News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of failure reliable. Parent comment

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WJW on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:02PM (#29866808)
Low probability or not, if an airplane can't stay in the air with one of the wings missing that definitely counts as a "single point of failure". Whether that SPOF needs to be mitigated is a tradeoff based on other constraints like the expected risk, economics, and safety regulations (and in the case of the space telescope, maximum launch mass of the rocket).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by jonas21 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:55PM (#29867235)
Wings don't just go missing. It would require multiple failures for a wing to "fall off" an airliner.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by CamperBob2 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:48PM (#29867172)
That's kind of ridiculous. A terrorist bomb in the cargo hold is a "single point of failure" that will crash the plane, as is quantum uncertainty causing one wing to break off spontaneously. This says nothing about the actual SPoF engineering requirement, which is a very real, very relevant thing.
[ Parent | on HN ]