6 ms·

It does not work: https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 This is apparently a demons

It does not work: https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 This is apparently a demonstration of their geometry software, not something that will ever be fired, since they are an "organic" modeling company, not a rocket company.

moffkalast 4y ago
So in a nutshell I can grab the toroidal aerospike model from KSP, print it 1 cm larger and I now have the world's largest 3D printed aerospike.
moh_maya 4y ago
That doesn’t make sense to me: why design it if it cannot / will not be tested to validate / demonstrate the value of their ‘algorithmicEngineering’? How can one make any functional claims of value without some functional testing? What am I missing?
- ghostly_s 4y ago
  You're missing nothing, it's pure PR fluff.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Perhaps. We don't know if they sold the design and whether it was tested. The design itself is very interesting - in particular the complex heat exchange structures. On it being optimal, or even more efficient, as long as it's cheaper to build than a conventional engine, it's game.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      we know the engine wasn't tested, and we do not yet have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the engine is unsold
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think all of that is basically out of scope. I don't think they are claiming it is a good design. The impressive point is their software can make a design at all. It seems like they want to sell it to people that will use it to try to make designs that are good
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        algorithmic design on its own, with no further qualifiers (like functionality) isn't impressive though, I don't think that's the pitch
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think this level of algorithmic design is impressive, and as far as I know, novel. I certainly haven't seen anything this complex. It is like a computer displaying "hello world". The output isn't particularly exciting, I could do better with an index card. However, the fact that the a computer could take a set of inputs and display something at all shows exciting promise. The same is true here. For a real engine design, you would have to work extensively on the inputs, boundaries, and goals. The impressive part is that this software can handle this complex of a parameter set at all.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        as far as we know, "this level of algorithmic design" could be randomly generated volumes which serve no purpose and render the device completely non-functional indeed, since it does't need to do anything but look cool, the inputs could be "weirdness factor" and "excessive internal wall ratio" and nothing else, and they thought "this kinda looks like an aerospike"
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        >as far as we know... This is exactly why I am impressed. I have some basic understanding of rocket engine and aerospike design, and can recognize most of the features and the functions they would serve in this design. I have no clue how optimal they are, but it is clear that they are taking function into consideration. Moving from the outside of the engine in, you can see that support lattice has been added to the exterior and density adjusted on the exterior to reenforce high stress areas. Next, the coolant jacket around the combustion chambers has has baffles (verticals s curves) that seem to adjust cooling in specific areas. It looks like the spike cooling system (the dense horizontal lines) is trying to balance fluid resistance with how much the cryogenic oxygen. The one part I don't understand is what the Y shaped channels in the very center are supposed to do. This is the liquid oxygen flow to the tip of the spike before it returns along the outside of the spike as a heat exchanger (mentioned above). It looks like some sort of expansion chamber but I would have to ask a professional aerospike engineer what it is for. This is a long way of saying the structures show functional intent to converge on some solution. Some parts seems random, but most algorithmic design is random change and iterative testing; Essentially evolutionary code, where permutations are made, compared, killed off, then fed into future models. I wonder how they handle so many degrees of freedom, and how much of what we see in the output was pre-defined.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Algorithmic design engineering is a fairly mature field that's been around for 20 plus years. Looking at their website, they are simply developing a tool for more integrated algorithms from the park level to system level. With this in mind, the the component integration of the model itself is extremely impressive and a proof of concept. It doesn't matter if it actually works or not, that's not really the point.
_Adam 4y ago
I'm skeptical there's any value being generated here then. Who are the customers? How do they know this fancy looking biological design is any good at all? It's fine not to actually test fire it, but in that case prove it with simulations. Demonstrate that it's superior to existing designs, or at the very least that it's functional.
CobrastanJorji 4y ago
What's amazing about the linked blob post is that the headline is "But Does It Work?" and the word "no" only appears once, in the phrase "there’s no looking back." The article asks really tough questions of itself, like "Have you tested it, does it work?" and then very carefully does not say yes or no. Why ask yourself those questions if you don't want to answer them? Imagine a politician who starts a campaign speech "People are asking me, 'Am I a Ghost Wizard?' and here's my answer: ghost wizards are valid concerns. This builds upon the latest in crytozoological knowledge of supernatural studies. The first study of such wizards was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. As I've discussed previously with my constituents, the United Nations has previously looked into ghost wizards. In a way, it seems that..."
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Reminds me of that classic https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096 https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

moffkalast 4y ago

So in a nutshell I can grab the toroidal aerospike model from KSP, print it 1 cm larger and I now have the world's largest 3D printed aerospike.

