3 ms·

> The titanium structure was complex to maintain. Welding needed to be done in "bubble" work stations under protective gas Operational complexity is orthogonal

> 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.
- pengaru 5y ago
  > All complexity is operational complexity. Uh, what? Example to illustrate the difference: Automatic transmission in an automobile, operationally simpler than the manual constant-mesh trans it broadly replaced: Driver (AKA the Operator) selects drive or reverse when stationary, no need to participate in gear changing while in motion. Substantially more complex in implementation in exchange; go look at the hydraulic valve body of your average slushbox. Manual trans: Simple implementation, single clutch assembly, sets of gears selected mechanically by axially sliding dogs on splined shafts. Operationally complex since the driver must continuously participate in the selecting of gears and clutch operation while in motion.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    Oh I see it now, you mean at the time of operation by the end-user. I was thinking about the operational complexity of developing/manufacturing such thing, hence why for me it seemed to be virtually the same thing. Thanks for taking your time to clarify this.

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.

pengaru 5y ago
> All complexity is operational complexity. Uh, what? Example to illustrate the difference: Automatic transmission in an automobile, operationally simpler than the manual constant-mesh trans it broadly replaced: Driver (AKA the Operator) selects drive or reverse when stationary, no need to participate in gear changing while in motion. Substantially more complex in implementation in exchange; go look at the hydraulic valve body of your average slushbox. Manual trans: Simple implementation, single clutch assembly, sets of gears selected mechanically by axially sliding dogs on splined shafts. Operationally complex since the driver must continuously participate in the selecting of gears and clutch operation while in motion.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Oh I see it now, you mean at the time of operation by the end-user. I was thinking about the operational complexity of developing/manufacturing such thing, hence why for me it seemed to be virtually the same thing. Thanks for taking your time to clarify this.