Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Subdeacon Joe

Worse Than Rocket Science

Recommended Posts

Worse? Rocket Surgery. :P

 

I can now say that I actually met a Rocket Scientist. I met him on a motorcycle ride I was on last month. Nice guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

Worse? Rocket Surgery. :P

 

I can now say that I actually met a Rocket Scientist. I met him on a motorcycle ride I was on last month. Nice guy. 

 

When I was new at the prosecutor's office, I was watching an experienced assistant prosecutor during jury selection. A guy that worked at Wright-Patterson was being obnoxious as he was asked some questions. When asked, he described his job and in a very condescending tone said "yes, basically, I'm a rocket scientist..." Ultimately, he wasn't chosen for the jury. During closing, the attorney said "you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this case out." I think even the defendant may have laughed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

Worse? Rocket Surgery. :P

 

I can now say that I actually met a Rocket Scientist. I met him on a motorcycle ride I was on last month. Nice guy. 

 

I used to work with a whole passel of rocket scientists.  One in particular would come over, sit ON my desk, not in my side chair.  He would simultaneously go through computational analytics while telling jokes and giving me his schedule and financial forecast.  Quite a character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a bunch of rocket scientists and various other PHD's. How they can be smart as paint and dumber than a brick in the same instant is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Helicopter Aerodynamics ...... Oxymoron.

 

PHD =  Piled it Higher and Deeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was a member of the Manned Spacecraft Center Radio Control Club during college.  They would let 'normal' folks join--just so you know--course I built my first radio set from a HeathKit.

 

One of the things that stick in my mind was there was one NASA employee who detailed each and every flight:  duration, wind speed & direction, cloud cover, amount of remaining fuel, notes, etc.

 

He had a wall full of notebooks for all his present and former a/c.  

 

I asked him about it once and he said the record keeping was half the fun.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stogie said:

I work with a bunch of rocket scientists and various other PHD's. How they can be smart as paint and dumber than a brick in the same instant is beyond me.

 

Applies to some engineers I've known, too...   :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stogie said:

I work with a bunch of rocket scientists and various other PHD's. How they can be smart as paint and dumber than a brick in the same instant is beyond me.

I could explain it but I’m not sure you would understand.

 

let me rephrase that, I am sure you would not understand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never a rocket scientist!  I was an "acid-on-the-hands" rocket engineer!  (Back in the days before storable liquid oxidizers were shifted to nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), they used fuming nitric acid, which is concentrated HNO3+H2O.  Take away the water and you get NO2, which when sealed in a closed container doubles up to become N2O4).  But when I was in high school and self-teaching myself about liquid propellant rocket engines, with the help of professional rocket engineers, if you should accidentally spill any of the nitric acid on your skin, and hopefully flushed it off with copious amounts of water, it would still leave a yellow stain on your skin! (I never did that, but just working with the stuff, put me in the same category as those who did.)  The term "acid-on-the-hands rocket engineer" came to be used for those of us who were practical engineers, knowledgeable with the inner workings of hardware, as well as how to design them so they worked and could be worked on by technicians.  There is certainly a place for "rocket scientists".  They come up with the theories and data used to design rocket engines, launch vehicles and spacecraft.  Of course there is a broad degree of overlap between scientists and engineers. The best ones are smart, but don't lord it over everybody!  I knew one PhD who was also an engineer on the Polaris missile program.  He was originally from the back hills of Georgia or someplace, and looked and sounded worse than Gomer Pyle.  But he taught me how to do cube roots of numbers...longhand...just for the fun of it!  Like everything else, it takes all kinds!

Ad LEO! AD LUNA! Ad Ares! AD ASTRA!  (To Low Earth Orbit! To the Moon! To Mars! To the Stars!)

 

As far as helioflopters are concerned...well, according to some aerodynamicists, the bumble bee can't fly either! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

I could explain it but I’m not sure you would understand.

 

let me rephrase that, I am sure you would not understand.

