4 ms·
> Also, it's possible some of these basic balancing and center-of-gravity considerations were already known over 500 years ago To nitpick, properly being able
by jabl 2y ago
> Also, it's possible some of these basic balancing and center-of-gravity considerations were already known over 500 years ago
To nitpick, properly being able to do these kinds of stability calculations are a considerably newer invention. E.g. the famous Vasa ship capsized in 1628 because at that time ships were still designed based on rules-of-thumb and the experience/intuition of the builders, with no stability calculations done.
- cratermoon 2y agoPretty sure the builders knew the Vasa wasn't stable. The King of Sweden wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. Just 358 years later, the people in charge of a different kind of ship, named Challenger, also wouldn't take 'no' for an answer.
- graeme 2y agoYeah the Wikipedia is instructive. >In the last part of the inquest held after the sinking, a group of master shipwrights and senior naval officers were asked for their opinions about why the ship sank. Their discussion and conclusions show very clearly that they knew what had happened, and their verdict was summed up very clearly by one of the captains, who said that the ship did not have enough "belly" to carry the heavy upperworks.[81] When other ships that predated stability calculations were found to lack stability, remedial action could be taken to increase the beam. Also the original builder and his successor both died before completion. (Not suspiciously, but makes responsibility in construction harder)
- jcgrillo 2y agoBut those rules of thumb worked, mostly.
- jabl 2y agoOf course they did, after all humanity has been plying the seas for thousands of years. Just pointing out that naval architecture, as a branch of engineering involving stability calculations etc., is much younger than 500 years.