I was going to say the same thing.
Also a modern engineer does the work that three or four people would have done in the past. I have no secretary and no draftsmen, etc. A modern engineer has a much broader scope.
There is a great book called "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich, who was Kelly's protege, about their work at Lockheed. I have read it several times.
I admire the engineers of the Apollo program not forgetting the crew in the control room calculating reentry trajectories by hand in a critical moment.
:heart:
:heart:
A modern structure has NO less than a factor of safety of 3. This means that maximum loads are multiplied by 3. In a typical commerical setting you can stack 4 cars on every square foot and not cause failure. There is absolutely NO reason to have a higher factor of safety than we use today.
Speaking like someone that has never taken an engineering course in their life. Although reliance on computers is a problem the first phrase you learn in engineering school is "garbage in, garbage out". If you have any idea what that means you will understand what I'm saying.
The only thing stopping engineering from accomplishing anything you can imagine is the limitation on resources. In the case of traveling to the moon, this nation could build a moon base next year if we were willing to spend 2 trillion dollars on it. In 1960's dollars the US spent 300 billion dollars going to the moon for 10 minutes. Inflation adjusted that dollar figure would be in the trillions today.
Think.
I think there are a lot of people who are not qualifed today because they cheated (more so than in previous generations). But I think highly of those that actually did their own work and learned something.
You misread my quote. I'm saying that the safety factor is LESS than it used to be. Nowadays it seems like things are built to do the bare minimum. If they build a house, they build it to last 50 years or so. Back in the 1800's, they built things to last for over a hundred years. My gf's house was built in the 1870's. The quality of the wood used it much higher, and it's thicker, also. Lots of brick and hardwoods. Not this cheap stucco and pine that falls apart in 10 years.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. And I'm saying that reliance on computers allows people to put that garbage in. People that otherwise would never make it as an engineer can now do the job if they know Autocad, for example. My point is that the people now don't seem to fully be able to undestand what they're doing. They're so far removed from the work they're doing that common sense gets lost in the process.
You're telling *me* to think, yet you're trying to act like you're smart, trying to pull a fast on on me by pulling imaginary figures out of your a$$. It didn't cost 300 billion dollars for the Apollo program. Not even close. You just fabricated some "facts".
I can either believe you, or I can believe NASA:
Total cost of Apollo program
"After the last lunar landing, total funding for the Apollo program was about $19,408,134,000. The budget allocation was 34 percent of the NASA budget."
19.4 billion is MUCH less than 300 billion. Today, that would cost about $130 billion, NOT "in the trillions".
NASA's chief Dr. Griffin stated that, adjusted for inflation, NASA's budget today is not much different than it was during the Apollo era. He said that the funding NASA recieved in the last 16 years is very similar to what they received in the first 16 years. So money isn't holding us back. But what would he know, he's only NASA's chief.
Think.
BlueWeasel
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 15,944
- 475
- 126
That's not true. I'm a structural engineer and not everything I've designed (which met all building code standards) has a FS of => 3.0.
The multiplication factor varies depending on the type of load (dead, live, wind, fluid loads etc) and very rarely exceeds a 3.0 FS. A FS of 3.0 would be an over-conservation design in most cases since the loads stipulated by the building codes are usually higher than any realistic load to be experienced by the structure.
BlueWeasel
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 15,944
- 475
- 126
i think that engineers of the past would agree that engineers today would kick the sh!t out of them in an engineering contest, to be frank we know more, we solve harder problems, and we do it safer, quicker, and cheaper.
Its like the same thing with atheletes of the past vs athletes today, would you want a defense line from the 1950s or a defensive line from todays nfl.
I remember that one scene from Apollo 13 (also in the book) when they're transferring the guidance program from the Command/Service Module to the Lunar Module. Lovell starts calling down pitch/roll/yaw/velocity figures, and the controllers all whip out slide rules to do the calculations.
How the hell were those primitive computers able to calculate the proper amount of thrust and proper angle for a Lunar Orbit Insertion? It's mind-boggling to me.
How the hell were those primitive computers able to calculate the proper amount of thrust and proper angle for a Lunar Orbit Insertion? It's mind-boggling to me.
omg i finsihed reading this thread, most of you guys are morons, building bridges and dams is not the end of engineering its only the begging get your head out of your assess, we have things like GPS, super tankers, space shuttle and nuclear submarines, we have the internet and digital music, we have a computer in hundreds of millions of homes and everyone has a cell phone, fvck the brooklyn bridge, how many people died making it? how about the panama canal? how many people died making that? now look at the chunnel, blah blah blah there are so many examples that prove that you guys are moron douches who should go back to your poetry class and commune and smoke your reefer
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,134
- 2,450
- 126
You guys stating that old engineers are better than modern engineers are smoking some serious crack. As proof, an EE is considered to be up to date for about 5 years after finishing school if he/she does not keep up with publications after 5 years your schooling is considered mostly obsolete. The amount of research and progress being pumped out today dwarfs what was coming out in the past. Hell, just look at a modern day engineering curriculum 90% (illustrative figure, no basis for proof) of the senior-level undergrad stuff was only invented/discovered/possible in the last 20.
