Moon Lander Crashes - NASA Forgot how to go to the Moon part Two

[petrus4]

"Failures such as these were anticipated prior to the test, and are part of the development process for any complex spaceflight hardware," the space agency said in a statement.

"What we learn from these tests will help us build the best possible system in the future."

This portrays clownish incompetence on the part of NASA.

a}  You split everything up.  EVERYTHING.  Modularity very often cannot be performed ruthlessly enough.

b}  You never prototype under load.  What this means, is that you never, ever test any kind of design, no matter what you're doing, with it carrying anything important or that you cannot afford to lose, until you have tested it literally hundreds of times without load.

c}  You always incorporate redundancy; preferably around 25%.  That means, that if they need 500 litres of fuel, they should include 625.

People can get as outraged towards me as they want, and insist that of course, NASA are already doing these things, and who the Hell am I to try and tell them what to do?  The bottom line, however, is that they obviously are not; because if they really knew what they were doing, these sorts of failures during attempted production or under-load use, simply would not happen.

So yes, somebody needs to get fired for this.  There's obviously bad engineering.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Petrus4;

This portrays clownish incompetence on the part of NASA.

Errr, .....Yes

b}  You never prototype under load.

A fatal mistake.....

c}  You always incorporate redundancy

ALWAYS

People can get as outraged towards me as they want, and insist that of course, NASA are already doing these things, and who the Hell am I to try and tell them what to do?  The bottom line, however, is that they obviously are not; because if they really knew what they were doing, these sorts of failures during attempted production or under-load use, simply would not happen.

Right on the nose, IMO...

So yes, somebody needs to get fired for this.  There's obviously bad engineering.

Yes. It is.
I will do it, for under 5 grand per month...

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

You could, for example, take a homogenous Amiga 500 computer, configured as being no bigger than a 5" floppy drive (think CD drive in a modern PC) that could run the whole flight (indeeed the whole mission) autonomously, using some smart 'algorithm' programming....

This computer is almost 30 years old, and can run a mission.

NASA not up to it?

Ask Pegasus to do it for them, LOL
Nuff said................