You know engineering tradeoff analysis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- A short video about the process aerospace companies use to make decisions.
@Eager_Space on Twitter
Triabolical_ on Reddit
/ eagernetwork
/ eager-space-1038430522... 
Наука
Наука
This is one of the best new space channels it really needs more exposure
Interestingly enough, this channel isn´t even that new. However, I too only found it about 2 weeks ago. I guess that is the faith of small channels. I hope it grows quickly. The channel deserves it.
Just wanted to say your channel is one of the very few spaceflight focused channels that consistently puts out interesting and unique videos.
Not to mention factual
In my trade studies for Space-related channels, Eager Space does extremely well, providing a well balanced offering of intriguing topics, deep insight, humor, and articulate explanations that actually make sense. But there are no cupholders anywhere, now or in the foreseeable future.
Thanks. I've been working on answering questions from the questions video and I needed this one to have a fully-assed discussion rather than the half-assed way I've talked about trades in the past.
I'm glad that somebody like the chocolate ganache joke...
@@EagerSpace We should always aspire to full-ass everything. Even one's half-assery should be full-assed.
@@regolith1350 You can make a religion out of this!
I think it was Socrates who said, "He is a man of courage who does not stop at half-assed but remains at his post to achieve full-assery".
But my Philosophy 101 was many decades ago.
Speaking of trade studies, one of Eager Space videos on selecting rockets, fuel, payload size, etc. was he first began with what delta V's are needed to get to orbit, get out of orbit to another celestial body, get into orbit around that body, get away from that body and go back to earth, etc. Begin with that math will result in what is needed to do so. I found it quite illustrating when doing so rules out a lot of existing rockets and rocket engines.
your new sound set up sounds good
Thanks.
Eager space, eager click
Called this a decision matrix in my senior design class at UB.
The conclusions and utility of any engineering trade-off analysis are greatly impacted by the assumptions made at the beginning.
Oh, say for example, that ISRU will be critical on Mars to make methane for the return journey to earth…….
Love this channel
Your first advice; decide what kind of rocket I want. OK. My chosen parameters are:
1) Do I need private investors and to show a profit?
2) Can I get the government to pay for it?
3) Can I get the government to pay for it with a cost-plus contract?
The one I select will determine my design choices. :)
I stopped making guesses at what companies "should" be doing a long time ago. Most of the time I see something weird a company is doing and I just say "If it works then it works, if it doesn't then oh well."
Though I will say, I wish SpaceX would launch an expendable starship with a wheel of cheese as the only payload just to say it's the only SSTO ever successfully launched. Useful? No. Neat? Pretty.
I think most of us will never see the tradeoffs that companies do because it is proprietary, and for governments the same as they either work with company proprietary or classified info. Sometimes when the tradeoffs look weird, maybe there's more to what the actual goal is. Example the X30 National AeroSpace Plane (NASP) that was to be a SSTO from a runway was actually a cover story for Copper Canyon hypersonic missile. Lot of people try to get around the Rocket Equation (that old guy Tsiolkovsky was really right) and never succeeded. So any program that suggests that is generally a fantasy program.
Ship 26's secret destiny!
The honda fit prob should have a higher performance rating than the chrysler pacifica lol
Given the topical nature of this video: Would you make a video discussing European space strategy, and doing trades in the approximate form you can manage? Was reusability too expensive, is Ariane 6 a good launch system? I heard it's not powerful enough to do many important tasks, for instance. Basically, will we get a video discussing / debunking /confirming Internet talking points? Pretty please?
I did a video recent entitled "ask me a spaceflight question". If you go ask there, I'll consider it.
There's not a lot to talk about😂😂😭💀
While this is all true, it should be mentioned that it can be easy to skew the results by changing how much each requirement is weighted. If management gets their hands on a trade study, they can play with the weights to get the result they want (within reason). This can explain some of the more questionable decisions made even when good information is available.
Interesting to mention trades studies when buying a car, most of us know about buying cars as very very few have bought rockets. It makes sense when buying a rocket a formal trade study must be done. I think about the early days of space and rockets, in ways selecting a rocket was much simpler as not many were available (Vanguard or Jupiter? Atlas or Titan?).
Saturn or Saturn?
@@12pentaborane I was thinking the NACA/NASA managers in 1958 they had to choose a rocket for a orbital one-man space mission. Saturn rocket was on paper only, Atlas was flying (barely) and Titan would not be ready by 1960. So basically they had only one choice, Atlas. Exception was Jupiter for suborbital. Quite different nowadays as multiple types of rockets can be chosen for human spacecraft. But wait, one of those criteria columns is politics.
@@wrightmf I've got a really odd sense of humor, I saw an order to your original list in terms of capabilities (early satellite, then to man-rated) so I wanted to add the moon rockets. I get a bit of a chuckle that the options get whittled down by the time that happens.
@@12pentaborane it turns out that Von Braun's team were doing design studies for a moon rocket, the Saturn (part of Army's 1959 Project Horizon). Another group in the new agency of NASA were studying spacecraft that can go to the moon, which why the Apollo capsule has the shape it does for high speed returning from the moon and do banking as it enters earth's atmosphere. So when Kennedy asked NASA managers what can we do to beat the Reds in the conquest of space, Hugh Dryden suggested man on the moon. So they got those studies and began awarding contracts to build that stuff, it wasn't sketched at the moment on a cocktail napkin.
Why do you upload this during the Ariane 6 maiden flight :D
Because people are complaining that it's a bad launch vehicle: It's not powerful enough, it's too expensive, it's not reusable, it's too late and won't launch often enough. Et cetera.
These are things people say with conviction on the Internet, and they wonder why Europe / Ariane Group made these "bad" choices and arrived at such a terrible result.
Suffice to say I don't have an opinion on this, because I agree with this video: I simply am not qualified to make an even somewhat informed guess. And as the video states, those self-proclaimed space experts on the Internet probably aren't either.
Why some choices are made by Ariane Group and other stakeholders, only they know, and their choices are better informed than our reactions to these choices. It seems Europe now has a capability it lacked before, and that's basically a good thing.
Because I wasn't paying attention and forgot that the launch was today...
@metasystem8625 The same people are saying the same thing about SLS, Vulcan, New Shepard, etc. It bothers me a little, but I try to tune it out. Everyone here (including me sometimes) are armchair rocket surgeons, and unless they give you actual proof they work in the field take what they say with a grain of salt.
"Expert" is relative and I am fond of using it as an adjective. You are more expert at this kind of analysis than I and relative to me, an "expert". If you want to qualify your lack of expertise, that's OK too. A degree in history for example does not prepare one particularly well to expertly execute trades on the rocket equation.
It is not engineering, it economical trade-offs, RISK trade-offs..and labor and material tradeoffs..etc
The engineering lies in making the final product *barely* work -- minimizing inputs to still achieve goals.