Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-13-2018, 12:04 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,665
How do you design something as complex as a submarine

I'm watching Das Boot for the first time and am impressed by how complex the submarine is. And I'm sure there are other feats of engineering that are much more complex.

So I'm wondering, how do engineers know down to the most minute details how to build something that large, complex and interdependent? Can you just tell a team of 5,000 engineers 'design a submarine' and then it will be designed in a way that works well, down to the most minor details?

How do they even know if the parts will all work together, or will withstand real world testing? Do they just build a model, then fix the kinks, then do that again and again until they have a working model? Or do they just assume everything will work together? Or do they just tweak an existing model?

Does the engineering team get broken up into various groups and subgroups? How would the teams be broken up?

I have no background in engineering, so I don't know how any of this works.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #2  
Old 07-13-2018, 12:13 AM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,758
This is a damn good question; I, too, would like to know the answer. All I can say with regards to submarines is that I was inside the captured Nazi submarine that's at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, and I learned there that being in a Nazi submarine was, like most things associated with Nazis, horrible.

They had something like an 85% mortality rate.
  #3  
Old 07-13-2018, 02:13 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,543
I'm not a physical objects style engineer, but I do note that most buildings simply reserve a space and expose some tubes for things like the washing machine, dish washer, etc. when the building is under construction. They don't need to know exactly what machine nor exactly what size machine will go there, nor do they need to know anything at all about how it works internally.

My presumption would be that they do something similar, where there's a lead engineer who gets some basic dimensions for each thing and the I/O (water, fuel, electricity, etc.) that's necessary for it and does up all of his plans with the expectation of a perfect cuboid, slightly large than the dimensions he was given, that can accept cables and piping from any direction. The lead engineer will have some basic parameters like that overall, people need to be able to move around the ship and the whole thing can't weigh more than X, can't supply more than Y water, Z fuel, nor W electricity in total, and so he'll work with all of the available cuboids he was given, see if it all fits under some arrangement, and if not then he'll need to call around to different makers and ask them to custom make something.

On the maker's side, they won't know anything at all about the submarine, they just know that they were told to make their widget no larger than some specific dimensions and have an I/O of whatever. And while they're building their widget, they'll do the same thing. There will be a lead engineer who knows what all of the major subcomponents are, maybe takes some off the shelf parts and orders others to be designed from scratch by his minions. He'll give them specific dimensions that they have to hit, and it's on them to make sure that they hit the requirements. If somehow they can't, then it will have to go back up to the lead designer and he might have to rejigger everything and see if any other components are coming in smaller than originally expected, etc.

Back in the 40s, following that step maybe they would have gotten a model maker to actually go and craft little versions of everything (so they don't have to treat it all as cuboids) so that they could glue it all together in their model submarine shell and see if it all fits nicely and if there's any spare room for more goodies. These days, they'd probably ask the maker to send them files for some sort of 3D program (and probably would have skipped the initial step with cuboids).

But even then, assembly (particularly for your first version of the submarine) is going to be a major undertaking because you're suddenly going to find out that measurements were wrong, that the position of the I/O ports are all in completely horrible locations, that a device gets super hot and needs an extra 4 inches of insulation around it, that some machine is ridiculously failure prone, etc. They'll have to build custom stands and mounting points for everything, figure out how to feed wire and tubing throughout the ship and where to install maintenance access points, etc.; they'll need to request that some stuff be replaced with different hardware; and they might end up performing some jury-rigged modifications on the hardware they got.

Through all of this, they'll probably end up developing more detailed designs, they'll build sub-blueprints for small parts for installation - like mounts for different parts - and so on so that the next time they build the ship they can do so more quickly. But likely each ship will end up slightly different due to assembly-time problem-solving.

