3 ms·
The problem here is that messing up the mirror on such a project in the first place was not very sound engineering.
by sanoli 12y ago
The problem here is that messing up the mirror on such a project in the first place was not very sound engineering.
- brudgers 12y agoProfessional engineering practice admits the possiblity of errors and ommissions. Insurance is the technique used to address it. In ordinary practice this is something that is purchased from agents with an associated cost. In the case of Hubble, it was purchased for the cost of making the telescope serviceable. Infallability is not an engineering practice. "Don't screw up" is not an engineering heuristic.
- jeffwass 12y agoFair point, but 'messing it up' to such a high degree of accuracy that it could be corrected for via COSTAR does show soundness of engineering. Ie, mistakes will inevitably happen. But having the process refined enough to compensate, improvise, and enhance on original plans and imperfections does show good design.
- adventured 12y agoYou're right, and it's a funny kind of right. It's an astounding thing when you're creating a mirror closest to perfection that had ever been made, and missing by 2.2 micrometres ruins it. And given that it was the 1980s and you're dealing with nano scale engineering, it was just that much more incredible.
- icegreentea 12y agoI should have made my point slightly more clear. I think that the OP's post is actually a non-sequitur. Both statements are generally true, but neither necessarily follows from the other.