The Glory Days!! When we ruled the BeanPot and Mike Sullivan captained the boys: Tony Amonte, Sean MacEachern, Joe Sacco, Keith Tkachuk, Jay Pandolfo, the Bavis twins, etc. (I was ENG for two years, like most eventual CLA grads.)
Most problems associated with the moon missions were more engineering challenges than science problems. Once you've got the basic rocketry science, have the ability to launch payloads in orbit, going to me moons it is basically a matter of scaling it up with tons of human and material resources that cost mountains of money.
What was required was not any new theoretical breakthroughs, but lots and lots of practical advancements in materials, advanced metallurgy, new soldering techniques, new kinds of lubricants, thermal and electrical insulants, more powerful pumps able to stand up the task of pumping thousands of gallons in very short periods of time to feed the engines without blowing themselves up, but yet, as light as possible, tanks capable of withstanding the extremely corrosive fuel, extreme temperatures and stress; and countless other such advancements.
Most of this was the result of hours and hours of machining, synthesizing, forging, and then testing thousands of slightly different variations, measuring gazillions of data points, graphing them and comparing to slowly refine the component until it met the required specification: Just enough theory, but lots and lots of workbench time.
Indeed, several improvements in a lot of different parts of the rockets and the ships came out of suggestions from the technicians in the factory floor, as it was also usual in other industries like the automotive.
Sometimes a different variant of some part would show superior results in tests, and while figuring it out why, it would be found that this was due to the particular way of doing something at some plant, or some other variation, and then, and only then, the scientists would try to come up with a theory to explain why those variations gave those results. But, alas, that's how science was made those days, science was eminently experimental at that time, it was more concerned at explaining why observed things behaved the way they behaved and create a theory about it, than to start from the theory and then try to shoehorn the reality into it not even with experiments but with hopelessly biased computer models.
My friend's dad was at Hughes in the 60s in radar and missile and he described the process much as you do. Academic science has, unfortunately, come to predominate in the public mind with people who've never done anything on the workbench - or built a single thing - producing reams of "studies" using p-values to claim they've got "the solution" to vast and deeply complex, multivariate problems.
What a hoot this was to read! Born in 61 my curiosity and science drive were fueled by NASA, the development of "faster than the speed of sound" aircraft tested routinely overhead and which - I just realized - I considered part of the "Natural" world which so inspired and informed me. Thanks for not ignoring the inner prompt to write this piece as I've been cogitating in overdrive which is my version of problem solving but which has degenerated into less than productive and brooding rumination. I although understand that this piece was an unpleasant prompt by an unlikely conspiracy theory that doesn't merit true consideration, let alone the time and effort it took to actually draft, it served as a refreshing distraction that facilitated, surprisingly, a bit more self-awareness and acceptance for this reader. Thanks again!
One question though regarding the "Moon landing was fake" conspiracy. Some of their arguments that the footage is sketchy is persuasive. But... What if we went to the Moon, *and* (some of) the footage was faked? Because I think there's a chance they got there and couldn't show what's actually up there.
You're in some rarified air there, if you've escaped the need for certainty.
I think our near future is going to hold a lot more "it turns out it's actually this *and* that" (and probably "a bunch of other things we never even imagined" as well).
I wouldn't say it's rarefied air - just that I was blessed to encounter people who took the time to make me understand the difference between (truly) Universal Truths and the far more common Conditional Truths we live with on a daily basis. (See W.M. Briggs' "Uncertainty" for the graduate school version). The guy who features in this piece - my friend's "Old Man" - was also a first rate scientist and mathematician in the traditions of Claude Shannon of Bell Laboratories and "Information Theory" fame, E.T. Jaynes and Sir Harold Jeffries, Henri LaPlace, George Polya, and the great Australian philosopher David Stove. Plus, one of the career necessities of being a trial lawyer is comfort with uncertainty.
I'm of the view that - particularly in politics and the surrounding DC environs - it's always more like you describe: some of *this*, a good bit of *that*, not at all what's reported, and there's usually some smutty/gossipy/tawdry angle to the whole thing, too. I'm working on a piece related to exactly *why* that is - and why it's coming unglued, but I've just started on that.
That's an important area of discussion, looking forward to it.
He might be a bit much to take in initially (and you'll have to distill his stream-of-consciousness presentation for yoursel), but IMO "uncle" Clif High has the closest "big picture" view of the transformations taking place. Someone's aggregating his public works here https://clifhighvideos.com/
Man, you’re bumming me out with all your ‘colonizing Mars is bullshit’ bullshit! Have you looked into why nobody is talking about the human biology component of deep space travel? I haven’t, so I’m genuinely curious. What’s the angle? Are they just waving shiny things to confuse the simples while they build brand to hoover our pockets?
I think "grift" is as easy an answer to this as any.
I think it was Milton Friedman who said that "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program."
You think NASA's gonna tell people, "Uhh, well, look, um... zero g for even short periods of time is fatal to people. We could probably be spending our money a little more wisely on fixing veteran homelessness..."?
I'll take, "Things that Will Never Be Said Ever" for $1000, Alex!
>Unless someone figures out how to control gravity
It’s called a centrifuge.
I await your centrifuge ship to the far reaches with baited breath.
We may have been Terriers at the same time. 86-91
The Glory Days!! When we ruled the BeanPot and Mike Sullivan captained the boys: Tony Amonte, Sean MacEachern, Joe Sacco, Keith Tkachuk, Jay Pandolfo, the Bavis twins, etc. (I was ENG for two years, like most eventual CLA grads.)
