4 ms·

Maybe next time have a better system design so one instrument/sensor error/failure/loss doesn't lead to total loss of unit.

w_t_payne 10y ago
Maybe rather than a design issue this can be seen as a development process and engineering management issue. I expect that a top level system model should reduce the risk of this sort of error. Of course, it is hard to justify the cost of developing these models without being able to amortize that cost over multiple products / missions, so product line oriented engineering management and strong leadership from the sponsor has a big role to play as well.
- kashkhan 10y ago
  Errors in INS are common. Saturation is common. What isn't common is a bad design that isn't failsafe or failop for a single failure.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
Remember, spacecrafts have weight constraints that limits redundancy options. Besides this was a 'tracing bullet' designed to test an unproven procedure before committing to a more expensive mission, so there's that.
- kashkhan 10y ago
  Designing a reliable system that is failure resistant is what aerospace design is all about. With INS fail op design is the norm. Yes accidents still happen for common mode failures, but those are supposed to be worked out before committing hundreds of millions of euros. Costly mistakes happen when people take unjustified shortcuts. Like not testing Hubble's mirror on the ground, and ending up with a myopic telescope in orbit that then needs another billion dollar mission to correct.
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    The humanity is truly lucky to have your hindsight at the ready, please share more.
lmm 10y ago
Navigating correctly when you have failed sensors is easy. Working out when to discard information from a sensor that seems to be working, but is giving bad readings, is much harder.
- kashkhan 10y ago
  these are solved problems. Look at INS in B777 for example, designed in the 80s with quadruple laser gyros.

w_t_payne 10y ago

Maybe rather than a design issue this can be seen as a development process and engineering management issue. I expect that a top level system model should reduce the risk of this sort of error. Of course, it is hard to justify the cost of developing these models without being able to amortize that cost over multiple products / missions, so product line oriented engineering management and strong leadership from the sponsor has a big role to play as well.

kashkhan 10y ago
Errors in INS are common. Saturation is common. What isn't common is a bad design that isn't failsafe or failop for a single failure.

LoSboccacc 10y ago

Remember, spacecrafts have weight constraints that limits redundancy options. Besides this was a 'tracing bullet' designed to test an unproven procedure before committing to a more expensive mission, so there's that.

kashkhan 10y ago
Designing a reliable system that is failure resistant is what aerospace design is all about. With INS fail op design is the norm. Yes accidents still happen for common mode failures, but those are supposed to be worked out before committing hundreds of millions of euros. Costly mistakes happen when people take unjustified shortcuts. Like not testing Hubble's mirror on the ground, and ending up with a myopic telescope in orbit that then needs another billion dollar mission to correct.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  The humanity is truly lucky to have your hindsight at the ready, please share more.

lmm 10y ago

Navigating correctly when you have failed sensors is easy. Working out when to discard information from a sensor that seems to be working, but is giving bad readings, is much harder.

kashkhan 10y ago
these are solved problems. Look at INS in B777 for example, designed in the 80s with quadruple laser gyros.