4 ms·

Every part of the innovation chain has understanding of the difficulty of their own link. Without every link, it doesn't work. Consider the SR-71: Is it the pi

by ISL 6y ago

Every part of the innovation chain has understanding of the difficulty of their own link. Without every link, it doesn't work. Consider the SR-71: Is it the pilots, the crews, the administrators who secure funding, the voters, the integrating engineers, the test pilots, the supply chain, the metallurgists, the engine designers, the manufacturers of test equipment, the standards bureau, the aircraft architect, the people who specified the initial requirements, the tire manufacturers, the refueling crews, the avionics manufacturers, the chemical suppliers for the bespoke starting fuel, the aerospace engineers who did the fundamental research, Chuck Yeager, the Wright Brothers, Bernoulli, the thousands of spouses who sacrificed to support their partners, or the fundamental researchers who ascertained the physics necessary to make the aircraft fly and evade detection? Every one of them, and more, can lay claim to the statement: If we hadn't done what we did, the SR-71 wouldn't have flown. I'm a fundamental physicist who has spent the entirety of this century trying to get at the bottom of things because it is the foundation upon which our understanding rests. When we make a measurement, however, even those experiments rest upon work and resources provided by a vast array of engineers, suppliers, manufacturers, administrators, support staff, physical plant, custodial support, funding agencies, and taxpayers.

ouid 6y ago
Did the SR-71 evade detection? I was under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that it just outran the consequences of detection.
- the-dude 6y ago
  I was under the impression it flew too high to be reached by surface to air missiles.
- eximius 6y ago
  It's stealth was fairly advanced for the time. It was a bit of both.
- classichasclass 6y ago
  That's pretty much it. The standard countermeasure for launch detection was simply to accelerate and outrun the missile. It had some early stealth attributes but could still be detected by the systems of the time.
  - sidewndr46 6y ago
    What "early stealth" did it have? The most I've heard from pilots is that they didn't use an airborne radar and didn't use the VHF radio on the plane under any circumstance. Even on the runway, it was forbidden. Those things have nothing to do with stealth and everything to do with basic signals intelligence stuff.
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      According to wikipedia [0] > The second operational aircraft[40] designed around a stealth aircraft shape and materials, after the Lockheed A-12,[40] the SR-71 had several features designed to reduce its radar signature. The SR-71 had a radar cross-section (RCS) around 110 sq ft (10 m2).[41] Drawing on early studies in radar stealth technology, which indicated that a shape with flattened, tapering sides would reflect most energy away from a radar beam's place of origin, engineers added chines and canted the vertical control surfaces inward. Special radar-absorbing materials were incorporated into sawtooth-shaped sections of the aircraft's skin. Cesium-based fuel additives were used to somewhat reduce exhaust plumes visibility to radar, although exhaust streams remained quite apparent. Kelly Johnson later conceded that Soviet radar technology advanced faster than the stealth technology employed against it.[42] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Shape_and_threat_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Shape...
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > Cesium-based fuel additives Oh god, I never thought about all the awful additives militaries must add to their fuels and lubricants and other industrial chemicals.
Judgmentality 6y ago
As much as I appreciate what you're saying, the answer to your question is > the aircraft architect because that's the guy who really built it. He could not have done it alone or without the help of everyone you mentioned, but let's not pretend like everyone was equally important here. As a tangent, this is one of my favorite books detailing the creation of some of Skunkworks' projects, including the SR-71: https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/...
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  > let's not pretend like everyone was equally important here. Except that's completely wrong. An architect did not build the SR-71. Physical engineering involves a feedback cycle and iterative design refinements, just like software engineering. I don't think it's common from some architect to just draw a blueprint, hand it off to some people to build it, and that's it, we're done here, my design came to life thanks to my Godly design skills (and the simple work of 40 lowly engineers). The SR-71 is a project that took years and years of work, lots of failed attempts, experiments and lessons learned. There's no way that the majority of the credit for the SR-71 goes to some bossman architect dude who just told people what to do. It was very much teamwork. Everyone, including the test pilots, participated in its design and refinement.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    It was definitely team work. But the question comes down to being replaceable - could anyone replace Kelly Johnson and still create the SR-71? I don't know. I'm not even sure Ben Rich would have succeeded. But I'm confident not every single other person mentioned was irreplaceable. In fact I'd venture 99% of those people could be replaced. Likewise, it takes thousands of engineers to operate Google right now. But do you really think most of those engineers are irreplaceable? Meanwhile good luck finding replacements for Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemewat. This notion that everybody is equally talented/important is absurd. And the idea that you can always make up for a lack of talent with hard work is pretty obviously debunked if you take even a passing glance at competitive sports. I'm not saying a single person can do everything without help. I'm saying a single person can have talent that you could never hope to have, no matter how hard you try, and that's just the way it is. And because of that talent, those people are more important when it comes to getting shit done.

