Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu
Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
1–10 of 159 posts
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#2I knew #36 and have used it in the context of software engineering. But much of the rest is similarly applicable.
> #36 Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is elegant. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A great engineer designs them to be effective.
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#3I knew #36 and have used it in the context of software engineering. But much of the rest is similarly applicable. > #36 Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is elegant. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A great engineer designs them to be effective.
Good rules, despite the page background choice going against rule 20: "...A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately..."
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#4This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age.
39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space
program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#5This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age. 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles. Recent SpaceX developments, Starship in particular, put some doubts on this one.
Let's put this comment in the comment cellar for a few years, to fully develop the tannins, and then see how it has aged. Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong.
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#6This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age. 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles. Recent SpaceX developments, Starship in particular, put some doubts on this one.
Let's put this comment in the comment cellar for a few years, to fully develop the tannins, and then see how it has aged. Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong.
It could be argued that Dragon has already proven this wrong. Falcon 9 was developed in the form it was specifically to launch Dragon. SpaceX's original next rocket was going to be a Falcon 5 until they got the Dragon contract from NASA. Yes, the original Dragon was a cargo vehicle rather than a human spaceflight vehicle, but both Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed with the intention of eventually human rating.
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#7> 3. Design is an iterative process. The necessary number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time.
I'm going to agilely build a space craft! /S
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#8This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age. 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles. Recent SpaceX developments, Starship in particular, put some doubts on this one.
Err, what? Keyword there: "New".
SpaceX still faces large costs and delays in developing new launch vehicles, including starship, which is delayed and unfinished btw, so no matter how you try to spin it, Starship is not (currently) a good example of SpaceX being an exception to the adage. Artermis 3 isn't exactly cheap afterall, and if you don't know what that is but know what Starship is, that proves the adage this one is refering to:
> 39[a]. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.
The whole point of these two adages is that reusing an existing design is better than a new one. SpaceX's REUSABLE rockets are great for a number of reasons yes, but by definition, those are not NEW launch vehicles. And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them. Not a slight against SpaceX btw, that's part of rocket science and innovation, but again, not cheap or quick.
If anything, SpaceX's entire business model is EMBRACING that adage, not disproving it or an exception to it.
EDIT: clarified
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#9This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age. 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles. Recent SpaceX developments, Starship in particular, put some doubts on this one.
That's still going to be late and over-budget.
Re: Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's put this comment in the comment cellar for a few years, to fully develop the tannins, and then see how it has aged. Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong.
It could be argued that Dragon has already proven this wrong. Falcon 9 was developed in the form it was specifically to launch Dragon. SpaceX's original next rocket was going to be a Falcon 5 until they got the Dragon contract from NASA. Yes, the original Dragon was a cargo vehicle rather than a human spaceflight vehicle, but both Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed with the intention of eventually human rating.
Both were late, and I wouldn't say that Falcon was built expressly for humans. It spent a decade proving itself before it flew with people. That's not a _new_ launch vehicle.