 

Your probably right. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for their knowledge and the commitment it takes to reach that level. They do tend to look for a solution to a problem that is overly complicated. When you offer a simple solution the best ones think about it, laugh and go with it or explain why that might not be the best way. Others don't even consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 5:45 PM, Trailrider #896 said:

I was never a rocket scientist!  I was an "acid-on-the-hands" rocket engineer!  (Back in the days before storable liquid oxidizers were shifted to nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), they used fuming nitric acid, which is concentrated HNO3+H2O.  Take away the water and you get NO2, which when sealed in a closed container doubles up to become N2O4).  But when I was in high school and self-teaching myself about liquid propellant rocket engines, with the help of professional rocket engineers, if you should accidentally spill any of the nitric acid on your skin, and hopefully flushed it off with copious amounts of water, it would still leave a yellow stain on your skin! (I never did that, but just working with the stuff, put me in the same category as those who did.)  The term "acid-on-the-hands rocket engineer" came to be used for those of us who were practical engineers, knowledgeable with the inner workings of hardware, as well as how to design them so they worked and could be worked on by technicians.  There is certainly a place for "rocket scientists".  They come up with the theories and data used to design rocket engines, launch vehicles and spacecraft.  Of course there is a broad degree of overlap between scientists and engineers. The best ones are smart, but don't lord it over everybody!  I knew one PhD who was also an engineer on the Polaris missile program.  He was originally from the back hills of Georgia or someplace, and looked and sounded worse than Gomer Pyle.  But he taught me how to do cube roots of numbers...longhand...just for the fun of it!  Like everything else, it takes all kinds!

Ad LEO! AD LUNA! Ad Ares! AD ASTRA!  (To Low Earth Orbit! To the Moon! To Mars! To the Stars!)

 

As far as helioflopters are concerned...well, according to some aerodynamicists, the bumble bee can't fly either! :P

I learned how to do cube, fourth and fifth roots longhand!  Man that was a lot of work.  Ma-a-an that wiz a long time ago, fitty, sitty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The aerodynamicists are correct.  The Bumble Bee can't actually fly.  Just like the Helicopter, the Bumble Bee beats the atmosphere into submission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was an aero major who specialized in helicopter design, then flew them for a few years in the trees of Texas and West Germany with my favorite Uncle.

 

The main difference between rocket/plane design and helicopters is that rockets and planes are mostly linear in their motion.  Helicopters are primarily rotary in motion, while using the rotary parts to create linear motion.

 

And their parts that aren’t in rotary motion have to endure vibrations not found in planes and rockets that are caused by the rotary parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Charlie, 

Should be mention the result when the Rotary parts and Linear parts no longer function with "togetherness.???  Lift over drag and all that??

Resemblance to a BRICK!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

The aerodynamicists are correct.  The Bumble Bee can't actually fly.  Just like the Helicopter, the Bumble Bee beats the atmosphere into submission.

If helicopters defy nature and fly then a tug boat employing a Voith Schnieder cycloidal propulsion is a miracale.  Visualize a helicopter's rotor recessed into the boat's hull with the blades folded 90 degrees parallel to the axis of rotation.  The advantage of this propulsion system is the the direction of thrust can change instantly.  They are used for ship assist service; because, of their maneuverability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.  All that Voith Schnieder does is shove a boat in different directions.  The boat floats all by itself.  The engine quits, the boat floats anyway.

 

Helicopter engine quits ...... BRICK!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Nah.  All that Voith Schnieder does is shove a boat in different directions.  The boat floats all by itself.  The engine quits, the boat floats anyway.

 

Helicopter engine quits ...... BRICK!!!

A brick with a parachute.  I still remember for watching choppers practicing auto rotating at the Cu Chi airfield in 1970.  An important skill to master if you were a helicopter pilot in the RVN.  A mfg's rep I dealt with for 30+ years was a Huey crew chief in VN and had 3 Hueys shot down.  At least one controlled crash landing was severe enough for him to have lasting back issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Nah.  All that Voith Schnieder does is shove a boat in different directions.  The boat floats all by itself.  The engine quits, the boat floats anyway.

 

Helicopter engine quits ...... BRICK!!!

Winner!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J.D. Daily said:

A brick with a parachute.  I still remember for watching choppers practicing auto rotating at the Cu Chi airfield in 1970.  An important skill to master if you were a helicopter pilot in the RVN.  A mfg's rep I dealt with for 30+ years was a Huey crew chief in VN and had 3 Hueys shot down.  At least one controlled crash landing was severe enough for him to have lasting back issues.

That was the beauty of a Huey.  Its hydraulic system was powered not directly by the turbine engine, but by the transmission from a point that geared into the main rotor gears separate from the point where the turbine’s input shaft joined the engine. 

 

From a pilot’s perspective, that meant the engine could be completely shot out, the electronics and power distribution could be gone, and as long as the pilot entered autorotation, the rotor head would drive the hydraulic system and allow full control all the way down.

 

The Huey had its shortcomings, but fragility was not among them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.