Comments by "Dr Gamma D" (@DrDeuteron) on "How Mars Stumped NASA Engineers | InSight" video.

  1.  @GenoLoma  the local air is equivalent to 120,000ft on Earth. There isn't much.
    5
  2. Because the arm is a science instrument, not a house keeping instrument. A dual use instrument would be an absolute nightmare to spec, design, build, test, and operate.
    5
  3.  @naveenkondeti4163  you clearly don't know anything about systems engineering, and the house keeping quip: what's that all-out?
    3
  4.  @HylanderSB  also, when the requirement is a 2y mission, engineers have to design that with a 99.7% chance of success. Designing a 4y spec'd mission would cost way way more, so you design to the "success-requirements", and then it's always likely (say95%) that it will go 4 years. Repeat until the S/C dies.
    3
  5. is bluetooth space qualified? Has it passed temp, vibe, pressure requirements? What about EMI and EMC? Can a blue tooth be built with space-qualified (class S) electronics? Is it rad-hard? What about planetary protection? (Less than one bacterial division in 10,000 years)... do you have any idea what in takes to get a piece of technology into space?
    2
  6. When NASA spec's a 2 year mission, engineers design/build/test for a 97.7% chance of working. So, after 2 years is up, there is plenty of margin to do 2 more. and 2 more....etc, until, like spirit and opportunity...something finally breaks. Phoenix was different, because it landed in the Martian arctic, and it was known: winter is coming. It had zero chance of survival.
    2
  7.  @dirktween244  NASA didn't build the InSight instruments. The 2 year delay (or one martian launch cycle...the minimum delay possible) was caused by SEIS leaking (the vacuum requirements are difficult), and SEIS was built by France.
    2
  8.  @clavo3352  I skipped Mars2020, but I can only imagine the concerns about crashing the drone into the rover.
    2
  9. there would be no problems because the mission wouldn't have launched.
    1
  10. is it?
    1
  11.  @GrinninPig  you mean aerology. "geo" means Earth. "Aero" means Mars.
    1
  12.  @GrinninPig  perihelion, perigee, perijove periastron periapsis pericrone, perilune periselene repeat for apogee, repeat for "geoid" (gravity field),... so it's already done.
    1
  13.  @russhamilton3800  no. regolith.
    1
  14.  @russhamilton3800  money. Panels met mission requirements. It's a Discovery class mission, not a Flagship.
    1
  15. you are correct. They don't know jack about phase A to phase E.
    1
  16. your distances are deltas.
    1
  17. landing ellipse.
    1
  18. maybe because they don't work, cost too much, and add more risk than they alleviate?
    1
  19. unfolding is a high risk event.
    1
  20. Scientist don't design anything. They state "requirements", and then engineers design, build, and operate. And then scientists take the data and do science.
    1
  21.  @hasnihossainsami8375  flying a drone near a space craft is not going to happen.
    1
  22. It's just not that simple. The problems associated with a dual use half science half engineering instrument would be huge...and it would blow out the budget.
    1
  23.  @christopherpardell4418  right, and it's 5'9", while the panels are over 19'. If the arm could reach the panels, it can destroy the panels. How much does it cost to ensure that doesn't happen? (it's a cost capped discovery class mission). Are you going to rely on software? How much does it cost to ensure the command you just sent up isn't going to put the arm through the solar panels?
    1
  24. what if they tilt the wrong way, and you kill the mission by accident?
    1
  25.  @jimmycraig221  it adds risk. How much does it cost to mitigate...on a cost-capped discovery class mission?
    1
  26. except its DLR's failure.
    1