Moore's Law Found to Apply to Evolution of Technologies Beyond Transistors

On Mar 8, 12:26*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/8/13 10:21 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Moore's Law Found to Apply to Evolution of Technologies Beyond Transistors
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-law-found-to-....

Predicting the future of technology often seems a fool’s game. In
1946 for example, Thomas J. Watson, founder of International Business
Machines — now known simply as IBM — is said to have made the
prediction that the world would need just five computers. But US
researchers now say that technological progress really is predictable
— and back up the claim with evidence regarding 62 different
technologies.

The claim is nothing new. But what a group of researchers at the
Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have done is to put it
to the test.

A comparison of several mathematical laws regarding costs of
technologies finds that industrial growth and productivity can be
predicted in many sectors, including aeronautics

See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-law-found-to-....

Should be


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-law-found-to-....

Thanks for that. I'm quite interested in the fact that this
exponential decrease in costs has also been found to also hold in
aeronautics.
Then why not in launch costs as well? Knowledgeable space industry
insiders have said for years launch costs should be decreasing the
same way as in the airline flight industry. So why have launch costs
been stagnating for decades? According to those industry insiders it's
because governments fund development of launchers with the
inefficiencies that entails.
With SpaceX being able to cut 90%(!) off the cost of development of a
manned-capable launcher and crew capsule as largely privately
financed that argument should be regarded as proven.


Bob Clark

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:26Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/8/13 10:21 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Moore's Law Found to Apply to Evolution of Technologies Beyond Transistors
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-law-found-to-...

Predicting the future of technology often seems a fool’s game. In
1946 for example, Thomas J. Watson, founder of International Business
Machines — now known simply as IBM — is said to have made the
prediction that the world would need just five computers. But US
researchers now say that technological progress really is predictable
— and back up the claim with evidence regarding 62 different
technologies.

The claim is nothing new. But what a group of researchers at the
Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have done is to put it
to the test.

A comparison of several mathematical laws regarding costs of
technologies finds that industrial growth and productivity can be
predicted in many sectors, including aeronautics

See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-law-found-to-...

Should be


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-law-found-to-...

Thanks for that. I'm quite interested in the fact that this
exponential decrease in costs has also been found to also hold in
aeronautics.

The report is mostly arm waving nonsense.

Sure, economies of scale make a difference, but there is no "scale" in
anything to do with aeronautics and if there were a simple Cessna 172
wouldn't start at roughly $300k, it would be more like $60k or the price
of a high end car.

Then why not in launch costs as well? Knowledgeable space industry
insiders have said for years launch costs should be decreasing the
same way as in the airline flight industry.

Launch cost in the airline flight industry, what launch costs?

You mean the cost of the aircraft?

Those certainly haven't been declining; both the 747 and the 787 come
in at around $300 million.

And back to scale; there have been 1,458 747's built, far more than any
rocket.

Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated and
spitting out millions of units a year.

That is never going to happen for either airplanes or rockets.



--
Jim Pennino

In sci.space.policy wrote:
Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated
and spitting out millions of units a year.

Doesn't have to be automated - economies of scale certainly came into
play with the likes of the Model T Ford, well before automation in
manufacturing.

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.policy wrote:
Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated
and spitting out millions of units a year.

Doesn't have to be automated - economies of scale certainly came into
play with the likes of the Model T Ford, well before automation in
manufacturing.

And just about everyone has been using the assembly line concept since
the Model T days for everything other than one-off's.

The Saturn V was built on an assembly line and they built all of what,
about 15, of them.



--
Jim Pennino

On Mar 8, 5:18*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy wrote:
Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated
and spitting out millions of units a year.

Doesn't have to be automated - economies of scale certainly came into
play with the likes of the Model T Ford, well before automation in
manufacturing.

And just about everyone has been using the assembly line concept since
the Model T days for everything other than one-off's.

The Saturn V was built on an assembly line and they built all of what,
about 15, of them.

--
Jim Pennino

The key fact is you would get those economies of scale if the upfront
development costs were cut by a factor of 10 as SpaceX has shown
possible by privately financing those development costs.

Bob Clark

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:18Â*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy wrote:
Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated
and spitting out millions of units a year.

Doesn't have to be automated - economies of scale certainly came into
play with the likes of the Model T Ford, well before automation in
manufacturing.

And just about everyone has been using the assembly line concept since
the Model T days for everything other than one-off's.

The Saturn V was built on an assembly line and they built all of what,
about 15, of them.

--
Jim Pennino

The key fact is you would get those economies of scale if the upfront
development costs were cut by a factor of 10 as SpaceX has shown
possible by privately financing those development costs.

I suggest a good book on economics and one on manufacturing.

Development costs have little to nothing to do with "economies of scale".

Economies of scale means things like buying material by the ton instead
of by the pound to get a better price.


--
Jim Pennino

On Mar 8, 11:14*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.policy wrote:
Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated
and spitting out millions of units a year.

Doesn't have to be automated - economies of scale certainly came into
play with the likes of the Model T Ford, well before automation in
manufacturing.

For economies of scale to kick in, you need to be producing runs of
product that are big enough to wear out tooling. *As you fall below
that level, fixed costs for tooling and facilities tend to
predominate.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney

still its cheaper to build stuff on a production line even if the
tooling doesnt wear out than build them one off.........

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Mar 8, 11:14 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.policy wrote:
Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated
and spitting out millions of units a year.

Doesn't have to be automated - economies of scale certainly came into
play with the likes of the Model T Ford, well before automation in
manufacturing.

For economies of scale to kick in, you need to be producing runs of
product that are big enough to wear out tooling. As you fall below
that level, fixed costs for tooling and facilities tend to
predominate.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

still its cheaper to build stuff on a production line even if the
tooling doesnt wear out than build them one off.........


No, often it's not. Simply making the tooling to build one-offs can
dominate costs.

Hell, I had to make a jig to route some boards correctly for some
bookshelves I was making.

Making the jig was probably as labor intensive as doing the actual routing
on the boards I was using for shelves.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Mar 9, 8:54*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message

...







On Mar 8, 11:14 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.policy wrote:
Economies of scale kick in when all the manufacturing is automated
and spitting out millions of units a year.

Doesn't have to be automated - economies of scale certainly came into
play with the likes of the Model T Ford, well before automation in
manufacturing.

For economies of scale to kick in, you need to be producing runs of
product that are big enough to wear out tooling. *As you fall below
that level, fixed costs for tooling and facilities tend to
predominate.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney

still its cheaper to build stuff on a production line even if the
tooling doesnt wear out than build them one off.........

No, often it's not. *Simply making the tooling to build one-offs can
dominate costs.

Hell, I had to make a jig to route some boards correctly for some
bookshelves I was making.

Making the jig was probably as labor intensive as doing the actual routing
on the boards I was using for shelves.



--
Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net

Assuming you need more than one of anything....

If you have to build the tooling, or spend endless hours to avoid
building the tooling.

Your better off having a small production run......