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.
I wonder if the length of all space stuff average out to their acceptable value now ! (fail at launch, rapid unscheduled disassembly and the others going further until exceeding minimum acceptable value)
Comments
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.
I wonder if the length of all space stuff average out to their acceptable value now ! (fail at launch, rapid unscheduled disassembly and the others going further until exceeding minimum acceptable value)