Re: Why 13 years?
- From: Sander Vesik <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:02:28 +0000 (UTC)
Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <1127968132.818942.214320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> zoltan <zoltanccc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >...What are NASA and contractors going to do
> >for 13 years? I would want to see it all happen in the next three years
> >or maybe five.
>
> Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a
> crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape.
> Roughly speaking, you need a year to get the design about right and build
> up the organizations needed, a year for detail development and subsystem
> work, and a year for testing and fixing. And the result is likely to be a
> bit flaky, more a lightly-shaken-down prototype than a finished product.
>
> (In favorable circumstances you can sometimes beat that, but the current
> situation isn't especially favorable.)
But aren't things like the design of Dussault Falcon 7X going to breath some
fresh air into this? If not the overhyped VR parts then surely wider
cross-sharing of data between the various parties in a single information
space.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why 13 years?
- From: Alex Terrell
- Re: Why 13 years?
- References:
- Why 13 years?
- From: zoltan
- Re: Why 13 years?
- From: Henry Spencer
- Why 13 years?
- Prev by Date: Re: USAF Heavy Lifter?
- Next by Date: Re: "Big" Missile Launched from C-17
- Previous by thread: Re: Why 13 years?
- Next by thread: Re: Why 13 years?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|