Dang, hits home. When I was a senior in high school, I was lucky to able to volunteer under Dr. Eric Brown De Colstoun at NASA Goddard, checking error rates for tree cover estimates using Landsat data^. Many hours that fall spent trudging around parks and forests, looking at the sky through a PVC pipe. It still kind of blows my mind at how much is able to be gained from images where each pixel is 15mx15m of ground-level area (and, I believe, with an important component of Landsat 7's imaging system broken for most of its lifespan).
I also wasn't aware that Landsat program imagery had been made free to access a few years later. Nice.
^(A massive thank you to him, since I wouldn't have graduated without being able to participate in that project. And a massive apology for going on to get a fine arts degree.)
Yeah, the scan line corrector broke. Landsat 7 images had these “whiskers” of missing data running perpendicular to the path. For a while there it was just old Landsat 5 and broken Landsat 7.
It seems like a lot of these government-owned space things last a lot longer than they're made for. There's Landsat, Spirit, Opportunity, Hubble, the Voyagers, et cetera. It seems to be a pretty steep curve - either they fail on launch or landing or very early, or they far outlast expectations. There seems to be little that meets expectations. I can see lots of failures - space stuff is hard - but why so many things exceeding it?
> I can see lots of failures - space stuff is hard - but why so many things exceeding it?
The design lifetime is treated as a minimum acceptable value; a vehicle which was designed to last 10 years but has a critical component fail at 9.5 would be considered a failure, for instance. This means that the average lifespan of the vehicle gets pushed out a lot further to ensure it meets its goals.
With that being said, it's not uncommon for space vehicles to reach end-of-life for reasons other than a system failure - one common one being that a satellite or space probe runs out of propellant. Since the underlying mechanism there is predictable, rather than a random failure, there's much less margin needed.
They build and design everything in a way that ensures a 99% chance that after successful launch and deployment it will last for the mission duration in a harsh and still somewhat unfamiliar environment. That happens to translate into a very high chance that it will still work after twice the mission duration, or ten times the mission duration.
Part of this is cultural, part of it is political: nobody wants a failed mission, it's better for the image of the agency and the involved politician to spend a bit more money and underestimate the lifetime. Higher chance of success, and nobody complains if the mission can be extended afterwards.
For this particular satellite, I think it's actually both. One of the components of the imaging system failed relatively early on[1], but they've worked around the issue for the past 20 years.
Because you set a min life, but statistics
aside, the design for that minimum life isn't usually something that can be tweaked on a continuous scale, but ends up being binned by design constraints.
Eg, you need an industrial road with a 5-year lifespan over a swamp. To meet this minimum you actually have to build a bridge, which when built to industry standards, might start at lifespans of 20-30 yrs.
Space is a bit different because of budgeting for ongoing operations, so you frontload the cap-x, knowing that asking for addl op-x funds later to extend the program will seem like a no-brainer deal.
Plus sometimes it's as simple as: if you design something to statistically survive space launch, it results in something that is overdesigned to just sit in orbit for years (given that it survives that initial launch).
It's similar to human lifespan statistics- if you get over the historical infant mortality hump, every adult seems 'overdesigned' compared to the historical expected lifespan.
Space is still a relative unknown, so overbuilding and conservative estimates are far preferred to aggressive cost-cutting and thin margins. You see the same thing with other technologies like cars and appliances -- early versions were mostly very overbuilt.
When smart and dedicated people are allowed time to think, plan and execute instead of being constantly forced to sacrifice everything at the altar of next-quarter results, the quality of the output tends to be better.
Basic consulting: Underpromise, overdeliver. Nobody knows how long a Mars rover should last; NASA perhaps picks a number so low that they can't fail, and then have another narrative about the amazing little robot that kept going, and which makes the investment look great for taxpayers.
>government-owned space things last a lot longer than they're made for
Don't forget that once upon a time, commercial-owned things lasted a lot longer too. Unfortunately the mba's took over and planned obsolescence became a thing.
Also worth noting that while the colorizations of these satellite photos tend to paint the city in green, it is NOT very green at all. Clark County deprecated lawns ages ago by banning new ones and paying people to remove their existing lawns to replace with desert landscaping.
But that can only help mitigate the overdraw of the Colorado so much when 96% of the water is going to places that have much less stringent water conservation policy.
I can't seem to find a reason for shutting it down in the article. Does anyone have info on this? Was it for budget reasons or was their a failure on orbit?