But so overall the strategy is: Visualize a bunch of cubes. Find things that fit in those cubes or order something that will. Repeat as necessary for subcubes, sub-subcubes, etc.
  #4  
Old 07-13-2018, 02:24 AM
The Vorlon The Vorlon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sol III
Posts: 1,863
The biggest issue with a sub is most of the guts have to be there before you put it together, or they fit through a hatch 30" inch in diameter.
  #5  
Old 07-13-2018, 02:48 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,438
To put Sage Rat's excellent description in a word, it is modularity and hierarchy. And specialization. I don't know about submarines but I do know about the design of billion transistor microprocessors. You start at the top level with modules like processors, memories, cache controllers, I/O controllers, etc. You have teams designing each one to a spec. You have other specialized teams routing signals between these and making sure the global timing works. Then you have other teams working on verification and manufacturing test. It might take hundreds of people, but it is not chaotic and everyone knows what he or she is doing.

I'm sure submarines, like microprocessors, are not all that different from the ones that came before, so they start with a known template and evolve the design from there.
  #6  
Old 07-13-2018, 03:07 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,062
You take an earlier model of submarine and improve it. Most technology is a result of evolution, not intelligent design.
  #7  
Old 07-13-2018, 03:46 AM
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
You take an earlier model of submarine and improve it. Most technology is a result of evolution, not intelligent design.
This.

The designers are not starting off with a blank slate. They are starting off with the detailed technical knowledge and specifications of previous submarines, and the records of how they performed under real life conditions. Then they are making incremental improvements.

Usually the lead engineers would have many years, maybe decades, of experience in submarine design, and the manufacturers and builders likewise would have plenty of experience in building earlier submarines.
  #8  
Old 07-13-2018, 04:25 AM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
To put Sage Rat's excellent description in a word, it is modularity and hierarchy. And specialization. I don't know about submarines but I do know about the design of billion transistor microprocessors. You start at the top level with modules like processors, memories, cache controllers, I/O controllers, etc. You have teams designing each one to a spec. You have other specialized teams routing signals between these and making sure the global timing works. Then you have other teams working on verification and manufacturing test. It might take hundreds of people, but it is not chaotic and everyone knows what he or she is doing.

I'm sure submarines, like microprocessors, are not all that different from the ones that came before, so they start with a known template and evolve the design from there.
This. Start with the big picture - what you want, and what you want it to do. Figure out what systems you need to accomplish those goals. Break everything down bit by bit, until you have individual parts. Throw that design document at an engineer or five and say, "GO!"
  #9  
Old 07-13-2018, 10:23 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,982
An engineering degree gets you part of the way. You spend four+ years learning the basics of machine design, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, metallurgy, and so on. Or you go for a couple more years to get a master's degree in a more specialized area. Or you go for several more years to get a Ph.D. in a very specialized area.

"Institutional knowledge" is another part of the puzzle, and comes with experience. Some of that is in the heads of the engineers. A senior engineer from Ford will know from experience roughly how far apart to place the attachment points for a door panel, dashboard, or headliner so as to minimize buzz, squeak and rattle, something that submarine designers won't know. He'll know from his engineering classes that a submarine propeller blade will utilize a "wing" cross section to produce thrust, but he won't know exactly what shape is most efficient, least noisy, or least prone to cavitation under various conditions - something that experienced submarine designers will know.

Some of that institutional knowledge is proprietary, i.e. not all submarine designers will know it. If your company has invented an alloy that's particularly resistant to seawater corrosion, or developed a propeller that's ultra-quiet, or a novel welding process that makes explosion-resistant hull joints, you're not going to share that with your competitors.

Some of it is incremental development: you take one of your submarine designs that worked pretty good in the past, and you improve on it.

