4 ms·
Its surprising how long those electronics lasted considering they were just regular off the shelf components and not rad-hardened
by robotnikman 3y ago
Its surprising how long those electronics lasted considering they were just regular off the shelf components and not rad-hardened
- wolverine876 3y agoWhy wouldn't they use better than off-the-shelf components for job like this one? That doesn't seem like a money-saving decision.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dylan604 3y agoWhat if part of the experiment was to test the viability of COTS parts?
- wolverine876 3y agoWas it?
- dylan604 3y agoIt is now
- wolverine876 3y agoIt apparently was the whole time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39075315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39075315
- dotnet00 3y agoThey used off-the-shelf components because they were low priority, low cost side projects that were not expected to last long anyway. Similarly, the video (and associated audio which malfunctioned) of the skycrane-deployed landing was done by COTS components which otherwise would not have been present at all. Also, by COTS, they're using components which would otherwise be meant for industrial use, so they're still likely to be more rugged than what might come to mind when thinking of off the shelf components.
- anigbrowl 3y agoCOTS FTW There's a big argument going on in military procurement right now about the high $ state of the art drones vs cheap & adequate.
- rossdavidh 3y agoWhile that is true, the tradeoff there involves throwing 1,000 state of the art at the enemy, vs. throwing 5,000 cheap and adequate. (not sure if the multiplier is 5x but something like that) NASA does not have exactly the same situation. There was a time when they were going to try to do more, cheaper, faster missions, which IIRC lasted until the first one failed, and then that policy was abandoned.
- plopz 3y agoI think the CLIPS program is supposed to be a variation of that tradeoff