moh_maya 4y ago

That doesn’t make sense to me: why design it if it cannot / will not be tested to validate / demonstrate the value of their ‘algorithmicEngineering’? How can one make any functional claims of value without some functional testing? What am I missing?

ghostly_s 4y ago
You're missing nothing, it's pure PR fluff.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  Perhaps. We don't know if they sold the design and whether it was tested. The design itself is very interesting - in particular the complex heat exchange structures. On it being optimal, or even more efficient, as long as it's cheaper to build than a conventional engine, it's game.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    we know the engine wasn't tested, and we do not yet have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the engine is unsold
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think all of that is basically out of scope. I don't think they are claiming it is a good design. The impressive point is their software can make a design at all. It seems like they want to sell it to people that will use it to try to make designs that are good
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      algorithmic design on its own, with no further qualifiers (like functionality) isn't impressive though, I don't think that's the pitch
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think this level of algorithmic design is impressive, and as far as I know, novel. I certainly haven't seen anything this complex. It is like a computer displaying "hello world". The output isn't particularly exciting, I could do better with an index card. However, the fact that the a computer could take a set of inputs and display something at all shows exciting promise. The same is true here. For a real engine design, you would have to work extensively on the inputs, boundaries, and goals. The impressive part is that this software can handle this complex of a parameter set at all.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        as far as we know, "this level of algorithmic design" could be randomly generated volumes which serve no purpose and render the device completely non-functional indeed, since it does't need to do anything but look cool, the inputs could be "weirdness factor" and "excessive internal wall ratio" and nothing else, and they thought "this kinda looks like an aerospike"
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        >as far as we know... This is exactly why I am impressed. I have some basic understanding of rocket engine and aerospike design, and can recognize most of the features and the functions they would serve in this design. I have no clue how optimal they are, but it is clear that they are taking function into consideration. Moving from the outside of the engine in, you can see that support lattice has been added to the exterior and density adjusted on the exterior to reenforce high stress areas. Next, the coolant jacket around the combustion chambers has has baffles (verticals s curves) that seem to adjust cooling in specific areas. It looks like the spike cooling system (the dense horizontal lines) is trying to balance fluid resistance with how much the cryogenic oxygen. The one part I don't understand is what the Y shaped channels in the very center are supposed to do. This is the liquid oxygen flow to the tip of the spike before it returns along the outside of the spike as a heat exchanger (mentioned above). It looks like some sort of expansion chamber but I would have to ask a professional aerospike engineer what it is for. This is a long way of saying the structures show functional intent to converge on some solution. Some parts seems random, but most algorithmic design is random change and iterative testing; Essentially evolutionary code, where permutations are made, compared, killed off, then fed into future models. I wonder how they handle so many degrees of freedom, and how much of what we see in the output was pre-defined.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Algorithmic design engineering is a fairly mature field that's been around for 20 plus years. Looking at their website, they are simply developing a tool for more integrated algorithms from the park level to system level. With this in mind, the the component integration of the model itself is extremely impressive and a proof of concept. It doesn't matter if it actually works or not, that's not really the point.

_Adam 4y ago

I'm skeptical there's any value being generated here then. Who are the customers? How do they know this fancy looking biological design is any good at all? It's fine not to actually test fire it, but in that case prove it with simulations. Demonstrate that it's superior to existing designs, or at the very least that it's functional.

CobrastanJorji 4y ago

What's amazing about the linked blob post is that the headline is "But Does It Work?" and the word "no" only appears once, in the phrase "there’s no looking back." The article asks really tough questions of itself, like "Have you tested it, does it work?" and then very carefully does not say yes or no. Why ask yourself those questions if you don't want to answer them? Imagine a politician who starts a campaign speech "People are asking me, 'Am I a Ghost Wizard?' and here's my answer: ghost wizards are valid concerns. This builds upon the latest in crytozoological knowledge of supernatural studies. The first study of such wizards was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. As I've discussed previously with my constituents, the United Nations has previously looked into ghost wizards. In a way, it seems that..."

moffkalast 4y ago
Reminds me of that classic https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096 https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]