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....

"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.

"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

..

"bob" wrote:


"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

You might try reading the line above that, and the title above that.
You'll note that the publication *isn't* a computer history, but a
history of NASA and computers. It's hardly suprising that such a puff
piece includes the standard NASA claim to have developed everything
but sliced bread.


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.

Um, no. If you look at the history of Moore's law, you find the real
growth does not occur until the advent of the PC. In short, they
weren't 'significantly behind', especially as the development of
rad-hard versions generally lagged well behind the commercial
versions. It's not until you get into the very late 80's and late
90's that you start to see two year spans having significant
performance differences at each end.

(And like most idiots you assume that the vast increases in processor
speed have actually improved computing, it hasn't. Most of those
cycles in the PC world are consumed driving a bloated UI and pointless
graphics, not producing useful work.)


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.

Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for
inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the
Shack.

My point is that the technology is much more accessible, and certainly more
familiar.

Your point is based on wishful thinking, not fact.


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.

No one is ignoring the massive amounts of money poured, but I look at
how little fed back into other endeavors and wonder what your point
is.


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

Frankly I see the term almost everywhere I look other than the kiddie
shows on PBS. (And that includes Nick and Cartoon.)

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.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
.

Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for
inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the
Shack.


Just one point: there are now guidance gyroscopes that are available to the
general public (for instance to aero modellers) and that cost under 100
dollars. I am thinking of piezoelectric Gyroscopes and also of new, low cost
fiber-optic laser-diode gyros.
An effective IMU can be had, today, for unmanned applications, for under
1000 dollars and it weighs under a kilogram.
Giovanni

"Giovanni Abrate" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for
inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the
Shack.

Just one point: there are now guidance gyroscopes that are available to the
general public (for instance to aero modellers) and that cost under 100
dollars. I am thinking of piezoelectric Gyroscopes and also of new, low cost
fiber-optic laser-diode gyros.

I'm aware of those, but do not believe that they are capable of
performing in a launch/orbital enviroment.

An effective IMU can be had, today, for unmanned applications, for under
1000 dollars and it weighs under a kilogram.

And it's characteristics are?

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.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
.

Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for
inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the
Shack.


Just one point: there are now guidance gyroscopes that are available to the
general public (for instance to aero modellers) and that cost under 100
dollars. I am thinking of piezoelectric Gyroscopes and also of new, low cost
fiber-optic laser-diode gyros.
An effective IMU can be had, today, for unmanned applications, for under
1000 dollars and it weighs under a kilogram.
Giovanni

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

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

You might try reading the line above that, and the title above that.
You'll note that the publication *isn't* a computer history, but a
history of NASA and computers. It's hardly suprising that such a puff
piece includes the standard NASA claim to have developed everything
but sliced bread.



Yes, but aren't microelectronics the result of the military's need of
sophisticated guidance for ICBM's? It was always my understanding that
because our early rockets couldn't lift much, electronics engineers
were driven to develop smaller and lighter packages. I always thought
that this is what led us to the IC chip.

While this was not NASA driven it was driven by military space needs.
As far as NASA being on the leading edge, I'm not so sure. As stated
earlier, the needs of military spysats drove the development of things
like the CCD camera. The civilian space program has always borrowed
heavily from the military space program.


Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(And like most idiots you assume that the vast increases in processor
speed have actually improved computing, it hasn't. Most of those
cycles in the PC world are consumed driving a bloated UI and pointless
graphics, not producing useful work.)

Let's face it- accounting or word processing, for example, haven't changed
in decades. There were capable accounting programs that worked well on old
DOS machines that handle the same accounting rules and procedures as Quicken
2004. They aren't as pretty, but they do the job. The *user* is expected to
know something about the subject.

My first computer was a Sanyo 550. I believe I got it up to 640K RAM and 2
5.25 double sided drives. It came with WordStar 3.3. I eventually moved on
to a 486 running at 66MHz with 16MB RAM and a 2GB hard drive, using Office
97. I now use as my primary computer (one of 5 computers I use in my home
office, plus my wife uses 2 and I'm about to assemble another to use as a
server) a Celeron operating at 450MHz with 320MB RAM and 40GB storage with
Office 2000, plus lots of other doodads. Except for being able to shift from
the top of a long file to the end quickly, there is *no* significant
difference in the machines so far as word processing is concerned. My
desktop publishing ability has improved unbelievably, but the *writing* end
hasn't changed at all, but it isn't terribly dependent on the computer. Khan
was right- improve a thing and you may double productivity, improve man and
you improve a thousand-fold.

Had a fellow in my area who used a TRS-80 Model 4 for 17 years. He
eventually had to upgrade because he could no longer get ribbons for his
printer. The computer didn't do much, but it clearly did everything he
wanted well enough.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:22:04 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

Had a fellow in my area who used a TRS-80 Model 4 for 17 years. He
eventually had to upgrade because he could no longer get ribbons for his
printer. The computer didn't do much, but it clearly did everything he
wanted well enough.

....Don't laugh. There are test labs across the country that still use
Model 12's because of the IEEE cage in the back. The cards are still
available, and it's really fairly easy to breadboard up an interface
for some analog device that needs to be monitored. When the Bio Lab I
ran at Texas U. decided to get rid of all the Trash-80's, the only one
we got offers for from any other department was the Model 12. We let
that one go at *original* cost (*). The Model I went to my roommate as
a gift from the department for his assisting in rewiring the old
PC-LAN coaxial network, the Model II went to the "School" of Business
to replace one they'd ****ed up beyond repair (**) and about half the
Model III's wound up in surplus, while the other half wound up in the
building dumpster.

After having been dropped off the 5th floor into the dumpster, natch.

(*) It was to the Aerospace Engineering department, the same geniuses
who kicked Bill Clark out on his psychotic ass.

(**) Sans 2MB HD, which we rewired into a backup drive for the BBS we
ran. That was done more for fun than necessity, tho...

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