As a “rocket scientist” (I hate that phrase), I wish that everyone in the media would stop saying that NASA crashed a “rocket” into the moon. A rocket put it into space, but what crashed into the moon were spacecraft (though they had small rocket motors on them). I don’t actually even like the term “rocket” for a launch vehicle. It’s like calling a car an “internal combustion engine.”
40 thoughts on “Annoying”
Comments are closed.
Didn’t the Centaur hit the moon as well? At least that’s part of a rocket.
Speaking as a pedantic rocket engineer, I’d call the Centaur stage a rocket. š
I had a friend who was a “rocket scientist.” He married a brain surgeon. Needless to say we got a lot of ribbing mileage out of that one.
Ever wonder why we call a diesel powered engine a ‘Diesel’ but we don’t call a gasoline powered engine a ‘Gasoline’?
Because the etymology runs the other way, Josh. The diesel engine was named after its inventor, Rudolf Diesel, and “diesel” fuel was named that way because it was suitable for burning in diesel engines. On the other hand, the name “gasoline” was used for the substance before it was used as a fuel in internal combustion engines.
Or have I taken an Andy Rooney comment too seriously?
But we don’t call a gasoline powered engine a Daimler either.
“Or have I taken an Andy Rooney comment too seriously?”
Eh, maybe, possibly so.
The problem is that “rocket scientist” means almost literally a master of magical powers in the popular imagination. So we’re seen as rocket _wizards_.
This actually has a positive side, as we could then call Mike Griffin “Sauruman.”
Perhaps the LCROSS mission highlights an interest in people wanting to see something visibly happen on the Moon from the Earth. Maybe this will encourage Lunar advertising of some sort? Could an orbiting lunar satellite shin a highly visible laser light on the surface of the Moon for a laser light show visible on Earth?. Just think, ” will you marry me?” emblazoned on the Moon would get you copious levels of nookie for a lifetime.
Carl, I did not know that. Your comment prompted me read a short history of gasoline and I learned, among other things, that “Before gasoline was used as fuel for engines, it was sold in small bottles as a treatment against lice and their eggs.”
I googled gasoline and lice, and I was suprised to learn that every year in the US people are burned, maimed, and killed because people still think gasoline is useful for this purpose.
Interesting. Carl, thanks for your nit-picking!
“As a ārocket scientistā (I hate that phrase)”
Indeed. ‘Rocket engineering’ is what they really mean, of course, but so few people know the difference between the disciplines. How often to we hear the media use the phrase ‘NASA scientists’ in a context having little or nothing to do with basic science?
Besides, the basics of rocketry aren’t that hard to grasp. When I want to emphasize that something is uncomplicated, I usually prefer to say; “It’s not quantum physics…”
After all, NOBODY as yet, completely understands quantum physics.
I still prefer Doug Jones’ description of the job: Rocket Plumber. If you’ve ever worked on a real rocket engine (not just a design excercise or trade study), about 90% of what you did was plumbing.
~Jon
I donāt actually even like the term ārocketā for a launch vehicle. Itās like calling a car an āinternal combustion engine.ā
Or an airplane a “jet”?
Pars pro toto. Rand, didn’t you have a classical education?
Seriously, a black man will be elected President before engineers get any glory in this world…
…didnāt you have a classical education?
I suppose, if by “classical education” one means that I took Latin in high school. š
Gaul is divided into three parts…
I knew I could count on you! I can still recite chunks of Homer. Very useful in today’s world…
After all, NOBODY as yet, completely understands quantum physics.
Nonsense. I do. What would you like to know?
Seriously, a black man will be elected President before engineers get any glory in this worldā¦
Only outside Germany š
And “gasoline”, I thought it was Petroleum… :p
In the world of weapon systems, a “missile” denotes an unmanned vehicle, usually with some sort of kill-the-bad-guys payload, launched from another vehicle, that has its own guidance system of some sort: cruise missiles, ICBM, surface-to-surface missiles, etc. “Rockets” usually mean unguided rounds: Hydra rockets, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), etc. Except there are now guided versions of MLRS (GMLRS) and the Hydra rockets (APKWS), that are still called rockets. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” (RW Emerson).
