6 ms·

Lore suggests that that's a misconception, born of the Agile myth that the only thing that existed before the invention of either XP or Scrum was waterfall. Th

Lore suggests that that's a misconception, born of the Agile myth that the only thing that existed before the invention of either XP or Scrum was waterfall. The truth is perhaps more like this: agility got us to the moon, bureaucracy trapped us in low earth orbit, agility seems to be offering our best hope at getting back out of LEO again, including to Mars. For example, see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240112230/Interview-From-Apollo-Mission-to-agility-manifesto https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240112230/Interview-Fro...

darepublic 6y ago
Agility, sure, but don't confuse agility with agile
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  Agile <> agile. In tech jargon, this particular word is case-sensitive.
tailspin2019 6y ago
Fair enough. I was making a commentary more of what I see the difference between NASA vs SpaceX's approach today. I wasn't around for Apollo, and given their crazy compressed timeframe for getting to the moon back then, there must have been some agility there.... I was really agreeing with the previous commenter, which I guess is a statement about today, and not how NASA operated in the 1960s... > SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. My mistake for invoking the Agile vs Waterfall debate... (and potentially being wrong!)
giantrobot 6y ago
Congress and the Nixon administration trapped NASA in LEO. There was extensive planning inside NASA for applications of Saturn-Apollo technologies [0]. Two of the ambitious ones were a manned Venus flyby [1] and a permanent Lunar base [2]. After the Apollo I fire Congress lost its appetite for space and slashed NASA's budget [3]. The Nixon administration went all-in on the Space Shuttle which ate up all of NASA's manned spaceflight budget. Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project were the only AAP projects to survive and only at the cost of Apollo missions 18-20. The Saturn-Apollo program had a super-heavy lift rocket (Saturn V), a man-rated heavy lift rocket (Saturn IB), a Lunar trajectory capable command and service module, a lunar lander, and a workable wet workshop space station (Skylab). Congress tossed all of that away. The Space Shuttle program wasn't a bad idea, a heavy lift vehicle that provided a shirt sleeve environment but could support EVA is actually an awesome thing for LEO. But Congress scrapping Saturn-Apollo trapped NASA in LEO because the Shuttle was only capable of LEO. It's not a platform that can support manned Moon missions let alone any more distant bodies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby [2] https://www.wired.com/2013/11/moonbase-apollo-1968/ https://www.wired.com/2013/11/moonbase-apollo-1968/ [3] https://www.wired.com/2012/08/before-the-fire/ https://www.wired.com/2012/08/before-the-fire/
- akiselev 6y ago
  Not only that, but the nuclear rocketry program for Mars was making breakthroughs like the nuclear lightbulb hybrid reactor & closed loop rocket engine [1] - that the public wouldn't see until declassified papers hit JPL's archives in the 2000s. This program was cancelled by Nixon, setting us back at least half a century. [1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730003970 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730003970
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Not really a setback, because there was no place for that technology. Lack of space reactors wasn't and isn't a roadblock. Had that development continued it would have been largely wasted, and the knowledge gained would have decayed away.
    - akiselev 6y ago
      It easily functions as a self-breeding terrestrial reactor that reaches criticality with 1/500th to 1/1000th the fuel of existing nuclear reactors (~20kg). The design requires active power that shuts down the reactor on failure, making any accident a complete nonevent. It can even be kickstarted without huge amounts of enriched fuel with the addition of a neutron gun (which they used to test the design without nuclear fuel). The core infrastructure required to support such a reactor are also covered by far less red tape (mostly centrifuges). It would have changed the face of power generation at a critical time for climate change if it was allowed to reach fruition. Instead it was locked away in UTC & NASA archives.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        The requirements for a space reactor, and for a terrestrial reactor, are radically different. No space reactor will make sense for terrestrial power generation. The temperatures are different, power density is different, safety cases are different. A 20kg reactor likely needs highly enriched fuel (space reactors are typically fast reactors too, so we're talking about something that's almost a bomb there.) An external neutron source does not greatly change the needed enrichment (since any practical subcritical reactor would still need k fairly high, so it is only a bit subcritical.)

darepublic 6y ago

Agility, sure, but don't confuse agility with agile

mumblemumble 6y ago
Agile <> agile. In tech jargon, this particular word is case-sensitive.

tailspin2019 6y ago

Fair enough. I was making a commentary more of what I see the difference between NASA vs SpaceX's approach today. I wasn't around for Apollo, and given their crazy compressed timeframe for getting to the moon back then, there must have been some agility there.... I was really agreeing with the previous commenter, which I guess is a statement about today, and not how NASA operated in the 1960s... > SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. My mistake for invoking the Agile vs Waterfall debate... (and potentially being wrong!)

giantrobot 6y ago

Congress and the Nixon administration trapped NASA in LEO. There was extensive planning inside NASA for applications of Saturn-Apollo technologies [0]. Two of the ambitious ones were a manned Venus flyby [1] and a permanent Lunar base [2]. After the Apollo I fire Congress lost its appetite for space and slashed NASA's budget [3]. The Nixon administration went all-in on the Space Shuttle which ate up all of NASA's manned spaceflight budget. Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project were the only AAP projects to survive and only at the cost of Apollo missions 18-20. The Saturn-Apollo program had a super-heavy lift rocket (Saturn V), a man-rated heavy lift rocket (Saturn IB), a Lunar trajectory capable command and service module, a lunar lander, and a workable wet workshop space station (Skylab). Congress tossed all of that away. The Space Shuttle program wasn't a bad idea, a heavy lift vehicle that provided a shirt sleeve environment but could support EVA is actually an awesome thing for LEO. But Congress scrapping Saturn-Apollo trapped NASA in LEO because the Shuttle was only capable of LEO. It's not a platform that can support manned Moon missions let alone any more distant bodies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby [2] https://www.wired.com/2013/11/moonbase-apollo-1968/ https://www.wired.com/2013/11/moonbase-apollo-1968/ [3] https://www.wired.com/2012/08/before-the-fire/ https://www.wired.com/2012/08/before-the-fire/

akiselev 6y ago
Not only that, but the nuclear rocketry program for Mars was making breakthroughs like the nuclear lightbulb hybrid reactor & closed loop rocket engine [1] - that the public wouldn't see until declassified papers hit JPL's archives in the 2000s. This program was cancelled by Nixon, setting us back at least half a century. [1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730003970 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730003970
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Not really a setback, because there was no place for that technology. Lack of space reactors wasn't and isn't a roadblock. Had that development continued it would have been largely wasted, and the knowledge gained would have decayed away.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    It easily functions as a self-breeding terrestrial reactor that reaches criticality with 1/500th to 1/1000th the fuel of existing nuclear reactors (~20kg). The design requires active power that shuts down the reactor on failure, making any accident a complete nonevent. It can even be kickstarted without huge amounts of enriched fuel with the addition of a neutron gun (which they used to test the design without nuclear fuel). The core infrastructure required to support such a reactor are also covered by far less red tape (mostly centrifuges). It would have changed the face of power generation at a critical time for climate change if it was allowed to reach fruition. Instead it was locked away in UTC & NASA archives.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      The requirements for a space reactor, and for a terrestrial reactor, are radically different. No space reactor will make sense for terrestrial power generation. The temperatures are different, power density is different, safety cases are different. A 20kg reactor likely needs highly enriched fuel (space reactors are typically fast reactors too, so we're talking about something that's almost a bomb there.) An external neutron source does not greatly change the needed enrichment (since any practical subcritical reactor would still need k fairly high, so it is only a bit subcritical.)