Some of it is independent design and testing. The components of a submarine are not 100% independent, so you can parcel out the work to separate design teams and bring it all together at the end. You can find examples of this in other industries. Here, for example, is a lab test of the Airbus A380's landing gear: the wheels are are spun up to touchdown speed, and the whole landing gear is slammed to the ground at "hard landing" vertical speed, with all of the momentum on it that a real A380 would have during a hard landing. Likewise, here's a laboratory brake test, in which they simulate braking the A380 to a stop in an overweight condition with no reverse thrust. How does the brake behave? Does it disintegrate? Does it catch fire? If so, does the fire spread? There will be a full-up aircraft test like this later on, but you don't want that to be the first time you've tried using the brakes; it's possible to gain confidence first with test cell work like this. There's a lot of the same sort of thing you can do for a submarine.

And no matter what you make, there's a lot of testing/redesign iteration along the way. Decades ago you'd make scale models or full-sized prototypes based on your engineering degree and institutional knowledge, test them, and then refine your design based on the test results. This cycle is much faster and cheaper these days thanks to computers. You can design a part or assembly on a computer, and then use finite element analysis to assess various performance aspects. Is it strong enough? Are there stress concentrations that need to be alleviated with a little more/less material in certain spots? Are the heat transfer properties adequate/optimized? More/thinner/thicker cooling fins needed? Problematic vibrations that might be fixed with more/less mass here and there? Is it managing air/water flow/pressure as needed? You can do all of this in the computer and come up with a design that's very likely to be very good the first time you make it.

Computers are also great for coordinating the work of all the subgroups. A central archive can hold the master plan for the submarine that hosts all of the subsystems being designed by the semi-independent groups, so that everyone can see how the different subsystems are going to mesh in the final assembly and work in a cooperative manner.

And in the end, you make your full-scale, fully-assembled prototype, and you test it as incrementally as you can. At this point it's unlikely that you'd have to scrap the entire design, but the computer analysis is never perfect; you'll always find little things that need adjustment. For airplanes, you start with a high-speed taxi test, in which the plane doesn't even leave the ground. Then you take off for a very basic flight, never even raising the landing gear. You build confidence in the plane as you put it through harsher and harsher tests (e.g. a high-speed flutter test. Similar testing happens with submarines and other large machines.
  #10  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:44 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,862
I have a degree in structural engineering, but never really practiced, so that that as you will.

As others pointed out, a lot of it is breaking it down into systems and subsystems and hierarchies. For example, a submarine is essentially just a big pressure vessel. Similar to a tank that one might use to store propane or an aerosol can. Except the pressure is on the outside. There are pretty well established mathematical formulas for calculating how thick a material needs to be to support such and such pressure pushing in on it for a vessel of so and so size.

Of course the trick is you can't cast a big U-boat as one monolithic entity. And even if you could, you would still need holes for hatches, screws, periscope, exhaust, torpedoes, venting for ballast and whatnot. So now engineers break down these different systems, figuring out the requirements for each.

A whole lot of project planning and management goes into it as well. That is to say, figuring out the dependencies of tasks and sequence for which the can be addressed.


Also note, that as technology matures in any particular area, they don't need to redesign everything from scratch. Like when they design and build a new airplane, most of the time, they are designing around existing engines and the people who design engines design them for fairly standardized engine housings.







There are actually a fair number of videogames like Kerbal Space Program, Factorio, Oxygen Not Included and Space Engineers that give you a sense of how to design and build complex systems. Often what makes them fun is when a weakness is exposed causing a "cascading failure". Like when my outhouse breaks down in ONI and soon my base is drowning in it's own vomit.

Last edited by msmith537; 07-13-2018 at 11:45 AM.
  #11  
Old 07-13-2018, 02:06 PM
CCitizen CCitizen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,636
Each small team of engineers works on a small part of a submarine.

Each new submarine is a modification of a submarine previously built.
  #12  
Old 07-13-2018, 02:17 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
You take an earlier model of submarine and improve it. Most technology is a result of evolution, not intelligent design.
And proof of this is the set of odd features found in any nth generation design, which were good ideas (or maybe bad ones) when added originally and which have been kept in because taking them out would be risky and might delay the project.
Just like the odd features found in most evolved plants and animals.
  #13  
Old 07-13-2018, 02:41 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCitizen View Post
Each small team of engineers works on a small part of a submarine.

