Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

ece.uvic.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

#41

Post by elzbardico »

jltsiren wrote: post #38
gcanyon wrote: post #12

> The biggest commercial success is not the best technical design: Nokia N95 versus the first generation iPhone That’s not a good example. Neither is Beta vs VHS. The most they illustrate is a different law I am coining right here: Canyon’s Law of Design Optimization: you will inevitably choose to optimize for different metrics than your customers would wish. Don’t try to convince them they are wrong.

That's not a good example, but for a different reason: the N95 outsold the original iPhone. The original iPhone was a promising proof of concept. It got the form factor and the interface right, but the actual device was underwhelming. It had no 3G, no GPS, no third-party apps, and a weak camera. iPhone 3G added all the features competitors already had (apart from a good camera) and became a much bigger commercial suc…

The N95 outsold the IPhone because it had a good camera and was cheaper, and got even cheaper with the phone companies subsidy.

But I'd be surprised if Apple didn't have a beefier profit with the IPhone compared to Nokia with the N95.

Re: Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

#42

Post by nine_k »

barishnamazov wrote: post #10

Law 20 seems to express the state of most startups these days: > "A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately."

Imagine that you're a highly intellectual, highly technical, and highly responsible person in control of large sums of governmental or corporate money. You don't want to waste the money, you want stellar results (in spacecraft industry, maybe literally so).

Would you assign a large sum of money to a group that cannot present their design clearly, neatly, and concisely? If they are struggling even with that, would you trust them to be good at actually designing a spacecraft soundly, economically, and in a reasonable time?

"If you can't explain it to a five-years-old, you likely do not understand it yourself", said one of the greatest modern scientists, who also was notoriously good at explaining things.

Re: Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

#43

Post by elzbardico »

sbondaryev wrote: post #28

Law 20: A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately I definitely struggle with this. I run a math education site and I usually focus heavily on technical accuracy but underestimate the presentation. Hard lesson that being "right" isn't enough if the delivery is clunky.

Something I've learned, loosely related:

Adding "just a few fundamental equations" to a presentation won't make your case more compelling to business stakeholders. You lose roughly 10% of engagement for every greek letter in a slide.

Re: Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

#45

Post by pklausler »

nine_k wrote: post #42
barishnamazov wrote: post #10

Law 20 seems to express the state of most startups these days: > "A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately."

Imagine that you're a highly intellectual, highly technical, and highly responsible person in control of large sums of governmental or corporate money. You don't want to waste the money, you want stellar results (in spacecraft industry, maybe literally so). Would you assign a large sum of money to a group that cannot present their design clearly, neatly, and concisely? If they are struggling even with that, would you…

I think that Feynman was talking about preparing a freshman-level lecture for Caltech-standard freshmen, but maybe you have somebody else in mind.

Re: Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

#46

Post by __patchbit__ »

noduerme wrote: post #15
barishnamazov wrote: post #10

Law 20 seems to express the state of most startups these days: > "A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately."

Hiring salesmen to talk to other salesmen is always the sleaziest part of doing anything productive. You could say the same thing about opening a restaurant.

Petro Tyschtschenko is a good salesman.

   https://youtu.be/0-z1TaNx7TM

Re: Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

#49

Post by pklausler »

sbondaryev wrote: post #28

Law 20: A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately I definitely struggle with this. I run a math education site and I usually focus heavily on technical accuracy but underestimate the presentation. Hard lesson that being "right" isn't enough if the delivery is clunky.

I have learned to think about this problem thus: there's reality, and then there's perceptions, and communication is a task of persuading somebody else's perception to somehow align with yours. When you both view reality clearly, it's best to present simple facts and their implications. The other three cases are education, bullshitting, and nonsense, and it's best to involve a professional.

Re: Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design (2011) [pdf]

#50

Post by OrvalWintermute »

My general issue with this is that it is overly hardware centric and not as accurate when it comes to Aerospace Software

Law 4 Bhargava’s Law: Only 1 out of 10 research ideas make it into industrial practice is wrong anecdotally particularly when it relates to software.

Law 13 is flat-out wrong in that there is a huge amount of potential SWaP trades & innovation trades to be made, and the changing requirements environment where it is easy to predict where a requirement will be, despite a space program with a legacy requirements baseline.

An example of Law 13 errors would be the JPSS security redesign campaigns, and a less ideal retrofit

Post reply on HN