Science Art and Engineering

[Andy44]

I think I started this thread once long ago back on the m6 forum, but it's still an interesting subject so why not talk some more about it...

I look at photos of the space shuttle orbiter and I can't help but admire the looks of the spacecraft, I find it to be quite a good-looking craft. Not just its overal shape, but little details add to it, like the black tiles around the cockpit windows, which give it a "heavy-duty" look similar to the windows of the X-15, with visible fasteners. And the shape of the windows, the way they angle downward with the curvature of the nose.

Now, of course, I realize that the orbiter was built to achieve certain performance requirements. No engineer would ever admit to making it look pretty on purpose. I don't think Buran was as good-looking, even Enterprise isn't as good-looking, especially when she was first rolled out and the cockpit window frames were all white and her fake nose thermal protection lines don't look right.

Do you think engineers consciously or subconsciously try to make their creations aesthetically pleasing despite there being no requirement to do so? There are plenty of example of engineers not caring about aesthetics; the A-6 Intruder is a fine example of an airplane that's all business and looks like it fell out of the Ugly Tree. Like the A-10, it's only "pretty" to those who appreciate its utility.

 

[KosmoKen]

Speaking of Space Shuttles there's one thing that pops out in my mind. Originally painting the ET white, for simply aesthetic purposes (as far as i know) at first, then realizing it wasn't worth it. I think there's definitely a sexiness in anything that can be efficient AND look good, doesn't matter if it's a car, rocket, or a woman.

 

[T.Neo]

Do you think engineers consciously or subconsciously try to make their creations aesthetically pleasing despite there being no requirement to do so? There are plenty of example of engineers not caring about aesthetics; the A-6 Intruder is a fine example of an airplane that's all business and looks like it fell out of the Ugly Tree. Like the A-10, it's only "pretty" to those who appreciate its utility.

Yes, certainly.

Form follows function but when function allows a pleasing form, the oppurtunity is (or at least should be) taken. Of course there are
also asthetics that come out of the design by chance.

And my, is the Shuttle a pretty spacecraft. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Form follows function but when function allows a pleasing form, the oppurtunity is (or at least should be) taken.

Clearly a "pleasing" form...

But I think, the Concorde is still the most beautiful result of form follows function.

 

[RisingFury]

Thought you were gonna throw the F-117 into the "ugly" category as well...

 

[tl8]

As an student engineer, I can say that while function is more important to form, we try our hardest to make it look/work beautifully, because there is generally always ways to make function in beauty

 

[T.Neo]

Thought you were gonna throw the F-117 into the "ugly" category as well...

Nooo... 'tis a lovely bird.

A bit angular, but pretty nontheless.

 

[Urwumpe]

A bit angular, but pretty nontheless.

Yeah, she has thick angles. :rofl:

 

[AirSimming]

I personally think that Soyuz has a nice design, both the launch vehicle and spacecraft.

Of course the Space Shuttle looks great as well, just like the Apollo hardware and Gemini capsule (I especially like those windows and the interior design of the Gemini capsule).

Also, I don't remember the aircraft model, but esthetical reasons already caused a slight change (decrease) of the dihedral angle of wings. So in some aspects engineers indeed consciously try to make their creations aesthetically.

I'm not sure if this is just my subjective impression, but almost anything I have seen from artists before the actual hardware was build, for example Apollo or the Space Shuttle, did not look that cool as the final hardware did. Engineers somehow did a better job than artists, to my taste.

But I think, the Concorde is still the most beautiful result of form follows function.

Absolutely. Not to talk about its beautiful flight deck (you know I'm an instrument panel nerd :lol.

Whilst the first British prototype has a, somehow, uggly looking flight deck...

the production aircraft have the most phantastic flight decks ever to my taste (regarding civil jet aircraft)...

Not to mention the flight engineers panel, which is the most complex one and to my taste the most beautiful one of all civil aicraft...

Controlling the center of gravity by feeding fuel between 13 tanks (4 engine feed tanks, 6 main transfer tanks and 3 trim transfer tanks), and optimizing the airflow into the engines by ramps and spill doors for supersonic flight, requires some additional instrumentation which "usual" airliners do not have. What a shame that they retired such a beauty, and how actually boring and slow commercial aviation still is, 34 years after Concorde entered service.

 

[Andy44]

Yes, I agree that Concorde is among the most beautiful machines ever built by an engineering team. It certainly looks better than the Boeing mock-up that got canceled.

I'm not sure if this is just my subjective impression, but almost anything I have seen from artists before the actual hardware was build, for example Apollo or the Space Shuttle, did not look that cool as the final hardware did. Engineers somehow did a better job than artists, to my taste.

I also agree with this. I have a book I got from the KSC gift shop when I was very young before STS-1. It is a polemic describing how cool the space shuttle will be and what it will be able to do, etc., and it has lots of drawings and paintings.

