Cruise-o-nomics

The officers of Empress of the Seas were kind enough to host a Q&A session with passengers.

The life of an officer is 10 weeks on, 10 weeks off. The company is responsible for air transport to and from the officer’s home, wherever that happens to be on Planet Earth. There were no American officers on our ship and an American would be at a big disadvantage relative to a European. The typical European country doesn’t tax money earned elsewhere and, in any case, the officer can always choose to locate in a tax-free jurisdiction for his or her land home. The European officer with a family is not an attractive target for a divorce lawsuit due to the elimination of alimony (Germany, and similar) and/or the low caps on child support revenue ($2,000 to $8,000 per year per child, depending on country; see Real World Divorce). The land-based partner of a cruise ship officer cannot substantially live on the officer’s salary following a divorce.

(There is not a huge temptation for a heterosexual officer to stray while on board. All of the officers on our ship were men and the majority of crew members at all levels are male. There are apparently few women who are willing to be away from home for stretches of 6 months or more.)

Our ship is the smallest in the Royal Caribbean fleet. The captain explained his plan to catch up: “Every time we go into dry dock we will add 6 feet to the length. Over time we will grow into the largest ship.” (Empress of the Seas is being refitted in February 2019 in Freeport, Bahamas. Given that everything will need to be shipped in, I was shocked that it was more cost-effective to do this work in the Bahamas rather than in the U.S. There must be some spectacular inefficiencies in the American shipyards! In what other manufacturing or technical area is the Bahamas competitive?)

Why are all of the new ships big? The officers explained that the path to real profits starts with ships that hold at least 3000 passengers. That isn’t practical for these Cuba excursions due to the small piers that are available.

One thing that is not big on cruise ships is the draft. The captain explained that ocean liners, which are engineered with a deep draft to challenge big waves, can’t get into most of the Caribbean ports. The Queen Mary had a draft of 39′, the Queen Mary 2 is at 34′. Even the 6,000-passenger Oasis of the Seas draws only 31′ and the Empress of the Seas has a 24′ draft. There seems to be a mismatch, however, between how cruise ships are designed and how they are used. People are crossing the Atlantic and Pacific on these tall and shallow-drafted machines. We went through about 8 hours of dramatic (for a landlubber) rocking when sideways to what looked like a modest swell. Seasick bags were deployed in all of the elevator lobbies. This is despite the ship being equipped with stabilizers.

Full post, including comments

Merry Christmas (again) to the Sea Turtles

Last Year: https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2017/12/25/merry-christmas-to-the-sea-turtles/

This year: We helped 60 sea turtles make their way from frigid Cape Cod to warm Panama City, Florida. Some photos:

Merry Christmas to everyone!

[Credits: Rectrix at KBED and Sheltair at KECP both provided superb support for loading and unloading. Turtles Fly Too and Kate Sampson of NOAA coordinated everything. Tradewind Aviation‘s superb maintenance and dispatch crew made sure that the Pilatus PC-12 was ready to go. Air Traffic Control gave the turtles a VIP direct clearance at FL220. The New England Aquarium did the initial rehab for the cold-stunned turtles. Gulf World in Panama City continued the rehab and also gave us an awesome tour of their facility (there was minimal damage to Panama City beach from Hurricane Michael, though it was a different story just 10 miles east). ]

Full post, including comments

Arrived in Jacksonville; great demonstration of private airplane versus JetBlue

Good news: I made it to Jacksonville without suffering the indignity of three hours on JetBlue.

Bad news: the trip was officially scheduled to depart on Friday, thus making this a three-day journey.

The Cirrus SR20 was theoretically capable of handling the low clouds and heavy rain of Friday in New England, but not the forecast icing conditions once airborne.

Why not depart on Saturday? The FAA issued an Airmet for occasional moderate turbulence, but that didn’t seem to square with surface winds forecast to gust up to 30 knots in the Washington, D.C. area (usually calm). Boeing crews were reporting moderate turbulence and a Cirrus SR22 in northern Virginia reported “severe” turbulence:

Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Report as Severe Turbulence.

Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about. Food service and walking are impossible.

Later in the day, the FAA issued a SIGMET for occasional severe turbulence.

So the trip departed Sunday morning and the D.C. overnight was replaced with lunch followed by an overnight on the Virginia/North Carolina border.

So… at least in the winter, it is fair to say that a four-seat airplane is approximately 1/24th the speed of a basic economy airline ticket (and a little slower than a Honda Accord).

Full post, including comments

Christmas versus Hanukkah

Massport enabled a direct comparison of religions with this display at Logan Airport:

10′ Christmas tree and 10″ menorah. That settles it! A hearty Merry Christmas Eve, then, to all readers who celebrate!

If you prefer Islam to Christianity you’ll be pleased to know that Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts has added Islamic verses and symbols to their Christmas Tree:

(“There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God” from the Saudi flag, which also features a sword in case there is a need for beheading. I think the green crescent and star is for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, but the white stripe doesn’t belong. The red flag is for Turkey.)

Full post, including comments

Art Basel Miami Beach

There is no better contrast than going to Art Basel before getting on a cruise ship.

The venue in the U.S. is adjacent to Miami’s Holocaust Memorial:

A Swiss bank is a sponsor, but they’re not interested in money per se. It is more about “women are who making a difference and those who are helping to rectify imbalance across all industries”:

A one-day ticket is $60. There is no discount for identifying as female.

Each gallery has its own section of the convention center floor. Just as in a traditional art gallery, a slender person sits typing at a computer and ignores customers. (There is an episode of Absolutely Fabulous in which Edina tells a snobby art gallery clerk something like “drop the attitude; you work in a shop.”)

David Shrigley describes our house (except for the “large” and “fancy” parts):

Ai Weiwei is not impressed with the World’s Greatest Democracy (this was pre-Trump!):

Success does not require spending a lot on art supplies:

Service animals get more unusual every year:

Do not let the kids pack up for your cruise:

The motivation you’ve been needing for that standing desk:

Best-dressed visitor:

Important Hanukkah public service safety message:

They didn’t have enough neon to spell “rainforest”:

If you missed Burning Man, David Batchelor has you covered with LED sculpture:

Some airspeed and attitude issues in Matthew Brannon’s Huey:

Why isn’t the global douchebag circuit dominated by folks wearing Art Basel T-shirts? There is no gift shop! Taschen, however, operates an awesome shop with books that you wouldn’t have seen even if Amazon hadn’t killed your local bookstore. A large-format Hockney celebration and a book of Ferrari photos encased in a mock Ferrari engine ($30,000 complete with exhaust pipe stand, but sold out; the $6,000 engine-cover-only version remains available). Don’t forget the white gloves:

I would go back anytime!

Full post, including comments

If prostitution is legalized, will there be confidentiality provisions?

“Eliot Spitzer snuck me into his apartment in a suitcase: ex-mistress” (New York Post):

The former escort, who got paid up to $5,000 a night, also griped that Spitzer could be a slacker about payments — sometimes writing a check for $10,000, other times paying her in $300 installments.

“We were seeing each other four times a week’’ for sex, said Zakharova, who has previously described leading Spitzer around on a black leash during their bedroom games.

Zakharova said she is now working on book and movie deals about her time with Spitzer.

So the young lady earned up to $20,000 per week ($1 million per year) as a vendor of sexual services, but is potentially able to earn more by writing about the former New York governor‘s preferences in the bedroom.

Could a confidentiality contract between a prostitute and a client be enforced right now? Does the fact that prostitution is illegal in New York render such a contract void?

Suppose that the U.S. legalized prostitution (to go with recreational marijuana?). Would we then also put in default confidentiality provisions? What public interest is served by having sex workers write about their customers? (and how could the truth ever be established, absent video evidence?)

[Instead of working for $5,000 per night, why wouldn’t the young lady have arranged to get pregnant and then sold the abortion or harvested 21 years of potentially unlimited child support revenue offered under New York family law? The Post article explains:

At one point, the gal pal “wanted him to reverse his vasectomy. He told her he would, but he didn’t.”

]

Finally, what does the IRS make of all this? The U.S. resident is on record as saying that she earned $5,000 per night. If she did not declare this as income, does the IRS now go after her on behalf of the U.S. Treasury?

Related:

Full post, including comments

The next book… Natural Causes: An Epidemic of Wellness, the Certainty of Dying, and Killing Ourselves to Live Longer

I’ve started reading Natural Causes: An Epidemic of Wellness, the Certainty of Dying, and Killing Ourselves to Live Longer by Barbara Ehrenreich. She’s an interesting writer. Years ago she pointed out that Playboy magazine was promoting what was at the time an essentially gay lifestyle: life in the city, avoid marriage, swap out sex partners on a regular basis, be able to spend one’s entire income, appreciate art, food, wine, etc. Therefore they needed to have pictures of naked women to remind readers that this wasn’t a lifestyle reserved for homosexual men.

