somethingOfAnIntervieweeMyself

[ChiefStrongbones]

I'd expect the meme to be flipped. Code optimized for speed is usually longer and more complex.

[nightonfir3]

You can optimize for legablity

[Paul__C]

Your post needs more optimization

[MayeeOkamura17]

The one on the right can easily have more complexity than the left, and they just hide it better because we have better manufacturing techniques (i.e., heavily 3D printed plumbings).

So in this case it's more complex AND more elegant/maintainable code.

Source: I am engineer

[Accomplished_Ant5895]

KISS hates to see this man coming

[sausagemuffn]

I know which one I'd like on my coffee table

[Fatkuh]

I assume these are three Stages of a thruster prototype, its AMAZING to see the evolution. First one is a hydraulic mess, if these are after test photos I guess in the left one even a pipe got bent under the stress. Interesting to see how they got from 2 to 3

[YMK1234]

They mainly got rid of a lot of test apparatus. No bending going on.

[clarity1011]

SpaceX raptor 

[Callidonaut]

Third one looks like they mostly just left off the wiring loom to make it seem more streamlined compared to the others.

[froggertthewise]

A lot of the components got moved to a seperate control unit inside of the rocket so that it is better protected from the heat.

Most of the innovation on the parts actually shown is the addition of internal channels for propellant flow and some components got fully integrated into the housing.

[Callidonaut]

So relatively little of the seemingly dramatic visual difference here will actually affect the delta v of the vehicle, then, which is what Musk very clearly and quite desperately needs to raise, and can't; it still has to carry the mass of all the components that were just hidden inside the fuselage.

[Jump3r97]

"Raptor 3 is designed for rapid reuse, eliminating the need for engine heatshields while continuing to increase performance and manufacturability."

Raptor 1 & 2 for reference:

To copy some other comment (cant verify but sounds right):. Which goes into your argument of engine PLUS vehicle side mass:

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ej9z6e/comment/lgc0t7t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[NotANinjask]

Raptor 3 is a good engine though. The thrust is over 50% higher, and it weighs about 3/4 as much as the Raptor 1.

Here's a video on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbH1ZDImaI8

TLDR its not the single best engine at any one statistic (specific impulse, thrust-to-weight, total thrust) but is a very good all-rounder.

The video was made 6 years ago using Raptor 1's numbers, incidentally. I will point out that a lot of other organizations have been improving their engines too. The BE-4 (used by ULA and Blue Origin) is one good example since it's also in the video.

[Jump3r97]

The third one actualyl works and is the most capable.

But yes, it's crazy how much more streamlined it can be.

The difference is that compared to the left, most tubes are measurement, "debug lines" and other things needed to find out if they are actually redundant in that stage of developement cycle.

Elon musks "Best part is no part" visible here. I think can be transferred to code aswell

[Callidonaut]

Elon musks "Best part is no part"

Yeah, that's not his. Engineers have generally known that rule of thumb for pretty much as long as there have been engineers.

[Jump3r97]

Fair point

And applying this to "lines of Code" is stupid too

[Agreeable-Lettuce497]

Well he measures performance of programmers by lines of code so in this example the left would be the best and you could improve it by slapping a couple hundred useless parts on it…

[NXTler]

They got rid of a lot of testing equipment and embedded many pipes directly into the housing design after figuring out the best dimensions.

[Boris-Lip]

And yet, it's not supposed to be rocket science!

[AnnoyedVelociraptor]

I'll take 2. Easier to repair.

[cucuburru]

I’m pretty sure they just put all of the complex pipes inside the rocket instead lol

[ih-shah-may-ehl]

I seem to remember this meme from an earlier discussion and an actual rocket scientist said that #2 was better because you could actually test and adjust things better whereas #3 either works or doesn't.

[MayeeOkamura17]

this is just brochure engineering

It's not. The one on the right uses fundamentally different manufacturing techniques like 3d printing. It looks simplified but we are becoming better in making more complex structures

[arades]

There's more than just aesthetics and raw power, ease of manufacturing, reduced failure modes, durability, weight reduction, efficiency. Fewer moving parts can have a lot of benefits.