Modern AAA computer games have at least double the code size, are produced in a fifth of the time, for the price of roughly 1 year of the NASA group's budget.
This is why we need NewSpace. It would actually be better to fail more often and more cheaply.
Of course, that's impossible for a Congressionally-funded organization.
I bet you are talking about the fast prototyping that danc (lostgarden.com) talks about. You probably don't want to use a buzzword that doesn't even give sensible results on a Google search.
Game programming is one field where "good enough" is not just a particular philosophy of coding, it is a law of the gaming universe. I would say that the "assurance" requirements of games are on the other end of the spectrum compared to NASA software.
On the other hand, NASA has recently proven with some of its probe projects that Soviet-style "shotgun" probes can be better than trying to make the perfect probe. Making 3 "good enough" probes and having only one or two actually accomplish the mission can cost less than making one perfect probe which even then may or may not be successful.
SpaceX, XCOR Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Armadillo Aerospace, etc.
My comment was actually based on lurking in on discussion with rocketeers who have worked both inside and outside the government.
As someone who's only worked in relatively small, private-sector software companies, it's been very eye-opening to get an insight into how and why government managers make their decisions.
Comments
That's an expensive way to write software.
Modern AAA computer games have at least double the code size, are produced in a fifth of the time, for the price of roughly 1 year of the NASA group's budget.
This is why we need NewSpace. It would actually be better to fail more often and more cheaply.
Of course, that's impossible for a Congressionally-funded organization.
I bet you are talking about the fast prototyping that danc (lostgarden.com) talks about. You probably don't want to use a buzzword that doesn't even give sensible results on a Google search.
Game programming is one field where "good enough" is not just a particular philosophy of coding, it is a law of the gaming universe. I would say that the "assurance" requirements of games are on the other end of the spectrum compared to NASA software.
On the other hand, NASA has recently proven with some of its probe projects that Soviet-style "shotgun" probes can be better than trying to make the perfect probe. Making 3 "good enough" probes and having only one or two actually accomplish the mission can cost less than making one perfect probe which even then may or may not be successful.
it's always easy for somebody outside the dance to judge.
newspace what?
more thoughtful comments wouldn't hurt anyone because otherwise it feels I am reading some fantasy or something.
NewSpace as in:
SpaceX, XCOR Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Armadillo Aerospace, etc.
My comment was actually based on lurking in on discussion with rocketeers who have worked both inside and outside the government.
As someone who's only worked in relatively small, private-sector software companies, it's been very eye-opening to get an insight into how and why government managers make their decisions.