3 ms·

> because rocket science is a solved problem Some time ago I wondered why rockets keep blowing up because I thought rockets would be a solved problem by now. G

> because rocket science is a solved problem Some time ago I wondered why rockets keep blowing up because I thought rockets would be a solved problem by now. Given the time and money involved in launching an object into space there is every incentive to make it go right. I'm not an expert in rocket science, physics, or mathematics but seeing rockets blow up before having left the atmosphere makes me think it is not a solved problem.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago
You're thinking of engineering, not science. The math is more or less all figured out. But how to apply it so things don't break? That's engineering.
- FriedrichN 5y ago
  Semantically that's correct, but when talking about rockets people think about actual real rockets, not theoretical ones. I guess this is one of those instances where the words we use and their exact meanings differ from what we mean.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Even if you are going to advocate that view, there is more science to rockets than just the rocket equation. From combustion instability, to materials and design of closed cycle engines to behaviour of materials in space it touches on many areas of science where the answer can not be off by 3% or the thing explodes.
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    Absolutely correct. Arguing that "rocket science is a solved problem" just because we have the rocket equation and the rest is just engineering is basically saying that condensed matter physics is just engineering because we already have a deep understanding of the behaviour of elementary particles in isolation. Reductionism is a useful conceptual tool but it's important to realise that's what it is, not some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth. You need to consider a system in it's whole as well as in it's parts if you want to truly grok it.
- bernulli 5y ago
  I don't know if you've ever looked into what goes on physically in the combustion chamber or even just the turbopumps? We are far away from having the physics identified, let alone the math figured out. E.g., combustion instability is one of those phenomena where an engine explodes, but we don't understand what's going on (sure, sometimes it can be mitigated). Sounds pretty sciency to me.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

You're thinking of engineering, not science. The math is more or less all figured out. But how to apply it so things don't break? That's engineering.

FriedrichN 5y ago
Semantically that's correct, but when talking about rockets people think about actual real rockets, not theoretical ones. I guess this is one of those instances where the words we use and their exact meanings differ from what we mean.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Even if you are going to advocate that view, there is more science to rockets than just the rocket equation. From combustion instability, to materials and design of closed cycle engines to behaviour of materials in space it touches on many areas of science where the answer can not be off by 3% or the thing explodes.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Absolutely correct. Arguing that "rocket science is a solved problem" just because we have the rocket equation and the rest is just engineering is basically saying that condensed matter physics is just engineering because we already have a deep understanding of the behaviour of elementary particles in isolation. Reductionism is a useful conceptual tool but it's important to realise that's what it is, not some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth. You need to consider a system in it's whole as well as in it's parts if you want to truly grok it.
bernulli 5y ago
I don't know if you've ever looked into what goes on physically in the combustion chamber or even just the turbopumps? We are far away from having the physics identified, let alone the math figured out. E.g., combustion instability is one of those phenomena where an engine explodes, but we don't understand what's going on (sure, sometimes it can be mitigated). Sounds pretty sciency to me.