4 ms·

I completely agree with this. Mil-spec and certified ICs are a completely different beast. As we can see, they have to survive decades in storage, need an absu

by pnpnp 3y ago

I completely agree with this. Mil-spec and certified ICs are a completely different beast. As we can see, they have to survive decades in storage, need an absurdly high pass rate, need to survive incredible abuse in battlefield situations AND survive who-knows-how-many G’s of acceleration (/ vibration) catching up to a target.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
That sounds a lot like car grade electronics, TBH. I suspect that there is some combination of military contractors forgetting how to move fast, and the military being so wrapped up in process instead of results at play here.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  Acceleration isn't the biggest problem on such light devices, vibrations are. Those boards are exposed to high frequency vibrations that could detach or crack components because the pcb resonates inflecing rapidly back and forth.
- somerandomqaguy 3y ago
  A stinger missile has a rocket motor who's back blast can easily cause serious injuries or death to a grown adult man; every manual for shoulder launch munitions calls to make sure that the backblast area of a launcher is clear of friendlies. There's 1.02kg of HTA high explosive to launch shrapnel with. The M67 fragmentation grenade carries 0.182 kg of high explosive, kill radius of 5 meters, injury radius of 15 meters. Would you want, "Move fast and break things," development attitude with an electronically detonated bomb less then an inch from your head?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    There’s a difference between being able to iterate quickly and move fast, and the “move fast and break things” ethos. The P-51 Mustang went from conception to flying prototype in 179 days by a company that had never built a fighter before. Fighters aren’t famous for being lower stakes than bazookas. I know that complexity doesn’t scale linearly, but we can use the Dragon vs Starliner development to make the point that legacy military contractors have forgotten how to move with purpose. The Starliner capsule has been in development for longer than the entire Apollo program, is years overdue, and still has no scheduled crew test flight. The dragon, meanwhile, made by a company that famously moves fast, has successfully, and safely, been flying crewed missions for years. That seems pretty high stakes to me…

by pnpnp 3y ago

dghlsakjg 3y ago

That sounds a lot like car grade electronics, TBH. I suspect that there is some combination of military contractors forgetting how to move fast, and the military being so wrapped up in process instead of results at play here.

squarefoot 3y ago
Acceleration isn't the biggest problem on such light devices, vibrations are. Those boards are exposed to high frequency vibrations that could detach or crack components because the pcb resonates inflecing rapidly back and forth.
somerandomqaguy 3y ago
A stinger missile has a rocket motor who's back blast can easily cause serious injuries or death to a grown adult man; every manual for shoulder launch munitions calls to make sure that the backblast area of a launcher is clear of friendlies. There's 1.02kg of HTA high explosive to launch shrapnel with. The M67 fragmentation grenade carries 0.182 kg of high explosive, kill radius of 5 meters, injury radius of 15 meters. Would you want, "Move fast and break things," development attitude with an electronically detonated bomb less then an inch from your head?
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  There’s a difference between being able to iterate quickly and move fast, and the “move fast and break things” ethos. The P-51 Mustang went from conception to flying prototype in 179 days by a company that had never built a fighter before. Fighters aren’t famous for being lower stakes than bazookas. I know that complexity doesn’t scale linearly, but we can use the Dragon vs Starliner development to make the point that legacy military contractors have forgotten how to move with purpose. The Starliner capsule has been in development for longer than the entire Apollo program, is years overdue, and still has no scheduled crew test flight. The dragon, meanwhile, made by a company that famously moves fast, has successfully, and safely, been flying crewed missions for years. That seems pretty high stakes to me…