NASA Teams To Build Gyroscopes 1,000X More Sensitive Than Current Systems

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Teams To Build Gyroscopes 1,000X More Sensitive Than Current Systems

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @04:31PM from the any-which-way-you-can dept.

coondoggie writes "NASA today said it would work with a team of researchers on a three-year, $1.8 project to build gyroscope systems that are more than 1,000 times as sensitive as those in use today. The Fast Light Optical Gyroscope project will marry researchers from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center; the US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center and Northwestern University to develop gyroscopes that could find their way into complex spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles or ships in the future."

69 of 91 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

1.8 by sentientbeing · 2012-10-31 16:34 · Score: 5, Funny

A 1.8 dollar project. Man. NASA must really love those budget cuts

--

------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
1. Re:1.8 by Spy+Handler · 2012-10-31 16:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  hey man, $1.8 goes a long way in China.
2. Re:1.8 by Bill+Dimm · 2012-10-31 16:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  A 1.8 dollar project. Man. NASA must really love those budget cuts
  The "team of researchers" is actually a bunch of grad students -- they'll have money left over when the project is completed.
3. Re:1.8 by Glarimore · 2012-10-31 17:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'd mod you up if you had said Russia, seeing as we now pay them ~63 million per astronaut we send.
4. Re:1.8 by mianne · 2012-10-31 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, that won't even cover a 6-pack of Coors. There goes your grad students!
  
  --
  Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
5. Re:1.8 by wvmarle · 2012-10-31 18:21 · Score: 2
  
  I'd mod you up if you had said Russia, seeing as we now pay them ~63 million per astronaut we send.
  Which is well cheaper than using the Space Shuttle. I assume at least this is the ticket for a round trip, to and from the surface of the earth.
  The Shuttle, with the philosophy of having a re-usable and thus cost effective vehicle, cost about $450 mln per launch according to Wikipedia, and could carry a maximum of eight astronauts, though usually less. One pilot and one commander to fly the thing who also have to bring it down leaves up to six astronauts that can be exchanged with crew on the ISS, or 75 mln per passenger. In case of the more common crew of seven, it'd be 90 mln.
  Put inflation in the mix, and this Russian price tag is looking very interesting compared to NASAs in-house offering.
  And that's while the Russian space agency is also government paid, like NASA, so a private company will likely be able to do it for even less.
6. Re:1.8 by hairyfeet · 2012-10-31 18:38 · Score: 2
  
  Good God man....that won't even pay for the pizza, much less the Mountain Dew!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
7. Re:1.8 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 18:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Bah, they'll blow it all on popcorn. Popcorn.....and revenge!
8. Re:1.8 by PerMolestiasEruditio · 2012-10-31 20:59 · Score: 2
  
  Shuttle cost $209 billion over it's life, 134 missions. $1.6 billion per flight.
  http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html
  So more like $200 million per Astronaut on Shuttle.
  Russia sells flights to ISS for ~$50 million (Sarah Brightman), though used to be cheaper ($20 million for Mark Shuttleworth).
  SpaceX is targeting $20 million per person for its Dragon Capsule
9. Re:1.8 by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-10-31 21:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Typical /.
  An article that's full of spin :)
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
10. Re:1.8 by X10 · 2012-10-31 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'd mod you up if you had said Russia, seeing as we now pay them ~63 million per astronaut we send.
  With this new budget cuts, that would be only 6.3 cents.
  
