would have been more interesting or laudable. I think it's interesting and laudable that the hardware coped. But yeah, on the face of it this sounds very much

would have been more interesting or laudable. I think it's interesting and laudable that the hardware coped. But yeah, on the face of it this sounds very much like brittle software. For 46 seconds the craft's performance suffered from a single frame being dropped. It sounds like either the calculations were smeared over way too much time, or (more likely) the code made too many assumptions that relied on every piece of the pipeline properly behaving, not only in the moment but also over the entire history of the flight. I'm speaking from extreme ignorance obviously. But this reminds me of a million code reviews I've done where I've asked developers to make fewer assumptions about the state of the system. Often the response is something like "but how could that ever happen?" And my response is always "i have no idea, but shit happens." I would love to see a postmortem that discussed the specifics of what went wrong in the software, and whether they can attribute the lack of robustness to system design flaws.