You can't push back on a resonance that's already coherent. You just give it something to push against. He turned to face the room. You have to prevent the coherence from forming in the first place. Daniel leaned forward.
How? Change the timing sequence. Move the restart parameters outside the coherence window. If the three frequencies never achieve synchronization, the coupling resonance never forms. Priya spoke from her workstation.
How precise would the timing adjustment need to be? precise enough that we'd need to modify the ignition control sequence. Small changes. We're talking millisecond level adjustments to three control events, but the changes need to be exact. Torres said the ignition controller software is locked. Modifications require a full review cycle that's typically 60 days minimum.
Request an emergency waiver, Rebecca said from across the room. We'd need to justify it to the review board, Torres said. We'll justify it, Rebecca said. Then she looked at Malcolm. Can you develop the specific timing parameters, the exact adjustments?
I need the full system specifications, engine geometry, turbo pump design data, the cryogenic feed line, thermal model, and I need time. How much time? Enough to do it right. Richard Vale spoke from his corner. He hadn't moved from his chair in 4 hours, but he had been watching everything.
Dr. Sloan, I wanted on record that I have significant concerns about the methodology being applied here. What Dr. Reed is proposing is a fundamental modification to the ignition sequence of a flight certified propulsion system with 17 days to launch. The review exposure alone, Richard, the review exposure is substantial, Vale continued talking over her.
And I would be remiss in my role as senior adviser if I didn't note that the person proposing this modification has not been active in the propulsion field for 8 years, has not been through current certification processes, and has no standing within the current contractor team. He paused. I'm not suggesting his analysis isn't interesting. I'm suggesting that before we restructure a critical path program around an interpretation that contradicts six weeks of work by certified engineering teams, we should at minimum run the overlay," Malcolm said. Everybody looked at him.
He was looking at Daniel. "The O overlay I described in the car chamber pressure, turbo pump, vibration, raw thermal data on the same timeline. Did you run it?" Daniel glanced at Rebecca. She nodded.
He turned to his workstation and pulled it up. The three curves appeared on the central monitor. Individually, they looked like what the previous analysis had classified them as minor variance, noise level signals, nothing that would have flagged as significant in a standard review. Then Daniel overlaid them. The three curves intersected at a single point at exactly 11 seconds post restart.
Every time the room went completely still. Vale's voice when it came was quieter. That could be coincidental. Run it across all 14 simulations. Malcolm said all 14.
Daniel did. 14 data sets, 14 overlays, 14 intersections at 11 seconds. The room remained absolutely quiet for a long time. Rebecca Sloan looked at the screen and then looked at Richard Vale and the look she gave him was not angry. It was something harder to argue with than anger.
It was the look of someone who had been handed evidence and was now adjusting her understanding of everything that had come before it. Vale sat down at 6:17 in the evening. Malcolm was in a small conference room adjacent to the lab working through the turbo pump design specifications with a highlighter and a legal pad covered in his precise compact handwriting. Daniel knocked on the door, opened it without waiting for an answer and sat down across from him. I owe you an apology, Daniel said.
Malcolm looked up. When Dr. Sloan first told me she was bringing you in, I was the one who pulled your paper, so I wanted you here. But after she told me you'd been running a repair shop for 8 years, I He stopped himself. I told her we should probably have you consult remotely rather than come on site because I didn't think he exhaled.
I was wrong. You were being careful, Malcolm said. That's not the same as being wrong. I was being a snob. Malcolm set down his highlighter.
You're 28 27. You're 27 years old and you read enough of the existing literature to flag a coupling resonance hypothesis that six senior engineers missed. That's not nothing. He picked up the highlighter again. Don't apologize to me.
Just keep doing that. Daniel was quiet for a moment. Can I ask you something? You're going to anyway. Why did you leave?
Daniel said. Not the official version, the real one. Why did someone who could do what you did today in that room walk away from aerospace? Malcolm looked at the legal pad in front of him, the equations there, the numbers that had been running through his head for 8 years, revised and refined in the margins of sleep and the backs of parts invoices and the long quiet hours of a garage that didn't ask him to be anything other than useful. I didn't leave, Malcolm said.
I was removed because of what happened at Apex. because I found a problem, a different problem, a different engine eight years ago and I wouldn't sign off on it. And the people who needed the program to stay on schedule decided that the problem was me rather than the engine. He paused. The engine they built without my approval flew twice. Both times it worked fine, which everyone pointed to as proof that I was wrong.
Was there a third flight? Malcolm looked at him. The program was cancelled before they needed one. Daniel absorbed this. Did you ever try to come back to the industry?
A few times early on, Malcolm turned a page on the legal pad. The aerospace world is smaller than it looks. Word travels. He wrote a number, checked it against the specification sheet, wrote another. Eventually, I stopped trying and started fixing what was in front of me.
Turns out that's a longer list than anyone plans for. Is that enough? Daniel asked. honest question. Malcolm was quiet for a moment. It was the kind of question that deserved honesty rather than a comfortable answer.