Each new submarine is a modification of a submarine previously built.
And other teams coordinate stuff. Also, some blocks are designed already: you most likely don't need to design... toilets, bunks or GPSs, just pick which ones to use.

I was a tiny part in a project to design a new motor. The first few years were going to be spent in design, make, redesign, make again... and this had to be coordinated through multiple factories in several countries. The design team was a handful of people, all sitting in the same room, but they had to coordinate among themselves (if you change one piece, you have to check the designs of at least all the pieces it's in contact with) and with the factory teams (can you do it, if I change this detail? How long will it take to get the machines adapted?). That motor was eventually, hopefully, going to be slotted into place in bigger designs he way one slots dishwashers, but that requires the designers for the slotable item to take sizing standards and connectors into account.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot

Last edited by Nava; 07-13-2018 at 02:42 PM.
  #14  
Old 07-13-2018, 03:19 PM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,148
Former submarine officer here. After I graduated from college with an engineering degree, the U.S. Navy spent 18 months training me just to safely operate a nuclear-powered submarine (much less design anything). I can't tell you how many times I was awe-struck at the ingenious engineering that was evident in the design.

As others have indicated, you have engineering design teams that specialize on each small part of the sub, and they build on previous designs.

Some submarine design improvements involve a great deal more effort, such as when the first nuclear power plants were designed for submarines. The Navy (and its contractors) tried out a variety of competing designs before settling on a standard, which has since been modified more incrementally.

This model for building on previous designs is one reason why the U.S. Navy does not want to ever stop building nuclear submarines. Otherwise all of the expertise and institutional knowledge would be lost as people retire (and pass away). This is also why the Navy has supported two shipyards capable of building nuclear submarines: General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, CT and Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

On a related note, while submarines are complicated, they are not nearly as complicated as manned spacecraft and rockets. After the Apollo program ended, we allowed much of the associated expertise and institutional knowledge to wither away. This is one reason why there haven't been any manned missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) since then. I've heard it said that we couldn't send a man to the moon right now even if we had the will and desire to do so. After nearly 50 years, much of that knowledge and expertise would have to be recreated nearly from scratch.
  #15  
Old 07-13-2018, 03:21 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,605
There's a Power Point for everything. You just need to know where to look.

http://www.doerry.org/norbert/refere..._Section_A.pdf
  #16  
Old 07-13-2018, 03:43 PM
Dr. Strangelove Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,847
As others have said, hierarchy and specialization are key.

There are tradeoffs here, though. As Sage Rat pointed out, for something like a building, most of the components are left unspecified. Standard electrical sockets are put in, plumbing is routed, but beyond that there is flexibility in where things are put. Buildings have a great deal of margin available--they are massively overbuilt, and so not very sensitive to moving weight around or other variations.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have rockets, which are exquisitely sensitive to mass, power, temperature, vibration, and so on. Virtually every component can, potentially, cause a failure in the entire system. This makes rockets very expensive--you can't just buy an off-the-shelf whatever and plug it in; it has to be qualified for use and integrated into the full system. Rockets have almost no margin to them; if a particular component is twice the mass that it should have been, it probably just won't work. It has to be redesigned.

Somewhere in the middle we have things like submarines and automobiles. They are not as free-form as buildings, but they have a decent amount of leeway when it comes to mass and other things. If the engine produces 10% less power than it should; well, that's unfortunate but it probably means the vehicle is just a little bit slower than we'd like. Contrast with a rocket where if the engines underperform by 10%, then it doesn't make orbit and has to be destroyed.

