You don't seem to understand that one month of data isn't enough to predict 16 years worth of data. Can you use one month of data here on Earth to forecast 16 years? Hell no. Yet you think you can magically predict weather on another planet where we didn't have detailed data.
In what world did NASA have enough data for detailed analysis? The number of previous battery operated, solar powered rovers before Spirit and Opportunity: 1 (Mars Pathfinder)
Mission parameters of Pathfinder: 1 month
Actual mission duration of Pathfinder: 3 months
Pathfinder didn't give NASA an entire year of data much less a decades worth to determine charge rates, cleaning etc. Remember extrapolation (which NASA had to guess) != interpolation.
Dude, so you knew 16 years ago how dust storms would affect both rovers over the course of the next 16 years? Why the hell didn't you tell NASA so they didn't have to design to the worst case scenario?
The whole problem with your premise is that it requires omnipotence and premonition. In hindsight you can claim something wasn't efficient when it exceeded the original goals but back when these things were launched no one had any knowledge of the future in how long things would last.
NASA never claimed one iota of what say they claimed. Instead NASA was given clear mission parameters and a budget which they had to meet. In the specific case of the rovers they didn't know the severity of dust storms or how badly it would degrade battery charging. The worst case scenario had to be used to design the system.
Opportunity has possibly suffered the worst case scenario that NASA planned more than 16 years ago: an intense dust storm has possibly drained the batteries to the point where the rover is likely dead for good. It just took 16 years for it to happen.
Also Red Hat's main benefit is that they manage and customize their version of Linux packaging as well as provide support. Can people use a different version of Linux in the future? Yes, absolutely.
Or that NASA is good at over-engineering things so that they complete the mission objectives. If Kepler didn't last as long enough to complete the initial mission time, would the US government and the people keep funding them?
If we take the example of the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, NASA (and no one else) knew what the climate of Mars would do until they sent the rovers. The main concern with the rovers could be engulfed in dust storms for weeks as soon as they arrived. So they overbuilt the battery system to guarantee that the 4 month mission could be completed under the worst conditions.
Another factor is that Kepler and the rovers where never designed to be serviced so everything has to last as long as possible with no hope of service.
To my knowledge, a car doesn't have to functions in low orbit. Also to my knowledge where Kepler is currently is not low orbit.
In what way is fueling a spacecraft easier than fueling a plane? A spacecraft is likely moving 100x - 1000x faster. Also fueling systems for planes rely on gravity which is a problem in outer space. The last time I checked it is relatively easy to launch a plane. Launching a space craft takes lots more time and effort and cost to coordinate.
For both Kepler and the Mars rovers, both the budget and the mission parameters called for a finite amount of time. The fact that they lasted longer than the mission parameter is not "planned obsolesence". This is bonus results. This is also the situation where launching another vehicle or rover would cost so much more that it is cheaper and easier to keep using what is already been launched and re-purposing it.
I also remember people complained heavily when Apple switched to Lightning from 30-pin instead of USB because they had to buy new cables. Despite the fact that the only way USB could do what Lightning did at the time was to use the special 3.0 connectors which meant they had to buy new cables anyway.
Did Apple sign a contract with Qualcomm for this scenario or did Apple sign a contract with a 3rd party and Qualcomm is trying to include that contract into their generic contract?
Except that's not exactly what is being claimed by Apple (and others). Qualcomm licenses their IP so that companies can make chips but other companies must pay Qualcomm directly if they buy chips from a licensee. What Apple is claiming is that Qualcomm wants licensing on chips even though Apple doesn't buy those chips from Qualcomm.
As an analogy if ARM licenses to Samsung to make chips, ARM doesn't require licensing from anyone who buys a Samsung ARM chip. Qualcomm's complicated licensing agreements involve all sorts of payments and rebates.
Well in this case, Apple's argument is saying that the rancher wants a fee from the restaurant even though the restaurant paid the butcher and the butcher paid the rancher.
Did you buy your phone in 2012 because that's when Apple released the Lightning connector. Why didn't they use USB-C at the time? Other than the fact that USB - C wasn't released as a spec until 2014, it would have taken a bit of time travel to do that. Could they have switched to USB - C? Sure but how much would you have complained that Apple changed their connector if they did that after only a few years?
How so? Some users reported this flaw in the early builds of the October update. MS apparently ignored those bug reports. Some say this is because MS has laid off its testing staff a few years back.
The problem I would see is the size of the Hubble relative to the extender. It's not the weight but any thrust to the side would cause a fishtail motion and not very precise. Now the Hubble has a grapple location meant for an external rocket to push it into deep space when it reaches end-of-life. It however is not meant for fine tuned controls that Hubble needs for current operations.
I don't doubt that someone could create such a device that could do that; however, the problem would be how it would interface with Hubble's systems. I don't think it was every designed with an external port that would work. The last few repair missions involved replacing parts of Hubble's internal systems by opening panels that required human dexterity.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to understand that one month of data isn't enough to predict 16 years worth of data. Can you use one month of data here on Earth to forecast 16 years? Hell no. Yet you think you can magically predict weather on another planet where we didn't have detailed data.
