Jul 072019
 

I posted a slightly earlier version of this back in 2013. While these may be originally spacecraft-specific, they apply not only to other areas of aerospace engineering, but to all areas of life. The canonical list is kept HERE.

When I think of philosophies to live by, I come up with something a lot like these.


1. Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

2. To design a spacecraft right takes an infinite amount of effort. This is why it’s a good idea to design them to operate when some things are wrong .

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.

4. Your best design efforts will inevitably wind up being useless in the final design. Learn to live with the disappointment.

5. (Miller’s Law) Three points determine a curve.

6. (Mar’s Law) Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.

7. At the start of any design effort, the person who most wants to be team leader is least likely to be capable of it.

8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point.

9. Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis.

10. When in doubt, estimate. In an emergency, guess. But be sure to go back and clean up the mess when the real numbers come along.

11. Sometimes, the fastest way to get to the end is to throw everything out and start over.

12. There is never a single right solution. There are always multiple wrong ones, though.

13. Design is based on requirements. There’s no justification for designing something one bit “better” than the requirements dictate.

14. (Edison’s Law) “Better” is the enemy of “good”.

15. (Shea’s Law) The ability to improve a design occurs primarily at the interfaces. This is also the prime location for screwing it up.

16. The previous people who did a similar analysis did not have a direct pipeline to the wisdom of the ages. There is therefore no reason to believe their analysis over yours. There is especially no reason to present their analysis as yours.

17. The fact that an analysis appears in print has no relationship to the likelihood of its being correct.

18. Past experience is excellent for providing a reality check. Too much reality can doom an otherwise worthwhile design, though.

19. The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you’ve screwed up.

20. A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.

21. (Larrabee’s Law) Half of everything you hear in a classroom is crap. Education is figuring out which half is which.

22. When in doubt, document. (Documentation requirements will reach a maximum shortly after the termination of a program.)

23. The schedule you develop will seem like a complete work of fiction up until the time your customer fires you for not meeting it.

24. It’s called a “Work Breakdown Structure” because the Work remaining will grow until you have a Breakdown, unless you enforce some Structure on it.

25. (Bowden’s Law) Following a testing failure, it’s always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along.

26. (Montemerlo’s Law) Don’t do nuthin’ dumb.

27. (Varsi’s Law) Schedules only move in one direction.

28. (Ranger’s Law) There ain’t no such thing as a free launch.

29. (von Tiesenhausen’s Law of Program Management) To get an accurate estimate of final program requirements, multiply the initial time estimates by pi, and slide the decimal point on the cost estimates one place to the right.

30. (von Tiesenhausen’s Law of Engineering Design) If you want to have a maximum effect on the design of a new engineering system, learn to draw. Engineers always wind up designing the vehicle to look like the initial artist’s concept.

31. (Mo’s Law of Evolutionary Development) You can’t get to the moon by climbing successively taller trees.

32. (Atkin’s Law of Demonstrations) When the hardware is working perfectly, the really important visitors don’t show up.

33. (Patton’s Law of Program Planning) A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.

34. (Roosevelt’s Law of Task Planning) Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.

35. (de Saint-Exupery’s Law of Design) A designer knows that he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

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.

37. (Henshaw’s Law) One key to success in a mission is establishing clear lines of blame.

38. Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.

39. Any exploration program which “just happens” to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.

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.

40. (McBryan’s Law) You can’t make it better until you make it work.

41. There’s never enough time to do it right, but somehow, there’s always enough time to do it over.

42. Space is a completely unforgiving environment. If you screw up the engineering, somebody dies (and there’s no partial credit because most of the analysis was right…)

 Posted by at 9:35 pm
Jul 072019
 

And I’m a little surprised at the lack of interest in some of them:

Aerospace Vehicle Design Vol II Spacecraft Design by K. D. Wood, 1964

This one is real hard to come by, usually sells for well over $100. Only one bid, $19.99. This one ends in a  few hours.


Three early “Space” books for kids: Fletcher Pratt, Jack Coggins, Lester Del Rey

Sure, they’re a little rough, but they’re old kids books, awesome in their massively over-optimistic way, and terribly low price. This one ends in a  few hours.

 


Proceedings of the Shuttle-Based Cometary Science Workshop, 1976 NASA

This one ends in a  few hours.

 


And this one:

XIIIth International Astronautical Congress Varna 1962, II (pp 483-1026)

This book of conference proceedings has papers on the Aerojet Sea Dragon, a general Electic “Direct” Apollo design and a nuclear-powered TV satellite. It’s already made the rounds on ebay once, no bidders. Huh.

 

And there’s other stuff.

https://www.ebay.com/usr/dynascott

 Posted by at 4:29 pm
Jul 072019
 

The subject of the financially disastrous S.S. Statendam cruise to witness the launch of Apollo 17 has been raised hereabouts before. It’s famous among a relatively small number of people, and forgotten by the public.

Turns out someone made a documentary about the cruise, using footage filmed on board… clips of speakers, bits of interviews, discussions, etc. There are some *really* interesting people (Krafft Ehricke, Carl Sagan, Hugh Downs, Issac Asimov, etc.) saying some *really* interesting things here… and a lot of it is damned depressing. This was the last Apollo flight, and they all knew it; but what the future of manned spaceflight really held they didn’t really know. Some were optimistic, a lot were pessimistic. And the pessimists gave their reasons for why things were going to stagnate… and they were pretty much right. Feh.

