someone committed Harakiri, I guarantee it
Heh, I laughed.
Interesting to see where HN draws the line on 'offensive'
21–30 of 72 posts
someone committed Harakiri, I guarantee it
Heh, I laughed.
Interesting to see where HN draws the line on 'offensive'
It seems very strange that the 3 missions that would deploy an X-ray calorimeter have all failed. I feel sad for the scientists who have been hoping to get a working one into space for what sounds like over 16 years now (based on the article).
It seems very strange that the 3 missions that would deploy an X-ray calorimeter have all failed. I feel sad for the scientists who have been hoping to get a working one into space for what sounds like over 16 years now (based on the article).
Are you asking yourself whether theses losses were by chance or by conspiracy to fail?
someone committed Harakiri, I guarantee it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I have absolutely no insight into the software development practices of JAXA and their subcontractors, so I apologize if this is insensitive or uniformed.) Is this another sign of how bad japanese hardware -oriented companies and organizations are at doing software? Like the organisational software crisis at Toyota? Or was it a fluke?
I hate to feel that way; but yeah most software I see come out of Japan scares me. Outside of legally-critical software, such as automotive control systems: it doesn't seem that there is much focus on quality. I suspect it has to do with the scale of integrators in the country being much smaller, and lacking in terms of B2B collaboration. There are some jewels here and there, though. It's probably just a matter of cu…
The analysis of Toyoda's software that might have been behind the claimed acceleration/can't stop the engine problems indicates that even there, at least Toyota is all but hopeless.
I'm surprised that they had to design custom inertial stabilization, considering how many times it's been done successfully before. Was it NIH mentality? Or did it have some requirement for more precise stabilization than other space telescopes?
As far as I understand it, Satellite design is all about cramming the most amount of features in as small and light a package as possible. That would mean a lot of tight coupling and a hard time standardizing anything across different types of satellites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you asking yourself whether theses losses were by chance or by conspiracy to fail?
I don't know the expected success rate for these missions, it just seemed odd that each time this particular instrument has been launched, an issue occurred to render it unusable. Maybe it is par for the course, but it does raise suspicions (at least in my mind).
I'm surprised that they had to design custom inertial stabilization, considering how many times it's been done successfully before. Was it NIH mentality? Or did it have some requirement for more precise stabilization than other space telescopes?
At a guess, I'd say that most satellites have different requirements due to the way their weight is distributed and where the inertial stabilization is done. As far as I understand it, Satellite design is all about cramming the most amount of features in as small and light a package as possible. That would mean a lot of tight coupling and a hard time standardizing anything across different types of satellites.