NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.
Sorry... not quite right. Look a bit closer, and you'll find that in many cases, NASA only manages the development of those missions - the actual development, and often operation, of these *IS* being done by private enterprise.
NASA really needs to get back in the core research business - aerodynamics, propulsion, atmospherics, etc., and let industry apply that knowledge to fly missions that answer questions that further our knowledge. They don't need to be both the researcher and the manufacturer...
Phase I is to set the basic requirements of thrust and payload, phase II is to make it work. Things start heavy and get lightened.
Uh, no. Typically, things start light, then get heavy due to poor modeling and estimating. Then the scramble to make things lighter happens. This is often a result of poor systems engineering up front. The proper approach is to carry sufficient margin to cover the things you don't know much about. If you know you need a specific piece of equipment - e.g. a computer you've built/purchased before - you can usually get away with a small number. But if you only know you need a computer of some sort, you need to carry more margin - you may need two, or you may need to build a bigger box to house all the interfaces in. You also need to cover all the miscellaneous things - like cables, insulation, paint, etc. that often aren't including in the early phases of a project...
If you've carried enough margin, the growth can be absorbed and you don't have to resort to throwing things out or even starting over.
It grates on me because I've got real problems with the SRB as relates to the shuttle, but with an actual launch abort system that can pull the capsule away, I guess it's a good and cheap solution.
It's never been a favorite of mine either, and I'm having problems seeing how this is a better solution than man-rating an Atlas V or Delta 4... NASA doesn't HAVE to be in the launch vehicle business.
Yeah, we did. It's called Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. As an engineer who worked on MRO, I can tell you we learn from all of our previous spacecraft - successes and failures. While it is possible we may not restore contact with MGS, MRO will return more scientific data than all of NASA's previous Mars missions combined.
Slashdot Mirror
At least it doesn't look like a shark... that'd be trouble. Ok, it'd be cool, but still trouble.
NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.
Sorry... not quite right. Look a bit closer, and you'll find that in many cases, NASA only manages the development of those missions - the actual development, and often operation, of these *IS* being done by private enterprise.
As much as I hate to use Wikipedia:
Deep Space 1 - built by Spectrum Astro
Deep Impact - built by Ball Aerospace
Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Phoenix, and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - Lockheed Martin
just to list a few...
NASA really needs to get back in the core research business - aerodynamics, propulsion, atmospherics, etc., and let industry apply that knowledge to fly missions that answer questions that further our knowledge. They don't need to be both the researcher and the manufacturer...
Uh, no. Typically, things start light, then get heavy due to poor modeling and estimating. Then the scramble to make things lighter happens. This is often a result of poor systems engineering up front. The proper approach is to carry sufficient margin to cover the things you don't know much about. If you know you need a specific piece of equipment - e.g. a computer you've built/purchased before - you can usually get away with a small number. But if you only know you need a computer of some sort, you need to carry more margin - you may need two, or you may need to build a bigger box to house all the interfaces in. You also need to cover all the miscellaneous things - like cables, insulation, paint, etc. that often aren't including in the early phases of a project...
If you've carried enough margin, the growth can be absorbed and you don't have to resort to throwing things out or even starting over.
It's never been a favorite of mine either, and I'm having problems seeing how this is a better solution than man-rating an Atlas V or Delta 4... NASA doesn't HAVE to be in the launch vehicle business.
Yeah, we did. It's called Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. As an engineer who worked on MRO, I can tell you we learn from all of our previous spacecraft - successes and failures. While it is possible we may not restore contact with MGS, MRO will return more scientific data than all of NASA's previous Mars missions combined.