Live data from Hacker News

The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

thedrive.com

231–240 of 265 posts

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#231
post #204

Tangentially reminds me of this video by Jonathan Blow [0], "Preventing the Collapse of Civilization". The eye-opening moment, for me, was the importance (and neglect) of the inter-generational transfer of knowledge in maintaining technological complexity. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko

Not an exact reply to your comment/that video, but I think this dovetails well with it. Burke's "Connections" (1978) from the BBC is an interesting look at how technology has been developed and built on itself over time.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is the kind of government competence that only exists in the most wild conspiracy theories And, possibly, before the 1960s.

Employees are either clock punchers or workers. Small departments in poor cities occasionally wind up highly competent because they wind up staffed with a high enough ratio of workers to get things done and everybody above them has bigger problems than micro managing so they have the freedom to get things done. And it runs for awhile then comes under scrutiny and gets made back into junk because politics.

> politics

I agree. And there's a massive depth unwinding to that.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#233
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same was done the Canadian Avro Arrow plane, and the British Black Knight rocket. What happens once you join government, they take away your brains?

The Avro Arrow being destroyed is a meme in Canada, but there's a lot of questions at least in the historical community on whether that was a blessing in disguise. The state of the art was rapidly moving away from bombers coming over the North Pole (which an interceptor like the Avro Arrow) which would have rendered a fleet of Arrows expensive and useless. That being said, it destroyed a large part of the Canadian ae…

With a globalized economy, does it make sense for every country to have a manufacturing base for every industry? Especially for a country with small/moderately sized population like Canada?

I agree though, the government has been short sighted and procurement of ships, planes has been a debacle for years. It seems that either way a lot of money is going to be burnt, either by propping up a non-competitive industry locally, or burnt buying something insanely expensive like F-35s from an ally.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it legal to do this? I don’t pay taxes so a bunch of morons can waste it on a consulting company trick

There are lots of different types of projects. Sometimes you're asking people to invent things for you, and you're the only conceivable customer for that thing, and (like here) it would be weird and perverse not to require all the data/specs/whatever for that thing. Other times you're buying something that's already been invented, with many existing customers, and the data/specs/whatever for that product line are wor…

It would at least make sense for it to be mandatory for any vehicles or weapons used by the DoD, no?

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#236
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of different types of projects. Sometimes you're asking people to invent things for you, and you're the only conceivable customer for that thing, and (like here) it would be weird and perverse not to require all the data/specs/whatever for that thing. Other times you're buying something that's already been invented, with many existing customers, and the data/specs/whatever for that product line are wor…

It would at least make sense for it to be mandatory for any vehicles or weapons used by the DoD, no?

I wonder if doing so would create a barrier to entry for the annual billions of $ of defense equipment the US sells to Saudi Arabia. For example, what if Saudi Arabia considers it a risk if another government has the technical plans? If that were the case, I expect defense contractors would be adverse to divulging those details.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds you of a thing that never happened? That's a neat trick. The SLS uses the RS-25 engines, the Space Shuttle Main Engines which are in no way an engine "designed from scratch". Additionally the F-1 engines were redesigned using more modern techniques around 2012 with the F-1B [0]. The SLS went with the RS-25s for a number of reasons. While the F-1s provide high thrust they're not as efficient. The RS-25s can…

I heard this story as well. But in the end they picked something else they had and could make. I think the original idea was to start with the same as what went to the moon and build on that. At one point we made several thousand of something like them. They found they could not build that anymore, and it was not as good as stuff they could do, so they redesigned to something else that they could. That is as far as m…

There were not thousands of F-1 engines manufactured. There were a bit over a hundred manufactured between flight and test models.

The whole "we can't make them anymore" meme has a tiny kernel of truth but it's been blown way out of proportion the more it's been repeated.

When the F-1 was manufactured a lot of the actual assembly of parts was done by hand. That meant Rocketdyne's engineers and machinists had a lot of tribal knowledge that was lightly or partially documented at best or not documented at worst. NASA and Rocketdyne maintained all of the designs and documentation and knew everyone involved in the engine manufacturing.

In the early 90s a lot of these Rocketdyne people were interviewed [0] and asked to review F-1 manufacturing techniques as part of the Space Exploration Initiative [1]. Restarting production of the F-1 would have been practical but more expensive than the alternate plan to go with an SSME derivative.

While the F-1 is an impressive engine it has downsides. It's enormous and heavy. The Saturn V's first stage (S-1C) was 10m in diameter while the Space Shuttle's external tank was 8.4m in diameter. The Shuttle's ET was going to be the core of the proposed SEI rocket (and SLS). With a 8.4m tank diameter it would be more difficult to mount more than two F-1s.

With only two engines it would be more dangerous of a vehicle for manned missions as a flame out in one engine could be disastrous. It would also make it more difficult to throttle the engines for different launch profiles. Moving to a larger core would have required all new manufacturing infrastructure, flight qualification, and unknown follow-on issues.

Tl;dr The F-1 was an awesome engine but not perfect or even desirable for all purposes and the "we can't build them" meme is stupid.

[0] https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3724/1

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who works with the government a fair bit, this kind of forward thinking is extremely unlikely to be the case. This is the kind of government competence that only exists in the most wild conspiracy theories. The idea that it was made by some long defunct subcontractor and nobody knows what happened to their blueprints and production notes is far more likely. Also, even if you had the blueprints you still ne…

Why does it seem to be that we always assume that our own government is incompetent and unable of forward thinking, but all other governments (China, etc.) are?

Or that government should be, could be less incompetent than corporations?

People are just people. Organizational psychology is universal. Bit rot is inevitable.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#239
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the following: “In my view, shared by many blue-suiters, this marvelous airplane should still be operational but, alas, that was not to be. One of the most depressing moments in the history of the Skunk Works occurred on February 5, 1970, when we received a telegram from the Pentagon ordering us to destroy all the tooling for the Blackbird. All the molds, jigs, and forty thousand detail tools were…

It’s risk reduction. That was an innovative plane and the reality is that nobody is going to wake up and build it again once production stops. Once you break up a team, the team is gone — that’s why we always build submarines, even if unnecessary. You have to keep the people and plant working. That tooling was going to be compromised and useful to the Soviets or some other adversary. There is a well established recor…

This was talking about destroying the physical tooling. Ain’t nobody sneaking 60,000 tools out the back door to the Soviets. Many/most of those tools are going to weigh many tons, would require rigging to lift and flatbeds to move. Could they easily sneak out tooling drawings and schematics? yes probably could and did. But not the physical tools themselves.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#240
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the following: “In my view, shared by many blue-suiters, this marvelous airplane should still be operational but, alas, that was not to be. One of the most depressing moments in the history of the Skunk Works occurred on February 5, 1970, when we received a telegram from the Pentagon ordering us to destroy all the tooling for the Blackbird. All the molds, jigs, and forty thousand detail tools were…

The same was done the Canadian Avro Arrow plane, and the British Black Knight rocket. What happens once you join government, they take away your brains?

The Avro Arrow and Black Knight were just prototypes whose movement into production could only be justified for nationalistic reasons. They did not have a proven track record or offer cost savings. They aren’t comparable to the blackbird at all, and destroying their tooling isn’t comparable either.
Post reply on HN