5 ms·

That’s a silly argument, we could build pyramids 100 times bigger than the Egyptian ones if we wanted to today, and we can build engines that are far more effic

That’s a silly argument, we could build pyramids 100 times bigger than the Egyptian ones if we wanted to today, and we can build engines that are far more efficient and powerful than the Apollo ones. Just because the specific methodology became obsolete doesn’t mean we lost anything along the way

jedberg 6y ago
> and we can build engines that are far more efficient and powerful than the Apollo ones The F-1 (the engine in the Saturn V, used in the Apollo missions) remains the most powerful rocket engine ever built. [0] So no, we can't build them bigger, or even as well as, we used to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_e...
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  "because that was the biggest, we therefore we can't make them bigger" doesn't follow.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    See my sibling comment. We’ve been trying to make a bigger engine for decades, and have yet to succeed.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Your sibling comment (I presume https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667336) says nothing of the sort. It doesn't say nasa has been trying to make a bigger one for decades. > They still haven't figured it out. ...is not what the article said. They lost the plans, they're recreating them.
      - jedberg 6y ago
        > They lost the plans, they're recreating them. Which is exactly the point I made at first. That we've lost the knowledge to make the engine.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        They lost the plans. For this particular engine type. That's not the same as losing fundamental knowledge of how the engines work, or the ability to recreate one larger. And you have not acknowledged you misrepresented what the article said. What is it with you types that have to feel we're failing, going backwards? I had an argument once with a guy that insisted there were compiler optimisation that aren't used any more because they are now lost - there are literally books on those opts, web articles accessible in a few clicks, probably youtube vids (in fact, see godbolt's stuff) - why are you types so set on failure and ignorance? What exactly are you thinking when you post this inaccurate and negative stuff? Aren't there enough problems in the world without making up nonexistent ones?
        hunta2097 6y ago
        I find a more extreme version of this thinking in anti-science subjects like flat earth and homeopathy. Those guys are always referencing ancient texts. Many parts of humanity stagnated for millennia - see cave systems in France and Eastern Europe which were occupied for thousands of years without any progress. I find it incredible that you could take a baby from that era, send them to school and they could be indiscernible from the rest of us.
guerrilla 6y ago
> That’s a silly argument, we could build pyramids 100 times bigger than the Egyptian ones if we wanted to today, and we can build engines that are far more efficient and powerful than the Apollo ones. You seemed to have missed a couple of points there. Of course we can build the pyramids, but can we do it with the same level of technology that we think they had? Of course we can build better engines than the Apollo ones but can we recreate exactly those? These were the questions post to highlight that we have lost knowledge before.
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  Can you recreate the exact breakfast I just made? Can you crack an egg the same way twice? Entropy always increases. It's knowledge that we don't necessarily need, if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    > if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out. We've been trying to figure it out for a century and still haven't. Why do you think we could now? Same with the engines. We've been trying to make an F-1 for over a decade. In 2013 they even tore one down to figure out how it was made [0]. They still haven't figured it out. [0] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146829-nasa-resurrects-its-most-powerful-rocket-engine-after-40-years-for-science https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146829-nasa-resurrects-i...
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    > Can you recreate the exact breakfast I just made? Can you crack an egg the same way twice? Entropy always increases. This is a false equivalency because you're confounding a uncontrollable natural process with things that could easily come with an instruction manual and be as replicate as a cake or science experiment. Identity is not the goal but sufficient similarity to meet specific requirements. > It's knowledge that we don't necessarily need, if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out. This moves the goal post and changes the subject because the original point was whether or not we lose knowledge, not whether or not that is acceptable.

jedberg 6y ago

> and we can build engines that are far more efficient and powerful than the Apollo ones The F-1 (the engine in the Saturn V, used in the Apollo missions) remains the most powerful rocket engine ever built. [0] So no, we can't build them bigger, or even as well as, we used to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_e...

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
"because that was the biggest, we therefore we can't make them bigger" doesn't follow.
- jedberg 6y ago
  See my sibling comment. We’ve been trying to make a bigger engine for decades, and have yet to succeed.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Your sibling comment (I presume https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667336) says nothing of the sort. It doesn't say nasa has been trying to make a bigger one for decades. > They still haven't figured it out. ...is not what the article said. They lost the plans, they're recreating them.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      > They lost the plans, they're recreating them. Which is exactly the point I made at first. That we've lost the knowledge to make the engine.
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        They lost the plans. For this particular engine type. That's not the same as losing fundamental knowledge of how the engines work, or the ability to recreate one larger. And you have not acknowledged you misrepresented what the article said. What is it with you types that have to feel we're failing, going backwards? I had an argument once with a guy that insisted there were compiler optimisation that aren't used any more because they are now lost - there are literally books on those opts, web articles accessible in a few clicks, probably youtube vids (in fact, see godbolt's stuff) - why are you types so set on failure and ignorance? What exactly are you thinking when you post this inaccurate and negative stuff? Aren't there enough problems in the world without making up nonexistent ones?
        hunta2097 6y ago
        I find a more extreme version of this thinking in anti-science subjects like flat earth and homeopathy. Those guys are always referencing ancient texts. Many parts of humanity stagnated for millennia - see cave systems in France and Eastern Europe which were occupied for thousands of years without any progress. I find it incredible that you could take a baby from that era, send them to school and they could be indiscernible from the rest of us.

guerrilla 6y ago

> That’s a silly argument, we could build pyramids 100 times bigger than the Egyptian ones if we wanted to today, and we can build engines that are far more efficient and powerful than the Apollo ones. You seemed to have missed a couple of points there. Of course we can build the pyramids, but can we do it with the same level of technology that we think they had? Of course we can build better engines than the Apollo ones but can we recreate exactly those? These were the questions post to highlight that we have lost knowledge before.

crispyporkbites 6y ago
Can you recreate the exact breakfast I just made? Can you crack an egg the same way twice? Entropy always increases. It's knowledge that we don't necessarily need, if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out.
- jedberg 6y ago
  > if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out. We've been trying to figure it out for a century and still haven't. Why do you think we could now? Same with the engines. We've been trying to make an F-1 for over a decade. In 2013 they even tore one down to figure out how it was made [0]. They still haven't figured it out. [0] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146829-nasa-resurrects-its-most-powerful-rocket-engine-after-40-years-for-science https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146829-nasa-resurrects-i...
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > Can you recreate the exact breakfast I just made? Can you crack an egg the same way twice? Entropy always increases. This is a false equivalency because you're confounding a uncontrollable natural process with things that could easily come with an instruction manual and be as replicate as a cake or science experiment. Identity is not the goal but sufficient similarity to meet specific requirements. > It's knowledge that we don't necessarily need, if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out. This moves the goal post and changes the subject because the original point was whether or not we lose knowledge, not whether or not that is acceptable.