Preferences

ricardobeat parent
If you multiply every critical component by 3x there will be no room left for anything else.

pclmulqdq
2n + 1 is a basic minimum amount of redundancy for anything critical in a high-value space mission.
adastra22
This isn't a high-value space mission.
pclmulqdq
The price of a ride to the moon alone would make this "high-value." Cubesats are an example of when you can get away with no redundancy, but this is not a cubesat.
adastra22
This is best compared to being a lunar landing cubesat. IM is an order of magnitude cheaper than a comparable NASA lander. Cheap is the point, and cheap carries with it some concessions to risk.
pclmulqdq
$1M was the amount they spent on the lander. If I recall correctly, they got a ride to the moon for free. Delivering that amount of mass to the moon is worth O($10M). It seems incentives were not properly aligned for this group.

I should also point out that you can fly a scientific mission on a 1U cubesat for ~$100k all in (including launch cost), which puts it in a very different regime.

lionkor
Well the way they did it (twice) means they had space for other stuff, and of course also failed because they didn't have enough redudancy
slippery slope fallacy. just do engineering good

This item has no comments currently.