TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design

317 pointsby filiphalmost 2 years ago

19 comments

karaterobotalmost 2 years ago
I have a subset of these printed out and tacked to a cork board in my office, and I refer to this website a few times a year. Very, very good stuff.<p>This one in particular was a big influence on me when I moved from engineering to design. It expressed what I&#x27;d felt but hadn&#x27;t put into words. Not just the look, but nearly every aspect of a project is <i>de facto</i> path dependent, so you want to be as far upstream as possible. It&#x27;s also why I volunteer to write a lot of documents I&#x27;m not strictly responsible for:<p>&gt; 30. (von Tiesenhausen&#x27;s Law of Engineering Design) If you want to have a maximum effect on the design of a new engineering system, learn to draw. Engineers always wind up designing the vehicle to look like the initial artist&#x27;s concept.
评论 #37071202 未加载
评论 #37085460 未加载
Modified3019almost 2 years ago
&gt;29. (von Tiesenhausen&#x27;s Law of Program Management) To get an accurate estimate of final program requirements, multiply the initial time estimates by pi...<p>I discovered this when my father would come up with some project me and my siblings had to do, such as scrape, sand, prime and paint the house (which thinking back very likely had lead paint).<p>It would inevitably take roughly 3 times longer than he wanted it to take. And of course being an adult he&#x27;d throw a tantrum about it.
评论 #37084175 未加载
评论 #37071504 未加载
评论 #37072905 未加载
评论 #37073021 未加载
评论 #37082345 未加载
c_o_n_v_e_xalmost 2 years ago
&gt;(Atkin&#x27;s Law of Demonstrations) When the hardware is working perfectly, the really important visitors don&#x27;t show up.<p>As an engineer gone PM, this is one of my favorites.
avmichalmost 2 years ago
This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age.<p><pre><code> 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don&#x27;t develop any new launch vehicles. </code></pre> Recent SpaceX developments, Starship in particular, put some doubts on this one.
评论 #37067659 未加载
评论 #37067400 未加载
评论 #37072068 未加载
评论 #37070968 未加载
评论 #37067999 未加载
评论 #37067949 未加载
jameshartalmost 2 years ago
I don’t feel like a field that has in its entire history only produced a handful of actual successful designs at all can possibly rate this kind of ‘world weary cynicism’ style of writing.<p>Nobody has the experience or ability to be able to say ‘trust me I’ve built a few spaceships, this is the hard won truth of how it is’. There are exactly <i>nine</i> spacecraft that humans have ever flown in. Only the Mercury&#x2F;Gemini&#x2F;Apollo programs really accumulated any kind of experience and that experience was extremely specific to a particular place and time and organization.<p>So sure, some general engineering truisms in here have the ring of wisdom to them and us non-spacecraft engineers can nod at them and quote them with the cachet they get from being associated with NASA.<p>But ‘trust me I have been teaching people to design spacecraft for decades’ doesn’t really count for much when during those decades no new spacecraft designs were actually getting made and launched.
评论 #37069785 未加载
评论 #37081140 未加载
评论 #37070006 未加载
评论 #37072333 未加载
评论 #37075431 未加载
评论 #37076089 未加载
评论 #37072418 未加载
评论 #37069643 未加载
评论 #37072254 未加载
评论 #37074781 未加载
评论 #37069972 未加载
GlenTheMachinealmost 2 years ago
Hi. I&#x27;m Henshaw of Rule 37. AMA.
评论 #37068768 未加载
评论 #37068733 未加载
评论 #37071191 未加载
评论 #37068533 未加载
评论 #37069547 未加载
评论 #37068439 未加载
评论 #37068442 未加载
评论 #37068834 未加载
moffkalastalmost 2 years ago
&gt; 33. (Patton&#x27;s Law of Program Planning) A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.<p>Ah yes, unfortunately it&#x27;s only halfway through the execution that you realize it wasn&#x27;t a good plan, wasn&#x27;t even an okay plan but a straight up terrible one.
AnimalMuppetalmost 2 years ago
&gt; 8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point.<p>This rings true in politics as well.
评论 #37068744 未加载
评论 #37069375 未加载
freitzkriesler2almost 2 years ago
&gt; 3. Design is an iterative process. The necessary number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time.<p>I&#x27;m going to agilely build a space craft! &#x2F;S
评论 #37067982 未加载
评论 #37068312 未加载
filiphalmost 2 years ago
I knew #36 and have used it in the context of software engineering. But much of the rest is similarly applicable.<p>&gt; #36 Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is elegant. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A <i>great</i> engineer designs them to be effective.
评论 #37060505 未加载
评论 #37085136 未加载
评论 #37069033 未加载
JoeAltmaieralmost 2 years ago
Number 13. Design is based on requirements. There&#x27;s no justification for designing something one bit &quot;better&quot; than the requirements dictate.<p>Isn&#x27;t that the margin for error? I want to go up in a ship that&#x27;s a little better than the absolute minimum.
