3 ms·
Well, the mars helicopter essentially uses a cell phone, so not really. And it's not that low power. But yeah, the mentality was: We know this works, it's too
by jvanderbot 3y ago
Well, the mars helicopter essentially uses a cell phone, so not really.
And it's not that low power.
But yeah, the mentality was: We know this works, it's too costly to guarantee a new one will work, and too risky to just try it. Same in the military. Imagine the military didn't have radiation, temperature, etc requirements
- ch4s3 3y agoFrom what I understand the helicopter was a special case and sort of a side mission meant to test off the shelf parts.
- jvanderbot 3y agoSure, but those COTS parts still underwent lots and lots of rad/ vac testing. There's a design-for-resilience vs test-for-resilience tradeoff at play. I'm saying that not all systems require design-for-resilience.
- godelski 3y agoWell to nitpick, that's because the two are kinda the same. Testing is part of design and vise versa in these types of systems. But otherwise I agree with the points you've made (seems we've been responding in parallel lol)
- giantrobot 3y agoIngenuity is also running a very customized software stack to go along with the highly tested hardware. IIRC the OS can reboot in a some relatively small number milliseconds. It's meant to be able to crash in mid-air and reboot and recover before the probe loses lift and crashes in most flight envelopes. The software is also set up to crash and reboot rather than try to recover or operate in a compromised state.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jvanderbot 3y agoYeah, I suspect we were both in or close to 347 at the time this was getting made.
- heavyset_go 3y agoAFAIK the helicopter wasn't mission critical, it was a nice-to-have demo project that piggybacked on Perseverance's mission.