have of course led to local advances, but the process is generally the same. Development takes time and effort, and that equals money.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        2·
        11 hours ago

        I can’t remember where I heard this quote but somebody was one saying that the television wasn’t invented because somebody wanted a television, it was invented because thousands of scientists over decades worked on ancillary technologies that culminated in the television.

        The most recent major invention in jet engines came from the 3D printer industry. I don’t think anybody who was working on 3D printers was really necessarily thinking that this could be applied to jet engines, it’s just how it turned out.

        Most of the mathematics behind modern computer graphics were come up with in the 18th century. The equations were just an interesting mathematical oddity for centuries until the technology caught up with the theory. Obviously the mathematician wasn’t trying to optimize rendering pipelines for a technology that wouldn’t exist for over 200 years.

        Technological innovation is like evolution, there isn’t necessarily a target objective, things just evolve over time. You don’t just throw a lot of people at a problem and expect a solution, academics understand that which is why they do research. Research is not necessarily in aid of anything in particular, it’s just more knowledge to the toolbox of humanity, amd who knows how that knowledge might subsequently be applied.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      51·
      2 days ago

      It gives an example of two British engines right after that, and the UK’s jet engines were both independent of Germany’s and better than them by the end of the war

  • Viri4thus@feddit.orgEnglish
    3311·
    2 days ago

    I can’t respect anyone saying spaceX is in a category of their own. Not only have they merely replicated what MDouglas did already in the 90s, their costs are wholly subsidised by the US government in an attempt to become relevant in space launches again rather than subcontracting launches from ESA or Russia. Remove the subsidies and it’s far cheaper to use Arianne for the launches than any of the falcons. It’s the US usual playbook: If you can’t compete, claim national defense and subsidise to the wazoo against WTO rules.

    • SMillerNL@lemmy.worldEnglish
      161·
      2 days ago

      It does say “with reusable rockets”, which is technically correct because as far as I know nobody else has reused theirs.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      1 day ago

      No… That doesn’t add up. The falcon 9 didn’t get as many subsidies as you might think (and it only got that during development, it gets no subsidies now). And Arianne Space has some extremely expensive rockets. SpaceX is launching for 1/10 the price of their competitors (literally), and then they’re reusing the first stages…

      Anyone who thinks SpaceX isn’t in a unique position right now isn’t being honest to themselves. They’re doing what was previously thought to be impossible, about twice a week.

      I mean don’t get me wrong, Musk is a monster, an irredeemable human being. But spaceX is not just Elon Musk. And what they’re doing is something nobody has been able to do before and they’re doing it very well. If they can succeed at making a fully reusable rocket with their starship, they’ll have accomplished something truly transformative. The first fully reusable launch vehicle will usher in a new era for human civilization, I’m not exaggerating to say it’s one of the most important things happening on the planet right now.

      • Viri4thus@feddit.orgEnglish
        25·
        1 day ago

        “They’re doing what was previously thought to be impossible”

        DCXA (am I a joke to you)

        Elmo fanboy detected.

        Nobody thought it was impossible, everyone with half a brain understands the math of launching rockets and figured out recoverable VTOLs don’t save that much money compared to traditional launches. Space X has pentagon contracts that allow them to practice dumping in the launch market. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not being honest to themselves.

        edit:sauce

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          Heh, yeah they should have kept trying to get the Delta clipper to work. But they notably ended development of the program…

          Nobody thought it was impossible

          Everyone thought it was infeasible, especially after the Delta clipper proved unproductive. After that, nobody even tried because it would just be an endless money pit there certainly wants any active development in that area I know of when SpaceX started.

          Elmo fanboy detected.

          I explicitly said the opposite. I’ll admit to being extremely impressed with what SpaceX has accomplished, but don’t confuse that with musk worship, the man needs to just stop doing… anything.