3 ms·
Had two. One showed so much measurement noise they couldn't trust it, other kept cutting out. Not great.
by JonChesterfield 2y ago
Had two. One showed so much measurement noise they couldn't trust it, other kept cutting out. Not great.
- lionkor 2y agoSo three ones, two different models, one in a different location. These are like... basics, no?
- ricardobeat 2y agoIf you multiply every critical component by 3x there will be no room left for anything else.
- lionkor 2y agoWell the way they did it (twice) means they had space for other stuff, and of course also failed because they didn't have enough redudancy
- uoaei 2y agoslippery slope fallacy. just do engineering good
- pclmulqdq 2y ago2n + 1 is a basic minimum amount of redundancy for anything critical in a high-value space mission.
- adastra22 2y agoThis isn't a high-value space mission.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThe price of a ride to the moon alone would make this "high-value." Cubesats are an example of when you can get away with no redundancy, but this is not a cubesat.
- adastra22 2y agoThis is best compared to being a lunar landing cubesat. IM is an order of magnitude cheaper than a comparable NASA lander. Cheap is the point, and cheap carries with it some concessions to risk.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago$1M was the amount they spent on the lander. If I recall correctly, they got a ride to the moon for free. Delivering that amount of mass to the moon is worth O($10M). It seems incentives were not properly aligned for this group. I should also point out that you can fly a scientific mission on a 1U cubesat for ~$100k all in (including launch cost), which puts it in a very different regime.
- ricardobeat 2y agoThe first moon landing cost $300 billion+ in today's dollars.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoYeah, this is not that, though. We know how to get to the moon, and a small probe is lighter than 3 people plus a vehicle that allows them to make a return trip. This launch, which had a few other payloads, too, reportedly cost NASA $62 million.
- adastra22 2y agoGetting to the moon is vastly more expensive. 40x is the multiplier that is typically used in the industry. Prior to cancellation, NASA spent $433M on the VIPER lander + rover--NOT inclusive of launch costs. $1m is crazy cheap.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago$1M is not the full price of this mission. $1M is the price of the lander only. They were given a ride on a rocket whose total bill was $62.5 million (just for the launch, but spread among 4 missions). When you spend $1 million but get $10 million of stuff for free, it's not really a "$1 million project."