3 ms·
"easily do integrated testing of several disjoined components at once." It just doesn't work that way. It's an area of hyper-specialization. Everything made
by alexasmyths 9y ago
"easily do integrated testing of several disjoined components at once."
It just doesn't work that way.
It's an area of hyper-specialization.
Everything made for space is a 'one off', there really are no economies of focus or scale. Maybe in launch.
There just aren't 'lines of business' in space really.
Once you walk in the situation and spend a few days there, and see what's going on, you get it.
I haven't even scratched the surface of it.
Every process is recorded, needs to be archived.
Every single piece of software hardware ever used needs to be 'kept around' in case something goes wrong. 20 year old computers, floppy disks, have to be managed and 'kept up' in case something from way back needs to be tested.
Purchasing requirements/limitations. Political control (governments pay for this, so they set rules, change them). Security clearances. Accounting standards. Process audits. Insurance audits. Hyper-specialization HR impossibilities (like 10 guys in the world qualified to do ABC activity).
You must wonder why it costs '100M dollars' to film a big movie, have a look at the detailed budgets. A lot comes out of the woodwork.
- wallace_f 9y agoI think I'm really starting to understand more about all the reasons why SpaceX can get stuff in space for a fraction of the cost of Nasa in less than a decade in business
- kobeya 9y agoNASA doesn’t build rockets. You mean Lockheed/Boeing/ATK.
- wallace_f 9y agoBasically yes. The NASA space shuttle was conceived by NASA, chosen by Nixon among a group of possible projects, and then the tank built by Lockheed, orbiter by ATK, etc. If anything, many of the above problems wouldn't just go away, some of them would become even more costly.