Her latest book is timely for those of us who are closing on Medicare eligibility and/or who have aging parents. She’s unimpressed with the bargain that Americans have struck with the health care industry, i.e., hand over 18 percent of earnings for a marginal net improvement in health over the most basic system and for, arguably, worse health than what is achieved in countries such as Singapore (4.5 percent of GDP devoted to health). [See my health care reform article from 2009, in which I ask “Who Voted to Spend All of Our Money on Health Care?” and point out that we could have a mostly paid-for life if we didn’t shovel most of our cash to the medical industry.]

From the author’s intro:

Most of my educated, middle-class friends had begun to double down on their health-related efforts at the onset of middle age, if not earlier. They undertook exercise or yoga regimens; they filled their calendars with upcoming medical tests and exams; they boasted about their “good” and “bad” cholesterol counts, their heart rates and blood pressure. Mostly they understood the task of aging to be self-denial, especially in the realm of diet, where one medical fad, one study or another, condemned fat and meat, carbs, gluten, dairy, or all animal-derived products. In the health-conscious mind-set that has prevailed among the world’s affluent people for about four decades now, health is indistinguishable from virtue,

I had a different reaction to aging: I gradually came to realize that I was old enough to die, … If we go by newspaper obituaries, however, we notice that there is an age at which death no longer requires much explanation.

Once I realized I was old enough to die, I decided that I was also old enough not to incur any more suffering, annoyance, or boredom in the pursuit of a longer life. I eat well, meaning I choose foods that taste good and that will stave off hunger for as long as possible, like protein, fiber, and fats. I exercise— not because it will make me live longer but because it feels good when I do. As for medical care: I will seek help for an urgent problem, but I am no longer interested in looking for problems that remain undetectable to me.

As it is now, preventive medicine often extends to the end of life: Seventy-five-year-olds are encouraged to undergo mammography; people already in the grip of one terminal disease may be subjected to screenings for others. 4 At a medical meeting, someone reported that a hundred-year-old woman had just had her first mammogram, causing the audience to break into a “loud cheer.”  One reason for the compulsive urge to test and screen and monitor is profit, and this is especially true in the United States, with its heavily private and often for-profit health system. How is a doctor— or hospital or drug company— to make money from essentially healthy patients? By subjecting them to tests and examinations that, in sufficient quantity, are bound to detect something wrong or at least worthy of follow-up.

There are even sizable constituencies for discredited tests. When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force decided to withdraw its recommendation of routine mammograms for women under fifty, even some feminist women’s health organizations, which I had expected to be more critical of conventional medical practices, spoke out in protest. A small band of women, identifying themselves as survivors of breast cancer, demonstrated on a highway outside the task force’s office, as if demanding that their breasts be squeezed. In 2008, the same task force gave PSA testing a grade of “D,” but advocates like Giuliani, who insisted that the test had saved his life, continued to press for it, as do most physicians. Many physicians justify tests of dubious value by the “peace of mind” they supposedly confer— except of course on those who receive false positive results.

Physicians see this all the time— witty people silenced by ventilators, the fastidious rendered incontinent— and some are determined not to let the same thing happen to themselves. They may refuse care, knowing that it is more likely to lead to disability than health, like the orthopedist who upon receiving a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer immediately closed down his practice and went home to die in relative comfort and peace. 9 A few physicians are more decisively proactive, and have themselves tattooed “NO CODE” or “DNR,” meaning “do not resuscitate.” They reject the same drastic end-of-life measures that they routinely inflict on their patients.

Not only do I reject the torment of a medicalized death, but I refuse to accept a medicalized life, and my determination only deepens with age. As the time that remains to me shrinks, each month and day becomes too precious to spend in windowless waiting rooms and under the cold scrutiny of machines. Being old enough to die is an achievement, not a defeat, and the freedom it brings is worth celebrating.

