What is the parts count on the last version of KISS? What is expected increase in count
for next machine?
Randall Clague wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:09:30 -0400, Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >You are more in touch with the group than I am. If you don't see it happening then
> >I probably won't. As far as KISS goes I agree they do have the tools they need for
> >the project. However if ERPS doesn't have a good technology base to build on then
> >you won't be able to move on to more complex machines. Take the time loss to the
> >schedule now so you can go forward later (and if you don't have a schedule, what's
> >can you loose?). If not now , then when?
>
> Since we don't have a schedule, the only way to measure our progress
> is by our accomplishments. Accomplishments fall into two categories:
> flying, and development. (Development, in turn, consists of design,
> review, construction, testing, and infrastructure; and sometimes of
> twiddling our thumbs or just sitting on our duffs. These last two are
> to be avoided.) Flying gets us the respect of our peers, kudos at
> Space Access, and increased visibility, all of which lead to more
> volunteers, more skills, and more money, with which we can do more
> development.
I believe you measure progress by how you are moving towards your goal. Erps does have
a
schedule it is just not in time units.
>
>
> So naturally my incentive is to avoid falling in love with the tool,
> and just get the work done so we can go flying again. If it becomes
> apparent that we need CAD/CAM (it's currently at the gosh-that's-neat
> shame-about-the-learning-curve and-the-price! level of necessity),
> then we'll get it, learn it, and use it.
Writing and arguing are tools and we shouldn't fall in love with them either.
I have built a lot of stuff in various shops. My career spanned no CNC to CNC or
else go broke. When you look around these days you see a lot of fancy curves in even
inexpensive items. With out CNC the world is all radiuses and straight lines. You must
design with CNC in mind and that is easiest with CAD. It is not just for fun, it opens
up a whole new way of doing things.
>
>
> >> We really need all the attributes Dave M mentioned for a package to
> >> have enough appeal to enough ERPS people to make it useful.
> >
> > Well no you don't, you just need to be able to share data, not applications.
> >Work on a common file format. I'm sure the government has already done this for
> >you. Solid modeling would be great, but as long as you don't lock in to a dead end
> >scenario 2D CAD is better than 0D CAD. Crawl, walk and then run.
>
> I'm not making myself clear. Dave said...
>
> >We have not found a good solution. A good solution includes the
> >following: Available on both Windows and Linux, inexpensive, both
> >imports and exports most common interchange formats, and has a bunch of
> >useful features. Nothing actually meets those requirements.
>
> ...with which I agree. The people in ERPS are, first and foremost,
> volunteers. They're showing a good bit of dedication just being
> active in ERPS, and that dedication needs to be rewarded by it
> producing useful work, on a fairly regular basis, or the volunteers
> will lose interest and go do something else.
Why would a volunteer willing to do CAD for you put up with you telling them what to
use?
You have had a couple of nibbles already, what are you waiting for?
>
>
> It's one of our greatest challenges. Anyone who is interested in
> amateur rocketry, and capable of contributing meaningfully to a
> society of volunteer amateur rocket engineers, is going to be very
> bright and have many other interests. We are competing with those
> other interests for that person's time, attention, and energy. What
> Dave is saying is that no CAD package currently offers a rich enough
> combination of feature set, interoperability, and price that anyone is
> willing to invest time/attention/energy in learning it, let alone that
> several people are so willing.
I am saying as a person with many interests and who builds many projects that those
that
build things, with moderate pain could make the leap, and that it opens up whole new
things for you, It's a BFH!
>
>
> And it isn't something anyone can legislate or dictate. Again,
> volunteers, all of them talented, most of them libertarians of some
> stripe, you cannot -tell- these guys to do anything. You must ask,
> and explain why it's necessary; then it'll happen. (I don't get too
> fussy about the how as long as the happen happens.) We are very much
> a consensus driven organization, and any large project that requires
> several people (such as CAD/CAM would, to make it an effective use of
> time spent learning the package), requires consensus. There is no
> consensus on a CAD/CAM solution; hence, we're not using it.
>
> (I should add that being consensus driven does not paralyze us,
> because we're all interested in getting things done, and most work is
> done by individuals or small teams.)
If someone volunteers to do CAD for you do they have to wait for a consensus?
>
>
> >come on, wouldn't you chum around with the devil himself if you could get into
> >orbit?
>
> Absolutely not. I do rocketry to support my goals in life. Rocketry
> itself is not a goal, and deserves no such compromise.
>
> -R
>
> --
> "Sutton is the beginning of wisdom -
> but only the beginning."
> -- Jeff Greason
> _______________________________________________
> ERPS-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
........ Alex Fraser N3DER .........
......... [EMAIL PROTECTED] .......
[~]_>^</\-[~]_>^</\-[~]_>^</\-[~]_>^<
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