  --
  no, I don't have a sig
11. Re:1.8 by wvmarle · 2012-11-01 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the correction. And it proves my point even more so... $1.6 bln per flight, wow...
12. Re:1.8 by Gr8Apes · 2012-11-01 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  Not so fast - $209B in 2010 $? Really? Where's the original cost statements? NASA's own site says $450M per launch, but that probably doesn't include amortized R&D costs, so I'd imagine it's higher if you include that. Then again, should we also include the X program? It was the precursor research for the shuttle after all. What about the Apollo program itself? It provided LOX engine research. There's also the solid rocket fuel for the boosters. Etc etc etc. An easily inflated number without backing data and vague hand-waving about "adjusted" dollars.
  The real numbers we have are what NASA posted for the last missions - $450M per flight. There is no information on what that includes that I found, and this is higher than that posted in wikipedia which bases its numbers on this document which has some more interesting information in it about competing launch systems in the Shuttle class. Note that not all are manned, and yet the shuttle is within a factor of 3 at most on a per Kg cost. It also details information on the shuttle launch costs based on pulling it from the full NASA budget, which indicates the most expensive estimate is $500M per launch. The wikipedia link also details the costs of a Saturn launch and cost per Kg. The Shuttle was only slightly more expensive, and an order of magnitude more capable by this comparison (We'll ignore the piece about Saturn being able to reach the moon, the Shuttle was never designed for that purpose)
  Lastly, we have the issue about politics interfering with the Shuttle program. A much cheaper shuttle could have been built with an accompanying heavy launch vehicle for less than the Shuttle. It probably would have been safer too, as it would not have had a Challenger incident, as solid rocket boosters would not have been needed. But that's a tangent into what ifs, it should merely be noted that the Shuttle was not the result of engineering design for a purpose, but of politics adding conflicting requirements and then not funding those requirements.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
13. Re:1.8 by DerekLyons · 2012-11-01 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Which is well cheaper than using the Space Shuttle
  It's also cheaper to buy a Ford Focus rather than a Dodge Ram. But only an idiot would make the choice between them solely on the basis of cost, you get what you pay for.
14. Re:1.8 by Bill+Dimm · 2012-11-01 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Good God man....that won't even pay for the pizza, much less the Mountain Dew!
  Pizza and Mountain Dew? Grad students are so spoiled these days...
And cheap, too by ColdWetDog · 2012-10-31 16:34 · Score: 1

$1.80 for a super sensitive gyroscope. I like your style NASA!

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. Re:And cheap, too by mianne · 2012-10-31 18:08 · Score: 2
  
  Here's $5.. I'll take two. Keep the change!
  
  --
  Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
That's some salary by guises · 2012-10-31 16:35 · Score: 1

Even I can make more than $1.80 in three years, these might not be the greatest gyros.
1. Re:That's some salary by wmac1 · 2012-10-31 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  so you make more than 60c per year. great.
2. Re:That's some salary by king+neckbeard · 2012-10-31 19:08 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not a big fan of Greek food anyway.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
3. Re:That's some salary by Alex+Belits · 2012-10-31 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  He means, the value of his work. That's probably better than most Americans.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
4. Re:That's some salary by GameboyRMH · 2012-11-01 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  If he's a Gen. Y'er with student debt and he's netting 60c per year, he's not doing too bad.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Light that travels faster than the speed of light by Andy+Prough · 2012-10-31 16:38 · Score: 1

What is it then? If it travels faster than light, can you really still call it "light"? Needs a new name - I propose that instead of "light" or "fast light", we call it "Speedy Gonzales".
*$1.8 million contract by MassiveForces · 2012-10-31 16:44 · Score: 4, Informative

According to NASA's site, the contract is $1.8 million - just in case you thought NASA might be able to spend $1.8 billion on something like that... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2012/12-111.html