I was one of the UNI folks, the smallest school. Those games were great!
Go Terriers! Class of 1991. One of my daughters followed her old man there and she’s also a Terrier (CAS, ‘15, IIRC).
Absolutely! Me too! Those were fun days.
Absolutely! Me too! Those were fun days.
Most problems associated with the moon missions were more engineering challenges than science problems. Once you've got the basic rocketry science, have the ability to launch payloads in orbit, going to me moons it is basically a matter of scaling it up with tons of human and material resources that cost mountains of money.
What was required was not any new theoretical breakthroughs, but lots and lots of practical advancements in materials, advanced metallurgy, new soldering techniques, new kinds of lubricants, thermal and electrical insulants, more powerful pumps able to stand up the task of pumping thousands of gallons in very short periods of time to feed the engines without blowing themselves up, but yet, as light as possible, tanks capable of withstanding the extremely corrosive fuel, extreme temperatures and stress; and countless other such advancements.
Most of this was the result of hours and hours of machining, synthesizing, forging, and then testing thousands of slightly different variations, measuring gazillions of data points, graphing them and comparing to slowly refine the component until it met the required specification: Just enough theory, but lots and lots of workbench time.
Indeed, several improvements in a lot of different parts of the rockets and the ships came out of suggestions from the technicians in the factory floor, as it was also usual in other industries like the automotive.
Sometimes a different variant of some part would show superior results in tests, and while figuring it out why, it would be found that this was due to the particular way of doing something at some plant, or some other variation, and then, and only then, the scientists would try to come up with a theory to explain why those variations gave those results. But, alas, that's how science was made those days, science was eminently experimental at that time, it was more concerned at explaining why observed things behaved the way they behaved and create a theory about it, than to start from the theory and then try to shoehorn the reality into it not even with experiments but with hopelessly biased computer models.
Yes - Real science, in other words!
My friend's dad was at Hughes in the 60s in radar and missile and he described the process much as you do. Academic science has, unfortunately, come to predominate in the public mind with people who've never done anything on the workbench - or built a single thing - producing reams of "studies" using p-values to claim they've got "the solution" to vast and deeply complex, multivariate problems.
Appreciate you stopping by, EA. Cheers.
What a hoot this was to read! Born in 61 my curiosity and science drive were fueled by NASA, the development of "faster than the speed of sound" aircraft tested routinely overhead and which - I just realized - I considered part of the "Natural" world which so inspired and informed me. Thanks for not ignoring the inner prompt to write this piece as I've been cogitating in overdrive which is my version of problem solving but which has degenerated into less than productive and brooding rumination. I although understand that this piece was an unpleasant prompt by an unlikely conspiracy theory that doesn't merit true consideration, let alone the time and effort it took to actually draft, it served as a refreshing distraction that facilitated, surprisingly, a bit more self-awareness and acceptance for this reader. Thanks again!
The prompt was actually a very fun piece by Matt Louis, so it wasn’t a great burden to write this.
This is a criminally underexposed 'stack.
One question though regarding the "Moon landing was fake" conspiracy. Some of their arguments that the footage is sketchy is persuasive. But... What if we went to the Moon, *and* (some of) the footage was faked? Because I think there's a chance they got there and couldn't show what's actually up there.
Thank you. That's very kind.
I could absolutely believe that. I'm willing to embrace the power of "and" - there's not a "logically excluded middle" between those two things.
You're in some rarified air there, if you've escaped the need for certainty.
I think our near future is going to hold a lot more "it turns out it's actually this *and* that" (and probably "a bunch of other things we never even imagined" as well).
Exciting times.
I wouldn't say it's rarefied air - just that I was blessed to encounter people who took the time to make me understand the difference between (truly) Universal Truths and the far more common Conditional Truths we live with on a daily basis. (See W.M. Briggs' "Uncertainty" for the graduate school version). The guy who features in this piece - my friend's "Old Man" - was also a first rate scientist and mathematician in the traditions of Claude Shannon of Bell Laboratories and "Information Theory" fame, E.T. Jaynes and Sir Harold Jeffries, Henri LaPlace, George Polya, and the great Australian philosopher David Stove. Plus, one of the career necessities of being a trial lawyer is comfort with uncertainty.
I'm of the view that - particularly in politics and the surrounding DC environs - it's always more like you describe: some of *this*, a good bit of *that*, not at all what's reported, and there's usually some smutty/gossipy/tawdry angle to the whole thing, too. I'm working on a piece related to exactly *why* that is - and why it's coming unglued, but I've just started on that.
That's an important area of discussion, looking forward to it.
He might be a bit much to take in initially (and you'll have to distill his stream-of-consciousness presentation for yoursel), but IMO "uncle" Clif High has the closest "big picture" view of the transformations taking place. Someone's aggregating his public works here https://clifhighvideos.com/
Thanks. I'll take a look.
Man, you’re bumming me out with all your ‘colonizing Mars is bullshit’ bullshit! Have you looked into why nobody is talking about the human biology component of deep space travel? I haven’t, so I’m genuinely curious. What’s the angle? Are they just waving shiny things to confuse the simples while they build brand to hoover our pockets?
I think "grift" is as easy an answer to this as any.
I think it was Milton Friedman who said that "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program."
You think NASA's gonna tell people, "Uhh, well, look, um... zero g for even short periods of time is fatal to people. We could probably be spending our money a little more wisely on fixing veteran homelessness..."?
I'll take, "Things that Will Never Be Said Ever" for $1000, Alex!