It's less about being the best (no criticism of NASA) but rather engineering decisions to _guarantee_ the planned mission, which means you over-engineer and thus get extra performance/reliability. You're not willing to accept the statistical risk that may end a mission early.
back
4 comments
I agree that it's not strictly that NASA engineers are better engineers, but I do think there's part of this that's both cultural and becomes actual capability - I think even if you gave most engineering organizations the budget and mandate that NASA has, they still wouldn't be able to pull off something like Webb because they don't have the practice of it*. Capacity both builds and atrophies over time, and most places don't work to that standard often enough to maintain the capability to do so even if they wanted to.
(*I don't necessarily mean the practice of shooting a rocket into space and launching a telescope, but the ability to build an object that can perform that exactly to its specifications under those kinds of circumstances.)
> I think even if you gave most engineering organizations the budget and mandate that NASA has, they still wouldn't be able to pull off something like Webb because they don't have the practice of it
IMO, Webb is a bad example. It was super over budget, late, and experienced a litany of problems.
In contrast, most un-manned NASA projects are roughly on budget and generally have few issues. And even the ones that do, NASA often figures out how to correct them like the Hubble telescope.
> In contrast, most un-manned NASA projects are roughly on budget and generally have few issues.
This is simply not true. Maybe for some of the smallest Discovery or New Frontiers missions, but then those aren’t actually built by NASA/JPL.
Mars Sample Return is also famously insanely late and over budget, and so have been most flagship missions.
> NASA engineers are better engineers…
JWST was built by primarily Northrop Grumman engineers
Probably one of the purest examples of American exceptionalism.
Give other space agencies the budget of NASA, let experience marinate and you will see similar performance. NASA does not have some sort of magical intrinsic property that makes engineers perform better by sheer effect of working under its umbrella.
I think he was comparing nasa to corporations, not other national orgs.
Mostly, with any endeavour, you never start in advanced state, you have basic solution, then refine and grow it. I guess formula would be: tech skills x organisational quality x budget x iterations already under the belt. Any of these factors can bring down the total result to zero. Not an easy task trying to control all of these.
Nasa, congrats on successful mission, which now ended.
> with any [E]ndeavour
I see what you did there.
I speculate that beyond that, extra longevity can also be used to increase your budget. If you plan for six months operations, you have a lower mission budget. They won’t shut you down after six months as long the device is still working.
The most over engineering in the world won't help you if you don't have good to great engineers when you're talking about stuff that is off world. So while they aren't going to be guaranteed be the top 10 engineers in the world, they are easily some of the best engineers in the world and deserve that to be acknowledged, NASA attracts the best, and even though they don't necessarily pay Silicon Valley salaries for cream of the crop, a lot of people aren't strictly motivated by money.
Since it doesn't need to be man-rated, spend less trying to make it perfect, and instead make more copies.