Mission parameters of Pathfinder: 1 month
Actual mission duration of Pathfinder: 3 months
Pathfinder didn't give NASA an entire year of data much less a decades worth to determine charge rates, cleaning etc. Remember extrapolation (which NASA had to guess) != interpolation.
Dude, so you knew 16 years ago how dust storms would affect both rovers over the course of the next 16 years? Why the hell didn't you tell NASA so they didn't have to design to the worst case scenario?
The whole problem with your premise is that it requires omnipotence and premonition. In hindsight you can claim something wasn't efficient when it exceeded the original goals but back when these things were launched no one had any knowledge of the future in how long things would last.
NASA never claimed one iota of what say they claimed. Instead NASA was given clear mission parameters and a budget which they had to meet. In the specific case of the rovers they didn't know the severity of dust storms or how badly it would degrade battery charging. The worst case scenario had to be used to design the system.
Opportunity has possibly suffered the worst case scenario that NASA planned more than 16 years ago: an intense dust storm has possibly drained the batteries to the point where the rover is likely dead for good. It just took 16 years for it to happen.
Then it's an unproven assertion.
Also Red Hat's main benefit is that they manage and customize their version of Linux packaging as well as provide support. Can people use a different version of Linux in the future? Yes, absolutely.
Or that NASA is good at over-engineering things so that they complete the mission objectives. If Kepler didn't last as long enough to complete the initial mission time, would the US government and the people keep funding them?
If we take the example of the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, NASA (and no one else) knew what the climate of Mars would do until they sent the rovers. The main concern with the rovers could be engulfed in dust storms for weeks as soon as they arrived. So they overbuilt the battery system to guarantee that the 4 month mission could be completed under the worst conditions.
Another factor is that Kepler and the rovers where never designed to be serviced so everything has to last as long as possible with no hope of service.
To my knowledge, a car doesn't have to functions in low orbit. Also to my knowledge where Kepler is currently is not low orbit.
In what way is fueling a spacecraft easier than fueling a plane? A spacecraft is likely moving 100x - 1000x faster. Also fueling systems for planes rely on gravity which is a problem in outer space. The last time I checked it is relatively easy to launch a plane. Launching a space craft takes lots more time and effort and cost to coordinate.
For both Kepler and the Mars rovers, both the budget and the mission parameters called for a finite amount of time. The fact that they lasted longer than the mission parameter is not "planned obsolesence". This is bonus results. This is also the situation where launching another vehicle or rover would cost so much more that it is cheaper and easier to keep using what is already been launched and re-purposing it.
Cite your evidence
I also remember people complained heavily when Apple switched to Lightning from 30-pin instead of USB because they had to buy new cables. Despite the fact that the only way USB could do what Lightning did at the time was to use the special 3.0 connectors which meant they had to buy new cables anyway.
Did Apple sign a contract with Qualcomm for this scenario or did Apple sign a contract with a 3rd party and Qualcomm is trying to include that contract into their generic contract?
Except that's not exactly what is being claimed by Apple (and others). Qualcomm licenses their IP so that companies can make chips but other companies must pay Qualcomm directly if they buy chips from a licensee. What Apple is claiming is that Qualcomm wants licensing on chips even though Apple doesn't buy those chips from Qualcomm.
As an analogy if ARM licenses to Samsung to make chips, ARM doesn't require licensing from anyone who buys a Samsung ARM chip. Qualcomm's complicated licensing agreements involve all sorts of payments and rebates.
Well in this case, Apple's argument is saying that the rancher wants a fee from the restaurant even though the restaurant paid the butcher and the butcher paid the rancher.
Did you buy your phone in 2012 because that's when Apple released the Lightning connector. Why didn't they use USB-C at the time? Other than the fact that USB - C wasn't released as a spec until 2014, it would have taken a bit of time travel to do that. Could they have switched to USB - C? Sure but how much would you have complained that Apple changed their connector if they did that after only a few years?
It'll be fine as long as there are no magic space wizards.
You forgot 1B: Ignore bug reports from Beta testers.
Woah there. Pai is a terrible human being but there's no need to punish innocent Indians with his presence.
How so? Some users reported this flaw in the early builds of the October update. MS apparently ignored those bug reports. Some say this is because MS has laid off its testing staff a few years back.
Other than the precise control that's needed for, say, a space telescope, I can't see how that would work.
The problem I would see is the size of the Hubble relative to the extender. It's not the weight but any thrust to the side would cause a fishtail motion and not very precise. Now the Hubble has a grapple location meant for an external rocket to push it into deep space when it reaches end-of-life. It however is not meant for fine tuned controls that Hubble needs for current operations.
Tie them with software on the ground? That would work if the lag between sensory input and reaction has no or little effect. But I suspect it does.
How would your proposed something interface with Hubble systems?
The problem would be how the gyros would interface with Hubble systems.
I don't doubt that someone could create such a device that could do that; however, the problem would be how it would interface with Hubble's systems. I don't think it was every designed with an external port that would work. The last few repair missions involved replacing parts of Hubble's internal systems by opening panels that required human dexterity.