View Single Post
  #1  
Old December 28th 03, 10:19 PM
bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fbc, moores law, and planning cycles

The whole argument about faster better cheaper and moore's law touches on a
space history point that should be noted.

In the 1960's computer and space science were very much linked, and the new
and demanding needs of the space program (and military) were a large part of
the cutting edge/driving force of computers and many other technologies
(robotics, imaging, etc)

But even then, we all remember wishing when a deep space probe reached its
target it could have the camera or computer technologies that had developed
since its launch.

By the 1980's other forces, primarily the consumer and business markets had
become the predominant driving force behind new technologies and the problem
of shortening developement cycles because of abbreviated market relevance
had been identified as a key issue. (I seem to remember a key study that
found that the market cycle of a printer was shorter than the time it took
to develop it) Of course, NASA, being a government agency still has never
quite caught on to this. The pathfinder mission was a breakthrough in this
regard, and should be praised. The polar lander, with it's most likely
failure scenario showed that it would not be a perfect world, but it wasn't
before fbc either. The beagle may have shown us the lower boundaries of the
fbc model, albeit with a lot of question marks and caveats (what could they
have done with that spot, what really went wrong)

But consider: The physical task of landing on mars is the same as it was 30
years ago. No one here believes we should be using the same technologies we
used back then, why should we use the same technological developement
models? Testing to death increases our success ratio (but does not make it
failure free) but also means that the probe will not have the latest tech
capabilities when it reaches its destination. I would rather get 3 of 5 fbc
probes to their target in 5 years than 2 of 3 in ten.

I think many on this group are remembering the glory days, when space
science was the new king of the hill. This is no longer the case. I seem to
remember that pathfinder used an off the shelf radio modem. I think the
argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible space
probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack. What NASA
has left that no one else has is the expertise of assembling robust systems
that can handle the extremes of space. They no longer have a monopoly on the
cutting edge hardware.

When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say
hottest new product, he gets excited....