Sadly, it seems that this documentary, about half an hour in length, lost its second half hour somewhere. Maybe someone has it stored away somewhere…

 Posted by at 2:53 pm
Jul 032019
 

Huh.

SpaceX put a camera in the fairings used on the Falcon 9. They finally recovered one, and the results are spectacular.

 

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 11:59 pm
Jul 012019
 

For much of the time while the concept of the Space Shuttle was being developed the vehicle consisted of a manned flyback booster of relatively enormous dimensions, coupled with an orbiter that included sizable internal oxygen tanks, sometimes with external hydrogen tanks, sometimes internal. The model below, a masterpiece of late 1960’s model makers craft, illustrates one such concept. the orbiter is similar to the Grumman H-33 except larger, with completely internal hydrogen and oxygen tanks.

Had this type of Space Shuttle been built and flown successfully, there is every chance that it would have been substantially less costly to operate than the Shuttle we got: flying the booster back to a runway landing and refurbishing it would theoretically have been a lot faster and easier than fishing solid rocket motor casings out of the ocean and shipping them to Utah for refurb. But getting the design to the point of operation would have been a nightmare. The booster was unlike anything previously attempted, and would have been an aircraft roughly the size of the C-5 Galaxy, with a top speed like that of the X-15

 

I have uploaded the full resolution scan of the photo to the 2019-07 APR Extras Dropbox folder, available to $4 and up subscribers to the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program.

 Posted by at 1:03 pm
Jun 302019
 

I’ll believe it when I see it:

SpaceX targets 2021 commercial Starship launch

I suspect these are Elon-estimates, which have been notoriously optimistic in the past. Still, there’s no reason why SpaceX *can’t* pull this off. And if they can… that would be not only impressive, but world changing . Western civilization just might have a chance to survive. Not on Earth, of course… here, we’re pretty well doomed. But out in space, maybe, just maybe, there’s a possibility that people who speak English, aren’t ashamed of Washington and Jefferson and think rationally and scientifically might live on.

“The goal is to get orbital as quickly as possible, potentially even this year, with the full stack operational by the end of next year and then customers in early 2021.”

Here’s hoping.

 

 Posted by at 12:45 am
Jun 242019
 

Launch window starts at 11:30 PM Eastern time, lasts for 4 hours. The boosters have previously flown and will attempt recovery back on land; the core, on a barge at sea. Two dozen satellites are on board, including a solar sail for the Planetary Society along with bits of 152 dead people. No cars this time. Though it would be funny if one of the small satellites turned out to be little more than a box filled with the Tesla Roadster & Starman Hot Wheels toys, used to send a cloud of little vehicles into the path of an enemy satellite like a shotgun blast.

UPDATE:  The boosters successfully landed on their pads, but the core missed the barge and went kerblooey into the ocean. however, the mission of putting satellites into their correct orbits seems to be proceeding smoothly. This was reportedly the hardest core landing yet attempted, so it’s not too surprising that it wasn’t successful… but the mission as a whole seems to be.

 

 Posted by at 12:53 am
Jun 232019
 

Today (Sunday) had two things of note:

CNN ran their “Apollo 11” documentary. This originally showed in Imax theaters, and as I reported back in March, on Imax it’s freakin’ spectacular. On my TV, which is probably pretty unimpressive by current average standards, the imagery is just ok. And yet… I still lost my composure at about T Minus One Minute, and became This Guy right about T Minus Zero. The launch of Apolo 11 ranks up there with Old Yeller and Jurassic Bark and Sleeping In Light  as one of those moments when it is perfectly cromulent for even the toughest and most stoic of men to shed a tear.

Also, as I mentioned back in May, “Apollo 11” has been released on DVD and Blu Ray, but bizarrely *not* in 4K. This was a confounding decision in my view; even though I don’t have a 4K player or TV, I woulda bought one in a  heartbeat and put it right on my 4K shelf alongside my other 4K disks (currently: “2001” and “Fifth Element” and nothing else). But… in the first commercial break, I noticed the first ad was for Samsung *8K.* This makes me wonder if they’re planning on just skipping right past 4K and only releasing it on 8K (not releasing it on 4K means people who want it in ultra high def will *have* to get it in 8K). Now, I have no doubt that Apollo 11 in 8K on a 100 inch 8K screen would be utterly fantastic…but, dayum, I ain’t never gonna be able to afford me one of them.


Secondly: Today was the thirtieth anniversary of Tm Burton’s “Batman.” Holy Crap, Batman, I’m old.

I suppose “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” are technically superior movies in pretty much every way… but in 1989, Burton made a movie that was just plain astounding. It made more than a quarter billion dollars domestically, which, adjusting for inflation, is more than a half billion in 2019 dollars. That would put it only slightly behind “The Dark Knight” in terms of gross. And it did that *without* being a sequel, or existing in a world where superhero movies regularly made money hand over fist. It was a comic book movie that wasn’t a joke, that took its source material seriously, that adults could watch with interest and without shame. I don’t recall if I saw it on opening day, but if not I saw it within a few days of opening; I recall being  impressed right off the bat with the opening sequence with Danny Elfman’s score. And the Batmobile: sure, the “Tumbler” might have been a more realistic vehicles… but, man, I still want me that ’89 Batmobile to go tearing up and down the streets in.

 Posted by at 11:45 pm