|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials engines etc that made it possible? It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics) as well as the need for all this to be happening. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In , says... In igpond.com, says... On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote: was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials engines etc that made it possible? It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics) as well as the need for all this to be happening. I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far as the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper focus on low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even Dragon? I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus. Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV): Q: What was different about working with a private corporation compared to a government agency? A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with requirements and expected the governments to work with contractors to ensure they met the build to requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX would tell us how they would accomplish the same objectives. Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
On May 25, 7:52*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In , says... In igpond.com, says... On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote: was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials engines etc that made it possible? It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. *It was a combination of ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics) as well as the need for all this to be happening. I approached the question from a technology point of view. *As far as the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? *Given the proper focus on low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even Dragon? I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus. Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV): * * Q: What was different about working with a private * * corporation compared to a government agency? * * A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with * * requirements and expected the governments to work * * with contractors to ensure they met the build to * * requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a * * government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers * * to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX * * would tell us how they would accomplish the same * * objectives. Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart. will this success defund the planned orion manned launcher? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
In article . com,
says... On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In , says... In igpond.com, says... On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote: was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials engines etc that made it possible? It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics) as well as the need for all this to be happening. I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far as the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper focus on low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even Dragon? I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus. Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV): Q: What was different about working with a private corporation compared to a government agency? A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with requirements and expected the governments to work with contractors to ensure they met the build to requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX would tell us how they would accomplish the same objectives. Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart. Sure it does. They traditionally built hardware to meet NASA specs and designs, not to what was most cost efficient. When you let them build hardware the way they want to build hardware, costs and schedules drop, especially when there is competition breathing down their necks. For an example, compare Boeing and its CST-100 (competing with Dragon) versus what's been done with Orion (no competition). Costs for Orion are far higher and the schedule has been far longer. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " - tinker |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
In article ,
says... In article b12e1d69-1446-458b-892c-c95d5d4b94e4 @m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says... was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials engines etc that made it possible? No big breakthroughs required. The biggest change was in the way the company is managed. Musk runs the company like a hungry new start-up (which it is), so it's full of younger people (seen cheering in the videos on-line following the current Dragon mission). Younger workers tend to have huge enthusiasm and will often put in very long hours when the project they're working on excites them. Older workers often have "lives outside of work" and can't commit nearly as much time (I fit that description at this point in my life). Quote from today's press conference: Q: Who are you tapping to work for the company, where are they coming from? A: Average age is around 30. Have a good mixture of experience and new college graduates. Oh, and the nay-sayers can sulk over the congratulations being showered on SpaceX by people in the space community: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...unity-leaders- historic-berthing-dragon-international-space-station :-P Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " - tinker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?
"bob haller" wrote in message news:b12e1d69-1446-458b-
... was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials engines etc that made it possible? Obviously yes. Very little has changed in rocketry in over 40, maybe even 50 years. Only computers have become smaller and more powerful, but in materials and propulsion technology nothing is used in Falcon 9 / Dragon that wasn't available in the 1970's, although it might have been more expensive. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Engineer: Star Trek's Enterprise ship could be built in 20 years at acost of $1 trillion | [email protected] | Policy | 24 | May 26th 12 09:59 PM |
I WISH SOMEONE WOULD HAVE SHOWED ME THIS SOONER! LOVE IT! | sam[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 9th 10 04:09 PM |
Consuming more means dying that much sooner. | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 0 | December 2nd 07 12:36 PM |
Largest APO built in the last ~10 years? | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | January 16th 05 07:05 PM |
Why Wasn't ISS Built Sooner? | Hobbs aka McDaniel | Policy | 6 | January 18th 04 11:37 PM |