The more margin you have, the more flexibility you have in the hierarchy and the cheaper it gets, because it's much easier to make tradeoffs. Design variations have only local effects. But as margin decreases, the hierarchy becomes rigid, up to the point where a single variation anywhere in the system affects the entire system. Design becomes very expensive.
  #17  
Old 07-13-2018, 03:47 PM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
And other teams coordinate stuff. Also, some blocks are designed already: you most likely don't need to design... toilets, bunks or GPSs, just pick which ones to use.
The Navy actually uses relatively few commercial off-the-shelf items on submarines (with some exceptions, like computer laptops).

To discuss your three specific examples:

Submarine toilets are connected to sanitary holding tanks that can be pressurized to overcome the surrounding sea pressure to empty the tanks (while far out to sea). The toilets have a stainless steel ball valve at the drain that can withstand this pressure. The toilets themselves are also made of stainless steel (as are the sinks and showers). Porcelain doesn't work all that well in a vessel that might take battle damage from exploding depth charges.

Similarly, with the possible exception of prisons, nobody would have a need for a bunk with as little space as on a submarine.

Finally, GPS units utilized by the military are military hardware, not civilian models. The Global Positioning System (GPS) (originally the Navstar GPS) is a military satellite system that is owned and operated by the U.S. Air Force. Should the U.S. government choose to do so, it can selectively deny access to the system or degrade the signal at any time. An encrypted signal can be maintained for U.S. military units and our allies. You need a military-grade GPS unit to be able to utilize the GPS network in such a scenario.

Besides that, you want a GPS unit that can work reliably in a submarine environment, and which can be utilized with receivers mounted on submarine masts and/or antennas.

This specialized equipment is one reason why military hardware is so expensive.
  #18  
Old 07-13-2018, 04:30 PM
CCitizen CCitizen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
And other teams coordinate stuff. Also, some blocks are designed already: you most likely don't need to design... toilets, bunks or GPSs, just pick which ones to use.

I was a tiny part in a project to design a new motor. The first few years were going to be spent in design, make, redesign, make again... and this had to be coordinated through multiple factories in several countries. The design team was a handful of people, all sitting in the same room, but they had to coordinate among themselves (if you change one piece, you have to check the designs of at least all the pieces it's in contact with) and with the factory teams (can you do it, if I change this detail? How long will it take to get the machines adapted?). That motor was eventually, hopefully, going to be slotted into place in bigger designs he way one slots dishwashers, but that requires the designers for the slotable item to take sizing standards and connectors into account.
Definitely. Even though a submarine has millions of details, most of them are in blocks designed by generations of engineers before.
  #19  
Old 07-13-2018, 06:43 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
The Navy actually uses relatively few commercial off-the-shelf items on submarines (with some exceptions, like computer laptops).

To discuss your three specific examples:

Submarine toilets are connected to sanitary holding tanks that can be pressurized to overcome the surrounding sea pressure to empty the tanks (while far out to sea). The toilets have a stainless steel ball valve at the drain that can withstand this pressure. The toilets themselves are also made of stainless steel (as are the sinks and showers). Porcelain doesn't work all that well in a vessel that might take battle damage from exploding depth charges.

Similarly, with the possible exception of prisons, nobody would have a need for a bunk with as little space as on a submarine.

Finally, GPS units utilized by the military are military hardware, not civilian models. The Global Positioning System (GPS) (originally the Navstar GPS) is a military satellite system that is owned and operated by the U.S. Air Force. Should the U.S. government choose to do so, it can selectively deny access to the system or degrade the signal at any time. An encrypted signal can be maintained for U.S. military units and our allies. You need a military-grade GPS unit to be able to utilize the GPS network in such a scenario.

Besides that, you want a GPS unit that can work reliably in a submarine environment, and which can be utilized with receivers mounted on submarine masts and/or antennas.

