4 ms·

Before NASA sent their first drone to Mars they made a lot of predictions, a lot of tests, guessed a lot of things that may get wrong, etc. Do some of their mis

by erikb 11y ago

Before NASA sent their first drone to Mars they made a lot of predictions, a lot of tests, guessed a lot of things that may get wrong, etc. Do some of their missions still fail? Sure. But the amount of success is much much larger because they didn't just sent a drone there and watched what happened. So even if all you say is correct it's still worth improving one's estimation skills.

lmm 11y ago
> Before NASA sent their first drone to Mars they made a lot of predictions, a lot of tests, guessed a lot of things that may get wrong, etc. Do some of their missions still fail? Sure. But the amount of success is much much larger because they didn't just sent a drone there and watched what happened. How much effort went into estimating Opportunity's lifetime at 90 days? How useful has that estimate proven to be?
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  That is cherry picking. Did you try to comprehend the post you are replying to? Take into account all of the estimations, not just one failed estimation.
  - lmm 11y ago
    Sure, take into account all the estimations. How much value have they delivered? Show me how NASA has got more science done than if they had "just sent a drone there and watched what happened". Because I don't believe they have.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - erikb 11y ago
      The funny thing is despite having the opposite opinion I understand so well how you see it. I wish I could show you my point of view better.
      - TheLogothete 11y ago
        That was exactly how I felt. It is a matter of pay grade, I think.
Gravityloss 11y ago
Since Apollo, NASA has been suffering from too large projects. It's a spiral: once a project grows beyond a certain size, failing would be politically catastrophic. Hence the project must have even more tests and simulations, and the time table and cost move to the right, and it gets even more risk averse. The vicious cycle. Instead if there were small enough missions and failure was tolerated as an unfortunate part of the process, progress would be a lot faster, and new technologies could be attempted etc. This was the whole Faster Better Cheaper approach. Small teams of highly competent people, quick iteration, little bureaucracy... Pathfinder/Sojourner was a FBC mission. It had a freaking webcam there. :) Opportunity/Spirit were somewhat bloated and the latest Curiosity rover was already a relatively traditional megaproject. Naturally there has been science instrument maturation etc as well, it's not a one sided story, but it is important to understand. Look how many launchers SpaceX has developed and how much it has iterated, while NASA has worked on SLS. Sure, SpaceX has crashed and burned plenty of rockets and test vehicles on the way. It has changed directions dramatically. But looking as a whole, it has made large progress. There is some kind of spectrum here. Of course if you launch deep space probes for 20 year missions, you test differently than for a launch test vehicle. But if you had many of those space probes as well, it wouldn't be so catastrophic if some of those failed.

by erikb 11y ago

lmm 11y ago

> Before NASA sent their first drone to Mars they made a lot of predictions, a lot of tests, guessed a lot of things that may get wrong, etc. Do some of their missions still fail? Sure. But the amount of success is much much larger because they didn't just sent a drone there and watched what happened. How much effort went into estimating Opportunity's lifetime at 90 days? How useful has that estimate proven to be?

TheLogothete 11y ago
That is cherry picking. Did you try to comprehend the post you are replying to? Take into account all of the estimations, not just one failed estimation.
- lmm 11y ago
  Sure, take into account all the estimations. How much value have they delivered? Show me how NASA has got more science done than if they had "just sent a drone there and watched what happened". Because I don't believe they have.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - erikb 11y ago
    The funny thing is despite having the opposite opinion I understand so well how you see it. I wish I could show you my point of view better.
    - TheLogothete 11y ago
      That was exactly how I felt. It is a matter of pay grade, I think.

Gravityloss 11y ago

Since Apollo, NASA has been suffering from too large projects. It's a spiral: once a project grows beyond a certain size, failing would be politically catastrophic. Hence the project must have even more tests and simulations, and the time table and cost move to the right, and it gets even more risk averse. The vicious cycle. Instead if there were small enough missions and failure was tolerated as an unfortunate part of the process, progress would be a lot faster, and new technologies could be attempted etc. This was the whole Faster Better Cheaper approach. Small teams of highly competent people, quick iteration, little bureaucracy... Pathfinder/Sojourner was a FBC mission. It had a freaking webcam there. :) Opportunity/Spirit were somewhat bloated and the latest Curiosity rover was already a relatively traditional megaproject. Naturally there has been science instrument maturation etc as well, it's not a one sided story, but it is important to understand. Look how many launchers SpaceX has developed and how much it has iterated, while NASA has worked on SLS. Sure, SpaceX has crashed and burned plenty of rockets and test vehicles on the way. It has changed directions dramatically. But looking as a whole, it has made large progress. There is some kind of spectrum here. Of course if you launch deep space probes for 20 year missions, you test differently than for a launch test vehicle. But if you had many of those space probes as well, it wouldn't be so catastrophic if some of those failed.