Also, solid rockets propulsion systems are usually called “motors”, while liquid fueled propulsion systems are usually called “engines”. Turbojets / turbofans etc are pretty much universally called “engines”, as are internal combustion “engines”, but devices that convert electrical energy into rotational motion are usually called electric “motors”. Maybe Steven Pinker could make sense out of this…
Nonsense. I do. What would you like to know?
What is “probabilty”, as used in the term “probability density” and what are it’s component parts? The answer “a solution to the S equation” does not exhibit “understanding”.
Also, please explain, no jargon please, how an electron wave/particle thingy can target a proton wave/particle thingy with a virtual photon so precisely? What kind of mechanism allows it to create a configuration which can aim and launch an electromagnetic signal so accurately at another fast moving particle/wave thingy. Again, reasoning from the S equation or even QED formalism is not an appropriate answer.
Thanks in advance
As a fellow rocket scientist, I’ve always been curious how we got the reputation for being so smart. When you look at the old movies of the rockets exploding, the popped cork episode, etc, it’s amazing we’re not associated with moronic ideas and failure. Similarly, do brain surgeons necessarily have extraordinary intelligence? Granted, the consequences of failure are not so great, but I’d think a precise, steady hand would be a better prediction of successful brain surgery.
Just curious.
As a fellow rocket scientist, Iāve always been curious how we got the reputation for being so smart. When you look at the old movies of the rockets exploding, the popped cork episode, etc, itās amazing weāre not associated with moronic ideas and failure.
Probably because most people aren’t even smart enough to figure out how to get sufficiently far to fail so spectacularly, including raising the money.
.
“…how to get sufficiently far to fail so spectacularly…”
.
.
But Rand doesn’t that kind of spectacular “failure” tie in with what Edison said about learning 9000 ways NOT to create a light bulb? Of course light bulbs don’t make huge, cool looking explosions when they don’t work. I don’t know of even one device that worked perfectly from the first time it was used, deployed, turned on, etc. Then again, the first TV, radio, computer didn’t make a huge, cool looking explosions either.
And again Edison, 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration, ties in.
Probablity, K, is an empirical concept, and defined to be numerically equal to the fraction of observations of observable O in which it takes on a particular value, in the asymptotic limit of an infinite number of observations, provided such a limit exists. The probability of a coin coming up heads is the fraction of heads I observe as the number of tosses approaches infinity.
What you probably mean by the components is probability amplitude. Probability amplitude is a mathematical fiction, not itself observable, which is a convenient way to account for the fact that the many (usually infinite) trajectories by which an event here influences another event there interfere with each other. As for why quantum interference exists, that is a metaphysical or religious questions, akin to asking why there is something instead of nothing, or why pi = 3.14159…, and outside the realm of physics.
I submit your second question is ill-posed. It almost sounds as if you want to infer volition to a particle: it “tries” to hit a target, how can it be so “successful?” Which makes no sense. You might as well wonder how the Moon can aim itself so precisely along its orbit for so many billions of years.
In general it sounds like you are wondering how the rules of quantum mechanics can be rationalized in terms of our everyday intuition, which is both nonrelativistic and classical. They can’t, of course. But that hardly equates to a lack of understanding; rather it indicates that the definition of “understanding” is flawed, almost as it is in the case of a liberal arts snob who says if it can’t be explained precisely without any math, it isn’t really “understood.” Or a blind man insisting that if one can’t describe “blue” in terms of the notes one could play on a piano the concept can’t be meaningful. One needs to broaden one’s experience to gain the necessary extensions to intuition that make it possible to feel, subjectively, that one “understands” why the motion of an electron in an atom is quantized as well as one “understands” why rocks fall, smoke rises, and TANSTAAFL.