This specialized equipment is one reason why military hardware is so expensive.
These might not be commercial to civilians, but that doesn't mean that I need to go request a fresh redesign of a GPS system just because I'm building a new submarine design. There is, presumably, a catalogue of "off-the-shelf" items that exists solely among the military world.
  #20  
Old 07-13-2018, 07:27 PM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
These might not be commercial to civilians, but that doesn't mean that I need to go request a fresh redesign of a GPS system just because I'm building a new submarine design. There is, presumably, a catalogue of "off-the-shelf" items that exists solely among the military world.
New submarine classes come around so infrequently these days (like once a generation) that virtually every integrated system on a new class of submarine is indeed redesigned.

But again, you are building on previous designs. While a Los Angeles-class submarine has an S8G reactor (i.e. 8th generation reactor designed by GE), the Virginia-class subs have an S9G reactor. It's not like you're starting from ground zero.

Also, many systems are upgraded along the way, especially with the electronics (including software upgrades), as well as systems that can easily be swapped out, such as towed-array sonars and weapons.

For example, the Los Angeles-class submarines started out with Mark 48 torpedoes, then were upgraded to carry Mark 48 ADCAP torpedoes. Virginia-class subs also currently carry Mark 48 ADCAP torpedoes. These torpedoes are themselves upgraded on a continual basis.
  #21  
Old 07-13-2018, 07:51 PM
Ignotus Ignotus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
This is a damn good question; I, too, would like to know the answer. All I can say with regards to submarines is that I was inside the captured Nazi submarine that's at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, and I learned there that being in a Nazi submarine was, like most things associated with Nazis, horrible.

They had something like an 85% mortality rate.
Hey, 85% is not that bad, considering that mortality rate for humans in general is 100%!

(But yeah, I get your point. And never, ever would I dare to go for a dive in one of those!)
  #22  
Old 07-14-2018, 01:25 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,256
How does a general decide what each soldier will do? He doesn't. How does a city planner decide how each room/passage in the city will be arranged? He doesn't.

It does pose the question of how many subunits, on average, can each level handle efficiently. In the military, it's usually 3-5 subunits per unit so 3-5 squads per platoon, 3-5 platoons per company, 3-5 companies per battalion, 3-5 battalions per regiment then division then corps. The 3-5 trend may be because the military often has to take fast decisions un seriously suboptimal situations.

In IC design or programming, how many subsystems is each decisional level typically expected to handle? Is it mainly related to the limits of working memory?
  #23  
Old 07-14-2018, 02:23 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
These might not be commercial to civilians, but that doesn't mean that I need to go request a fresh redesign of a GPS system just because I'm building a new submarine design. There is, presumably, a catalogue of "off-the-shelf" items that exists solely among the military world.
And just to get the terminology straight, COTS in the defense world means specifically that the parts are commercially available. In semiconductors, at least. COTS stuff is often far ahead of military specific stuff, though there might be some requirements for military stuff that requires special design. Still, the impression I got from the defense guys on my committee was that there was a push to use COTS components wherever possible for cost reasons.
  #24  
Old 07-14-2018, 06:48 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
On a related note, while submarines are complicated, they are not nearly as complicated as manned spacecraft and rockets. After the Apollo program ended, we allowed much of the associated expertise and institutional knowledge to wither away. This is one reason why there haven't been any manned missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) since then. I've heard it said that we couldn't send a man to the moon right now even if we had the will and desire to do so. After nearly 50 years, much of that knowledge and expertise would have to be recreated nearly from scratch.
That's not true at all; what did get lost is a lot of the knowledge involved in building Saturn V rockets.

That's about it though; rocket engine design and manufacturing continued apace; the SSMEs were a post-Apollo design, as are the RS-68 engines that power the Delta IV, and a few others. Other designs have been continually upgraded- the RS-10 used in the Atlas IV upper stages, and several others as well.

Even the Saturn V engines have been modernized- the J-2X is a modern version of the J-2 from the upper stages, and there has been a lot of work done on a F-1B modernized and simplified version of the F-1 first-stage engine.

A lot of other stuff has also been continuously improved since Apollo- spacesuits, procedures for EVA, etc... were refined during the Shuttle era. Same with electronics and materials.

