Listening to the NASA briefing about the @NASAWebb telescope launch next month, and heard the phrase
"140 single points of failure"
and now I feel a little ill.
Show this thread
-
Here are 2 things from our lead engineer Paul Geithner that may help: 1. Not all single points of failure (SPF) are high-risk. There are several categories, from fairly benign impact to total loss. We've tracked all 344: where they are, what they are, what category they are in.
2. Webb is unusual for the scope of its deployments and hence the raw number of its SPFs, but its non-deployment related SPFs are not at all unusual. Many satellites have a large number of SPFs.
-
-
Thanks folks. I am confident that the entire team has made the deployment process as reliable as is technically possible!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As our senior scientist John Mather says: "We did what it takes to win. We sketched, we argued, we worried, we analyzed, we made a plan, we wrote down everything, we made checklists, we built the parts, we put them together, we tested as though our lives depend on it."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.