Now, this isn't to say that older generation engineers were stupid, they certainly weren't but today's powerful tools like computers make it much easier to learn and experiment. In one of my classes we designed, simulated and had built an operational amplifier in about a month and half. In the past, something like this would have required a team experienced engineers several months to produce, simply because they didn't have the simulation tools we have today.
Now, this isn't to say that older generation engineers were stupid, they certainly weren't but today's powerful tools like computers make it much easier to learn and experiment. In one of my classes we designed, simulated and had built an operational amplifier in about a month and half. In the past, something like this would have required a team experienced engineers several months to produce, simply because they didn't have the simulation tools we have today.
You are the one who is on crack, because you don't seem to be able to differentiate between skill and progress.
Yes, we have GPS, super tankers, space shuttles, computers, etc like Ameesh said, but that's because of continuing innovation, not because today's engineers are better. The first people to make an integrated circuit knew that the transistor count would keep increasing. Just because they weren't able to put 100 million transistors on a die back then doesn't mean that they were less capable than today's engineers with tools that can. On the contrary, they were the ones who made something that did not exist previously.
Do you think it's easier to think outside the box and create a new vehicle when nothing else like it existed, or do you think it's easier to make minor improvements on an existing design? The pioneers are the ones with the brains, they did something that nobody did before. Copying their work and improving on it doesn't take nearly as much skill. Over time, those minor improvements lead to an evolution of the design.
You're able to creat an op/amp in such short time because the engineers who came before you built computer simulations that allow you to do that. You're just an end-user now, using someone else's tools and accruing the knowledge that they worked to find. For you, it's a simple matter of reading in a book how something works. For them, there was no book that told them how it works... they had to find it out for themselves, and then write the book.
You're comparing people who start a revolution with those who continue an evolution. It's easier to follow in the footsteps of others than to lead the way.
A) You obviously didn't read my second paragraph or just chose to ignore it because it went against the point you're trying to make.
B) There are maybe a handful of researchers that started "the revolution" as you call it. Comparing Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore to all modern engineers is like saying that all modern writers are dumbasses because no one has created anything comparable to MacBeth since Shakespeare.
A- You obviously didn't read my revised post.
B- That small handful of engineers are the ones that are carrying the field on their shoulders. They are the ones that are paving the way for the rest of the "engineers" who do nothing but duplicate their work.
Trend-setters make progress, others just follow. This goes back to my philosophy of the importance of intelligence... raw IQ. An average engineer might be able to do common things, but it takes someone of exceptional intellect to be able to figure out and formulate things which nobody else could think of. Concepts like that are simply beyond the average person's comprehension.
And how exactly is this different from any point in history? You always need someone to make a breakthrough before people build on it.
Look at MEMS for example, once someone had the idea that you could make machine using photolithography there were a littany of new designs that emerged. This is exactly the same as when photolithography and the transistor were invented. And FWIW several transistor circuits had vacuum tube equivalents before they were miniaturized to transistors. Does that make the transistor circuits evolutionary as well?
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,835
- 33,878
- 136
I've worked with engineers of multiple generations and it comes down to the individual. Many have impressed the hell out of me and some have been "no so good". The things we are asking engineers to do have changed. We don't ask engineers to build giant new dams very often because we don't need giant new dams. We do ask them to refurbish old dams. The engineering to acomplish the retrofit might be as diffifult or even more difficult than building the dam in the first place but there isn't much glory in it.
One thing I have noticed is that young engineers spend alot more time in training/subordinate roles than the older engineers did. Some of the early atomic energy projects had chief engineers in their early thirties with the rest of the team fresh out of college. Standards for obtaining a P.E. are much more rigorous now.
One thing I have noticed is that young engineers spend alot more time in training/subordinate roles than the older engineers did. Some of the early atomic energy projects had chief engineers in their early thirties with the rest of the team fresh out of college. Standards for obtaining a P.E. are much more rigorous now.
you're a structural engineer? i'm a senior civil and i want to specialize in structural engineering. i was under the impression that there werent any structural engineers on ATOT, lol. everyone seems to be mech/comp
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter