ISAWHIM
lvl.1
Offline
|
These devices are young, we are the guinea-pigs... There are many things that are not part of the system, which should be in these systems, like... Redundancy and Absolution.
Redundant accelerometers (Which do NOT need GPS to sustain orientation. Since that seems to be a common issue, if only temporarily, due to erratic "data".)
Redundant GPS sensors (In the obvious event of chip failure, which seems to be an issue.)
Redundant or generic "failsafe" sensors. (Cheap, low-grade, solid design failsafes that assist when all else fails.)
Absolution = 100% tested electronics, which are known to have low failure rates and can survive 4x the expected "normal issues", before actual failure. (Since safety is the issue here and what constitutes "instructed flying", is NOT flying manually, using the automatic controls and sensors, which are failing at times, as well as the manual controls.)
I know that they do put a LOT of effort into these things. I have seen the production and testing. However, I also see the end results, which only impresses me as a novelty. My electric unicycle has redundant circuits and recovery circuits, with 100% pre-tested and calibrated hardware. Why? Because it transports a human in traffic, at speeds of 25 MPH. I have had one failure, due to overheating on a hot day, in the three years (8,500 miles) that I have driven it. It is made in China and cost less than these things, and is built with more hardware and materials.
But even the best things are prone to failure, at no-ones fault. You don't hear about the number of "non-failures", because they are enjoying the devices without issue. Just because you don't have that issue, or have not seen it, doesn't translate into it NOT existing. Save your $0.02 so the actual technicians can diagnose the issue, and then thank these people reporting the issues, so that the issues hopefully contribute to the successful future flights of your own devices, or future versions. |
|