Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UniversalDH t1_j3s0hy3 wrote

OK, I have a weird hill to die. This isn’t a complaint, but more a curiosity.

NASA claims all these satellites, telescopes, rovers are suppose to last 2 years and they end up lasting decades. How can agency so reliant on precision miss on life expectancy?

I get they’re missing on the right side of it and that’s 100% a positive, but still. If they said it should last 15 years and it last 17, I get it…but man they miss by a lot.


krysteline t1_j3s1emf wrote

Things like life expectancy are minimums. As long as it exceeds the minimum, it 100% meets the requirements.


UniversalDH t1_j3s3nep wrote

Yeah, I get that. This is such a minor “complaint” (not complaining) but it’s weird how much they miss by


mrdounut t1_j3s6anh wrote

It’s because they can claim “oh that sat will only be up for two years so we better get another one funded and up there quick!”

Nothing to do with how much they “miss” they just want money, which is how all American companies work. Spend it or lose it.


UniversalDH t1_j3sakur wrote

That actually makes a lot of sense. I get the under promise, over achieve aspect, but the funding part makes a lot of sense as well.