3 ms·

I agree with most of it except wind turbines - their size is not driven by vanity, but efficiency. I am also not sure about blaming engineers for it, it's more

by js8 5y ago

I agree with most of it except wind turbines - their size is not driven by vanity, but efficiency. I am also not sure about blaming engineers for it, it's more of an investor thing. Engineers are often incredulous, IMHO, as it usually means more trouble. On the other hand, things like JWST are amazing. If you resist the temptation to just make it bigger, and think outside the box, some really cool engineering can happen.

kamray23 5y ago
I mean, the JWST is just bigger. There's two sources of unique solutions in the JWST, its size and the range of wavelengths it observes. The Hubble Space Telescope had a ground-glass mirror which was absolutely massive, both in size and literally in mass. To scale that up, a beryllium-gold mirror was necessary to be able to launch it at all, considering the immense weight of a ground glass mirror. Similarly, to fit it in the fairing, it had to be segmented. Due to the size, it couldn't have an enclosed tube as that wouldn't fit any fairing, and the mirror would be segmented as well anyway, so it's just easier to go without a tube and hope really hard that you get no interference. Speaking of, the JWST operates at such large wavelengths that incredibly cold objects are practically giant lightbulbs to it. Point it at the cold, dark moon and you might overwhelm the sensor. Therefore the entire thing has to be as cold as is theoretically possible, which is here done through just putting a giant sunshield and big radiators on it. Size, again, so it needed to be a very innovative folding sunshield. Everything that it has isn't really "outside the box", it's just the only working solutions to practical challenges with scaling up something like the Hubble, and moving to the observation of ever colder, further away objects.
GuB-42 5y ago
"bigger is better" is true in many cases, not just wind turbines. This can be because of economies of scale, for example a bus and a taxi need only one driver, so if you want to move many people, buses will be more efficient use of drivers. But it can be just physics, usually some variation on the square cube law. For example a large container will generally be lighter per unit volume/mass. Similarly, if you want to prevent heat losses, the easiest way is to go big. It is no wonder why engineers like it big, it is not just ego, it is efficiency. Of course, there is a limit, but progress is made by pushing these limits. The romans were right with their huge ships, as proof, today's ships are even bigger, it is just that they were at the limit of their technology.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  This article, on the other hand, argues that precisely ships are severely constrained by existing physical limits: * maximal depth of many important ports, * maximal width and depth of Panama and Suez channels. It isn't as efficient to build an übergiant that must take longer routes around the globe and can only fit into a handful of ports. In case of crude oil carriers, there is also the question of maximum environmental damage if they founder. I wouldn't like to see 5 million tons of crude spilt into the ocean. Even current sizes are pretty big. Also, when you take a giant anything (ship, nuclear reactor) out of operation for repairs, which may be urgent and unplanned, you reduced your available fleet by a massive amount, thus disrupting normal operations.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Worldwide we have plenty of merchant ships. Taking a few out of operation has no significant impact.

by js8 5y ago

kamray23 5y ago

I mean, the JWST is just bigger. There's two sources of unique solutions in the JWST, its size and the range of wavelengths it observes. The Hubble Space Telescope had a ground-glass mirror which was absolutely massive, both in size and literally in mass. To scale that up, a beryllium-gold mirror was necessary to be able to launch it at all, considering the immense weight of a ground glass mirror. Similarly, to fit it in the fairing, it had to be segmented. Due to the size, it couldn't have an enclosed tube as that wouldn't fit any fairing, and the mirror would be segmented as well anyway, so it's just easier to go without a tube and hope really hard that you get no interference. Speaking of, the JWST operates at such large wavelengths that incredibly cold objects are practically giant lightbulbs to it. Point it at the cold, dark moon and you might overwhelm the sensor. Therefore the entire thing has to be as cold as is theoretically possible, which is here done through just putting a giant sunshield and big radiators on it. Size, again, so it needed to be a very innovative folding sunshield. Everything that it has isn't really "outside the box", it's just the only working solutions to practical challenges with scaling up something like the Hubble, and moving to the observation of ever colder, further away objects.

GuB-42 5y ago

"bigger is better" is true in many cases, not just wind turbines. This can be because of economies of scale, for example a bus and a taxi need only one driver, so if you want to move many people, buses will be more efficient use of drivers. But it can be just physics, usually some variation on the square cube law. For example a large container will generally be lighter per unit volume/mass. Similarly, if you want to prevent heat losses, the easiest way is to go big. It is no wonder why engineers like it big, it is not just ego, it is efficiency. Of course, there is a limit, but progress is made by pushing these limits. The romans were right with their huge ships, as proof, today's ships are even bigger, it is just that they were at the limit of their technology.

inglor_cz 5y ago
This article, on the other hand, argues that precisely ships are severely constrained by existing physical limits: * maximal depth of many important ports, * maximal width and depth of Panama and Suez channels. It isn't as efficient to build an übergiant that must take longer routes around the globe and can only fit into a handful of ports. In case of crude oil carriers, there is also the question of maximum environmental damage if they founder. I wouldn't like to see 5 million tons of crude spilt into the ocean. Even current sizes are pretty big. Also, when you take a giant anything (ship, nuclear reactor) out of operation for repairs, which may be urgent and unplanned, you reduced your available fleet by a massive amount, thus disrupting normal operations.
- nradov 5y ago
  Worldwide we have plenty of merchant ships. Taking a few out of operation has no significant impact.