Good visualization for the “why are jet engines harder than rockets?” crowd. Those little blades deal with scorching temps and high pressure—consider too the J-79 here is an old one There’s a reason more countries can make nukes than jet engines

One issue w jet engines that makes them a unique challenge is their required durability Jet engines must run reliably (carrying people!!) for thousands and thousands of hours with countless start/stop cycles Even “reusable” rockets go for a few minutes ~10 times

I think this NASA report provides an excellent summary. Some have rightly noted in the comments the unique difficulties associated with liquid rocket turbopumps—the NASA summary here is great in highlighting the uniqueness of this environment…

But just look at the cycle times! The engines as designed only had to hold up to ~6 cycles or < 1hr! The engineering gets an awful lot easier when it’s ok for things to crack/fatigue/wear within an hour Source:

Cool visualization. Jets are formula 1 cars; rockets are top fuel dragsters. They’re hard in different ways.

Great analogy

Any idea what methods were used to design early axial compressor blades? Momentum blade element analysis?

Probably same way they did airfoils. Some analytical potential flow solutions and method of characteristics perhaps, followed by testing

Isn’t it more why good jet turbines are harder than basic rockets? Full flow staged combustion looks pretty damn hard

Kind of. Added some context to the thread here

You're saying smashing together two blobs of appropriately enriched materials is easier than this? Several demon core researchers might agree... You know, if they were able...