A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

fbc, moores law, and planning cycles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #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....





Ads
  #2  
Old December 29th 03, 03:25 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 29th 03, 03:25 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 29th 03, 04:22 AM
bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 29th 03, 04:22 AM
bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 29th 03, 06:08 AM
Dave Michelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 29th 03, 06:08 AM
Dave Michelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #10  
Old December 29th 03, 07:35 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.