I think what the real shuttle has that these paintings don't is a crystal clear realism. Engineering is all about precision and detail, and painting and drawing is a poor medium, IMO, for getting this across. A photo of the shuttle like the one in my first post is very sharp and shows the mastery of the engineers. It also has a lot of small details and textures that those early paintings didn't, such as individual tiles, blanket textures, markings, fasteners, etc. All the things that make it a marvelous and complex machine.

If the Space Shuttle and Concorde are works of art, and art is defined as something that transmits a feeling or an emotion, than these vehicles convey a sense of what man can accomplish using his mind and determination. Like steel suspension bridges, dams, skyscrapers, and other technical accomplishments, they are a symbol of what is possible when you strive to understand the physical world and harness the knowledge to create things.

Let me add dirigibles to the list as well, they fit well into the futurist art deco style of their age.

 

[DaveS]

Speaking of Space Shuttles there's one thing that pops out in my mind. Originally painting the ET white, for simply aesthetic purposes (as far as i know) at first, then realizing it wasn't worth it

Nope. The white "paint" was a Fire Retardant Latex coating applied to the Spray On Foam Insulation(SOFI) and was intended to protect the SOFI against UV degredation while the vehicle was on the pad. They later determined through analysis and data from STS-1 that he FRL wasn't needed at all, so it was quickly retired.

Had nothing to do with aesthetics. It was a purely an engineering thing which disappeared quickly once it wasn't needed.

 

[Arrowstar]

Hey, what's wrong with the A-6? Sure, it reminds me of a Beluga whale with wings, but maybe some people like their aircraft whale-like. :lol:

As far as the shuttle goes: I agree, it is a gorgeous vehicle. The [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAirZUdQB6g"]YouTube- STS-128 Landing at Edwards Air Force Base 11 Sept 2009 (Sonic Boom)[/nomedia], IMHO, shows that off perfectly. Vortexes off the wingtips, slowly sweeping around the HAC, beautiful! The best view of the shuttle is easily looking down the nose of the craft, similar to the photo Andy posted in the original post, and the -128 landing captured quite of a bit of that.

 

[AirSimming]

If the Space Shuttle and Concorde are works of art, and art is defined as something that transmits a feeling or an emotion, than these vehicles convey a sense of what man can accomplish using his mind and determination. Like steel suspension bridges, dams, skyscrapers, and other technical accomplishments, they are a symbol of what is possible when you strive to understand the physical world and harness the knowledge to create things.

Like Mike Bannister sais (former Concorde chief pilot with British Airways): It [Concorde] appears to both sides of the brain, the scientific side and the artistic side.

One doesn't necessarily have to be an engineer to realize what it stands for if you just watch something like the Concorde, the Shuttle or other technical accomplishments. That's what it makes all that stuff breathtaking to almost anybody by just watching it, without to know every technical detail. Because the most amazing thing is that it comes out of human minds first. It all just starts with ideas/visions.

If that's not art (beside engineering), I don't know what it is else...

PS:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNRounJhRGQ"]YouTube- The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde[/nomedia]

 

[Izack]

"Yeah, we did that."

It's truly amazing to be able to say that. The beauty is not only in the aesthetics, but also the science itself. I've never considered the LM (crumpled silver-painted box on sticks) to be a sight to behold, but to be frank, it went to the freaking Moon. IMO, the engineering, planning, math and science that went into that, and the end results were more beautiful than any sleek-looking design.
I have to agree that the Shuttle and Concorde are both beautiful birds, not only in appearance but also in practical design (just look at a cross-section of the jet's engines or the SSMEs).

PS: What's wrong with the A-10? I've always thought the contrasting straight wings and smooth engine mounts made for a very nice effect.

 

[cinder1992]

I Don't know why, but that photo make the shuttle look... cute. I just want to snuggle it like my cat. Awwwwwww.

 

[T.Neo]

I like the look of Soyuz from it's functionality more than anything. It isn't particularly graceful, but it's role as a long-standing workhorse is definitely reflected in the exterior.

I just want to snuggle it like my cat.

I feel sorry for your cat.

 

[tblaxland]

Do you think engineers consciously or subconsciously try to make their creations aesthetically pleasing despite there being no requirement to do so?

Of course. I know of another electrical engineering firm that required that the switchboards built for them be painted sky blue, rather than the more traditional grey or safety orange. :lol:

In a similar vein, I have seen things consciously done for the sake of beauty when there was no engineering requirement to do so. In fact, even the opposite, the beauty has hurt performance. For example, data cabling installers lovingly "dressing*" their cables in cable trays, blissfully unaware of the potential alien crosstalk problems they are creating.

*Dressing: laying them in nice straight parallel lines.

 

[Arrowstar]

I Don't know why, but that photo make the shuttle look... cute. I just want to snuggle it like my cat. Awwwwwww.

That must be one fat cat. :lol:

 

[tl8]

For example, data cabling installers lovingly "dressing*" their cables in cable trays, blissfully unaware of the potential alien crosstalk problems they are creating.

*Dressing: laying them in nice straight parallel lines.

I didn't know you could get cables straight yet alone parallel

They must have more skillz than me

 

[SiberianTiger]

Mending engineering and beauty.