Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/1232636636502122497
added 93 characters in body
Source Link
uhoh
  • 151k
  • 56
  • 505
  • 1.6k

For technology that involves complex engineering issues, standardization and specialization is extremely helpful. If I want to design a complex ASIC IC I don't design it from scratch, I just drag-and-drop thoroughly tested and characterized blocks from aanother company's standard cell library who specializes in this, and If I design a fancy cell phone I (usually) open up catalogs and order thoroughly tested and characterized ICs again made by other companies who specialize in supplying these. If I require a new IC then I still reach for those standard cell libraries.

If I'm going to visit a neutron star, I don't build my ship from scratch, I simply order a thoroughly tested and characterized general products hull built by a species who specializes in supplying these.

Recently both of the crew capsules being designed for NASA were either delayed or threatened with delays due to parachute issues, and I have just read that

Apparently ESA has had major problems in getting the parachutes right

I'm sure I can find other examples in the last several years where spaceflight mission schedules were threatened by parachute failures.

I understand that every spacecraft is different and therefore the ideal parachute will need to be different, but here in 2020 why can't there be worldwide standard spacecraft parachutes in small, medium and large?

Is it "not invented here" thinking or otherwise a good idea but not likely to happen, or are the differences between mission demands and atmospheric density and velocity at deploy time so different that each spacecraft demands a totally new parachute despite the statistically significant dangers of mission delays due to unanticipated failures during final testing?

For technology that involves complex engineering issues, standardization and specialization is extremely helpful. If I want to design a complex ASIC IC I don't design it from scratch, I just drag-and-drop thoroughly tested and characterized blocks from a standard cell library, and If I design a fancy cell phone I (usually) open up catalogs and order thoroughly tested and characterized ICs. If I require a new IC then I still reach for those standard cell libraries.

Recently both of the crew capsules being designed for NASA were either delayed or threatened with delays due to parachute issues, and I have just read that

Apparently ESA has had major problems in getting the parachutes right

I'm sure I can find other examples in the last several years where spaceflight mission schedules were threatened by parachute failures.

I understand that every spacecraft is different and therefore the ideal parachute will need to be different, but here in 2020 why can't there be worldwide standard spacecraft parachutes in small, medium and large?

Is it "not invented here" thinking or otherwise a good idea but not likely to happen, or are the differences between mission demands and atmospheric density and velocity at deploy time so different that each spacecraft demands a totally new parachute despite the statistically significant dangers of mission delays due to unanticipated failures during final testing?

For technology that involves complex engineering issues, standardization and specialization is extremely helpful. If I want to design a complex ASIC IC I don't design it from scratch, I just drag-and-drop thoroughly tested and characterized blocks from another company's standard cell library who specializes in this, and If I design a fancy cell phone I (usually) open up catalogs and order thoroughly tested and characterized ICs again made by other companies who specialize in supplying these. If I require a new IC then I still reach for those standard cell libraries.

If I'm going to visit a neutron star, I don't build my ship from scratch, I simply order a thoroughly tested and characterized general products hull built by a species who specializes in supplying these.

Recently both of the crew capsules being designed for NASA were either delayed or threatened with delays due to parachute issues, and I have just read that

Apparently ESA has had major problems in getting the parachutes right

I'm sure I can find other examples in the last several years where spaceflight mission schedules were threatened by parachute failures.

I understand that every spacecraft is different and therefore the ideal parachute will need to be different, but here in 2020 why can't there be worldwide standard spacecraft parachutes in small, medium and large?

Is it "not invented here" thinking or otherwise a good idea but not likely to happen, or are the differences between mission demands and atmospheric density and velocity at deploy time so different that each spacecraft demands a totally new parachute despite the statistically significant dangers of mission delays due to unanticipated failures during final testing?

Source Link
uhoh
  • 151k
  • 56
  • 505
  • 1.6k

What is it about parachutes that makes people always want to "re-invent the wheel"?

For technology that involves complex engineering issues, standardization and specialization is extremely helpful. If I want to design a complex ASIC IC I don't design it from scratch, I just drag-and-drop thoroughly tested and characterized blocks from a standard cell library, and If I design a fancy cell phone I (usually) open up catalogs and order thoroughly tested and characterized ICs. If I require a new IC then I still reach for those standard cell libraries.

Recently both of the crew capsules being designed for NASA were either delayed or threatened with delays due to parachute issues, and I have just read that

Apparently ESA has had major problems in getting the parachutes right

I'm sure I can find other examples in the last several years where spaceflight mission schedules were threatened by parachute failures.

I understand that every spacecraft is different and therefore the ideal parachute will need to be different, but here in 2020 why can't there be worldwide standard spacecraft parachutes in small, medium and large?

Is it "not invented here" thinking or otherwise a good idea but not likely to happen, or are the differences between mission demands and atmospheric density and velocity at deploy time so different that each spacecraft demands a totally new parachute despite the statistically significant dangers of mission delays due to unanticipated failures during final testing?