> How long does Lake Mead have left? Lake Mead has been facing a water crisis for many years. The water level in the lake has been dropping due to the increasing demand for water and the decreasing supply. If the trend continues, the lake could run out of water in the next 10 to 15 years.
Great…I was in Vegas last weekend, I guess they’ll just run it until it’s dry. Humans are ridiculous.
The city of Vegas is among the best and most proactive in the country at water preservation and reclamation. Sadly, it still might not be enough. In the 90s they started paying people to tear up their lawns, and more recently they outlawed lawns and started tearing some up forcefully, and last I checked watering grass still accounted for a double-digit percentage of their water budget.
bmsan|1 year ago
I also wasn't aware that Landsat program imagery had been made free to access a few years later. Nice.
^(A massive thank you to him, since I wouldn't have graduated without being able to participate in that project. And a massive apology for going on to get a fine arts degree.)
is_true|1 year ago
bargle0|1 year ago
Yawrehto|1 year ago
duskwuff|1 year ago
The design lifetime is treated as a minimum acceptable value; a vehicle which was designed to last 10 years but has a critical component fail at 9.5 would be considered a failure, for instance. This means that the average lifespan of the vehicle gets pushed out a lot further to ensure it meets its goals.
With that being said, it's not uncommon for space vehicles to reach end-of-life for reasons other than a system failure - one common one being that a satellite or space probe runs out of propellant. Since the underlying mechanism there is predictable, rather than a random failure, there's much less margin needed.
wongarsu|1 year ago
Part of this is cultural, part of it is political: nobody wants a failed mission, it's better for the image of the agency and the involved politician to spend a bit more money and underestimate the lifetime. Higher chance of success, and nobody complains if the mission can be extended afterwards.
bmsan|1 year ago
1: https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellites/landsat-7/
beerandt|1 year ago
Eg, you need an industrial road with a 5-year lifespan over a swamp. To meet this minimum you actually have to build a bridge, which when built to industry standards, might start at lifespans of 20-30 yrs.
Space is a bit different because of budgeting for ongoing operations, so you frontload the cap-x, knowing that asking for addl op-x funds later to extend the program will seem like a no-brainer deal.
Plus sometimes it's as simple as: if you design something to statistically survive space launch, it results in something that is overdesigned to just sit in orbit for years (given that it survives that initial launch).
It's similar to human lifespan statistics- if you get over the historical infant mortality hump, every adult seems 'overdesigned' compared to the historical expected lifespan.
userbinator|1 year ago
noisy_boy|1 year ago
mmooss|1 year ago
conception|1 year ago
bwy|1 year ago
If something is built to last 10 years, it makes it likelier that it can survive another 10.
callmeal|1 year ago
Don't forget that once upon a time, commercial-owned things lasted a lot longer too. Unfortunately the mba's took over and planned obsolescence became a thing.
Palomides|1 year ago
tiffanyh|1 year ago
trhway|1 year ago
syncsynchalt|1 year ago
whimsicalism|1 year ago
(and maybe also wind - although why they would both be red is beyond me)
Dalewyn|1 year ago
foolfoolz|1 year ago
antman|1 year ago
Waterluvian|1 year ago
littlestymaar|1 year ago
helpfulclippy|1 year ago
Also worth noting that while the colorizations of these satellite photos tend to paint the city in green, it is NOT very green at all. Clark County deprecated lawns ages ago by banning new ones and paying people to remove their existing lawns to replace with desert landscaping.
But that can only help mitigate the overdraw of the Colorado so much when 96% of the water is going to places that have much less stringent water conservation policy.
tetris11|1 year ago
maxclark|1 year ago
The mission targets a length of time, then the engineering matches for the design and build
Reality is usually much longer
sdmike1|1 year ago
kragen|1 year ago
Mistletoe|1 year ago
> How long does Lake Mead have left? Lake Mead has been facing a water crisis for many years. The water level in the lake has been dropping due to the increasing demand for water and the decreasing supply. If the trend continues, the lake could run out of water in the next 10 to 15 years.
Great…I was in Vegas last weekend, I guess they’ll just run it until it’s dry. Humans are ridiculous.
kibwen|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
ks2048|1 year ago
mmooss|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
i3o3o3o|1 year ago
[deleted]
edm0nd|1 year ago
beginnings|1 year ago
nasa running low on helium?