by ISL 6y ago

ouid 6y ago

Did the SR-71 evade detection? I was under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that it just outran the consequences of detection.

the-dude 6y ago
I was under the impression it flew too high to be reached by surface to air missiles.
eximius 6y ago
It's stealth was fairly advanced for the time. It was a bit of both.
classichasclass 6y ago
That's pretty much it. The standard countermeasure for launch detection was simply to accelerate and outrun the missile. It had some early stealth attributes but could still be detected by the systems of the time.
- sidewndr46 6y ago
  What "early stealth" did it have? The most I've heard from pilots is that they didn't use an airborne radar and didn't use the VHF radio on the plane under any circumstance. Even on the runway, it was forbidden. Those things have nothing to do with stealth and everything to do with basic signals intelligence stuff.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    According to wikipedia [0] > The second operational aircraft[40] designed around a stealth aircraft shape and materials, after the Lockheed A-12,[40] the SR-71 had several features designed to reduce its radar signature. The SR-71 had a radar cross-section (RCS) around 110 sq ft (10 m2).[41] Drawing on early studies in radar stealth technology, which indicated that a shape with flattened, tapering sides would reflect most energy away from a radar beam's place of origin, engineers added chines and canted the vertical control surfaces inward. Special radar-absorbing materials were incorporated into sawtooth-shaped sections of the aircraft's skin. Cesium-based fuel additives were used to somewhat reduce exhaust plumes visibility to radar, although exhaust streams remained quite apparent. Kelly Johnson later conceded that Soviet radar technology advanced faster than the stealth technology employed against it.[42] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Shape_and_threat_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Shape...
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > Cesium-based fuel additives Oh god, I never thought about all the awful additives militaries must add to their fuels and lubricants and other industrial chemicals.

Judgmentality 6y ago

As much as I appreciate what you're saying, the answer to your question is > the aircraft architect because that's the guy who really built it. He could not have done it alone or without the help of everyone you mentioned, but let's not pretend like everyone was equally important here. As a tangent, this is one of my favorite books detailing the creation of some of Skunkworks' projects, including the SR-71: https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/...

tachyonbeam 6y ago
> let's not pretend like everyone was equally important here. Except that's completely wrong. An architect did not build the SR-71. Physical engineering involves a feedback cycle and iterative design refinements, just like software engineering. I don't think it's common from some architect to just draw a blueprint, hand it off to some people to build it, and that's it, we're done here, my design came to life thanks to my Godly design skills (and the simple work of 40 lowly engineers). The SR-71 is a project that took years and years of work, lots of failed attempts, experiments and lessons learned. There's no way that the majority of the credit for the SR-71 goes to some bossman architect dude who just told people what to do. It was very much teamwork. Everyone, including the test pilots, participated in its design and refinement.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  It was definitely team work. But the question comes down to being replaceable - could anyone replace Kelly Johnson and still create the SR-71? I don't know. I'm not even sure Ben Rich would have succeeded. But I'm confident not every single other person mentioned was irreplaceable. In fact I'd venture 99% of those people could be replaced. Likewise, it takes thousands of engineers to operate Google right now. But do you really think most of those engineers are irreplaceable? Meanwhile good luck finding replacements for Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemewat. This notion that everybody is equally talented/important is absurd. And the idea that you can always make up for a lack of talent with hard work is pretty obviously debunked if you take even a passing glance at competitive sports. I'm not saying a single person can do everything without help. I'm saying a single person can have talent that you could never hope to have, no matter how hard you try, and that's just the way it is. And because of that talent, those people are more important when it comes to getting shit done.