4 ms·

The J58 powering the SR-71 is still one of the most complex engines ever built. The space shuttle is a simple rocket by comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

The J58 powering the SR-71 is still one of the most complex engines ever built. The space shuttle is a simple rocket by comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58

pengaru 5y ago
And the SR-71 is so simple the complexity falls off a cliff at the engine, hence your inclination to only care about that in comparing the two. The space shuttle is like a reusable mobile space station, airlocks and all. Occupants of the SR-71 wore space suits the entire time, there's a lot of minimalism on display in the SR-71 which is a large part of what makes it so glorious.
- speedybird 5y ago
  You seem to be suggesting but not outright saying something that is a misconception: The SR-71 did in fact have a pressurized cockpit, which was also air conditioned as well (it had to be, because the aircraft would cook the crew otherwise.) The SR-71 was sophisticated in other ways as well; for instance in having ejection seats. In fact the first four shuttle flights (all Columbia) had ejection seats too and guess where they got those seats from? The SR-71 of course. And on those flights with ejection seats, guess what the shuttle crew wore? They wore pressure suits, like those worn by SR-71 crew! They stopped wearing those starting with STS-5, when they removed the ejection seats. However the pressure suits (though not the ejection seats) came back after the demise of the Challenger. What I am not saying: that the shuttle was simple. What I am saying: That the SR-71 was more sophisticated than you've given it credit for.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I think the two of you are largely in agreement, but GP rightly points out that the SR-71 was less complex than it could have been and that this is in party why it was so successful. The ability to leave stuff out in engineering exercises can lead to substantial benefits and that's worth noticing.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  The SR-71 was very complex. For example it had multiple heat exchangers to get rid of heat, to transfer it to the fuel before it was combusted. The titanium structure was complex to maintain. Welding needed to be done in "bubble" work stations under protective gas.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    > The titanium structure was complex to maintain. Welding needed to be done in "bubble" work stations under protective gas Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation... For instance they needed to refuel the thing immediately upon reaching operating temperature in flight, since it leaked like a sieve on the runway until everything expanded. Rather than try fix that somehow with more engineering, they shifted the complexity into operations. IIRC it couldn't even start its own engines cold, relying instead on hot-rod v8s setup on the runway to bootstrap the thing. More operational complexity in favor of leaving an entire subsystem out of the plane. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the SR-71, but so much of that appreciation stems from its ruthless pursuit of its narrow operational goals, for as much what it isn't as it is. It's the polar opposite of stuff like the space shuttle or F-35 where the aggregate complexity is through the roof to accommodate a kitchen sink.
    - Gravityloss 5y ago
      Oh come on. SR-71 was a complex military aircraft. Maybe it was not as complex as the space shuttle. Certainly much more complex than an F-16. One can start here for example http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2014/SR-71Inlts/SR-71Inlts.shtml http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2014/SR-71Inlts/SR-7...
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      >Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation ... I'm not sure what your point is with this. All complexity is operational complexity.
      - 5y ago

pengaru 5y ago

And the SR-71 is so simple the complexity falls off a cliff at the engine, hence your inclination to only care about that in comparing the two. The space shuttle is like a reusable mobile space station, airlocks and all. Occupants of the SR-71 wore space suits the entire time, there's a lot of minimalism on display in the SR-71 which is a large part of what makes it so glorious.

speedybird 5y ago
You seem to be suggesting but not outright saying something that is a misconception: The SR-71 did in fact have a pressurized cockpit, which was also air conditioned as well (it had to be, because the aircraft would cook the crew otherwise.) The SR-71 was sophisticated in other ways as well; for instance in having ejection seats. In fact the first four shuttle flights (all Columbia) had ejection seats too and guess where they got those seats from? The SR-71 of course. And on those flights with ejection seats, guess what the shuttle crew wore? They wore pressure suits, like those worn by SR-71 crew! They stopped wearing those starting with STS-5, when they removed the ejection seats. However the pressure suits (though not the ejection seats) came back after the demise of the Challenger. What I am not saying: that the shuttle was simple. What I am saying: That the SR-71 was more sophisticated than you've given it credit for.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I think the two of you are largely in agreement, but GP rightly points out that the SR-71 was less complex than it could have been and that this is in party why it was so successful. The ability to leave stuff out in engineering exercises can lead to substantial benefits and that's worth noticing.
Gravityloss 5y ago
The SR-71 was very complex. For example it had multiple heat exchangers to get rid of heat, to transfer it to the fuel before it was combusted. The titanium structure was complex to maintain. Welding needed to be done in "bubble" work stations under protective gas.
- pengaru 5y ago
  > The titanium structure was complex to maintain. Welding needed to be done in "bubble" work stations under protective gas Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation... For instance they needed to refuel the thing immediately upon reaching operating temperature in flight, since it leaked like a sieve on the runway until everything expanded. Rather than try fix that somehow with more engineering, they shifted the complexity into operations. IIRC it couldn't even start its own engines cold, relying instead on hot-rod v8s setup on the runway to bootstrap the thing. More operational complexity in favor of leaving an entire subsystem out of the plane. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the SR-71, but so much of that appreciation stems from its ruthless pursuit of its narrow operational goals, for as much what it isn't as it is. It's the polar opposite of stuff like the space shuttle or F-35 where the aggregate complexity is through the roof to accommodate a kitchen sink.
  - Gravityloss 5y ago
    Oh come on. SR-71 was a complex military aircraft. Maybe it was not as complex as the space shuttle. Certainly much more complex than an F-16. One can start here for example http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2014/SR-71Inlts/SR-71Inlts.shtml http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2014/SR-71Inlts/SR-7...
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation ... I'm not sure what your point is with this. All complexity is operational complexity.
    - 5y ago