I’m not sure they are as real as OP claims, unfortunately. I looked up NASA-TN-D-6193 for you, but its actual title is “Dynamic and static wind tunnel tests of a flow direction vane”.
Edit: happily, the content of the paper really is about formalizing the performance rating of a device that had been used in conditions beyond its original intended use.
Did you really get other results, or did you get papers that were still accurately described by the editorialized titles? On the one I looked up, the author and publication date were the same, and it really was about “the repeated survival of systems never intended to work [under the more extreme than designed conditions they were subjected to]” even if the actual title wasn’t that spicy.
Meme title: “Preliminary analysis of unexpected wobble in a rigidly non-wobbling system”
Actual title: “Analysis of the dynamic response of a supersonic inlet to flow-field perturbations upstream of the normal shock”
The design of these shock-position control systems requires knowledge of the shock-position dynamic response to perturbations in the inlet.
They need to control the position of the shockwave in the inlet ducts of supersonic craft using variable geometry ducting. To have precise control they need to understand how the unintended wobbling of the non-wobbling system affects the shockwave.
Half of those are jabs at management, the other half are reasonable experiments.
I would love to see some of them, like the systems never intended to work (bottom left).
I’m not sure they are as real as OP claims, unfortunately. I looked up NASA-TN-D-6193 for you, but its actual title is “Dynamic and static wind tunnel tests of a flow direction vane”.
Edit: happily, the content of the paper really is about formalizing the performance rating of a device that had been used in conditions beyond its original intended use.
Thanks. I am sad now.
I also looked three of them up on the NASA Technical Report Server and got other results.
Edit: titles are funny, papers are real
Did you really get other results, or did you get papers that were still accurately described by the editorialized titles? On the one I looked up, the author and publication date were the same, and it really was about “the repeated survival of systems never intended to work [under the more extreme than designed conditions they were subjected to]” even if the actual title wasn’t that spicy.
Oh shit, i didn’t consider that… I’ll look again later tonight. I wanted to check out the wobbly one. lol
Meme title: “Preliminary analysis of unexpected wobble in a rigidly non-wobbling system”
Actual title: “Analysis of the dynamic response of a supersonic inlet to flow-field perturbations upstream of the normal shock”
They need to control the position of the shockwave in the inlet ducts of supersonic craft using variable geometry ducting. To have precise control they need to understand how the unintended wobbling of the non-wobbling system affects the shockwave.
Seems to check out.
Haha that rocks, thank you for pulling through as well!!