A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 8th 12, 02:13 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,rec.arts.sf.science
Tim Little[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.

On 2012-07-06, Jeff Findley wrote:
I run into people in management who make the mistake that knowledge
somehow resides with the company. It doesn't. It's in the heads of
the engineers.


That too is a mistake. It's in both, especially when you're talking
about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation
and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry.

Both are necessary. If company knowledge is lost, engineers will be
able to recreate some of it, but much will be untested new invention.
Likewise if engineers are lost, new engineers can be employed but they
will never be exactly the same.


Ever since the invention of writing (and to a lesser extent before),
groups of people have jointly had more knowledge than the sum of the
individuals.


--
Tim
  #2  
Old July 9th 12, 02:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,rec.arts.sf.science
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.

In article , tim@little-
possums.net says...

On 2012-07-06, Jeff Findley wrote:
I run into people in management who make the mistake that knowledge
somehow resides with the company. It doesn't. It's in the heads of
the engineers.


That too is a mistake. It's in both, especially when you're talking
about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation
and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry.


While it is true that typical aerospace companies try to "document
everything", often what is missed, despite the meticulous documentation
is *why* certain decisions were made. The documentation you talk about
is great for maintaining an existing system, but not so great for
building a new system.

Also, the very act of trying to "document everything" introduces quite a
large amount of overhead on a project. This is one of the reasons a
typical project managed by NASA, but built by contractors is so
expensive. Not only is the amount of documentation required (by NASA)
quite high, but the meetings to review that documentation, and justify
all of the decisions made, is quite costly.

Both are necessary. If company knowledge is lost, engineers will be
able to recreate some of it, but much will be untested new invention.
Likewise if engineers are lost, new engineers can be employed but they
will never be exactly the same.


Agreed. But again, for SpaceX, this wasn't all bad. They wanted to
focus on low cost. Shedding the burden of existing (high cost) systems
was a good thing. A case in point is rocket engines. They could have
purchased "off the shelf" engines from one of the existing companies
that produces them. But doing so would not have brought the cost of
those engines down. That high engine cost would have been a detriment
to their business model of providing low cost launches.

Ever since the invention of writing (and to a lesser extent before),
groups of people have jointly had more knowledge than the sum of the
individuals.


True, but I also have found, through my personal and professional
experiences, that face to face communication is by far the best means of
conveying information of the sort we're talking about. Communications
by paper documents, telephone calls, emails, and even electronic
documents can only go so far.

Today's teleconferencing (along with tools like smart boards
transferring the image of a PC desktop over the Internet) gets very
close, but is still not as convenient as walking down the hall to
someone's office.

Don't get me wrong, documentation is important. But, once a company
loses an employee, they've lost the means to directly communicate with
him. Any knowledge that didn't get captured in the official company
documentation is lost as well.

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
  #3  
Old July 9th 12, 09:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,rec.arts.sf.science
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.

In sci.space.history Jeff Findley wrote:
True, but I also have found, through my personal and professional
experiences, that face to face communication is by far the best
means of conveying information of the sort we're talking about.
Communications by paper documents, telephone calls, emails, and even
electronic documents can only go so far.


I will offer "EBWA" or Engineering By Wandering Around as the name for
that

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
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...
  #4  
Old July 10th 12, 06:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,rec.arts.sf.science
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.

Tim Little wrote:

On 2012-07-06, Jeff Findley wrote:
I run into people in management who make the mistake that knowledge
somehow resides with the company. It doesn't. It's in the heads of
the engineers.


That too is a mistake. It's in both, especially when you're talking
about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation
and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry.


It works for a lot of industries and professions, not just the
aerospace industry, and without the mounds of paper typical of the
aerospace industry. It remains to be seen however if SpaceX can make
it work without said mounds.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #5  
Old July 10th 12, 12:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,rec.arts.sf.science
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.



That too is a mistake. *It's in both, especially when you're talking
about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation
and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry.


It works for a lot of industries and professions, not just the
aerospace industry, and without the mounds of paper typical of the
aerospace industry. *It remains to be seen however if SpaceX can make
it work without said mounds.


by now it should be clear to everyone that the old way, gets us no
where in space. just look at the JWST

in the beginning of space exploration things were much more like
spaceX although there were some big failures there were also grand
successes

we as a nation can no longer afford the old way of doing things......

so its change or get out of the way........

the chinese can take over space, just like manufacturing
  #6  
Old July 11th 12, 04:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,rec.arts.sf.science
Johnny1a
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.

On Jul 10, 6:43*am, bob haller wrote:
That too is a mistake. *It's in both, especially when you're talking
about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation
and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry.


It works for a lot of industries and professions, not just the
aerospace industry, and without the mounds of paper typical of the
aerospace industry. *It remains to be seen however if SpaceX can make
it work without said mounds.


by now it should be clear to everyone that the old way, gets us no
where in space. just look at the JWST


The problem is not that the old way doesn't work, _per se_. It might
not be the best way, but as Apollo demonstrated, it can work. The
problem is a lack of will.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. Johnny1a Policy 37 July 16th 12 04:12 PM
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. Nun Giver Policy 0 July 7th 12 08:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.