Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Synopsis Technology

Synopsis Technology

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:03 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 2 posts ] 
Synopsis Technology 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Synopsis Technology   Posted on: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:03 am
The reason for this thread is that I recognized differences in the understanding of „technology bteween me as an Political Economist, Engineers and representants of other scientific or technical disciplines in one or two of my threads. Because the topics were concrete topics, ideas and thoughts I will try to relate it to these concrete subjects of discussions.

The intention is to improve the undertsanding across the different disciplines. Since this is a synopsis and given the intention I would like if simply other views, definitions, images and understandings would be added and questions are asked about the definitions and understandings of others.



This post contains

I. Economical view and understanding of technology and technologies
II. The Engineer’s view as I seem to undertsnd it now.



I. Economical view and understanding of technology and technologies

There is a thread about heat shielding in this section. I suggested to protect the tiles by a plate or something like that against debris falling off the external tank etc. at launch. I recognized then that this was understood as if I menat the Space Shuttle’s tiles which was misunderstanding.

In the economical view the Space Shuttle is the final result of an industrial production process. The Shuttle is the output of this process and consists of some inouts to this process. The inputs are the SSMEs, the wings, the crew cabin, the computers, the cargo bay, the cargo arm etc. ... – and especially the tiles too.

But all these components and elements are outputs of industrial production processes too which also need inputs. This means that they all can be seen separated from each other – and as long as they are separated from each other and not put together by an industrial production process they don’t form a Space Shuttle, any vehicle or anything else. They are available stand-alone simply for any purpose anyone has in mind.

For this reason the tiles the Shuttle uses for heat shielding can be used for different vehicles too – they simply would have to be ordered from their producer plus the producer would have to be willing to deliver them for use at a vehicle that is no Space Shuttle.

As a reult the tiles used at the Space Shuttle are a technology of their own – no matter if they are used at the Shuttle only or not.

The wings, the computers, the cargo arm etc. all are such different technologies too.

Finally the Space Shuttle is a technology made of several technologies which are put together in a special manner and configuration.

In another thread I talked about attaching a tank to a vehicle in-flight launched separated from each other and called it „docked“ or „docking“ because of missing the correct term. It has been understood as if I really wanted to urgently propose to do so which I understand – but it was meant as catalyst-thought only.

The reason which caused that catalyst-thought was that it is – or was – doubted that a vehicle could be launched into orbit Burt Rutan’s way. It has been doubted because of the required weight of propellant and vertical lauinch has been considered to be the only way because of the doubts. To be able to launch a vehicle its engines have to have access to a tank containing the required amount of propellant. So I thought about the question if I could find a way to provide this access to a vehicle launch Burt Rutan’s way – the result was to launch the tank separately and vertical and to attach it to the manned vehicle during flight or ascent. The next question then was could be done to do that a safe way. As long as there are no ideas about that it is no proposal to attach a tank to a vehicle during flight.

Both these examples – the tiles and in-flight-attachment of a tank have the following properties in common:

- components (elements etc.) are put together in a special manner and configuration
- the components could be used in different configuration creating some use too
- the components are considered stand-alone and not as parts of another thing, technology etc. as well as parts of another technology in parallel

Each technology, each thing, each vehicle can be considered and described as a unit-list of components and elements.

Each part or technology involved in the Space Shuttle any vehicle and in the two examples have a special place relative to the other parts – they have a location and they have to be placed at that location by the prodiuction process. And different parts have to brought together – this is done by the production process... – and it’s called allccation in Economics.

Previous to the allocation process which produces a vehicle, a tile or something else. The inouts have be made available at the production plant – this is allocation too.

Invention and innovation menas a new way of allocation of exsting technologies and things – resulting in new technologies prrhaps: Burt Rutans feather-technique for example or Ball’s ballutes sveral micrometers thick only. New scientific insights, results and findings sometimes are included too.

This is no complete description, expanation etc. – but I think I should do a break here.



II. The Engineer’s view as I seem to undertsnd it now.

Having recognized the misunderstandings I asked by PM(s) for the reasons.

As far as I understand the answer(s) the tiles of the Shuttle are considered as integral part of the Space Shuttle meaning that speaking about the tiles automatically menas speaking about the Space Shuttle.

This makes sense to me because the focus of Engineers cosnidering the Space Shuttle is to make and keep it working – working safely and reasonably. All the parts – components and elements – are need and required and the have to be where they are to keep the Shutel working, working safely and working reasonably – to think of the tiles not as part of the Shuttle means to think of a Shuttle that wouldn’t work safely: it would be a Shuttle no more.

The Space Shuttle is a whole thing which can’t be borken into parts as long as the talk is about the Space Shuttle.

The Space Shutttle currently is the only vehicle and the only technology that uses the tiles – they are developed for the Space Shuttle and may be optimized for the Space Shuttle. Their delepoment results from the Shuttle’s construction plan.

The idea of in-flight attachment of a tank to a vehicle is understod as using an existing vehilce and tank which are not optimized and adjusted to such a method. This means extremely high danger. Required improvements are not known yet.

At this point I do have to do a break now because the understanding is going to beacome nebulous and breaking away currently.



What views, definitions, understandings etc. can you add? What questions do you have conserning the view of Economics?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:31 am
I simply want to add an actual illustration here:

According to articles NASA plans to use the SSMEs of the Shuttle in the vehicles for the Bush-Plan now - but these vehicles won't be Shuttles nor winged vehicles.

This means that the SSMEs have been allocated to the Shuttle up to now but will be allocated to another vehicle - which will be unwinged - in the future.

The discussions at NASA and by several experts publicly consider theway how to do the new allocation. It may be required to modify the SSMEs - that's a reallocation of the components and elements they are made of. Reallocation may include replacement and substitutions of elements or components without cahnging the SSME-character of the engines.

So the SSMEs are considered to be usable by different vehicles - which is the economical or allocational view - but will be integral parts of the vehicles as wholes - which is the view of engineers.

But I am not sure how correct my image of the view of engineers really is.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use