31–40 of 522 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>344 single points of failure How can a system have more that one single point of failure?
The sequential deployment process had many possible individual points of failure along the way - if any step went wrong then the full deployment failed.
For those not up on the project, what are some of the earliest novel types of information we expect to receive from it?
Also spectra will be available to understand physical and chemical compositions at early times.
One of the big numbers that been thrown around is that JWST has 344 single points of failure in its mission. Now that deployment has been completed, is there somewhere that lists how many of those points we have passed?
>344 single points of failure How can a system have more that one single point of failure?
If any one of 344 pieces were to fail during deployment, then all of the deployment has failed and the entire $10B was a loss. Consider the engine in your car- how many single pieces of it could fail before the entire engine can't work? The difference with Webb is that most of those points were single actions that had to work once.
And we're now at a stage where most of them did not fail.
Great news! I’m happy about this. Just curious - had this mission critically fail, how likely would we be to simply try again? Who needs to approve the cost for that? Would it be politically important to succeed currently?
Hopefully it inserts into L2 orbit successfully and starts doing science. If the results are interesting I can well see a future mission to try and refuel it to extend its life past its projected 10+ years.
“It also used less propellant than planned due to the precision of the telescope's launch aboard the Ariane 5 rocket, so "the observatory should have enough propellant to allow support of science operations in orbit for significantly more than a 10-year science lifetime," according to NASA.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sequential deployment process had many possible individual points of failure along the way - if any step went wrong then the full deployment failed.
well yes, but wouldn't we refer to them simply by "points of failure" not "single"?
Contrast, say, a single-engine jet plane with a twin-engine jet plane that can still make it to the airport safely with the remaining engine, should one engine fail mid-flight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>344 single points of failure How can a system have more that one single point of failure?
If you're in a car being held above the ground by a chain, every single link is a potential single-point of failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sequential deployment process had many possible individual points of failure along the way - if any step went wrong then the full deployment failed.
well yes, but wouldn't we refer to them simply by "points of failure" not "single"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sequential deployment process had many possible individual points of failure along the way - if any step went wrong then the full deployment failed.
well yes, but wouldn't we refer to them simply by "points of failure" not "single"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sequential deployment process had many possible individual points of failure along the way - if any step went wrong then the full deployment failed.
well yes, but wouldn't we refer to them simply by "points of failure" not "single"?