this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
364 points (93.3% liked)

Science Memes

18944 readers
1537 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lath@lemmy.world 81 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Half of those are jabs at management, the other half are reasonable experiments.

[–] Sphks@jlai.lu 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I would love to see some of them, like the systems never intended to work (bottom left).

[–] grue@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Sphks@jlai.lu 12 points 2 days ago

Thanks. I am sad now.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I also looked three of them up on the NASA Technical Report Server and got other results.

Edit: titles are funny, papers are real

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh shit, i didn't consider that... I'll look again later tonight. I wanted to check out the wobbly one. lol

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

Seems to check out.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 3 points 1 day ago

Haha that rocks, thank you for pulling through as well!!