Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Rocket Science: Friction Stir Welding

In a recent conversation, someone asked me about the benefits of friction stir welding to rocket design. After having initially raised the subject, I then embarrassed myself by not being able to answer the question coherently, all my knowledge on the subject having suddenly dropped down the memory hole.

Naturally, it all came back to me later, when it did me no good. Hmpf. But like lemons to lemonade, my embarrassment becomes your enlightenment — here’s a brief intro to FSW: what it is and what it’s good for.

Continue reading Rocket Science: Friction Stir Welding

Push on to Mars

Bruce Murray, chairman of the Planetary Society, is jumping on the “marsoholic” bandwagon.

[Tip from Carl Carlsson.]

Not a Medical Instrument

I’ve finally found a few minutes to add The Speculist to the blogroll.

Phil doesn’t just cover space, but the future generally, with blue-sky speculation (hence the name) about what might be in store based on current trends and new developments. And he’s funny, too.

Nostalgia is Not an Argument

In the comments for this entry, Dominic Pledger dismisses Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicles in favor of a resurrected Saturn V.

Here are my thoughts on why that is a bad idea.

Continue reading Nostalgia is Not an Argument

Failure is an Option

Henry Petroski, one of my favorite nonfiction writers, opines on failure, Columbia and “the NASA culture”.

MS Calls for Mobilization

All Out Fight Begins for Future of US Space Program
Mars Society Calls for Mobilization
September 4, 2003

Continue reading MS Calls for Mobilization

Phoenix

I had an illuminating discussion last night with a friend who works for another large aerospace company. It seems that this company is in the long-term process of positioning itself as a “system integrator”, rather than a manufacturer of space- and defense-related hardware.

To this end, this company is divesting itself of most or all of its manufacturing capability, intending to outsource all the “dirty work” and perform only final assembly in-house.

Even though it has only pursued this path for the past few years, the unfortunate results are already becoming visible. The lack of hands-on, close-up experience, opportunities for cross-discipline training, and intergenerational knowledge transfer is showing up as poor engineering judgement. Poor communication and ill-directed cost control is allowing an increasing number of bad decisions to slip through, mistakes which could have been identified early on through consultation with subject-matter experts.

There were many horror stories involved in this discussion, which I won’t repeat here. Suffice it to say that rather than learn from its recent lessons, this company continues down the same path — one which could eventually lead to its collapse due to technical incompetence and general mismanagement.

Which is not to say that this company is alone. From what I have seen, many of the major contractors suffer to lesser degrees from the same problems afflicting my friend’s company.

This makes me wonder if we are not on the verge of a major change in the industry. If the major players increasingly outsource their dirty work to small vendors and make no effort to retain their in-house technical competence, how long will it be before the smaller companies currently supplying them end up supplanting them? Particularly if they demonstrate greater innovation, shorter schedules, and lower costs.

While I’m not sure how well the metaphor fits, the state of the aerospace industry seems similar to the computer industry in the mid-1970’s. It may be that the Wangs of the aerospace industry are soon to die out, succumbing to their own inability or unwillingness to adapt and innovate, to be replaced by Apples and Microsofts

Short Hiatus

I’m off for the holiday weekend, and then a short trip. Posting will be mostly nonexistent until next Thursday.

How Safe is Safe Enough?

Rand Simberg points to a brief article by Ronald Bailey at ReasonOnline: Making Spaceflight Too Safe?

Reading this, I’m reminded of a quote which I’ve quoted here before:

Deep in the sea are riches beyond compare, but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.

Rereading my earlier post, I realized that I failed to make the connection to private efforts. Bailey makes this connection, pointing out that a new generation of safer spacecraft will only come about through competition in the marketplace:

The CAIB has identified technical safety problems, and they will be fixed. But the report also recommends that NASA create “an independent Technical Engineering Authority” that would be in charge of shuttle safety. Adding a new managerial layer of scared, risk-averse bureaucrats is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We all know what really works?competition.

Competition focuses the minds of even the stodgiest technocrats. So let’s end NASA’s monopoly on human space flight. Let the private sector design, test and fly innovative, cheaper, and yes, safer spacecraft.

Amen. It’s time to turn over LEO to the startups.

Building a Better Table

As noted before, we tried a few new things this time around, and I had some other ideas for the future. (Follow the “CONTINUED” link…there’s pictures!)

Continue reading Building a Better Table