reverse technology transfer

[RalphE]

<p>We've all heard the stories of the $100k hammer, or the million dollar space pen. Most recently, I've read in the news how one of the astronauts on the last ISS repair mission accidentially lost a very expensive toolkit in the process (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5233612.ece). This got me thinking, why is space technology so expensive, even for common items that are available elsewhere for drastically reduced cost?</p><p>The answer of course is in the economics of mass production. When NASA develops a gadget, the cost of R&D flows diretly into the few units (1-100?) that are produced. When other industries develop new tech, they have thousands or millions of production units to offset the cost.&nbsp;</p><p>Much has been said about how space exploration has flowed down tech innovations to other industries (velcro, memory foam, teflon?). However, I think there's a much better case to be made for space companies to leverage tech from other industries to cut costs. For example, Mercedes spends more than $5M a day on R&D, their production units have staggering reliability, because they are produced in the millions. The space business ought to be able to leverage that. Here are a couple of things I was able to think of that could directly be lifted from other industries and put to use in space endeavors:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>pyrotechnics controllers</strong> -&nbsp; every car sold these days includes pyrotechnic devices (airbags). The electronics used to control and initiate airbags are extremely reliable (since they're safety critical) and dirt cheap. Yet pyro controllers on launch vehicles (staging events, engine ignition, fairing separation) are very expensive, because there are maybe two suppliers who make about 20 units a year.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>racing seats</strong> -&nbsp; motorsports racng seats are made from carbon/kevlar, with memory foam padding. They are extremenly light weight, have the snot tested out of them, and are proven far beyond anything a space company could do in their own R&D efforts. I'm willing to bet that their unit price is also a lot lower than what's on the shuttle right now. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>AF sensors</strong> -&nbsp; every car on the market today has a solid state Air/Fuel sensor (oxygen sensor) to control engine mixture ratio for optimum fuel economy. Yet the latest ARES 5 briefings identify "propellant gauging" as one of the critical technology problems yet to be solved for the new launch vehicle.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>bowflex</strong> -&nbsp; a couple of years back NASA identified resistance training (weight lifting) as the most important factor to avoid bone loss while in low-g environments. Now there is a very expensive resistive-motion-exercise-thingy on the ISS, when I'm thinking it really is just an overpriced bowflex gym? </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That's just what I came up with between getting up and brushing my teeth this morning; I'm sure there are many more, from many other industries as well (energy, construction?). Anybody else have any thoghts for where existing tech could benefit current space endevaors? Or why NASA seems so reluctant to use it?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---</p><p>www.holderconsulting.com </p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<p><font size="2"><font size="2">The billion-dollar space pen</font>&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[RalphE]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The billion-dollar space pen&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p>Did not know that - thanks for the link! I still think the aerospace industry could benefit greatly (and achieve significant cost savings) from leveraging tech from other industries though.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---</p><p>www.holderconsulting.com </p> </div>

 

[Slava33]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We've all heard the stories of the $100k hammer, or the million dollar space pen. Most recently, I've read in the news how one of the astronauts on the last ISS repair mission accidentially lost a very expensive toolkit in the process (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5233612.ece). This got me thinking, why is space technology so expensive, even for common items that are available elsewhere for drastically reduced cost?The answer of course is in the economics of mass production. When NASA develops a gadget, the cost of R&D flows diretly into the few units (1-100?) that are produced. When other industries develop new tech, they have thousands or millions of production units to offset the cost.&nbsp;Much has been said about how space exploration has flowed down tech innovations to other industries (velcro, memory foam, teflon?). However, I think there's a much better case to be made for space companies to leverage tech from other industries to cut costs. For example, Mercedes spends more than $5M a day on R&D, their production units have staggering reliability, because they are produced in the millions. The space business ought to be able to leverage that. Here are a couple of things I was able to think of that could directly be lifted from other industries and put to use in space endeavors:&nbsp;pyrotechnics controllers -&nbsp; every car sold these days includes pyrotechnic devices (airbags). The electronics used to control and initiate airbags are extremely reliable (since they're safety critical) and dirt cheap. Yet pyro controllers on launch vehicles (staging events, engine ignition, fairing separation) are very expensive, because there are maybe two suppliers who make about 20 units a year.&nbsp;&nbsp;racing seats -&nbsp; motorsports racng seats are made from carbon/kevlar, with memory foam padding. They are extremenly light weight, have the snot tested out of them, and are proven far beyond anything a space company could do in their own R&D efforts. I'm willing to bet that their unit price is also a lot lower than what's on the shuttle right now. &nbsp;AF sensors -&nbsp; every car on the market today has a solid state Air/Fuel sensor (oxygen sensor) to control engine mixture ratio for optimum fuel economy. Yet the latest ARES 5 briefings identify "propellant gauging" as one of the critical technology problems yet to be solved for the new launch vehicle.&nbsp;&nbsp;bowflex -&nbsp; a couple of years back NASA identified resistance training (weight lifting) as the most important factor to avoid bone loss while in low-g environments. Now there is a very expensive resistive-motion-exercise-thingy on the ISS, when I'm thinking it really is just an overpriced bowflex gym? &nbsp;That's just what I came up with between getting up and brushing my teeth this morning; I'm sure there are many more, from many other industries as well (energy, construction?). Anybody else have any thoghts for where existing tech could benefit current space endevaors? Or why NASA seems so reluctant to use it?&nbsp; <br /><p> Posted by RalphE</DIV></p><p>Unfortunately, it is not just the production quantity that drives the costs up. &nbsp;All these items have to be space and launch environment-proof, go through an extensive formal review process mandated by the governments, etc. &nbsp;Also, there is no "recall" process, the items have to be really done right the first time around as the operational failures are unacceptable and redesign not possible.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vattas]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did not know that - thanks for the link! I still think the aerospace industry could benefit greatly (and achieve significant cost savings) from leveraging tech from other industries though. <br /> Posted by RalphE</DIV></p><p>Of course they already do it. The problem is, space environment is very different and raises different requirements for devices.</p><p>Here are some speculations (speculations, because I'm not aerospace engineer) about space-specifics requirements for devices that you listed:</p><p><strong>pyrotechnics controllers - </strong>no car needs radiation-hardened controllers. Space vehicles do.</p><p><strong>racing seats - </strong>racers do not wear launch suits, life support equipment. Astronauts do not experience so much side-acceleration. Kevlar is not required, because it won't make any difference in launch or landing accident. So, completely different design. Race seats maybe are cheaper per unit, but I think development/design costs are comparable.</p><p><strong>AF sensors - </strong>no car is routinelly used in weightless environment or has supersonic flow in the lines. I'm not sure, but I think launchers do.</p><p><strong>bowflex - </strong>no Earth-based equipment needs vibration dampeners since gym and sensitive laboratory equipment are rarely coupled in such intimate way as in ISS. Also, you don't have to restrain yourself from bouncing around the room while doing excercises. So, you have to redesign almost everything for just one unit that goes to ISS.</p>