I’m not a big fan of the subjective feeling of “understanding” something. As a rule, human beings are far too apt to mistake a subjective feeling of “understanding” for a reliable ability to make precise and accurate predictions of the future. This explains the enire modern Democratic Party, as well as the appalling rate at which newly licensed drivers are killed in car crashes.
So Carl, in other words, you’re an utter poser who can’t be distinguished experimentally from a guru who actually understands QM. š
I have little faith or respect for most of the people who work in the Fifth Estate. When I see them make gross mistakes reporting on topics that I am very well versed in, it makes me lose faith in their credibility on topics that I am ignorant of. Very few reporters on spaceflight technology or astronomy ever get it right, and put unnecessary spin on articles just to grab headlines and dollars. I find it more informative to read news releases than to depend on a journalist to interpret the news for me.
Unlike Rand, I like the term “rocket scientist”. Actually, I am a scientist, as well as an engineer. I have a bachelor’s and a master’s in mechanical engineering, and a doctorate in theoretical physics. When I put my physicist hat on, the Powers That Decide Such Things have on occasion allowed my work to grace the pages of Phys Rev Letters (though it’s been awhile).
Now I work on spaceships, and that work includes understanding some very subtle physics about the behavior of liquid oxygen under vibration, how it couples to the overall vibration of the launch vehicle, and how we can manipulate that behavior. So what else am I supposed to call myself? Somehow “rocket engineer” is not quite right. I work with a lot of engineers, but what I am doing is quite a bit different from writing specs and resolving interface issues — i.e. the stuff I used to do before I got my Ph.D.
If you are not sure how rocket scientists got their reputation, I suggest you browse some of the early work that is available on NTRS … For that matter, check out some of the reports on Slosh Central, starting with NASA SP-106.
BBB
K:
There are several schools of thought about “probability”. I fall in with the “frequentists”, often called “classical probabilists”, who essentially comprise the mainstream school of thought. I do this because it is the frequentist interpretation of probability that is used in physics.
To a frequentist, a probability is a fraction of an ensemble. So when we say the probability of rolling a 7 with a standard pair of dice is 1/6, that means that we enumerate 36 possible combinations, and that 6 of them show a total of 7. We explicitly stipulate that the dice are “fair”, i.e. equi-probable. This same framework can handle unfair dice or coins with an obvious extension to infinite ensembles.
This approach is entirely consistent with what Carl wrote, except that he gave an operational definition that allows one to estimate the actual probabilities for a real coin, die, roulette table, etc.
If you can’t handle the path integral picture of quantum mechanics, then you’re probably š never going to understand electron-proton scattering anyway. Because QED is the explanation we have. You may have heard it works pretty well. But there is no point trying to explain that to someone who is willfully ignorant — and what else can I call it when someone says they don’t want to hear the explanation that science has developed?
BBB
BBBeard- Thanks for the link to the slosh page. I used to do work in fuel slosh for Hughes Space & Comm. This was around 1980, and we used to model the bubbles, figuring that where the bubbles were, the fuel wasn’t. Coworker/payload specialist Greg Jarvis was carrying a fuel slosh experiment on Challenger for Hughes when it blew up.
BBBeard said: Now I work on spaceships, and that work includes understanding some very subtle physics about the behavior of liquid oxygen under vibration, how it couples to the overall vibration of the launch vehicle, and how we can manipulate that behavior. So what else am I supposed to call myself? Somehow ārocket engineerā is not quite right. I work with a lot of engineers, but what I am doing is quite a bit different from writing specs and resolving interface issues ā i.e. the stuff I used to do before I got my Ph.D.
Admittedly, a lot of engineers do this sort of thing, but lots of us do stuff much more akin to your “physics of liquid oxygen” example. For example, in my area of expertise, flight controls and GNC, the work that I and my fellow GNC’ers do involves a lot of subtle issues: aeroelastic coupling, statically and dynamically unstable systems, unsteady aerodynamics, multi-body equations of motion, nonlinear effects such as saturation, etc. Yet my colleagues and I are all trained as engineers (mostly AEs, but some MEs and EEs), with a mix of BS and MS degrees – a few PhDs, but not many. It sounds like you would class what we do as more “science” than “engineering”, but I do not think I would agree. A good engineer has to have excellent analytical skills.
