HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 2/2
ervin0072002
User Rank
Gold
Re: Why didn't engineers correctly predict shockwaves?
ervin0072002   4/27/2012 9:15:13 AM
NO RATINGS

Hey Ann,

 

The reason is our ability to predict turbulence. Some simulation software has gotten close. But to date we can only predict tested conditions. The facts behind turbulence are still largely guessed and even after a good bit of aviation history we are still working on the kinks. I have been to several meetings with mathematicians that are leaders in this field. It's difficult for them to predict with any great accuracy. Yes 10000% error is outrageous but it's possible in a field we are infants on.

 

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Why didn't engineers correctly predict shockwaves?
Charles Murray   4/26/2012 8:12:37 PM
NO RATINGS
That's a good question, Ann. The fact that it travelled successfully for three minutes might indicate that the shock wave was a sudden anomaly shortly before it failed (I can't imgine any design standing up to 100X loads for three minutes). Still, it's hard to imagine why no one foresaw a shockwave of this magnitude.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Why didn't engineers correctly predict shockwaves?
Ann R. Thryft   4/26/2012 2:21:52 PM
NO RATINGS

I guess what's not clear to me is, why was the aircraft designed to withstand shockwaves 100 times LESS strong than it actually experienced? I'm especially surprised since this was apparently the second flight, not the first. Why didn't engineers do a better job of prediction?


TJ McDermott
User Rank
Blogger
Re: 100x Performance Factor
TJ McDermott   4/26/2012 10:41:33 AM
One learns most from failures.

williamlweaver
User Rank
Platinum
100x Performance Factor
williamlweaver   4/26/2012 7:41:18 AM
NO RATINGS
I recall several publications and reporters reveling in the "failure" of the HTV-2 test back in August. But the ability to withstand forces 100x greater than design specifications and still manage to deploy a controlled abort should be a success in everybody's metrics. Controlled flight at Mach 20 for 3 minutes should have provided a wealth of telemetry. And these are the unclassified tests.... exciting.

<<  <  Page 2/2


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s recently announced plan to put an electric airplane in the air by 2018 is forward-looking, but hardly unique.
Engineers can channel the eye of the tiger and rise to the challenge, with a number of prize or award-giving contests out there to test your metal and intellectual prowess.
Engineers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have achieved the ability to scale nanotechnology for the development of super-strong, lightweight metal materials.
Harvard researchers have identified a new class of high-performing organic molecules in the development of redox flow batteries for alternative-energy storage.
Researchers in the United Kingdom have found a sustainable way to derive hydrogen from grass to develop biofuel.
More:Blogs|News
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Jul 11 - 15, Embedded System Design Techniques™ - Debugging Real-time Embedded Software – Hands on
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9 | 10


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service