Youngblood, you are confusing physics with engineering for mass production.<quoted text>
A very poor analogy.
And "on the fly" is not really an option any more.
Question. If you have a twenty thousand pound truck, and it is stuck in some gravel, you have a vehicle to pull it out. What is the minimum thickness chain you can pull that truck out with? Do you think that can be a 'on the fl'y decision.
Or! You have to mass produce a vehicle jack. The vehicle you try and jack up is roughly 2000 pounds, but the jack must be rated 4000 pounds. How thick a spindle must we use? Too thin, and it snaps. Too big, and you pay more than you have too. In mass production, a millimetre thicker on the spindle rod can cost you between 10,000 and 100,000 USD more per annum.
Or! We build and aircraft. How big do we want the wings to be? Or the flaps? How does this tie in to the size of the aircraft? How much power do we need?
You think any of that is 'on the fly'
Dave, we get it. You have not done any real physics. You are interested in it, I bet. You read subscription magazines, I bet. But actually doing the work? It is doing in practice after confirming results by calculation.
A scientist must know theoretical framework. Full stop
RR, myself, and millions of other guys can grab pieces of wood or metal and throw up a shelter to handle high winds, rain, snow, etc by ear. And they will work.
With just a little experience you can eyeball a chain and know if it is strong enough. If it isn't you know how to gain leverage using other things.
Ancients had to use raw timber, rocks, thatch, sod, and other natural items and assemble them. They had to know how to pack up their goods and transport the. Travois were good for that.
Riggers and combat engineers don't wait for drawings from the head office.
That all takes a knowledge of how things work, geometry, and application of force.
And you are smarter because you take weeks to figure those things out on paper?
Lay off that dope, youngin'.