91–100 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refuse to believe anyone knows how cold -280F is. When you have such extreme temperatures you think in Kelvin or at least Celsius.
It's not like using Kelvin or Celsius helps you grasp these temperatures. -173C is very, very cold, but how cold? What can you compare it to? Not many humans have any experience with something of this scale
Dumb question, but why can't it have a few simple telescopic sticks which extend to flip it over if it lands upside down. Seems it's the second time they fail in this mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment isn't directed at you jjmarr, I appreciate your take, but I think it's important to point out that, > constrained optimization to meet customer needs is MBA-capture in action. For most of its existence as a formal field, engineering wasn't about making geegaws that "meet customer needs." It was about building stuff that matters. Houses that didn't collapse. Roads and machines that made it possible to tra…
I don't understand what you are objecting to. Is it just the phrasing that's bothering you? Because from my point of view, "houses that don't collapse" and "machines that can travel vast distances" are all formulations of customer needs. And dealing with contraints is pretty much engineering 101, every project is at the very least constrained on two of these axes: cost, construction time or material availability.
The MBA wants to build a thing as cheaply as can be while extracting maximum value from the process. Maintaining function is only relevant inasmuch as is necessary for marketing. Enshittification is offensive to the engineer, and is a deliberate calculated tactic for the MBA.
We're replete with case studies, but my favorite is Kitchen-Aid mixers which accumulated a reputation when they were the small version of Hobart mixers, and have in succeeding decades become a cheap pile of crap because the optimization does not care about quality of function so long as the appearance of quality can be maintained. And it's cheaper to look quality than it is to be so.
A close second is Singer in the '70s, which for a while decided to ship items with 100-hour motors because "Folks don't usually spend much time _actually_ sewing". Contrast with the machines built a centuryish before. We've got an early electric model which is still doing fantastic precise work. The engineer would enthuse over the superb work that went into building such a tool, and the MBA would focus on the foregone sales, the value not extracted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like using Kelvin or Celsius helps you grasp these temperatures. -173C is very, very cold, but how cold? What can you compare it to? Not many humans have any experience with something of this scale
You compare to 0 kelvin, you know where it's on the Celsius scale, not on F
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX has repeatedly and reliably landed vertical stacks. On any body. Out of the engineering problems inherent to HLS, sticking the landing isn’t material because for them, for that team, it isn't as novel a problem as e.g. in-orbit refuelling or getting Raptors to relight on the Moon. Put another way, just because SpaceX has done it doesn't mean the same problem carries the same risk for a team like IM's.
Has SpaceX ever landed their rocket on a surface that isn't purposefully engineered to be flat?
Moving barges in the sea should qualify though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
-280F = -173.33333C +280F = +137.77777C
I refuse to believe anyone knows how cold -280F is. When you have such extreme temperatures you think in Kelvin or at least Celsius.