Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Spending Billions for Nothing going to Mars.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zlex" data-source="post: 1532919" data-attributes="member: 14581"><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/hug.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hug:" title="hug :hug:" data-shortname=":hug:" /> </p><p> </p><p>It was an interesting problem. This was a one-off instrument. They had built exactly two, one for each rover. It didn't fail after one harder than design 'whack.' The question is, would it fail during the second 'design' whack, now that it has received the first whack?</p><p></p><p>You could test by giving it another 'whack.' But, then, will it fail the next time? </p><p></p><p>They had no way to test to failure. They had no way to test a batch of these things to failure. They had no way to test a set of mock ups of these things to failure. They had, just the things that had to work, first time.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, they gave it one harder than design 'whack' just to give themselves some confidence. There is some logic in that, in that, if it was going to fail, it was most likely to fail with the first really hard 'whack.' But, there was yet some small chance that the first whack sets up the failure for the second smaller whack, and so on.</p><p></p><p>It's a face off between probabilities, and the test with first hard whack estimate of that probability won out.</p><p></p><p>Or else, somebody just thought it would be a good idea to give it a whack, see if it was going to fail, but I doubt that. </p><p></p><p>Development like that is somewhere between science, engineering judgement, and black art, which is what makes the successful mission such an incredible feat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zlex, post: 1532919, member: 14581"] :hug: It was an interesting problem. This was a one-off instrument. They had built exactly two, one for each rover. It didn't fail after one harder than design 'whack.' The question is, would it fail during the second 'design' whack, now that it has received the first whack? You could test by giving it another 'whack.' But, then, will it fail the next time? They had no way to test to failure. They had no way to test a batch of these things to failure. They had no way to test a set of mock ups of these things to failure. They had, just the things that had to work, first time. So, they gave it one harder than design 'whack' just to give themselves some confidence. There is some logic in that, in that, if it was going to fail, it was most likely to fail with the first really hard 'whack.' But, there was yet some small chance that the first whack sets up the failure for the second smaller whack, and so on. It's a face off between probabilities, and the test with first hard whack estimate of that probability won out. Or else, somebody just thought it would be a good idea to give it a whack, see if it was going to fail, but I doubt that. Development like that is somewhere between science, engineering judgement, and black art, which is what makes the successful mission such an incredible feat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Spending Billions for Nothing going to Mars.
Top
Bottom