[EMAIL PROTECTED]">But we're talking at crosspurposes there. The most constraining issue isn't the same as the hardest project. You should pick a project you think you can actually do, rather than just hope you can do; and this means you should have a reasonably realistic plan. And I think that ERPS does do this. I think ERPS is doing everything incredibly well.On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:23:29 +0100, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:As a general rule of thumb you should attack the most constraining issue
first in trying to solve any difficult problem.I disagree. The most constraining problem is usually the most
difficult problem. If you attack the most difficult problem first,
you will have little success, little morale, little progress, little
retention, and little money.
Once you've done this, my point is only about what part of a project to spend the most effort on first. If it turns out you can't do that bit; in a realistic time, give up and do a different project, cos it ain't gonna work.
As an example, if you want to build an SSTO, spec it out; then build an engine for the test stand. If the engine doesn't give high enough ISP, you should not buy or build the tanks. Or if you think it is very difficult to get hold of peroxide, pay attention to that first... That's all I'm really saying. Nothing terribly deep. I think you probably do it already.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Definitely, except I would call this choosing the easiest projects first.Solve the easiest problems first.
It's a bit like playing chess. You pick the best looking move for yourself and then ask: "what's the worst my opponent can do to me?" Only here the opponent is nature/suppliers/your own smarts etc.
Really we are trying to search a tree of engineering and business possibilities to get to space. The most constrained approach tends to cut the time down by a squareroot factor. Normally, big companies tend to do everything in parallel, and then get caught out when they discover they can't do something in one corner of the project. You don't have the resources to fall down that hole.
Of course another thing is that the really difficult problems sometimes get overlooked... that you can't do anything about, although having good people reduces the chances of that. ERPS have good people.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Excellent points Randall.You'll make progress, have
successes, attract people, attract money, etc. While ERPS is not a
startup company, many of the same lessons apply to running ERPS as to
running a new business. They key is avoiding starvation.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">What do you need to go exponential?As to Moore's law: I don't think that an exponential law applies here.I suspect you're right. I hope you're wrong. Something like an
exponential progression is essential to ERPS getting into orbit in
less than a decade. In this case, that's the question Alex asked.
- funding? advertising? Mars bars? Galaxy? Red Bull gives your ERPS wings?
- membership?
- media attention?
- peroxide supply?
- ISP?
- delta-v?
- altitude?
- speed of building rockets?
What? What's the limiting factor? What is really most constraining you? Pick ONE. (Personally I'm not sure that we need an exponential growth here. Exponentials are not necessarily the fastest way, although they are very nice. Anyway, step functions are much nicer ;-) )
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">-R
