3 ms·
I thought it was an interesting way to put it that: the JPL produces things at $1,000,000/kg, and that inside the engineering organization it'll be hard to rec
by awongh 2y ago
I thought it was an interesting way to put it that:
the JPL produces things at $1,000,000/kg, and that inside the engineering organization it'll be hard to reconfigure everyone's mindsets and practices to create stuff that doesn't spend so much money / is less concerned with weight.
From an engineering perspective it seems like simply putting less into a finished product would be easy, but his argument is basically that the design parameters for every single thing produced are so fundamentally oriented towards weight (and size maybe?) that it's very hard to turn around. (This is not exactly the government spending / misaligned incentive argument that is made for many government projects- my read was that this is a subtly different problem.)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> not exactly the government spending / misaligned incentive argument It sort of is. The folks selling specialised design services for optimising the third sigma of weight savings absolutely don't want NASA to use off-the-shelf components.
- awongh 2y agoIt definitely is also that. The whole Starliner thing is afaict totally ridiculous. Crazy how much money is being wasted, and how much would be wasted even if everything was working on schedule when compared to spacex.