http://gizmodo.com/5880850/how-nasa-solved-a-100-million-problem-for-five-bucks
Quote from: agman25 on 02/01/2012 04:38 pmhttp://gizmodo.com/5880850/how-nasa-solved-a-100-million-problem-for-five-bucksA bit more than $5...the accelerometers are a pretty penny.From the article:"NASA could do better. So they grabbed a few accelerometers and attached them to the chair. With the vibration and the strobing now perfectly in sync, the display became crystal clear. And the final cost was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what they'd anticipated. Victory."And obviously a lab result. Put into effect as a flight qual unit: $100M
Just don't try to build an inertial navigation system with that $3 accelerometer.
Quote from: deltaV on 02/02/2012 04:56 pmJust don't try to build an inertial navigation system with that $3 accelerometer.Why not? What sort of drift rate is acceptable?It totally depends on the application. In some applications, a $3 accelerometer is more than adequate.
There was quite a bit more to the issue than being able to read panel displays, was there not? I think I remember fears that the TO could have been severe enough to incapacitate the crew.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/02/2012 07:00 pmQuote from: deltaV on 02/02/2012 04:56 pmJust don't try to build an inertial navigation system with that $3 accelerometer.Why not? What sort of drift rate is acceptable?It totally depends on the application. In some applications, a $3 accelerometer is more than adequate.For this application it just needs to be able to sense the frequency of the vibration so the cheap ones are good enough.
Quote from: Patchouli on 02/03/2012 02:19 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/02/2012 07:00 pmQuote from: deltaV on 02/02/2012 04:56 pmJust don't try to build an inertial navigation system with that $3 accelerometer.Why not? What sort of drift rate is acceptable?It totally depends on the application. In some applications, a $3 accelerometer is more than adequate.For this application it just needs to be able to sense the frequency of the vibration so the cheap ones are good enough.Bet you life on that?I wouldn't.
Bet you life on that?I wouldn't.
It's amazing how cheap a solution can be when you don't factor in the labor cost of finding it, the cost of implementing it, and only count the cost of the cheapest first-draft proof of concept prototype hardware.Still a clever workaround, just think the article is rather deceptive.~Jon
That is non-sense. There are $3 pieces in an airplane that if a few of the right ones failed at once, you'd die.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/03/2012 05:27 pmThat is non-sense. There are $3 pieces in an airplane that if a few of the right ones failed at once, you'd die.There are very few parts on even a general aviation aircraft that costs only $3. Hell, even Dzus fasteners cost more than that...