The only thing lacking is a heavy booster, and NASA will soon have that with the Space Launch System, which is slated to be roughly equal (either slightly more or slightly less) to the Saturn V in terms of lift capacity, and from 133% to nearly 200% the capacity of a Falcon Heavy.
  #25  
Old Yesterday, 01:27 AM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That's not true at all; what did get lost is a lot of the knowledge involved in building Saturn V rockets.

That's about it though; rocket engine design and manufacturing continued apace; the SSMEs were a post-Apollo design, as are the RS-68 engines that power the Delta IV, and a few others. Other designs have been continually upgraded- the RS-10 used in the Atlas IV upper stages, and several others as well.

Even the Saturn V engines have been modernized- the J-2X is a modern version of the J-2 from the upper stages, and there has been a lot of work done on a F-1B modernized and simplified version of the F-1 first-stage engine.

A lot of other stuff has also been continuously improved since Apollo- spacesuits, procedures for EVA, etc... were refined during the Shuttle era. Same with electronics and materials.

The only thing lacking is a heavy booster, and NASA will soon have that with the Space Launch System, which is slated to be roughly equal (either slightly more or slightly less) to the Saturn V in terms of lift capacity, and from 133% to nearly 200% the capacity of a Falcon Heavy.
So in other words, because we stopped building Saturn V rockets some 50 years ago, we've had to design a completely different heavy launch system to replace it (which is apparently derived from the launch system used for the Shuttle).

In any event, the Apollo program was comprised of more than just the launch system. It also included the Apollo Command Module, Service Module, and Lunar Module. To the best of my knowledge, there is no currently operational equivalent for any of these. More to the point, everyone who worked on the design of these modules has either retired or died.

In short, how long would it take to put a man on the moon, starting from today? How much of this new program would have to be designed essentially from scratch? (This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I am genuinely curious.)
  #26  
Old Yesterday, 02:40 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
In short, how long would it take to put a man on the moon, starting from today? How much of this new program would have to be designed essentially from scratch? (This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I am genuinely curious.)
It took about 8 years last time. I don't see why it should take any longer now, assuming we're willing to invest the same amount of money.
  #27  
Old Yesterday, 07:49 AM
FairyChatMom FairyChatMom is online now
I'm nice, dammit!
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern Merrylande
Posts: 39,304
Engineering and design for any large project will have various levels of leadership and coordination. If it's well-managed, you'll have a bunch of teams working together and someone on charge to make the hard decisions, because engineering is, to a great degree, the science of compromise. There are space, weight, time, budget, mission, maintenance, and operational constraints, among others. You can come up with the greatest design ever for a system, but if it won't fit or if it costs too much or if it causes interference with another system, something's gotta give.

This is true for submarines, aircraft, amusement park rides, kitchen appliances... well, you get the idea. And it does help when you are designing a newer version of something that already exists, but the same applies to brand-new, never-been-done-before designs. Big task broken down as necessary to smaller tasks, choreographed to come together on time and on budget... theoretically.
  #28  
Old Yesterday, 09:08 AM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
It took about 8 years last time. I don't see why it should take any longer now, assuming we're willing to invest the same amount of money.
It took somewhat longer than this, considering that the Apollo program was directly preceded by Projects Mercury and Gemini. However, I think it would be difficult to replicate the urgency of the project today, what with the race to the moon the first time against the Soviets.

In any event, what about the second question? For a repeat manned Moon program, how much of this new program would have to be designed essentially from scratch?
  #29  
Old Yesterday, 05:41 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
In short, how long would it take to put a man on the moon, starting from today? How much of this new program would have to be designed essentially from scratch? (This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I am genuinely curious.)
From today? About 5 years, considering that they started the work on the SLS and Orion capsule/service module in 2011, and are planning an Apollo 8 style circumnavigation of the moon in 2023- with as much as a 6 person crew.