Why is medicine so bad? White males are substantially to blame:

According to critical thinkers like Zola and Illich, one of the functions of medical ritual is social control. Medical encounters occur across what is often a profound gap in social status: Despite the last few decades’ surge in immigrant and female doctors, the physician is likely to be an educated and affluent white male, and the interaction requires the patient to exhibit submissive behavior— to undress, for example, and be open to penetration of his or her bodily cavities. These are the same sorts of procedures that are normally undertaken by the criminal justice system, with its compulsive strip searches, and they are not intended to bolster the recipient’s self-esteem. Whether consciously or not, the physician and patient are enacting a ritual of domination and submission, much like the kowtowing required in the presence of a Chinese emperor.

[Based on my conversations with friends who are non-white non-male physicians and dentists, I’m not sure that the author would be happy with these immigrants or children of immigrants from India and China. Despite their double-victim status (immigrant/person-of-color plus female gender ID), these physicians do not seem to be any more respectful of the American masses than are my white male physician friends. In fact, they often use harsher and more direct language when discussing what they perceive to be the personal failings of their welfare-dependent patients and their less-than-brilliant or less-than-rational patients.]

Ehrenreich points out that it is we who should be calling doctors deficient, not vice versa. The “science is not settled” for a lot of the stuff into which we pour huge amounts of money, time, and suffering:

As for colonoscopies, they may detect potentially cancerous polyps, but they are excessively costly in the United States— up to $ 10,000— and have been found to be no more accurate than much cheaper, noninvasive tests such as examination of the feces for traces of blood.

There is an inherent problem with cancer screening: It has been based on the assumption that a tumor is like a living creature, growing from small to large and, at the same time, from innocent to malignant. Hence the emphasis on “staging” tumors, from zero to four, based on their size and whether there is evidence of any metastasis throughout the body. As it turns out, though, size is not a reliable indicator of the threat level. A small tumor may be highly aggressive, just as a large one may be “indolent,” meaning that a lot of people are being treated for tumors that will likely never pose any problem. One recent study found that almost half the men over sixty-six being treated for prostate cancer are unlikely to live long enough to die from the disease anyway.  They will, however, live long enough to suffer  from the adverse consequences of their treatment.

In 2014, the American College of Physicians announced that standard gyn exams were of no value for asymptomatic adult women and were certainly not worth the “discomfort, anxiety, pain and additional medical costs” they entailed. 16 As for the annual physical exams offered to both sexes, their evidentiary foundations had begun to crumble over forty years ago, to the point where a physician in 2015 could write that they were “basically worthless.” Both types of exams can lead to false positives, followed by unnecessary tests and even surgery, or to a false sense of reassurance, since a condition that was undetectable at the time of the exam could blossom into a potentially fatal cancer within a few months.

As in her previous works, Ehrenreich is good at finding big trends:

It was the existence of widespread health insurance that turned fitness into a moral imperative. Insurance involves risk sharing, with those in need of care being indirectly subsidized by those who are healthier, so that if you are sick, or overweight, or just guilty of insufficient attention to personal wellness, you are a drag on your company, if not your nation. As the famed physician and Rockefeller Foundation president John H. Knowles put it in 1977: “The cost of sloth, gluttony, alcoholic intemperance, reckless driving, sexual frenzy, and smoking is now a national, and not an individual, responsibility.… One man’s freedom in health is another man’s shackle in taxes and insurance premiums.”

I’m hoping that some other folks here will pick up
Natural Causes: An Epidemic of Wellness, the Certainty of Dying, and Killing Ourselves to Live Longer  and then we can have a real discussion about it!

Full post, including comments

How immigration and socialism have played out in Cuba

Two of the most popular political ideas in the U.S. right now are expanded immigration and socialism. While on the ground in Havana it struck me that maybe Cuba provides a good laboratory example. The native population, e.g., the Taíno, contributed the city’s name and then were promptly disposessed of their land and wiped out by waves of immigrants. The current government doesn’t seem to think that this was a positive example of the benefits of immigration and therefore citizenship is apparently generally unavailable except via birth to existing Cuban citizens (source).

How about socialism? On the positive side of the ledger, the crime rate in Cuba is low. Havana is considered safe and walkable at all hours. Other than mojitos, drugs are illegal and do not seem to be prevalent either for consumption or buying/selling. Our guide told us that there was essenetially no drug crime. There are plenty of neighborhoods in San Francisco that are far scarier.

