It's time to "standardize" the space hardware

To-day: Soyuz, Progress, Shuttle, Shenzhou

To-morrow: Soyuz, Progress, CEV, ATV, Kliper, Shenzhou, CXV, etc.

I think it's time to STANDARDIZE the space hardware to reduce costs.

When will finally arrive the "IBM PC" & "MS-DOS" of space industry?

......

First: IBM never invented anything; they bought DOS from Bill Gates; he, in turn, bought it for $5000 he didn't have from a man in Texas who never intended it to be used for anything other than testing hardware (its original name was QDOS, for Quick and Dirty Operating System).

To date, computer hardware is not standardized; each piece of hardware requires its own proprietary software "drivers" to allow the CPU to talk to the third-party hardware. Not to mention that Macs don't necessarily play well with Linux (even though they're both UNIX-based), and neither of those can seem to get along with Windows: either XP or ME (don't remember which, I use Mac) was reportedly released with over 32,000 known bugs.

In any case, if you follow the computer industry, we'll never have standardized parts.

Of course, aerospace guys tend to think differently...

Also, I've never heard of an "ATV", unless you're talking about a Polaris... And the CXV was cancelled some time ago.

First: computers are only an example of the advantages of standardization (PCs for $300 instead of $10M)

I know the story of computers since electronics and computers is my job from appleII days

You're right about IBM, they don't invented the personal computer but, after the first IBM PC, 90% of computers was PC with MS-DOS, IBM and clones

This is a de-facto standardization

To-day there is an high standardization in computers, 90%+ (drivers are marginal)

- one kind of processor (the Intel/AMD), now used also in the Apple

- same standard for motherboards, HDD, DVD, etc.

Do you use Mac?

Well, your next Mac OS in 2007 will be the Microsoft Vista... like PCs

This is the ATV: http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESA4ZJ0VMOC_iss_0.html

About the CXV... I'm sorry for the news, but, in my post, "cxv" means for "other vehicles", "private capsules", or "more non-standardized objects"

It is FAR FAR too early to standardize. We are still inventing this stuff!

Hello, spacecowboy,

If computers, operating systems, applications etc. are standardized or not seems to be a matter of perspective. In my job there are standards which necessaryly have to be obeyed to - since it woiuld be nearly impossible to work together otherwise.

There are standards set by software producers like SAP, Microsoft etc, as well as standards set by companies developing compilers, interpreters etc.

One of the most importanta standards is the rule to avoid the statement GOTO (GO TO) or - in COBOL - the statemnet ALTER which modifies the macine code of the program. By standard some COBOL-statemnets are forbidden if a program is devloped to be active under CICS.

C-, C++-, C#- and Java-compilers require some standards also.

In so far gaetanomarano is correct. On the other side however the software-environment as well as the hardware-environment can be very heterogenous making standards impossible. This might be a reason to set additional standards but the environment is ruled by the purposes. For this and more reasons this is a matter of conception and architecture merely than a matter of standards.

I am sure that all this is going to become a topic of space also. But there it will be driven by something which is driving software-standards also - the market.

Reusable space hardware - in particular vehicles - means that the space hardware can be used by several different useres representing the market demand. The best example at present is the launch manifest of SpaceX.

The question is if space vehicles will set standards of the payloads - which seems to be the case up to now - or if the payloads will set the standards of the vehicles which might be the case in three decades perhaps. There will be a critical point at which the owners of the payloads can set pressure to the developers of space vehicles to take the payloads as the criterion the vehicles have to be adjusted to.

This has been the case in the IT also. In the early times the IT has set the standards and told the useres how to apply the soft- and hardware. Then it evolöved to the point where the users no longer accepted that and the IT started to have to ask the useres what the soft- and hardware should look like. This has been explicitly discussed in the IT-public. The change took place in the late eighties of the past century and is history in between. The IT has become used to asking the users before doing developments.



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

I don't suggest to stadardize all parts and now but only to start doing it to have a 10%, then 30%, then 60%, etc. of standard parts and specs instead of to-day's 0.1%

Oh I think we already have way more than 0.1% standardization. Most engineers don't want to "reinvent the wheel". On the other hand, sometimes the NIH (Not Invented Here) factor can be pretty high.

of course the standardization inside single companies and single countries is higher than 0.1%

but I suggest a world standardization, for to-day's companies/countries and future actors

e.g. why don't start standardizing the diameter of rockets and cargo-crew capsules (5mt.), the hardware that connects rocket and capsules (with SM), the procedures and software for separation, etc., so, different (present and future) capsules/SM can fit and work with different rockets of different companies/countries?

standard parts = less costs = more launches

SpaceCowboy, I think you've got it wrong - CXV wasn't canceled - admitedly it hasn't been funded, but since its one of the proposals for COTS, I think its a bit early to say its been canceled.

Hello, gaetanomarano,

you are right.

Standardization of diameters is something I am thinking about myself too. And it's correct that it would bring down the costs of vehicles, payloads, increase the number of launches per vehicle while keeping the variety of vehicles within reasonable limits.

The effects may be significant.

What should be added is the standardization of volume and/or weight.

...

Hello, FerrisValyn,

you are right. I have been looking for the articles about the CXV and t/Space under www.space.com but found those only I know already. The last information I have is that t/Space intends to get the CXV funded by private investors and is aware that this should be expected to take longer than funding by NASA.



Helo, spacecowboy,

you are right in so far as NASA won't use the CXV seen from the present state of informations.

By the way - ATV is the Automated Transfer Vehicle. It's an ESA-Vehicle as far as I remember.



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



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

Sure we might have hardware standards on PCs and arguably software, but how well are those standards implemented, and how well do coders standardize? We've all seen poor web applications / training programs that don't consider the user.

Similarly with engineers. Having been a maintenance person, engineer and user, I'm a firm believer that all engineers should be both users and maintenance personnel at some point, users should have an understanding of what maintainers and engineers do, and maintainers need to work closely with engineers and use the products they maintain.

If that all happened, we'd have better designs and standards in a hurry.

Of course, cars don't exactly have a lot of standards either. It would be nice to be able to pull a part from a Toyota and plug it into a Chevy and get it working again.

- Alistair

And it would be terrible, because if the standard has a flaw.. we would all have the same problem with our cars... and making for every new exeriment (as with new features of new cars) new standards.. would only slow down things a lot.. so I'm happy not all things are the same.. so same as evolution.. many trail and errors happen.. and in the end the best succeed

Alistair: I firmly agree with that. Of course, getting the certification to manufacture and maintain aerospace hardware is at best a very long and probably tedious process to most engineers, and at worst a destructive move to their career, considering the amount of time it takes. It would be very nice if an engineer could be taken out on the shop floor every once in a while and shown how things are done past the draftboard and the computer monitor.

Dont Engineers do that in the states? If I had thought that all I had to look forward to was a computer screen for company then I would not have become one. Perhaps its diffferent for development Engineers but as a test Engineer I get to see all aspects of the process. No point in having all those toys if you cant play with them is there?

Depends on the company, Andy... some are very good at that sort of thing, some rely on the engineers to initiate this kind of activity, I am sure that some probably discourage it.

I read that Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) doesn't have to make up new material, he can just take it from e-mails he gets from real working stiffs everyday. Some companies just aren't engineer-friendly.