I think they should focus on cheaper space pens*

*(I kid, I kid!)
1. Re:*$1.8 million contract by MassiveForces · 2012-10-31 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the article is a little "light" on details, is it meant to be similar to the following?
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope
2. Re:*$1.8 million contract by thegarbz · 2012-10-31 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  According to NASA's site, the contract is $1.8 million - just in case you thought NASA might be able to spend $1.8 billion
  I thought due to budget cuts they could only spend $1.80
3. Re:*$1.8 million contract by Yvanhoe · 2012-10-31 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering the same. If they really plan on making things 1000x more accurate than these, it can really be a nifty innovation.
  On the other hand, why is this not a Navy project? I thought that guroscopes were crucial to stealth submarine navigation. I doubt that they spend less than 2 millions on improving this already...
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
4. Re:*$1.8 million contract by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Commercially available.
5. Re:*$1.8 million contract by wvmarle · 2012-10-31 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well my subconscious reading did fill in a "b" in that gap, not an "m". Which of course has to do with the word "NASA" that appeared in the same sentence. It's hard to believe those guys even can enter such small numbers in their budget application forms!
6. Re:*$1.8 million contract by wvmarle · 2012-10-31 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe those gyros are now good enough for navigating subs through the vast expanses of our oceans, but not good enough to navigate space craft to nearby cosmic neighbours or to accurately point space telescopes to nearby objects?
7. Re:*$1.8 million contract by Yvanhoe · 2012-10-31 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  Still, I think that having a meter accuracy after a Pacific traversal could have uses...
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
8. Re:*$1.8 million contract by wvmarle · 2012-10-31 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  If you really don't have any other sensors maybe... but of course it never hurts to have more accuracy.
9. Re:*$1.8 million contract by jittles · 2012-11-01 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Gyroscopes are very very important to the maintenance and operation of all aircraft, as well as inertial navigation systems. For instance, gyroscopes help you to determine where you are when your GPS has failed, or if GPS does not exist. I'm not sure how useful that would be with space, I'm no physicist. But they also use gyroscopes to make sure mechanical parts are still operating within specification. This allows them to use the part until it falls out of spec, instead of replacing a part every 500 flight hours because they know the part will last at least that long. It saves the government a ton of money, and they're trying to roll them out wherever possible. The gyros are also helpful when an in-flight failure occurs, often helping the computer diagnose the exact problem. This allows the pilot to more accurately determine whether he needs to make an emergency landing, or RTB. The big push for this all happened after Blackhawk Down, and the pilots who crashed because they did not realize their tail rotor was about to fail. That is the exact sort of failure a gyroscope could have warned them about.
10. Re:*$1.8 million contract by IndustrialComplex · 2012-11-01 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, you are correct. Assuming of course, that pretty much everything else is equal or better. Unless there is a critical problem to avoid, or a specific need which is not currently possible, then improved accuracy may be worse if you consider it from the perspective of changing what works.
  I've run into issues like this with systems I've designed (for the DoD). I accidentally let slip that a performance boost was possible. Well, of course a few months down the line I was expected to include that as a requirement. There was no real reason to include the performance boost, the current requirement was sufficient to cover all potential CONOPS, and it really got into what I call the "Star Trek Operations" (Reroute power through the tertiary oscillator to inverse the deflector....) ie: pulling off the cover and messing with the internals to get a 10% performance boost in an 'oh crap' situation. The problem was that the current performance was sufficient, and the boost required engineering work to implement. The result was a more expensive product that provided more performance than necessary.
  With something like 1m of accuracy over the width of the pacific, it sounds great in terms of 'Well, you will miss that 1 meter if you try to pass within 0.9m of a rock. The reality is, 'We have take an extra hour at some point to check our actual position based on known signals.' I wouldn't be surprised if there were 'beacons' pre-positioned which would allow for recalibration if such a thing were actually necessary. Hell, you could probably just use existing info sources (offshore rigs, data cables, passive sonar measurements) to verify your location based on pre-recorded data.
  Would 1m of accuracy be worth upgrading the entire logistics chain, updating the massive amount of software that is likely tuned to the current gyros, train the sailors to use/repair/replace....
  There is just so much cost that will occur even if everything else is equal.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
complex spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 16:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

oh, and ICBM guidance systems.
Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-10-31 16:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

And... missiles. Don't forget the missiles. In fact, let's just be clear here. This is for missiles. Spacecraft will be damned lucky to get any of these, and aircraft aren't getting them at all, nevermind unspecified "commercial vehicles." Missiles and drones will get these and nothing else. NASA will have to beg for an intentionally crippled version in order to get gear that isn't classified, for use on spacecraft.
1. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by slacka · 2012-10-31 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  This tech is useful in everything from game controllers to rockets. John Carmack was just talking about he re-used his Armidello rocket code in head tracking controller software. I hope this also trickles down.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt-iVFxgFWk
2. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by Firethorn · 2012-10-31 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. My first thought was how this would help make inertial guidance systems better. Autopilots and such. But you bring up a good point about it being good for devices where you want to detect very small amounts of motion.
  ICBMs don't actually need better gyros today - their destructive power renders the margin of error moot.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
3. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by bmo · 2012-10-31 17:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If this was just for missiles, you wouldn't hear about it. Indeed, it would have gone to a no-bid contract in a brown paper bag in the dead of night behind the dumpster at the McDonalds around the corner from Textron, Lockheed, or Raytheon.
  There are a *lot* of civilian applications for a sensitive gyroscope.
  --
  BMO
4. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-10-31 17:14 · Score: 2
  