As with most U.S. cities, the road and highway infrastructure dates primarily from 1900-1960. Unlike most U.S. cities, however, the infrastructure is adequate to meet current demand (background). I visited on a typical working Monday and traffic flowed smoothly on all major arteries. If you have enough money to afford a car or taxi ride, you can realize the freedom of movement that car proponents envisioned circa 1900. (If you don’t have the funds for a private car, bus rides are available for roughly 2 cents each and, in a formerly classless society, there are first classes buses with guaranteed seats and A/C available at a premium price.)

Guides we listened to expressed a belief that the expropriation of foreign-owned assets had been a mistake and that the consequent trade rift with the U.S. was unfortunate. However, they pointed out that every country has its problems and that Cubans are happy (outranking Americans in some ways; see Cato for an analysis/complaint). Our main Havana guide expressed satisfaction with the free health care system, which had also provided her with braces at no cost (the CIA says that life expectancy at birth in Cuba is about the same as in the U.S., despite our spending far more on health care than the Cubans spend on their entire lives). She expressed admiration for entreneurs who had set up restaurants and encouraged us to patronize these private establishments, but did not seem to question the overall idea of socialism and central planning. She wanted a richer welfare state (Sweden circa 1975?), not a Hong Kong-style free market state. (Government services continue even after death in Cuba; our guide to the cemetery explained that transportation to the cemetery is free, as is the coffin and burial. “The family pays only for flowers.”)

[How do some people in a society that rejects capitalism amass sufficient capital to open a restaurant? Our guide said that she suspected most of the cash was coming from US- and EU-based relatives of Cuban residents. “A lot is happening under the table.”]

The transition to a partially private economy does not seem to be going smoothly. A fellow passenger who was in Cuba two years ago on a land-based (Afro-themed) tour with Dr. Runoko Rashidi said that she had noticed an increase in litter, prices, and older Cubans expressing fears about being targeted for street crime if they were seen to receive convertible cash (“CUC”) from a tourist. She thought that the country was going downhill.

Kids, at least, seem to enjoy themselves despite the lack of Xbox and iPad. We saw 10-year-olds thoroughly entertained with only a large log to roll around on. Teenagers were seen talking to each other rather than absorbed in devices (since they don’t have devices!). Helicopter parenting is unpopular, which led to some disturbing scenes of children running into traffic and drivers swerving to avoid them.

All of our guides used the opportunity of having an audience of American voters to plead for a normalization of relations with the U.S. Obama visited in 2016 and Coolidge in 1928 (Guardian), but Cubans feel ignored by their powerful neighbor to the north. They would rather be connected to the U.S. Internet than have to go via Venezuela for their video chats with relatives and friends living abroad. The U.S. is inscrutable from a Cuban point of view. Fidel is dead. Raúl Castro is retired to the south (but Wikipedia shows him as still in power?). Why can’t the U.S. forgive Cubans for events that happened before most of today’s Cubans were even born? (And, indeed, the worst problems can perhaps be attributed to American military incompetence, e.g., the Bay of Pigs invasion plans being redrawn by President Kennedy and his advisors.) Cubans suspect lobbying by Cuban-Americans who harbor continuing resentment from the confiscation of their property so many decades ago. (One guide threw in that he couldn’t understand the lobbying power of the NRA. Maybe an American gun nut will one day take him to the range to show him just how much love there is for firearms!)

It does seem tough to explain the continued trade embargo. As the guides note, Cuba is not perfect. However, they’re not threatening neighbors with nuclear weapons, they’re not allied with a major U.S. enemy, they don’t oppress citizens on the basis of race, religion (except for Jehovah’s Witnesses), gender ID, or sexual preferences (the country is on track to provide same-sex marriage; compare to 72 countries in which homosexual acts are illegal (Guardian)). Given our current standards of virtue, what makes Cuba obviously right near the top of the list of the world’s worst nations?

Decorating a wall with a picture of Che Guevara is almost as popular in Havana as it is in Cambridge and Berkeley.

Facebook post from Havana: “Friends asked me to take some photos of the cars here, so I did.”

Summary: “Immigration in Cuba killed all of the natives. Socialism killed all of the buildings.”

Related:

Full post, including comments

What if Planned Parenthood offered free abortions to employees?

“Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees” (nytimes) is about an employer that prefers non-pregnant to pregnant employees:

Discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers remains widespread in the American workplace. It is so pervasive that even organizations that define themselves as champions of women are struggling with the problem.

That includes Planned Parenthood, which has been accused of sidelining, ousting or otherwise handicapping pregnant employees, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees.

