NASA | Repeatability

[koeddk]

i found it funny xD

[wolf0805]

I love the Scrapbook-Like graphics^^!

[kargidesign]

showing shuttle at the end is a bit ironic. but I cant still belive how this folks got it right almost every time. I mean you send a rover to another planet and it still works after 5 years, damn.

[loveneko31]

good video

[borrofburi]

Actually, part of what's so impressive about NASA is that it, in many ways, does things right on the first try. All our tests are simulations, not full tests.

If you have a cell phone prototype you have a very real test, you turn it on and see if it works; if you have a space ship prototype you don't just shoot it to the moon and see if it works, you do simulations that approximate the real thing; in that manner, most of what nasa does is prototypes that work (even if some don't, still amazing)

[ibtrippen]

This video needs to be shown to elementary school students around the country!

[Nationalist64]

@ibtrippen This video needs to be shown to adults around the country!LOL!

[coro0314]

?? didnt we go to the moon already? why cant we use the same system that we used before?

[Saktoth]

@coro0314

They are describing how they -did- design the lunar lander.

Well, in language a 2 year old could understand at least. >_>

[ApolloAchtzehn]

would you like to dive with a car that was used in the 60´s? cO

[BobSmith555511]

Upublic, that or a kids video.

[zztwp]

How many NASA Techs does it take to go to the Moon ?

We dont know because they are still working on it !

ZZTWP :

[upublic]

is this a NASA internal joke, lol. cuz that's what it looks to me :))

[knuckles69mcgee]

Well done!

[nastyguard007]

It's funny, that they used my phone (Nokia N70) as an example...

[anmoose]

Excellent explanation of an aspect of engineering most people are not even aware of.

[OthmanI87I]

thermodynamic xD

[Twase1]

Excellent!!

[elgalas]

obvious answer is obvious, cuz u r a fucking dbag who doesnt take care of his stuff

[RAYGproductions]

Nice..

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

Common sense, but more people need it...

[skatezo]

Cool!

[JPO1618]

wow, that was the BEST...[cough], we need more accessible videos for the layman like this.

[gregrutz]

It that why they didn't test the Hubble?

And lost 2 Shuttles!?!

not good examples !

[wexarexthexStorm]

There are always anomolies. Thats why it's not 5 shuttles and 1000's of satellites in the stats.

[Valendros]

burn...

There's a bunch of examples of things that didn't work as expected. But I'd say all-in-all, NASA has an excellent record.

Look up the mars polar lander for the quintessential NASA fail.

[Rigo0Jancsi]

Well, imagine shuttles had a failor rate like MS windows. There wouldn't be any shuttle left...

[gregrutz]

My MS windows never fails.

[mortysand]

@Rigo0Jancsi : "Failor?" Failure is the word. Try two more times to get your spelling right.

[Rigo0Jancsi]

Tut mir leid, wenn ich die englische Sprache nicht perfekt beherrsche. Immerhin gebe ich mir die Mühe, hier für alle verständlich zu posten und nicht auf Deutsch vor mich hinzubabbeln...

[borrofburi]

@gregrutz

As I said elsewhere in comments, nearly everything NASA does is a "test" in the engineering sense, nearly everything NASA produces is a prototype in the engineering sense. What NASA does is a bunch of simulations to see if their tests will work.

With cell phones you can truly test a prototype, you don't have to simulate it; but you can't test a rocket without launching it, so you simulate a launch to try to make your tests go well. I find NASA's failure rate to be astonishingly low.

[cal920c]

AHA lawl failed lunar landing!