  Probably not so much in game controllers. These aren't MEMS devices. They're large heavy mechanical things. They're neither small nor light enough to cram into a controller or a phone. The smallest thing mentioned in the article is a "tabletop" gravitational wave detector.
5. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by gagol · 2012-10-31 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  Norad (Cheyenne Montain) can witstand a near hit nuclear detonation. A direct hit would cripple the place. If 1000× more precise gyro navigation can accomplish it, I would be enclined to believe it is a worthy upgrade.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
6. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by Firethorn · 2012-10-31 18:34 · Score: 2
  
  Our current generation ICBMS are already capable of hitting within 50 meters of the programmed target. When Cheyenne Mountain was built, it was built to withstand close nuclear detonation from missiles where detonating within a kilometer was more the expected accuracy.
  We can hit Cheyenne Mountain style facilities directly enough to destroy them already. That's without getting into fancy stuff like the nuclear deep penetrators we have locked up somewhere.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
7. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-10-31 19:15 · Score: 2
  
  Did you miss the notice? Actually using nukes is out of style. Governments only threaten to use them.
  No these will be useful in conventional bombs/missiles. If you have 1 meter accuracy then the explosive force can be less, so the civilian casualties can be less so there are less embarrassing images to show on TV.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
8. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by gagol · 2012-10-31 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
9. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by jgtg32a · 2012-11-01 00:27 · Score: 2
  
  http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-01-31/
10. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by GameboyRMH · 2012-11-01 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking it would be more likely to be used in drone-launched flechette missiles. If it reduces the number of non-targeted "suspected militants" killed then maybe it's a good thing.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
11. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by DerekLyons · 2012-11-01 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  And... missiles. Don't forget the missiles. In fact, let's just be clear here. This is for missiles.
  Probably not. The target accuracy is still inferior to the performance of a top end (ICBM/SLBM grade) gyro.
  
  NASA will have to beg for an intentionally crippled version in order to get gear that isn't classified, for use on spacecraft.
  NASA already pretty much uses top level guidance systems, so... better adjust that tinfoil. Besides which, it's generally the guidance system itself that's classified, not the technology.
12. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by Firethorn · 2012-11-01 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure such a system, despite the improved targeting, would pass Geneva Convention scrutiny.
  Though you have a point about improving the accuracy of smaller munitions, assuming the gyroscope ends up being small, cheap, and sturdy enough.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
13. Re:Spacecraft, aircraft, commercial vehicles... by gregski · 2012-11-01 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Gravity Probe B had what i believe is at least a comparable spec of gyroscope:
  http://einstein.stanford.edu/TECH/technology1.html
  "The SQUID magnetometers are so sensitive that a field change of only one quantum—equivalent to 5 x 10-14 gauss (1/10,000,000,000,000th of the Earth's magnetic field) and corresponding to a gyro tilt of 0.1 milliarcsecond (3x10-8 degrees)—is detectable. "
  
  --
  I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. - Mark Twain
Fast, Light, Cheap by aXis100 · 2012-10-31 17:13 · Score: 1

Pick any two....
Re:... TO BUILD !! FAMOUS LAST WORDS !! by TapeCutter · 2012-10-31 17:14 · Score: 1

The $1.80 is no fantasy, that's newsworthy money! - (typo or not)

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
At $1.80... by KNicolson · 2012-10-31 17:30 · Score: 1

...they've already chosen Cheap and Cheap.
maybe amd by banbeans · 2012-10-31 17:30 · Score: 1

Will start making these next year.
JPL for the win by SeanBlader · 2012-10-31 17:38 · Score: 1

Must be a JPL project, those guys are really cost effective.
Here's $2 by the_B0fh · 2012-10-31 18:15 · Score: 1