What would happen if the managers at Planned Parenthood admitted their bias and offered free on-site abortions to employees?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Book that celebrates engineers

One thing that I’ve learned from going to public lectures on astrophysics or planetary exploratoration is that people with no sci/tech education love science and hate engineering. The more irrelevant the topic to everyday life, the more fascinating. At a (fascinating) lecture by Brian Keating, author of Losing the Nobel Prize, I remarked to a friend “Look how excited people are to hear about stuff that they can’t do anything about, that happened billions of years ago, and that won’t have any effect within their lifetimes. Even if you offered to pay, however, I bet that none of these people would be willing to sit through a lecture on how their televisions or personal computers or smartphones work.”

The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World, by Simon Winchester (author of the truly awesome Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883) fights against humanity’s indifference to engineering and engineers. I would love to hear from non-engineer readers who’ve read this book.

The ancients were not always successful:

Modern investigators have concluded that the device was very well made, “with some parts constructed to accuracies of a few tenths of a millimeter.” By that measure alone, it would seem that the Antikythera mechanism can lay claim to being a most precise instrument—and, crucially for this introduction to the story, maybe the first precision instrument ever made. Except that there is an inherent flaw in this claim. The device, as model-tested by the legions of fascinated modern analysts, turns out to be woefully, shamefully, uselessly inaccurate. One of the pointers, which supposedly indicates the position of Mars, is on many occasions thirty-eight degrees out of true.

The early steam engine guys were partying like Kavanaughs:

What is especially and additionally noteworthy, though, is that a historic convergence [with James Watt] was in the making. For, living and working nearby in the Midlands, and soon to produce a patent himself (the already noted Number 1063 of January 1774, an exact one hundred fifty patents and exactly five years later than James Watt’s), was no less an inventor than John Wilkinson, ironmaster. By then, Wilkinson’s amiable madness was making itself felt throughout the ferrous community: all came to learn that he had made an iron pulpit from which he lectured, an iron boat he floated on various rivers, an iron desk, and an iron coffin in which he would occasionally lie and make his frightening mischief. (Women were in plentiful attendance, despite his being a somewhat unattractive man with a massively pockmarked face. He had a vigorous sex drive, fathering a child at seventy-eight by way of a maidservant, a calling of which he was inordinately fond. He kept a seraglio of three such women at one time, each one unaware of the others.)

Before working hard was outlawed, the French were the pioneers in automobiles and also in precision gun-making:

IT WAS IN the French capital in 1785 that the idea of producing interchangeable parts for guns was first properly realized, and the precision manufacturing processes that allowed for it were ordered to be first put into operation.

Henry Ford and Henry Royce, the engineer behind Rolls-Royce (Rolls was a sales guy), were both born in 1863. Royce’s aunt paid for the boy to serve as an apprentice for three years in a railroad workshop. Royce started with cranes and began making cars in 1903, partnering with Rolls in 1904. The authors shows how Henry Ford’s basic cars were equally dependent on high precision:

The Model T had fewer than one hundred different parts (a modern car has more than thirty thousand).

Within Rolls-Royce, it may seem as though the worship of the precise was entirely central to the making of these enormously comfortable, stylish, swift, and comprehensively memorable cars. In fact, it was far more crucial to the making of the less costly, less complex, less remembered machines that poured from the Ford plants around the world. And for a simple reason: the production lines required a limitless supply of parts that were exactly interchangeable.

There is a chapter on the modern jet engine. As with many other innovations in aviation, Americans were late to realize the value.

It was Frank Whittle, the first son of a Lancashire cotton factory worker turned tinkerer, who invented the jet engine.

Also, it is worth noting that American laboratories were curiously blind and deaf to the idea of a turbine-powered engine as having any utility for the aircraft industry, and the United States pursued almost no research until the 1940s. It was left to the diminutive Frank Whittle, therefore, to pursue the dream, fired by his famous criticism of the outmoded nature of propeller-driving piston engines, a condemnation that resonates today. “Reciprocating engines are exhausted,” he declared. “They have hundreds of parts jerking to and fro and they cannot be made more powerful without becoming too complicated.* The engine of the future must produce two thousand horsepower with one moving part: a spinning turbine and compressor.”