Suits me, Karl. That was brilliant, by the way, positively Zen. When I meet the Buddha in the road, I shall relate your koan before or in place of killing him.
Anyway, I personally don’t find any theories of mechanics — quantum or otherwise — puzzling. Or, at least, they are not nearly so puzzling as the fairly ordinary “understable” Second Law of Thermodynamics. Why is the entropy of the Universe increasing? Or, to put it another way, despite the fact that all of our theories of mechanics are time-reversible (or CPT reversible, whatever), why is the history of the Universe completely non time-reversible?
cthulhu:
Do you work at MSFC? One of the hats I wear is statistics consultant to EV40. There are a lot of really smart engineers at MSFC; I love working with them. And the engineer/scientist line is very blurry indeed in the deep end of the pool.
BBB
BBBeard – I’ve been allergic to any state east of the Rockies for quite a while now, and I confess I like aircraft a lot better than spacecraft – their S&C problems are more interesting to me…further deponent sayeth not.
BBBeard said, “And the engineer/scientist line is very blurry indeed in the deep end of the pool.”
Just this morning husband sent me this quote:
“A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible”
– Freeman Dyson
Lynne: āA good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possibleā
Heh. Dyson would perhaps be surprised how many original ideas it takes to make a new airplane or a new launch vehicle work. The problem I’ve always run into is convincing the administrators and generals that the ideas aren’t new at all — because they equate “new” with “risky”.
And Dyson is probably right that progress in science depends on the relatively few people with original ideas. But what is it that distinguishes a good scientist from the crackpot inventor of perpetual-motion machines? I’d say it’s far more often the willingness to work within a paradigm than the impulse to discard it.
cthulhu: I confess I like aircraft a lot better than spacecraft
Well, I’ve mostly been an engine guy in my career — “Real engineers design engines”! But it’s all good….
BBB
I think it is not that so few people have original ideas as that the smarter ones learn to conceal that they have them.
Re Dave O-Neill’s comment:
One little factoid about petroleum products is that there is an example in that field of the ultimate horror of anyone who creates trademarks; that of a trademark that becomes so widely used that it ceases to be a protected trademark. “Hoover” is an example, or nearly so, from vacuum cleaners.
The word usually used in the UK (and I think in Australia) for gasoline is “petrol”. Which used to be a trademark for a particular brand, in the 1930s I think.
“I’m not a big fan of the subjective feeling of āunderstandingā something. As a rule, human beings are far too apt to mistake a subjective feeling of āunderstandingā for a reliable ability to make precise and accurate predictions of the future. This explains the enire modern Democratic Party, as well as the appalling rate at which newly licensed drivers are killed in car crashes.”
I’ve had several experiences where I felt ‘sure’ I was right only to discover later I was definitely wrong. After I got married I discovered I would talk nonsense in my sleep and, when awakened, feel sure I was talking sense when I wasn’t. If my wife would make the mistake of answering my sleep talking I would slowly wake up arguing with her feeling sure I was making sense although I wasn’t at all. The feeling of being sure and being right is not completely connected with actually being right. At least for me. I’m sure some of you out there are always right when you think you are…
My understanding is that the Centaur rocket stage crashed into the moon first, and the impact and ejecta was being observed by the LCROSS spacecraft for about 2-3 minutes, and then about 4 minutes after the Centaur impact, LCROSS itself also crashed into the moon, which could be observed by LRO and Earth-based telescopes, but that the initial crash of the rocket stage was the larger and more important collision.
Iāve had several experiences where I felt āsureā I was right only to discover later I was definitely wrong. After I got married I discovered I would talk nonsense in my sleep and, when awakened, feel sure I was talking sense when I wasnāt.
The difference between you and, say, Jim, or the entire Obama Administration, is that you only think that way when you’re asleep.