A lot is being derived from scratch- the capsule, for example, but the SLS itself derives heavily from Shuttle components- SSME engines, SRBs very similar to the Shuttle, and the tankage is pretty similar to both the Shuttle and the Delta IV.

We didn't lose the knowledge to build rockets; we just QUIT building Saturn Vs because there wasn't a mission for them- we focused on the Shuttle.
  #30  
Old Yesterday, 05:53 PM
Dr. Strangelove Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,847
Related to the OP, there's an unusual process that I've experienced in programming.

Computer programs, by necessity, start small. It's nice when they can do something even at that stage (as opposed to writing a giant program that only works when fully complete), so you find some bare-minimum thing to do and do that.

As the program grows, you find that certain things become difficult, so you go through a process of refactoring. Refactoring covers a lot of ground but usually it is about generalization--taking a specific implementation and turning it into common functionality. It's like having a hard-wired instrument on your submarine, getting annoyed that the wiring is getting convoluted, and then designing a common power and data plug system that all instruments can use. The wiring is simplified and you gain the flexibility of moving instruments around or designing new ones.

This often means growing the hierarchy--putting new (general) systems at the top that control (specific) systems at the bottom. The whole system is made modular; different subsystems don't have to know about each other. This goes on and on until you potentially have a very large program. Ideally, one that is divided into logical groups of functionality and not a bunch of "spaghetti code".

The strange part is this: it's easy to reach a level of complexity where you can't fit the whole program in your head at one time. Even though you wrote the entire thing, you can only understand a portion of it at any given moment. If it's well architected, you can easily move from component to component, quickly getting back up to speed--but this involves losing the details on another component.

It's weird, building something bigger than you are, but ultimately pretty rewarding. And it absolutely requires the kind of hierarchical design mentioned in this thread, because without it you could never focus on just one part of the design. It would only be possible to build things that entirely fit in your mental space, which is really a pretty small value.
  #31  
Old Yesterday, 05:57 PM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
It took somewhat longer than this, considering that the Apollo program was directly preceded by Projects Mercury and Gemini.
But the purpose of the Mercury and Gemini projects was to learn how to get manned craft into orbit, and to have them maneuver, navigate and link up with each other. We still do all that stuff today with the ISS.
  #32  
Old Yesterday, 08:24 PM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 11,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
It took about 8 years last time. I don't see why it should take any longer now, assuming we're willing to invest the same amount of money.
It took somewhat longer than this, considering that the Apollo program was directly preceded by Projects Mercury and Gemini.
...
From the first manned flight (Shepard in Mercury 3) to Apollo 11 was about 8 years.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetar...astronaut.html
  #33  
Old Yesterday, 09:23 PM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
From the first manned flight (Shepard in Mercury 3) to Apollo 11 was about 8 years.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetar...astronaut.html
From the beginning of Project Mercury in 1958 to the Moon landing was about 11 years.

What is the significance of the first manned flight? For what it's worth, we don't even have that capability at this time. Aren't U.S. astronauts currently hitching rides to and from the ISS in Russian Soyuz spacecraft?
  #34  
Old Yesterday, 10:05 PM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,148
P.S. In case it's gotten lost in all this back-and-forth, my original point was to compare the U.S. nuclear submarine program to the U.S. manned space program.

Since we first started building nuclear submarines in the 1950s, we've never stopped building them.

On the contrary, the U.S. manned space program seems to have had several starts and stops, from the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Skylab era to the Space Shuttle era to today. We currently have no man-capable heavy launch vehicle and no operational spacecraft, and this has been the case since the Shuttle was retired in 2011.

Lately, we seem to be getting into a habit of starting programs in one presidential administration, then canceling them in subsequent administrations, like the Constellation program. This seems like a complete waste of money and effort.

(BTW, I fully admit I am outside of my field of expertise here. I know a lot more about nuclear submarines than I do about our space program. My understanding of the latter is strictly that of a layperson.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017