…has a piece at Time about SpaceX and commercial space.
11 thoughts on “Buzz Aldrin”
Buzz kept it real as usual. It’s always nice to hear “the man” speaking. He’s not just some flight jokey. This is a guy who got a PhD by coming up with a cheaper way to do regular flights between the Earth and Mars.
Since that time the Atlas has become the most reliable launch vehicle in the world.
What does John Glenn’s Atlas have an in common with an Atlas V?
The name.
That answer was less than helpful.
This is my Grandfather’s axe. My Father upgraded the handle, I upgraded the head. This is my Grandfather’s Axe.
I think that is an excellent metaphor. It is a little more than the name. There is the pedigree in the people who made it. Certainly not the exact same people that made Glenn’s Atlas, but some of their ideas and concepts for building a space vehicle were passed down the generations.
Unfortunately, government procurement has changed quite a bit and introduced many bad habits into the pedigree. So the name is pretty much it.
I’m sorry, but it is the answer. There is no other commonality.
Well the current version of Falcon 9 keeps digressing more and more from v1.0. So I did not take offense at the comparison.
Apropos your comment, somebody on aRocket (experimental rocketry mailing list) shared an anecdote from a former co-worker who spent time at SpaceX working on launch. The former SpaceXer said that every rocket they fly is different. I had to pause and think about it, but F9 has gone through some pretty serious iteration in its 19 flights. Square to octo-web, stretched tanks, landing legs and grid fins, and probably lots more that I don’t know of – certainly enough to make each launch exciting.
This is called prototyping in software development cycles. It is commonly used to develop complex systems. You build some and you try some.
I remember people from ULA a couple of years back claiming SpaceX were idiots for testing every rocket at their Texas facility instead of just doing a wet dress rehearsal at the launch site. Because, in their perspective, the launcher design phase was done. Well who’s the idiot now? SpaceX keeps making their launchers cheaper and more powerful with every iteration and ULA is stuck with RD-180 engines from Russia and RS-68 engines that are too expensive to manufacture in comparison. Hah.
An example of this can be seen in the engines. SpaceX tried out tube wall nozzle (I’m guessing their people had more experience with this design) and once they got that working they soon switched to channel wall nozzle to cut costs. I would not be surprised if they had two teams working on this in parallel and the tube wall nozzle guys finished first and got those rockets flying in the schedule they needed. Then once the channel wall nozzle guys finished they switched to that design because it is cheaper to manufacture.
You see this happen a lot in the CPU design sector once companies are large enough. Intel usually has 3-4 teams working on chip design at any given moment. It is assumed some will either fail or produce a botched design. This has happened in Intel’s past a couple of times. If they only had 1-2 teams like the rest of the industry (e.g. AMD) they would have been bankrupt a long time ago. e.g. Itanium, P4 Netburst architecture, these could crippled Intel forever in the market. It was those extra teams that saved their bacon when they came with the winning design.
“That first occasion, and others that followed, remind us that where the entrepreneurial interests of the private sector are aligned with NASA’s up-top mission to explore space, it creates a bottom line: America wins.”
Great line and it’s true. What other county has the workforce and capital to just pull multiple rocket companies out of its hat? Our companies see needs and fill them and that goes for the needs of the government as well. All the government has to do is ask (and offer some $$), and the people will provide.
Buzz kept it real as usual. It’s always nice to hear “the man” speaking. He’s not just some flight jokey. This is a guy who got a PhD by coming up with a cheaper way to do regular flights between the Earth and Mars.
Since that time the Atlas has become the most reliable launch vehicle in the world.
What does John Glenn’s Atlas have an in common with an Atlas V?
The name.
That answer was less than helpful.
This is my Grandfather’s axe. My Father upgraded the handle, I upgraded the head. This is my Grandfather’s Axe.
I think that is an excellent metaphor. It is a little more than the name. There is the pedigree in the people who made it. Certainly not the exact same people that made Glenn’s Atlas, but some of their ideas and concepts for building a space vehicle were passed down the generations.
Unfortunately, government procurement has changed quite a bit and introduced many bad habits into the pedigree. So the name is pretty much it.
I’m sorry, but it is the answer. There is no other commonality.
Well the current version of Falcon 9 keeps digressing more and more from v1.0. So I did not take offense at the comparison.
Apropos your comment, somebody on aRocket (experimental rocketry mailing list) shared an anecdote from a former co-worker who spent time at SpaceX working on launch. The former SpaceXer said that every rocket they fly is different. I had to pause and think about it, but F9 has gone through some pretty serious iteration in its 19 flights. Square to octo-web, stretched tanks, landing legs and grid fins, and probably lots more that I don’t know of – certainly enough to make each launch exciting.
This is called prototyping in software development cycles. It is commonly used to develop complex systems. You build some and you try some.
I remember people from ULA a couple of years back claiming SpaceX were idiots for testing every rocket at their Texas facility instead of just doing a wet dress rehearsal at the launch site. Because, in their perspective, the launcher design phase was done. Well who’s the idiot now? SpaceX keeps making their launchers cheaper and more powerful with every iteration and ULA is stuck with RD-180 engines from Russia and RS-68 engines that are too expensive to manufacture in comparison. Hah.
An example of this can be seen in the engines. SpaceX tried out tube wall nozzle (I’m guessing their people had more experience with this design) and once they got that working they soon switched to channel wall nozzle to cut costs. I would not be surprised if they had two teams working on this in parallel and the tube wall nozzle guys finished first and got those rockets flying in the schedule they needed. Then once the channel wall nozzle guys finished they switched to that design because it is cheaper to manufacture.
You see this happen a lot in the CPU design sector once companies are large enough. Intel usually has 3-4 teams working on chip design at any given moment. It is assumed some will either fail or produce a botched design. This has happened in Intel’s past a couple of times. If they only had 1-2 teams like the rest of the industry (e.g. AMD) they would have been bankrupt a long time ago. e.g. Itanium, P4 Netburst architecture, these could crippled Intel forever in the market. It was those extra teams that saved their bacon when they came with the winning design.
“That first occasion, and others that followed, remind us that where the entrepreneurial interests of the private sector are aligned with NASA’s up-top mission to explore space, it creates a bottom line: America wins.”
Great line and it’s true. What other county has the workforce and capital to just pull multiple rocket companies out of its hat? Our companies see needs and fill them and that goes for the needs of the government as well. All the government has to do is ask (and offer some $$), and the people will provide.