Jet engines are beasts of extreme complexity bound up within a design of extraordinary simplicity. All that ensures they work as well as they do are the rare and costly materials from which they are made, the protection of the integrity of the pieces machined from these materials, and the superfine tolerances of the manufacture of every part of which they are composed. Frank Whittle had to deal with these harsh realities for ten testing years, from the moment he had his grand idea in the summer of 1928. Every imaginable obstacle was put in his way during that decade. Nevertheless, he persisted.

(Based on that last sentence, is it same to assume that Frank Whittle identified as a woman?)

It is impressive how far into the future Whittle was able to see:

.. first planted the seed at the end of his stint as a flight cadet at Cranwell, the Royal Air Force academy in the English Midlands. Cadets at the time were each obliged to write a short scientific thesis on a topic that interested them, and Whittle’s paper has since become a part of aeronautical legend: with all the hubris of a young man on the make, he titled it “Future Developments in Aircraft Design.” At the time of his graduation from Cranwell, powered flight was only a quarter of a century old. The aircraft in which cadets such as Whittle trained were mostly biplanes—they had wooden frames, were in no sense streamlined, had no enhancements such as retractable undercarriages or pressurized cabins, flew at low altitudes, and trundled through the skies at speeds seldom exceeding 200 miles an hour. RAF fighters, in many ways more advanced than most, averaged a puny 150 miles per hour, and operated at only a few thousand feet above sea level.

It was fifteen months later, in October 1929, that the penny finally dropped. Whittle was by now a fully qualified general duties pilot, stationed in Cambridgeshire, and while training and teaching others to fly, he obsessively ruminated and calculated and imagined the kind of engine that could possibly make aircraft go lightning fast. All his designs involved some kind of supercharged piston engine. At the same time, he could see that even a modest increase in engine power, and thus aircraft speed, would require a very much larger and heavier engine—an engine probably much too big and heavy for any aircraft to carry. He was about to abandon the quest when, suddenly, one day that October, he had his brain wave: why not, he thought, employ a gas turbine as an engine, a gas turbine that, instead of driving a propeller at the engine’s front, would thrust out a powerful jet of air from the engine’s rear? An idea that would change the world in unimaginable ways had come to Frank Whittle when he was just twenty-two years old.

Moreover, a gas turbine could also, in theory, be vastly more powerful than a piston engine, and for a very simple reason. A crucial element in any combustion engine is air—air is drawn into the engine, mixed with fuel, and then burns or explodes. The thermal energy from that event is turned into kinetic energy, and the engine’s moving parts are thereby powered. But the amount of air sucked into a piston engine is limited by, among other factors, the size of the cylinders. In a gas turbine, there is almost no limit: a gigantic fan at the opening of such an engine can swallow vastly more air than can be taken into a piston engine—as a rule of thumb, seventy times as much, in the early, Whittle-era jets.

The guy who engineered our modern world of travel was not celebrated like a scientist with a Nobel Prize. You’re only as good/valued as your most recent project:

Frank Whittle, initially honored—King George VI conferred a knighthood—and somewhat revered, did not have as happy a time in postwar England as one might think he deserved. Power Jets was nationalized, and its chief engineer sidelined, put out to pasture. He traveled, he lectured, he wrote, and he particularly savored his election to a fellowship of the Royal Society. He won prizes, the most valuable of which, at around half a million dollars, he decided generously to split with Hans von Ohain, the German inventor whose Heinkel-powered plane had been the true first to fly with a turbojet engine. Whittle argued often for the good sense of building a supersonic passenger plane, and badgered officials long before Concorde was a drawing board dream. But no one listened, and by 1976, with his marriage failed, he decided to light out for America, and spent his final years in a suburb of Washington, DC.

The chapter includes a fascinating desciption of issues with cooling power turbine blades and how a small manufacturing error led to a dramatic uncontained engine failure for Qantas 32, an Airbus A380 that barely made it back to Singapore.

The book is a personal selection of topics, not a survey of the most important engineering developments or contributions. Each chapter stands on its own, so if you don’t want to relive the Hubble Space Telescope fiasco you can just skip that chapter. Some of the later chapters on newer technology were less interesting, perhaps because they lack the illustrations that would serve to explain how systems work.

The 74-year-old author is somewhat out of step with the times. Except by using pronouns, the book does not mention the gender IDs of any of the engineers featured. Nor is their skin color described. This book cannot be proudly displayed alongside Rosie Revere, Engineer or Women in Science: 50 Fearless Pioneers Who Changed the World.

More: Read The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World

Full post, including comments