|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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.... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"bob" wrote:
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) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. 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. Um, no. Except for the long cruisers like the Pioneers and Voyagers, essentially no space probe had computer technology change across it's life. 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. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. 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. Um, no. NASA never had a monopoly on cutting edge hardware. Generally they stayed right behind the leading edge. When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say hottest new product, he gets excited.... Which suggests more than anything that your son watches little to no TV, as the marketing term 'space age technology' is as prevalent, and as meaningless, as it has been for thirty years and more. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"bob" wrote:
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) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. 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. Um, no. Except for the long cruisers like the Pioneers and Voyagers, essentially no space probe had computer technology change across it's life. 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. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. 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. Um, no. NASA never had a monopoly on cutting edge hardware. Generally they stayed right behind the leading edge. When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say hottest new product, he gets excited.... Which suggests more than anything that your son watches little to no TV, as the marketing term 'space age technology' is as prevalent, and as meaningless, as it has been for thirty years and more. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "bob" wrote: 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) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. Um, no see the first paragraph of http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/...ibmrd2001C.pdf 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. Um, no. Except for the long cruisers like the Pioneers and Voyagers, essentially no space probe had computer technology change across it's life. um, no. refer to moore's law. every space probe that took more than two years, (from lock down to reaching the target) by definition was significantly behind by the time it arrived on target. 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. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. other than the launch vehicle, exactly what would not be available? Cameras, computers, gyroscopes... perhaps all that is missing are control thrusters. My point is that the technology is much more accessible, and certainly more familiar. 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. Um, no. NASA never had a monopoly on cutting edge hardware. Generally they stayed right behind the leading edge. the point is that they were weilding the leading edge by doing things that had never been done before, and required a high tech application to succeed. Not a monopoly perhaps, but combined with the defense department needs, space and aeronautic engineering were the most exacting engineering challenge of the 50's and 60's. To ignore the effects of massive amounts of money pumped into both endevours is to miss a major point. When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say hottest new product, he gets excited.... Which suggests more than anything that your son watches little to no TV, as the marketing term 'space age technology' is as prevalent, and as meaningless, as it has been for thirty years and more. Um, no. He simply watches different shows than you. Such advertising language is only used when the target market is us baby boomers. when my son thinks space age technology, he thinks of the space shuttle accidents and failed mars probes. advertisers that are targeting him wisely shy away from such imagery .. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "bob" wrote: 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) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. Um, no see the first paragraph of http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/...ibmrd2001C.pdf 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. Um, no. Except for the long cruisers like the Pioneers and Voyagers, essentially no space probe had computer technology change across it's life. um, no. refer to moore's law. every space probe that took more than two years, (from lock down to reaching the target) by definition was significantly behind by the time it arrived on target. 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. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. other than the launch vehicle, exactly what would not be available? Cameras, computers, gyroscopes... perhaps all that is missing are control thrusters. My point is that the technology is much more accessible, and certainly more familiar. 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. Um, no. NASA never had a monopoly on cutting edge hardware. Generally they stayed right behind the leading edge. the point is that they were weilding the leading edge by doing things that had never been done before, and required a high tech application to succeed. Not a monopoly perhaps, but combined with the defense department needs, space and aeronautic engineering were the most exacting engineering challenge of the 50's and 60's. To ignore the effects of massive amounts of money pumped into both endevours is to miss a major point. When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say hottest new product, he gets excited.... Which suggests more than anything that your son watches little to no TV, as the marketing term 'space age technology' is as prevalent, and as meaningless, as it has been for thirty years and more. Um, no. He simply watches different shows than you. Such advertising language is only used when the target market is us baby boomers. when my son thinks space age technology, he thinks of the space shuttle accidents and failed mars probes. advertisers that are targeting him wisely shy away from such imagery .. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
Derek Lyons wrote:
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) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. You might check out the early history of digital image processing. -- Dave Michelson |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
Derek Lyons wrote:
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) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. You might check out the early history of digital image processing. -- Dave Michelson |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:25:19 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote: 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. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. ....I think there's quite a few OSCAR variants whose Elmers and OMs would disagree with you there, Derek. Unless the term "space probe" doesn't apply to LEO sats. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:25:19 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote: 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. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. ....I think there's quite a few OSCAR variants whose Elmers and OMs would disagree with you there, Derek. Unless the term "space probe" doesn't apply to LEO sats. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:08:47 GMT, Dave Michelson
wrote: You might check out the early history of digital image processing. ....Agreed. While some of the development was spurred by the military in processing aerial images, the bulk of it was in processing spysat data which in turn was applied to probe imaging. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|