评论 #37070322 未加载
评论 #37068804 未加载
评论 #37069236 未加载
评论 #37069004 未加载
评论 #37069188 未加载
评论 #37069152 未加载
chasilalmost 2 years ago
&gt; 35. (de Saint-Exupery&#x27;s Law of Design) A designer knows that they have achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.<p>Virgil wrote the Aeneid by following this rule!
edualmost 2 years ago
&gt; 41. There&#x27;s never enough time to do it right, but somehow, there&#x27;s always enough time to do it over<p>Same for software!!!
评论 #37073224 未加载
marmakoidealmost 2 years ago
I think that most of those points applies for most science and engineering projects, not merely spacecraft design. As many wise set of rules, a lot of rules contradict each others, so that it is universal and intemporal.
iancmceachernalmost 2 years ago
Love this, it pops up on HN every few years.<p>It&#x27;s just the right combo of truth and comedy.
Razenganalmost 2 years ago
By the way, since you need to apply thrust from any direction to maneuver flexibly in 3D space (without wind or gravity), wouldn&#x27;t spherical&#x2F;disc(saucer) shaped spacecraft be the most efficient?
评论 #37069562 未加载
评论 #37068128 未加载
评论 #37069257 未加载
评论 #37068314 未加载
评论 #37070738 未加载
评论 #37068220 未加载
tw04almost 2 years ago
&gt; Design is based on requirements. There&#x27;s no justification for designing something one bit &quot;better&quot; than the requirements dictate.<p>I’m not sure the early Apollo astronauts would agree.
评论 #37071982 未加载
评论 #37071955 未加载
BubbleRingsalmost 2 years ago
Hi Doc! I read all the way through this and almost didn&#x27;t recognize it was you. What a great piece, and what a great response you got here!
firewolf34almost 2 years ago
In Shute Norway&#x27;s autobiography, <i>Slide Rule</i>, he describes the design and construction of the [R100](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;R100" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;R100</a>), an airship of which he was one of the leading engineers.<p>The R100 design was &quot;competing&quot; with the design for the R101; both design teams were simultaneously tasked with constructing a viable airship to make a long-range trip (in the case of R100, crossing the Atlantic in 78 hours, which was a remarkable achievement for the time). The difference was that the R101 project was state-owned whereas the R100 was privately-owned.<p>R101 crashed and burned in France, en route to India on 5th of October, 1930, likely due to structural issues damaging the airships gasbags, of which the only survivors were those lucky enough to be in the engine cars.<p>In the autobiography, Norway describes how the difference in program management led to the disaster. There are a lot of factors that led to the crash, as you might imagine, but one of the points he makes is that the publically-owned project was not held to strict requirements in its design process. The privately-owned R101 had a strict contract that they needed to complete, with a tight budget to complete it. They had <i>constraints</i>. Whereas the public-sector project was allowed to continually revise their design as they went, making many successive rewrites and changes without much structure. In particular, they cut the ship in half and rebuilt it at one point in it&#x27;s development. And when they arrived at the end of their development cycle, they had no leeway to maneuver because they had a lot of public money wrapped up in the project, along with a lot of public visibility and responsibility, pressuring them into rushing the launch without complete trust in their design, and into terrible weather conditions.<p>*13. Design is based on requirements. There&#x27;s no justification for designing something one bit &quot;better&quot; than the requirements dictate.*<p>Decide&#x2F;envision your outcome, and set your constraints correspondingly early on in development, aligned with realistic expectations of resources, folks.<p>To underline my point, here&#x27;s a quote from the Wikipedia page.<p>&quot;Shortly before R101&#x27;s flights in June 1930, the Cardington [R101] engineers tentatively suggested that the long flights to Canada and India might be postponed until 1931 on the grounds that neither of the two airships was fit to make a lengthy flight at their current developmental stage. The R100 team replied that their airship was perfectly capable of flying to Canada, <i>and that the Canadian flight was a part of their contract.</i>&quot;<p>R101 did not have a contractual obligation to meet, but did not want to outright state they needed more time, lest admit defeat. R100 had requirements that they needed to meet, which they were ready to meet, as they had them written from the start in clear. R100 launched successfully. R101 was forced to launch to compete before it was ready, due to this &quot;spontaneous requirement&quot;. R101 burned for it.