3 ms·
> Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Disagree. The newtonian physics part of flying a rocket is indeed the boring part of rocket science in these
by ur-whale 2y ago
> Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics.
Disagree.
The newtonian physics part of flying a rocket is indeed the boring part of rocket science in these days of Ghz computing.
But all the engineering (an altogether different - if related - discipline) required is anything but simple.
And engineering and all of its sub-disciplines (materials science, propellant research, iterative refinement, operational research, logistics, 3d printing, computing, simulation, structural engineering, etc...) is both where the complexity lives and where the greatest progress in rocket science has been made.
The devil is in details, as usual.
- amelius 2y agoI view the things you mention as incremental improvements on stuff that basically worked since the 60s.
- itishappy 2y agoIf we want to get real pedantic, the Chinese invented rocket powered flight around 1000AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Che https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Che
- dotnet00 2y agoThey're only incremental improvements in the sense that developing LLMs is an incremental improvement on stuff that basically worked in the 60s.
- VagabundoP 2y agoYup, as an engineer the "nuts and bolts" of all this stuff is the really hard part. The stresses, forces, environment etc that these machines face mean that it is always impressive the don't blow up. And its silly talk to say that the ESA shouldn't have its own rocket programmes.
- pfdietz 2y agoThere was no way to solve hypersonic retropropulsion without doing it.