Build me a few more, kthanks.
Crap article by Animats · 2012-10-31 18:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Crap article, from a crap blog, copied from a press release. It's so Slashdot.
Here's the actual paper on the research. The physics is interesting. It's a way to make optical gyros better. Currently, good fiber-optic gyros have drift rates around 1 degree per hour. Ring laser gyros can do better, and mechanical gyros still beat the optical systems on long-term drift. This proposal is to develop a way to get a few more orders of magnitude less drift out of optical gyros.
Low-end MEMS gyros have drift rates of several degrees per minute, but there's steady progress, and degrees-per-hour MEMS gyros now exist.
1. Re:Crap article by Alex+Belits · 2012-10-31 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  The physics is interesting.
  For the value of "interesting" in "Hay guyz, why don't we just stuff Newton's prism into an interferometer to increase its precision, and do a lot of irrelevant calculations!"
  (to be honest, using an inclined surface of a prism to vary the direction of the beams would be an improvement on what they are doing, however calibration will be very difficult)
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
2. Re:Crap article by NikeHerc · 2012-11-01 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  ... GPS software also generates wrong results under acceleration to discourage DIY missile systems ...
  
  You got a source for that assertion?
  
  --
  Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
3. Re:Crap article by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-11-01 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  One could add up the discrepancies over a long trip and see if they even out, or if they drift you further and further.
  Still, GPS is used for direct positioning, and not for dead reckoning, which is guessing where you are based on speed and acceleration and turn, which is what more accurate gyros are all about.
  Gps + dead reckoning + map matching.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I wonder how their children will turn out... by PerlPunk · 2012-10-31 18:31 · Score: 3, Funny

The Fast Light Optical Gyroscope project will marry researchers from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center; the US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center and Northwestern University
1. Re:I wonder how their children will turn out... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-31 22:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I wonder how their children will turn out...
  They'll be fine. They'll have a stable environment.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 20:46 · Score: 1

"to develop gyroscopes that could find their way into bombs and missiles in the future."
FTFY.
Re:Light that travels faster than the speed of lig by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-31 22:33 · Score: 1

Foolish human. Only Superman can travel faster than light. Why he had to go back round the other way a bit is still a mystery, though.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Light that travels faster than the speed of lig by GameboyRMH · 2012-11-01 00:42 · Score: 1

We can call it Light Type-R!
XD

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yeah But by Greyfox · 2012-11-01 01:43 · Score: 1

We already know how to build an optical gyroscope. Most of the money, in this case, is going toward finding a better string. Why do you think those guys are always going on about string theory?

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
GPS for high speed craft, COCOM restrictions by Animats · 2012-11-01 06:09 · Score: 1

... GPS software also generates wrong results under acceleration to discourage DIY missile systems ...
You got a source for that assertion?
There's an International Trafficking in Arms Regulation which designates as weapons GPS systems "designed for producing navigation results above 60,000 feet altitude and at 1,000 knots velocity or greater" (i.e. for ICBMs) or "Designed or modified for use with unmanned air vehicle systems capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km" (i.e. for cruise missiles). The second one is kind of pointless, since there's no way the GPS system can tell. The first one, though, is implemented in most GPS units. High altitude balloon experimenters and rocket guidance system companies have workarounds.
Yes, it is rocket science.
missiles/drones/satellites by illestov · 2012-11-01 06:11 · Score: 1

I have been working on optical gyroscopes for the last three years, they are nothing new, and they are already being widely used in satellites , missiles, drones and etc, the idea has been around for a long time, what this horrible article is referring to is newly funded research to enhance their sensitivity and accuracy. Currently, they have to use up to 8 (depending on accuracy needed) gyroscopes per missile/satellite to get enough resolution. Hopefully this research will yield cheaper and more accurate systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope
Just the initial estimated price... by bobbied · 2012-11-01 06:17 · Score: 1

So a nifty new gyro for $1.80? Must just be the initial cost estimate.
After they get into the details I'm sure that cost will go up by a lot....

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Actually, no by WindBourne · 2012-11-01 08:25 · Score: 1

This is NOT for missiles. It will almost certainly be used in them, BUT NASA does not do that line of work. There are loads of places for aircrafts and spacecrafts where gyros are needed (artificial horizon comes to mind). In fact, if this can be produced cheaper than today's gyros, then you have a good deal.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.