4 ms·

I couldn't disagree with you more. I am presuming you have neither read the history of SR-71, nor have a good understanding of the trade of engineering. I am ex

I couldn't disagree with you more. I am presuming you have neither read the history of SR-71, nor have a good understanding of the trade of engineering. I am ex-Lockeed employee and even though SR-71 was a distant historical project when I was working there, there were internal discussions about the engineering excellence behind the plane's performance. I worked in stress analysis team where we frequently joked about how we don't need to deal with thermal expansion like in the SR-71. You can choose to call it "Slapped together" and brush over the sheer ingenuity of the technologies that made SR-71 successful, or you could try to read up on the insane amounts of __engineering excellence__ that took to make it achieve its mission as a recon aircraft. Its mission wasn't to be a commercial aircraft, its mission was to go as high, far and fast as possible - Reconnaissance and to return safely by literally outrunning missiles. Therefore, refueling and leaking fuel are appropriate trade-offs. Skunkworks engineers were perfectly aware of the trade offs you mention - that is integral to __any__ engineering discipline from semiconductor to aviation. That __does not__ imply the lack of engineering excellence. Leaking fuel is __the__ most popular fact about the SR-71. But you omit or you are unaware of the ingenuity that went into making the Ramjet engine, material science, hypersonic regime that was completely new and nothing had flown at that speeds before, etc...there is just so much to say, I am having a hard time coherently replying :-) I apologize if my response was a bit harsh - I am just passionate about this topic!

wwweston 8y ago
I'm not sure you and the parent disagree much. "Engineerings excellence" might well describe a product that performs its function reliably with a minimum of intervention or fuss over a long period of time. When something "just works" like this, it's an achievement. "Engineering excellence" might also describe the "sheer will" combined with expertise and carefully chosen tradeoffs that makes something as unlikely and amazing as the SR-71 possible at all. The parent seemed to exclude it from excellence, perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't meet the criteria I describe in the previous paragraph, but it seems to me they're talking about the project with respect for what they were able to accomplish, and if so, this is essentially a semantic point about whether any engineering operation worthy of respect fits in the box of engineering excellence, rather than a question of whether the SR-71 was amazing.
peterwwillis 8y ago
If we're defining "engineering excellence" as the craziest, most amazing thing you can possibly build, then the SR-71 absolutely qualifies. So do top fuel dragsters (though obviously the SR-71 was way more difficult to achieve). What I meant by "not engineering excellence" was in relation to the original post, comparing how to manage production servers with the SR-71. Nobody should regularly operate their servers like an SR-71 or top fuel dragster. It's great to fly really really fast, but most people should probably not be doing that, because it requires making exceptions like leaking fuel. You actually want to run your server like a big slow complicated comfortable redundant jumbo jet on autopilot. Hopefully you get my meaning. I apologize if I made their accomplishments seem minor. I meant no insult against the Skunkworks engineers or the SR-71, and your response was not harsh at all.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Engineering is ultimately all about solving problems. Operational consistency at acceptable cost is an important problem that the 777 or a LAMP reference infrastructure provides. The SR-71 solved a different problem — people at the top of the chain of command lacked information, and the potential impact was devastating. Delivering information at any cost was critically important, and that operational cost and the risks associated with operations were high!
- Animats 8y ago
  Yes, the SR-71 was a remarkable achievement. Ben Rich's book about the Skunk Works describes the project. It's amazing that thing ever worked. It's not, however, engineering minimalism. It's money is no object R&D. There are many exotic technologies used in the SR-71 never seen before in aviation and seldom used again. Large parts made of Invar, a zero expansion alloy normally used only for watch springs, for example. The price of all this was a high-cost, high-maintenance aircraft. A good plane to look at for production minimalism is the Boeing 747. A huge aircraft even today, it was designed as a commercial product to be produced in quantity and used intensively over a long life. About 1500 were built and many are still flying after 40 years. It's reliable, maintainable, safe, and profitable. It's not exotic. There are some new things in it, but not that many. It's mostly upgrades to technologies known at the time. Better flight controls, better navigation, better autopilot, better hydraulics, better tires, better engines, etc. But little that hadn't flown before at smaller scale. The emphasis was on eliminating the weak points during design. The B-747 has four hydraulic systems, for redundancy. It's worthwhile for people in software to read the pilot's manual for a large commercial jetliner.[1] They're not that complicated. If operating your system is more complicated than a jetliner, you're probably doing something wrong. [1] http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM_727_200_Sim_Copy.pdf http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM...

wwweston 8y ago

I'm not sure you and the parent disagree much. "Engineerings excellence" might well describe a product that performs its function reliably with a minimum of intervention or fuss over a long period of time. When something "just works" like this, it's an achievement. "Engineering excellence" might also describe the "sheer will" combined with expertise and carefully chosen tradeoffs that makes something as unlikely and amazing as the SR-71 possible at all. The parent seemed to exclude it from excellence, perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't meet the criteria I describe in the previous paragraph, but it seems to me they're talking about the project with respect for what they were able to accomplish, and if so, this is essentially a semantic point about whether any engineering operation worthy of respect fits in the box of engineering excellence, rather than a question of whether the SR-71 was amazing.

peterwwillis 8y ago

If we're defining "engineering excellence" as the craziest, most amazing thing you can possibly build, then the SR-71 absolutely qualifies. So do top fuel dragsters (though obviously the SR-71 was way more difficult to achieve). What I meant by "not engineering excellence" was in relation to the original post, comparing how to manage production servers with the SR-71. Nobody should regularly operate their servers like an SR-71 or top fuel dragster. It's great to fly really really fast, but most people should probably not be doing that, because it requires making exceptions like leaking fuel. You actually want to run your server like a big slow complicated comfortable redundant jumbo jet on autopilot. Hopefully you get my meaning. I apologize if I made their accomplishments seem minor. I meant no insult against the Skunkworks engineers or the SR-71, and your response was not harsh at all.

Spooky23 8y ago
Engineering is ultimately all about solving problems. Operational consistency at acceptable cost is an important problem that the 777 or a LAMP reference infrastructure provides. The SR-71 solved a different problem — people at the top of the chain of command lacked information, and the potential impact was devastating. Delivering information at any cost was critically important, and that operational cost and the risks associated with operations were high!
Animats 8y ago
Yes, the SR-71 was a remarkable achievement. Ben Rich's book about the Skunk Works describes the project. It's amazing that thing ever worked. It's not, however, engineering minimalism. It's money is no object R&D. There are many exotic technologies used in the SR-71 never seen before in aviation and seldom used again. Large parts made of Invar, a zero expansion alloy normally used only for watch springs, for example. The price of all this was a high-cost, high-maintenance aircraft. A good plane to look at for production minimalism is the Boeing 747. A huge aircraft even today, it was designed as a commercial product to be produced in quantity and used intensively over a long life. About 1500 were built and many are still flying after 40 years. It's reliable, maintainable, safe, and profitable. It's not exotic. There are some new things in it, but not that many. It's mostly upgrades to technologies known at the time. Better flight controls, better navigation, better autopilot, better hydraulics, better tires, better engines, etc. But little that hadn't flown before at smaller scale. The emphasis was on eliminating the weak points during design. The B-747 has four hydraulic systems, for redundancy. It's worthwhile for people in software to read the pilot's manual for a large commercial jetliner.[1] They're not that complicated. If operating your system is more complicated than a jetliner, you're probably doing something wrong. [1] http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM_727_200_Sim_Copy.pdf http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM...