Ground control bids farewell to Philae comet lander

Re:Ground control bids farewell to Philae comet lander by kuschku on Sunday February 28, 2016 @03:45PM (#11192282)

Thanks to trade treaties, ESA always has to use the cheapest available hardware that fulfils the requirements – no matter if other hardware is more reliable.

This has been part of many discussions before – and it doesn’t just affect ESA.

From government agencies which have to buy pencils that break after every use and are practically useless, to contractors building Autobahnen where the asphalt melts in the summer sun away.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ground control bids farewell to Philae comet lander by hueving on Sunday February 28, 2016 @07:19PM (#11193051)

You're bringing up a non issue. Add reliability constraints into your requirements. Airplane components are also made of the cheapest materials that satisfy the constraints required by the engineers and they don't randomly fall apart.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ground control bids farewell to Philae comet lander by EdHominem on Sunday February 28, 2016 @06:34PM (#11192919)

If the requirements don't have enough safety margin built in then that's an issue, but if the safety margins are being met then what's the problem?

If you're receiving pencils that break, specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ground control bids farewell to Philae comet lander by kuschku on Monday February 29, 2016 @02:57PM (#11197925)

> specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix.

And then get a warning from the WTO for unfair practices.

Contracts can’t that specific in most places, sadly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ground control bids farewell to Philae comet lander by EdHominem on Tuesday March 01, 2016 @01:49PM (#11205020)

I've seen a process like this that forbids naming brands, etc, but you've always been able to spec standards and performance tests.

[ Parent | on HN ]