5 ms·
There are countless flaws in this comparison, but the one that stands out to me is the simple buying vs renting issue. They sourced screws that would be permane
by shinratdr 13y ago
There are countless flaws in this comparison, but the one that stands out to me is the simple buying vs renting issue. They sourced screws that would be permanently installed into something. They rented a couple hours on a server.
Renting is always cheaper than owning. That's a pretty universal rule. Complain about the red tape all you want, I have also felt the burn of the "approved supplier" list. That doesn't excuse an extremely faulty comparison, however. It just clouds the issue.
I understand coming up with a better comparison would be a little more work than the immediate but completely faulty on-hand cost of the server instance they spun up, but I know the cost of the computer I own and the cost of a server I rent and I wouldn't use them to make a comparison just because I'm too bothered to come up with a real comparison.
There is also the issue of the fact that the $2000 number was pulled out of seemingly thin air, the possibility that they use approved suppliers to avoid the issue of counterfeit or sub-standard parts, which have killed people when installed into regular things like bleachers that stay on the Earth. It's the freaking Canadarm, god forbid we splurge now so we don't waste millions later fixing it or kill someone. When the end result of the materialized idea is it's going to be launched into space, the costs probably aren't so black and white.
Interesting story, but with so many variables unaccounted for I have a hard time gleaning any sort of lesson from it. Other than the fact that building a piece of equipment that will be launched into space involves a fair bit of red tape, which I was already aware of and am honestly kind of thankful for.
- icebraining 13y agoWhen the end result of the materialized idea is it's going to be launched into space Yes, but OP clearly says the boxes were never to be used in production, only testing.
- mariuolo 13y agoI'm sure I don't have to tell you how much of a bad idea is to use testing environments not matching production, for something to be put into space on top of that!
- bigiain 13y agoDid you not read the article? This was a simulated load testing device that they could plug production components into to to experiment on them without needing to have the entire space-going arm on hand and powered up. Suggesting that a test component like that needs to be built to the same standards as the space-going equipment is, ummm - how do I out this politely? Wrong…
- druiid 13y agoI disagree here. While it is a testing component, part of any valid test is that it be replicable. If you are running down to 'Home Depot' and picking up some random screws with who knows what specifications, how exactly are you going to replicate the design here? Perhaps they will never need to do it and it is a genuine one-off design, but putting on the line a potential multi-million (billion?) dollar project? In the grand scope then, spending $2000 (which I doubt WAS the real cost here) on some screws just gets a shrug out of me.
- Guvante 13y agoI don't think the OP ever said it was a mistake. He said he wouldn't make that choice, but that doesn't mean he thought it was wrong for the company. Instead he contrasted it to what you can do today as a startup.
- jevinskie 13y agoThe safety cover is not part of the device under test and I doubt it interacts with it except during a catastrophic failure. It does not need to be replicated exactly the same in a future test.
- bigiain 13y agoYeah sure - but where do you stop? Where do you draw the line and say "this bit doesn't need to be space-rated"? Reductio ad absurdum says the table it sits on is "part of the test", and the power supply it runs off is "part of the test", and the engineers car that he uses to get to work to run the test is "part of the test"... I'd _strongly_ advise that a screw that hold together the enclosure of a load-simulating-test-jig is _not_ "part of the test" in the way that requires ISO9000 compliance (or space-rating).
- shinratdr 13y ago...isn't that the point of testing? To determine what should be used in production?
- mariuolo 13y agoAnother aspect is that cloud suppliers have way more customers to distribute fixed costs on compared to aerospace firms.
- reeses 13y agoNot yet. Aerospace firms providing fasteners have a huge number of customers and it's a competitive industry. They also have clients in countries that have no Internet access to speak of.