6 ms·

+10. This should be done in many more places. Though with 'cost plus' contracts... providers are incented to create crazy new things for every problem. If th

+10. This should be done in many more places. Though with 'cost plus' contracts... providers are incented to create crazy new things for every problem. If there weren't moral questions around this - it would be amazing to see a NATO forces 'hackathon' where people create top gear/tech for soldiers with off-the-shelf components and software. I have a funny feeling that 'if they put their hearts to it' - there'd be no competition in terms of what could be created. Imagine the SpaceX of 'jet fighters' - 2x the capability, 5% the cost. Anyhow, obvious moral issues there ... just a thought.

Nuzzerino 9y ago
Well, you have the issue of EMP hardening. Not sure if that is a problem in submarines. But elsewhere, you have a serious defensive flaw if an EMP attack can disable military hardware.
- jack1243star 9y ago
  Is there an EMP capable torpedo though? They seem useless in water. Other than the nuclear ones of course...
  - briandear 9y ago
    I think the durability of an Xbox controller is of no consequence against a nuclear torpedo.
  - emiliobumachar 9y ago
    I doubt an EMP torpedo would exist targeting submarines underwater. Water is just crazy good at dampening electromagnetic waves. And if you can score a direct hit, the EMP device's weight in extra explosives is cheaper and more destructive.
- nalllar 9y ago
  A submarine's hull acts as a faraday cage. It's inherently quite well shielded against EMPs.
seanp2k2 9y ago
A lot of R
ams6110 9y ago
How many COTS parts does a SpaceX rocket use?
- dba7dba 9y ago
  I guess there's no way to know for outsiders, but I've heard SpaceX buys a lot from McMaster-Carr. Parts for rocket itself or other tools used to build/test rockets? I have no idea.
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  I've been reading the bio of Musk and it discusses that they progressively replace COTS as much as possible, building and designing in house because in the end, THAT is cheaper.
- matt4077 9y ago
  The Musk biography is a pretty good source for that question. From what I remember, SpaceX produces a rather extreme fraction of its parts in-house (something like 80%–it's been a while). What they don't create themselves, they often source from the consumer market. They avoid the tradition space industry supplies wherever possible because they have had success with off-the-shelve parts available for a fraction of the costs. I believe the book gave a radio module as an example. It was available for $120,000 at "space-rated" quality, but they bought something at RadioShack for around $3,000, and later replaced it with an in-house part that was smaller/lighter/more power efficient.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    To be fair 'space rated' does have meaning. There is 'off the shelf', 'automotive', 'aeronautic', 'unmanned space' and 'manned space' quality gear. If you think about it - when you're flying a plane, the 'tolerances' for everything just has to be higher - there's much more at risk. In a complex system, there are a lot of single points of failure that can cause haywire. Unsurprisingly, the tolerances for 'unmanned' vs. 'manned' space flight are quite different - and for good reason. Perhaps the economics are not always quite right, it may make sense to make some small probe out of 'cheap gear' - but there is of course added risk, and usually, you 'only get one launch' attempt. Finally - there's a reason a 'space grade' radio might cost $13K, and that's because they don't make very many :). I interned on the Space Shuttle robot arm project - we made these aluminum 'handles' for the arm to grab onto. I mean - really, really basic stuff. $200K each. Engineering, overhead, testing, sales yada yada - we only ever made a few dozen.
ghufran_syed 9y ago
"Hacking for Defense" is a step in this direction E.g http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu
- otimepad222 9y ago
  "Defense" :) always have to laugh about that part
  - outoftacos 9y ago
    We have a "Department of Defense" as well as one for "Homeland Security". Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing.

Nuzzerino 9y ago

Well, you have the issue of EMP hardening. Not sure if that is a problem in submarines. But elsewhere, you have a serious defensive flaw if an EMP attack can disable military hardware.

jack1243star 9y ago
Is there an EMP capable torpedo though? They seem useless in water. Other than the nuclear ones of course...
- briandear 9y ago
  I think the durability of an Xbox controller is of no consequence against a nuclear torpedo.
- emiliobumachar 9y ago
  I doubt an EMP torpedo would exist targeting submarines underwater. Water is just crazy good at dampening electromagnetic waves. And if you can score a direct hit, the EMP device's weight in extra explosives is cheaper and more destructive.
nalllar 9y ago
A submarine's hull acts as a faraday cage. It's inherently quite well shielded against EMPs.

seanp2k2 9y ago

A lot of R

ams6110 9y ago

How many COTS parts does a SpaceX rocket use?

dba7dba 9y ago
I guess there's no way to know for outsiders, but I've heard SpaceX buys a lot from McMaster-Carr. Parts for rocket itself or other tools used to build/test rockets? I have no idea.
unethical_ban 9y ago
I've been reading the bio of Musk and it discusses that they progressively replace COTS as much as possible, building and designing in house because in the end, THAT is cheaper.
matt4077 9y ago
The Musk biography is a pretty good source for that question. From what I remember, SpaceX produces a rather extreme fraction of its parts in-house (something like 80%–it's been a while). What they don't create themselves, they often source from the consumer market. They avoid the tradition space industry supplies wherever possible because they have had success with off-the-shelve parts available for a fraction of the costs. I believe the book gave a radio module as an example. It was available for $120,000 at "space-rated" quality, but they bought something at RadioShack for around $3,000, and later replaced it with an in-house part that was smaller/lighter/more power efficient.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  To be fair 'space rated' does have meaning. There is 'off the shelf', 'automotive', 'aeronautic', 'unmanned space' and 'manned space' quality gear. If you think about it - when you're flying a plane, the 'tolerances' for everything just has to be higher - there's much more at risk. In a complex system, there are a lot of single points of failure that can cause haywire. Unsurprisingly, the tolerances for 'unmanned' vs. 'manned' space flight are quite different - and for good reason. Perhaps the economics are not always quite right, it may make sense to make some small probe out of 'cheap gear' - but there is of course added risk, and usually, you 'only get one launch' attempt. Finally - there's a reason a 'space grade' radio might cost $13K, and that's because they don't make very many :). I interned on the Space Shuttle robot arm project - we made these aluminum 'handles' for the arm to grab onto. I mean - really, really basic stuff. $200K each. Engineering, overhead, testing, sales yada yada - we only ever made a few dozen.

ghufran_syed 9y ago

"Hacking for Defense" is a step in this direction E.g http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu

otimepad222 9y ago
"Defense" :) always have to laugh about that part
- outoftacos 9y ago
  We have a "Department of Defense" as well as one for "Homeland Security". Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing.