Comments on: Comment on Change.Gov http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/ Your NASA, My NASA, OUR NASA Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:14:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: rquintanilla http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/comment-page-1/#comment-9773 rquintanilla Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:26 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=196#comment-9773 Justin it depends on how you look at it and how the implementation is completed. Robotic systems today can be looked at as analogous to the vacuum tube computers of the 50s that had to be stored in a warehouse. In those days a special operating system had to be made for each computer. A robotic system for manufacturing is composed of the sensors, actuators, robotic links and the processing unit (aka the computer). All those components are analogous to the components of a computer. What is missing today is the common operating system that runs all these hardware components. Work is already being done in industry and academia in this field. It isn't a far reach for accelerated development to commence. If NASA develops this technology for transportation of hardware the development that goes into the operating system can be made open-source. What this will do is open the field for enthusiasts, as well as niche small companies that focus on developing individual hardware components. Much like a common PC, the degree of sophistication that goes into the Robot will highly depend on the hardware used. If NASA works with industry to make it feasible that these parts can be made at a low cost, we have the beginning of the robotic evolution that rivals the computer evolution of old. Now imagine that because of the work NASA put into creating these n-degree of freedom robots, manufacturing robotic technology actually becomes obtainable by mid-size businesses. These mid-size companies will start developing small manufacturing plants in the good 'ol USA. It might even become feasible that each metropolitan area has it's own ready made set of manufacturing plants ready to produce the most common goods needed in their vicinity. Companies that develop products won't have to invest in the infrastructure to produce the products they develop, they will just contract these micro-manufacturing plants to make their products. The cost will be low and competitive, and the transportation costs will be nil. Further the manufacturing capability of the United States will be dispersed, making our economic and national security strong. Manufacturing is at the backbone of any industrialized country. When manufacturing leaves the country, the country that it goes to starts developing the technological sophistication. This is already happening with the outsourced work that we are giving China and India. Soon these countries will not only have all the manufacturing plants they will also be doing all the valuable research and development. It might be 5, 10 or 20 years away, but the time is near. If those countries develop and manufacture the products of the future expect that we will loose more jobs, and the economic problems of today will look like a joke. The solution to alleviating this highly probable risk is to becoming independent. We have to be able to supply our own energy, manufacture our most basic goods, and produce our own food (at a low cost). Now I am not suggesting that we isolate ourselves, just that we stay independent. Currently we are not independent. We rely on the Chinese to manufacture our goods, we rely on the Middle East to supply us our oil, and we rely on undeveloped countries to supply us our food. We are the power house today, but consistently we have grown accustomed to outsourcing our work. We are becoming a service industry and that is dangerous for our economy. Developing my idea creates jobs, by ensuring that they stay here. Justin it depends on how you look at it and how the implementation is completed. Robotic systems today can be looked at as analogous to the vacuum tube computers of the 50s that had to be stored in a warehouse. In those days a special operating system had to be made for each computer. A robotic system for manufacturing is composed of the sensors, actuators, robotic links and the processing unit (aka the computer). All those components are analogous to the components of a computer. What is missing today is the common operating system that runs all these hardware components. Work is already being done in industry and academia in this field. It isn’t a far reach for accelerated development to commence. If NASA develops this technology for transportation of hardware the development that goes into the operating system can be made open-source. What this will do is open the field for enthusiasts, as well as niche small companies that focus on developing individual hardware components. Much like a common PC, the degree of sophistication that goes into the Robot will highly depend on the hardware used. If NASA works with industry to make it feasible that these parts can be made at a low cost, we have the beginning of the robotic evolution that rivals the computer evolution of old.

Now imagine that because of the work NASA put into creating these n-degree of freedom robots, manufacturing robotic technology actually becomes obtainable by mid-size businesses. These mid-size companies will start developing small manufacturing plants in the good ‘ol USA. It might even become feasible that each metropolitan area has it’s own ready made set of manufacturing plants ready to produce the most common goods needed in their vicinity. Companies that develop products won’t have to invest in the infrastructure to produce the products they develop, they will just contract these micro-manufacturing plants to make their products. The cost will be low and competitive, and the transportation costs will be nil. Further the manufacturing capability of the United States will be dispersed, making our economic and national security strong.

Manufacturing is at the backbone of any industrialized country. When manufacturing leaves the country, the country that it goes to starts developing the technological sophistication. This is already happening with the outsourced work that we are giving China and India. Soon these countries will not only have all the manufacturing plants they will also be doing all the valuable research and development. It might be 5, 10 or 20 years away, but the time is near. If those countries develop and manufacture the products of the future expect that we will loose more jobs, and the economic problems of today will look like a joke.

The solution to alleviating this highly probable risk is to becoming independent. We have to be able to supply our own energy, manufacture our most basic goods, and produce our own food (at a low cost). Now I am not suggesting that we isolate ourselves, just that we stay independent. Currently we are not independent. We rely on the Chinese to manufacture our goods, we rely on the Middle East to supply us our oil, and we rely on undeveloped countries to supply us our food.

We are the power house today, but consistently we have grown accustomed to outsourcing our work. We are becoming a service industry and that is dangerous for our economy. Developing my idea creates jobs, by ensuring that they stay here.

]]> By: Justin http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/comment-page-1/#comment-9761 Justin Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:03:26 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=196#comment-9761 "Automated assembly" is still providing indirect benefit to the American public, though. How could we develop that technology to directly help solve a major issue America faces? I'm not also not convinced that it would necessarily make American domestic manufacturing more cost-effective. Don't the American Toyota, Honda, etc. plants already do a lot of that? “Automated assembly” is still providing indirect benefit to the American public, though. How could we develop that technology to directly help solve a major issue America faces?

I’m not also not convinced that it would necessarily make American domestic manufacturing more cost-effective. Don’t the American Toyota, Honda, etc. plants already do a lot of that?

]]> By: rquintanilla http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/comment-page-1/#comment-9751 rquintanilla Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:09:51 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=196#comment-9751 I strongly agree with your sentiments too Isaac. It seems to me that NASA in recent history has preferred using COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) to aid in space exploration. The rationale behind this is to reduce cost, and to that extent I think that it is a good strategy. However the extensive use of COTS items is made NASA a re-packager instead of a developer. The dollars used to develop something is an investment, the dollars used to repackage something is just a cost. Now I agree that there is little worth in reinventing the wheel, and that is why I agree using COTS items is a good strategy. What we have to do is try to develop more things, instead of repackaging things. The term R&D signifies Research and Development (I am not trying to be condescending, I am trying to make a point). I think NASA does an outstanding job at Research, but I don't think we do a good job at Development. Work that goes into "Research" (i.e. exploration of the raw data produced by NASA satellites) is more of a long term benefit, and the benefits are hard to see to a general audience. "Development" work has a more direct benefit and we can show the public that we developed X technology. One technology that I think we should develop or help develop is "automated assembly". The g-loads in space are lower in space than on earth, yet the hardware that we send into space has to be extremely robust (heavy, bulky). The reason for this is because of the high launch loads the hardware sent are subjected to. If we sent the piece parts, instead of the fully configured hardware, they would be able to be more light-weight and/or would be able to withstand a higher g-load. Then they would be self-assembled in space. We already send large assemblies in smaller pieces and then configure them in space, but this is not preferred because crew time is more valuable (in general) than cost of sending a slightly larger item. The robotic technology is already mature to be able to do this. We need to help industry in this development, and study the Design Methodology necessary to be able to leverage this technology. Developing this robotic technology will most definitely help the economy. It will make it cost-effective for America to manufacture more of its products in the US which will create jobs and make us more independent. This technology might not be feasible for the Space Station, but it is necessary to cut transportation costs when we do Moon and Mars missions. I strongly agree with your sentiments too Isaac. It seems to me that NASA in recent history has preferred using COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) to aid in space exploration. The rationale behind this is to reduce cost, and to that extent I think that it is a good strategy. However the extensive use of COTS items is made NASA a re-packager instead of a developer. The dollars used to develop something is an investment, the dollars used to repackage something is just a cost. Now I agree that there is little worth in reinventing the wheel, and that is why I agree using COTS items is a good strategy. What we have to do is try to develop more things, instead of repackaging things. The term R&D signifies Research and Development (I am not trying to be condescending, I am trying to make a point). I think NASA does an outstanding job at Research, but I don’t think we do a good job at Development. Work that goes into “Research” (i.e. exploration of the raw data produced by NASA satellites) is more of a long term benefit, and the benefits are hard to see to a general audience. “Development” work has a more direct benefit and we can show the public that we developed X technology.

One technology that I think we should develop or help develop is “automated assembly”. The g-loads in space are lower in space than on earth, yet the hardware that we send into space has to be extremely robust (heavy, bulky). The reason for this is because of the high launch loads the hardware sent are subjected to. If we sent the piece parts, instead of the fully configured hardware, they would be able to be more light-weight and/or would be able to withstand a higher g-load. Then they would be self-assembled in space. We already send large assemblies in smaller pieces and then configure them in space, but this is not preferred because crew time is more valuable (in general) than cost of sending a slightly larger item. The robotic technology is already mature to be able to do this. We need to help industry in this development, and study the Design Methodology necessary to be able to leverage this technology. Developing this robotic technology will most definitely help the economy. It will make it cost-effective for America to manufacture more of its products in the US which will create jobs and make us more independent. This technology might not be feasible for the Space Station, but it is necessary to cut transportation costs when we do Moon and Mars missions.

]]> By: Justin http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/comment-page-1/#comment-9741 Justin Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:42:20 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=196#comment-9741 I think that's where rearranging NASA's priorities to solve problems that are immediately relevant to our nation's needs comes in. NASA can and should be contributing to solutions on energy independence and climate change, for example, in a big way. The lead story on CNN's website this morning was the new NASA data showing larger-than-expected polar ice melts. If we're smart, we can simultaneously leverage those solutions as enablers for exploration. I think that’s where rearranging NASA’s priorities to solve problems that are immediately relevant to our nation’s needs comes in. NASA can and should be contributing to solutions on energy independence and climate change, for example, in a big way. The lead story on CNN’s website this morning was the new NASA data showing larger-than-expected polar ice melts.

If we’re smart, we can simultaneously leverage those solutions as enablers for exploration.

]]> By: iMensah http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/comment-page-1/#comment-9739 iMensah Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:20:12 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=196#comment-9739 Justin, I couldn't agree more on both your points. I think those of us who would self-qualify as "star-gazers" are indeed a dwindling population. I also agree that until we prove how useful we are to the rest of Earth's population, we will continue to decrease in numbers. Now, the million-dollar question is: "How do we SHOW people that we're useful?" Justin,

I couldn’t agree more on both your points. I think those of us who would self-qualify as “star-gazers” are indeed a dwindling population. I also agree that until we prove how useful we are to the rest of Earth’s population, we will continue to decrease in numbers. Now, the million-dollar question is: “How do we SHOW people that we’re useful?”

]]> By: Justin http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/comment-page-1/#comment-9729 Justin Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:49:02 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=196#comment-9729 I definitely agree with the sentiments expressed in your response. I've always thought of space exploration as investment in the future of mankind and, thus, worth its weight in gold. As I'm getting older, though, I realize that people like are us are much more in the minority and we have to demonstrate the value to the American people. We do outreach until we're blue in the face. We need to stop telling people how great we think we are and start actually showing people how useful we can be. I definitely agree with the sentiments expressed in your response. I’ve always thought of space exploration as investment in the future of mankind and, thus, worth its weight in gold. As I’m getting older, though, I realize that people like are us are much more in the minority and we have to demonstrate the value to the American people.

We do outreach until we’re blue in the face. We need to stop telling people how great we think we are and start actually showing people how useful we can be.

]]>