7 ms·
Incredibly impressive, but you have to take into account both more modern technology, as well as the fact that they were able to build off the shoulders of gian
by 7thaccount 6y ago
Incredibly impressive, but you have to take into account both more modern technology, as well as the fact that they were able to build off the shoulders of giants. It is still amazing of course, but I doubt they could've done the same thing during the era of the mercury program, so not really apples to apples comparison.
- bane 6y agoSure, there are likely many small advantages that add up. For example, 3 flat panels and a few buttons probably weigh less than a metal panel full of dials, allowing for a better payload ratio. That technology wasn't available during the Mercury/Gemini/Shuttle period for any price.
- piyh 6y agoYou can't buy company culture either, but that could have been built 40 years ago
- VLM 6y agosensors and wiring always weighed more. Of course now the wiring COULD be CANbus or similar in concept instead of individual (heavy) wires. Or move the analog processing and microcontroller to the sensor itself instead of running wires all over the place to a central computer.
- dnautics 6y agoIirc the computers are connected by commodity cat 6e Ethernet.
- plorg 6y agoDo you mean ethernet as the link layer? I ask because I've encountered a number of systems where CAN bus is operated over a cat 6e physical layer.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 6y agoI can't tell you the answer, but I can definitely say that "cat 6e" is imprecise at best because that's a misnomer rather than an actual standard.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- riffic 6y agoIndustry proven technology and easy as heck to replace on-site.
- trixie_ 6y agoMaybe not during Mercury, but definitely during the 70s all the technology was there to build a cheap, reusable rocket and capsule. The dream was that the shuttle could be that system, but it did not turn out that way. And giving in to the 'sunk cost fallacy' they supported the shuttle for the next 40 years. Arguably you could say we are 50 years behind where we should be. Unfortunately driving down costs is probably the hardest thing for any government organization to do. Given that there is no competition, no shareholders, no profit motive etc..
- paulryanrogers 6y agoDidn't Space X also benefit from NASA launch facilities? I imagine their payroll also includes quite a few NASA trained people too. They certainly aren't doing rocket science from scratch or in a vacuum. Not too say this isn't a big deal. Just that it's not all Elon and his wunderkind.
- ta17711771 6y agoSome are meant to teach, others are meant to do. NASA and their bureaucracy have been sliding out of the "do" category for some time.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chipsa 6y ago
- pfdietz 6y agoGuidance systems are vastly less expensive now, and can take advantage of things like MEMs, fiber laser gyros, and GPS (and, of course, modern computing power). The tanks on Falcon are welded using Friction Stir Welding, which was invented in the early 1990s. The landing algorithm for the first stage uses convex optimization algorithms based on interior point methods, which were not available in the 1960s. However, something very much like an expendable F9 could probably have been built in the 1980s. Simply evolving the Saturn 1B (which was cheaper, per lb of payload to orbit, than the Saturn V) could have easily beaten the Shuttle's economic performance.
- jes 6y agoI had not heard of Friction Stir Welding previously. Video that demonstrates the technique is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNbQH8XBgxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNbQH8XBgxQ
- 725686 6y agoSmarter Every Day has a very interesting video[1] inside the factory of United Launch Alliance in which, among a lot of other things, shows the friction stir welding used in their Atlas Rocket[2]: [1] https://youtu.be/o0fG_lnVhHw https://youtu.be/o0fG_lnVhHw [2] https://youtu.be/o0fG_lnVhHw?t=1933 https://youtu.be/o0fG_lnVhHw?t=1933
- jes 6y agoThis is a great video. Thank you for sharing it.
- redis_mlc 6y agoThe gimmick that Eclipse Aircraft (Paul Allen) used to get almost half a billion in investment is they would use FSW instead of rivets. But that wasn't the main problem with creating a new jet, which has a myriad of other issues before certification.
- LanceH 6y agoI'm going to go with SpaceX doesn't have to source from 50 states. It also hasn't had its funding turned off and on.
- dahfizz 6y ago> but you have to take into account both more modern technology, as well as the fact that they were able to build off the shoulders of giants. NASA is currently developing the Space Launch System (SLS) and has spent over $20b with almost nothing to show for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
- mhh__ 6y agoTo be fair to NASA, I don't think SLS would be nicknamed the senate launch system if it was up to them.
- dahfizz 6y agoI totally agree. NASA is definitely not incompetent, they are just saddled with bureaucracy and the wrong incentive structure. It's an inherent problem with public institutions, and that's why this public private partnership is so important.
- acheron9383 6y agoYeah. It is great that Nasa and the US military paved the way, like has happened before (The internet, etc). SpaceX feels like a new era of spaceflight, harnessing so much of the potential that US government created in the previous era.