4 ms·

Even if you knew back in 1970s the exact specification of iPhone camera, you still couldn't manufacture it because improvement in manufacturing is a gradual sel

Even if you knew back in 1970s the exact specification of iPhone camera, you still couldn't manufacture it because improvement in manufacturing is a gradual self dependent process where the new equipment is built by the old equipment, and you can't make sudden jumps in accuracy or minimization because these things depend on weaker versions of themselves.

LadyCailin 3y ago
Related: the term “The Adjacent Possible”. I first heard it here: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/the-false-dawn-of-the-electric-car https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/the-false-d...
fn-mote 3y ago
As a counterpoint: NASA has an _extremely_ careful process and their success rate is high. It's expensive, though, and you have to develop an engineering process that supports it. When you're sending a probe to Mars, the trial runs are very expensive. They spend a lot of time making sure that the mission will be successful. I'm skeptical that anywhere near the same level of care is going into the private missions, but I the reason is cost, not that they can't bootstrap themselves up with Earth-environment experimentation. Yes, I'm aware at least one of the Mars probe missions totally failed. I don't think that detracts from the overall point. They weren't screwing up a bunch of missions before they got one right.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  It appears that the money spent to ensure a one-off success is far more than the sum of all the costs of the failures of SpaceX.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Source?
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      I googled the cost of building and firing NASA's big rocket, $50b, and the cost of building and firing Starship, $10m.
      - flangola7 3y ago
        That is a highly strange looking URL
prottog 3y ago
You might have a point about the semiconductors involved (that back in the 70s the engineering ability just wasn't there), but as a counterpoint, almost anything can be manufactured given an unlimited budget, like the moon landing programs had. We even turned lead (well, bismuth) into gold back in the 80s. Making one of something where the cost is no object is almost always possible. Making millions at a commercially-viable cost is much more challenging.
- soneil 3y ago
  I always find the "unlimited budget" angle interesting. The entire Apollo program had a budget of $165.5 billion (in 2021 dollars), over a 10 year program. $16.5 billion per year. It's a big number, but it's absolutely dwarfed by things like a $600bn military.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The entire Apollo program had a budget of $165.5 billion (in 2021 dollars), over a 10 year program. $16.5 billion per year. It's a big number, but it's absolutely dwarfed by things like a $600bn military. Apollo was actually pretty close to the same GDP share (2.5% of GDP annually) as the modern defense budget (3.1% of GDP). Inflation-adjusted numbers ignore that we have more people and more value produced per capita now than in the 1960s.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Wasn't the military budget higher back then because of active wars? The Vietnam War was in full swing back then. I don't have the numbers though.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Wasn’t the military budget higher back then because of active wars? Yes, the spending on the Apollo program is pretty close (as share of GDP) to the current military budget, not to the contemporary (1960s) military budget, which ranged from a 7.6-9.4% of GDP.

LadyCailin 3y ago

Related: the term “The Adjacent Possible”. I first heard it here: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/the-false-dawn-of-the-electric-car https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/the-false-d...

fn-mote 3y ago

As a counterpoint: NASA has an _extremely_ careful process and their success rate is high. It's expensive, though, and you have to develop an engineering process that supports it. When you're sending a probe to Mars, the trial runs are very expensive. They spend a lot of time making sure that the mission will be successful. I'm skeptical that anywhere near the same level of care is going into the private missions, but I the reason is cost, not that they can't bootstrap themselves up with Earth-environment experimentation. Yes, I'm aware at least one of the Mars probe missions totally failed. I don't think that detracts from the overall point. They weren't screwing up a bunch of missions before they got one right.

WalterBright 3y ago
It appears that the money spent to ensure a one-off success is far more than the sum of all the costs of the failures of SpaceX.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Source?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    I googled the cost of building and firing NASA's big rocket, $50b, and the cost of building and firing Starship, $10m.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      That is a highly strange looking URL

prottog 3y ago

You might have a point about the semiconductors involved (that back in the 70s the engineering ability just wasn't there), but as a counterpoint, almost anything can be manufactured given an unlimited budget, like the moon landing programs had. We even turned lead (well, bismuth) into gold back in the 80s. Making one of something where the cost is no object is almost always possible. Making millions at a commercially-viable cost is much more challenging.

soneil 3y ago
I always find the "unlimited budget" angle interesting. The entire Apollo program had a budget of $165.5 billion (in 2021 dollars), over a 10 year program. $16.5 billion per year. It's a big number, but it's absolutely dwarfed by things like a $600bn military.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The entire Apollo program had a budget of $165.5 billion (in 2021 dollars), over a 10 year program. $16.5 billion per year. It's a big number, but it's absolutely dwarfed by things like a $600bn military. Apollo was actually pretty close to the same GDP share (2.5% of GDP annually) as the modern defense budget (3.1% of GDP). Inflation-adjusted numbers ignore that we have more people and more value produced per capita now than in the 1960s.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Wasn't the military budget higher back then because of active wars? The Vietnam War was in full swing back then. I don't have the numbers though.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Wasn’t the military budget higher back then because of active wars? Yes, the spending on the Apollo program is pretty close (as share of GDP) to the current military budget, not to the contemporary (1960s) military budget, which ranged from a 7.6-9.4% of GDP.