3 ms·
That's designing specifically for this failure case, when the typical case is that a sensor or engine encounters an overlooked edge case during the descent phas
by dotnet00 3y ago
That's designing specifically for this failure case, when the typical case is that a sensor or engine encounters an overlooked edge case during the descent phase and smashes into the surface.
- pvaldes 3y agoIn such big projects as this, you just can't say "we didn't though about that, we will wait to see if we have luck". Having B-plans for each specific case that you could reasonable obtain is a must. They were paid big sweet money for thinking about that. The idea that the machine can be moved only if receives sun by some specific direction, is not logical when you play at this level.
- dotnet00 3y agoThis isn't a $20B project paid for by a corrupt government and poorly educated population like what NASA deals with, where indeed they cannot go without a measure for every contingency and without promising to burn billions of dollars buying votes, because otherwise they won't get funding at all. This had a total cost of $121M. Like any sane engineering project, it did accept some risk and chance of failure as part of the tradeoffs. Part of that was potentially landing in a bad orientation.
- pvaldes 3y ago> not a project paid for by a corrupt government and poorly educated population like what NASA deals with, Was that part really necessary? If nose landing is ok for the Japanese, is ok for me.
- yencabulator 3y agoAlso, this failure case was loss of engine 50 meters high. That'll ruin the day of just about any landing strategy.