4 ms·

If the actuator broke down the 351st time, would you've commented 'they didn't even spin something 400 times...'? What would be a number you'd be comfortable wi

If the actuator broke down the 351st time, would you've commented 'they didn't even spin something 400 times...'? What would be a number you'd be comfortable with instead?

amelius 6y ago
640k
elcomet 6y ago
Maybe the expected number of times it would be expected to spin in space (or twice that to make sure it's working)
- amelius 6y ago
  The initial Voyager program already ended, and they are now in an "extended" mission.
curryst 6y ago
I would have thought they would run every part until it died so they know roughly what it's lifespan is. It's good if the parts lifespan is twice as long as you need. However, it's even better if you could make it four times the amount you think you need, as long as it isn't horribly expensive. I would tend to assume they've thought of that though, and stuck with this part for reasons. Maybe there werent other space-ready alternatives or something.
- jerf 6y ago
  I don't think any of us are in a position to be too critical of the engineering done for the Voyager probes. The number of machines running continuously for longer than I've been alive with no maintenance is pretty short; the number of them out past the orbit of Pluto even smaller.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    This is actually a fairly egregious oversight, but it is good to know they fixed it.
- kryptiskt 6y ago
  It's impossible with current technology to make a vacuum as good as outer space on Earth, which hampers testing of components in realistic conditions. See also Galileo's antenna.
- jjk166 6y ago
  When you are weight constrained the way a space probe is, every factor of safety above the bare minimum is horribly expensive. With no risk to human life and a skilled team of engineers on the ground, the cost of further risk reduction easily may not be worth it.
ballenf 6y ago
Maybe as many times as needed to do the minimal in-solar-system observations that were planned well in advance? On the other hand, if they had to budget for a second copy of everything in advance they may have never gotten to launch. Asking for the funding after already having good success behind them is likely a lot easier.

If the actuator broke down the 351st time, would you've commented 'they didn't even spin something 400 times...'? What would be a number you'd be comfortable with instead?

amelius 6y ago

640k

elcomet 6y ago

Maybe the expected number of times it would be expected to spin in space (or twice that to make sure it's working)

amelius 6y ago
The initial Voyager program already ended, and they are now in an "extended" mission.

curryst 6y ago

I would have thought they would run every part until it died so they know roughly what it's lifespan is. It's good if the parts lifespan is twice as long as you need. However, it's even better if you could make it four times the amount you think you need, as long as it isn't horribly expensive. I would tend to assume they've thought of that though, and stuck with this part for reasons. Maybe there werent other space-ready alternatives or something.

jerf 6y ago
I don't think any of us are in a position to be too critical of the engineering done for the Voyager probes. The number of machines running continuously for longer than I've been alive with no maintenance is pretty short; the number of them out past the orbit of Pluto even smaller.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  This is actually a fairly egregious oversight, but it is good to know they fixed it.
kryptiskt 6y ago
It's impossible with current technology to make a vacuum as good as outer space on Earth, which hampers testing of components in realistic conditions. See also Galileo's antenna.
jjk166 6y ago
When you are weight constrained the way a space probe is, every factor of safety above the bare minimum is horribly expensive. With no risk to human life and a skilled team of engineers on the ground, the cost of further risk reduction easily may not be worth it.

ballenf 6y ago

Maybe as many times as needed to do the minimal in-solar-system observations that were planned well in advance? On the other hand, if they had to budget for a second copy of everything in advance they may have never gotten to launch. Asking for the funding after already having good success behind them is likely a lot easier.