Redundancy vs Mass
Justify redundancy at the functional level using failure-consequence analysis rather than defaulting to identical hardware duplication that consumes launch-mass budget.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Space contradiction RMA002 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Business Context
Redundant equipment provides alternative functional paths when primary spacecraft hardware fails. Computers, sensors, actuators, communications equipment, power systems, and other critical components may therefore be duplicated. This improves fault tolerance but increases spacecraft mass, potentially reducing payload capacity, propulsion resources, or launch flexibility.
Space TRIZ Resolution
Redundancy should be provided at the functional level rather than automatically through identical hardware duplication. Shared backup resources, cross-strapped equipment, reconfigurable systems, multifunction components, and distributed mission assets can preserve critical functions without requiring complete duplication of every subsystem.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 1 – Segmentation distributes redundant capability across appropriate system elements.
Principle 5 – Merging allows several functions to share common backup resources.
Principle 6 – Universality enables existing components to perform alternative functions after failures.
Expected Outcome
Maintained fault tolerance
Reduced redundancy mass
Greater payload resource availability
Improved functional resilience
Decision Indicators
Early indicators include:
Backup equipment contributes substantially to spacecraft dry mass.
Identical hardware is duplicated regardless of failure consequence.
Backup components remain inactive for most of the mission.
Payload capability is reduced to accommodate redundant equipment.
Functional alternatives are overlooked during reliability analysis.