Same story with shuttle and that's why it looks the way it is and was as expensive as it was. It would have been a completely different vehicle if Congress weren't meddling.
The 'what' could really be anything since the article is vague, from the sensors themselves to the GNCP software that takes that info and controls the spacecraft. If they were patching the instrument(s) then they could have done anything from uploading a new configuration to memory or the even loading a new FSW build.
Based on the little info in there I'm guessing the LIDAR hardware is their already planned backup system so when the primary sensors didn't function as planned they switched over. In this scenario I'd expect the controllers to want to hold off so they can configure the LIDAR and run its self test procedures as well as configure GNCP and ground control.
A viewpoint I frequently see missing is having a truck is fun, especially when I want to go piss around outdoors. Sure a car is technically more useful/efficient day to day but it's not going to get me over sand, mud, or even slightly rough patches of ground on the weekend. I can throw a bunch of stuff in the back and don't really have to think if it'll all fit.
Construction and hauling aren't the only uses for a truck and without my Ranger my numerous moves would have been significantly more involved and annoying. Plus for road trips having the extra space over a car is more comfortable with the added benefit of the bed, which carries way more than a trunk.
I think the HN folks tend to forget about how spread out the US is and how many people drive for trips. Or maybe they've just forgot how to have fun.
Btw the Ranger is great.
Typically your best bet is going with a provider that already produces whatever item, isn't bespoke to that particular program, and has an assembly line of sorts already set up. However the other problem is they are often built in low numbers to begin with so getting hold of a flight qualified unit will most likely be an issue as well. Also everything is tightly packed together which usually makes replacing something involve messing with a bunch of other items.
Many people will hear the usual story of the fixes (for the plane example) being enormously expensive without really diving into what all goes into that figure.
The source code change itself may be trivial, so it's easy to compare that to the multi-million dollar figures thrown around and have criticisms.
We can do OTA updates, there's no technical reason it can't be done other than not allowing it (which I mostly agree with in secure applications). Hell our spacecraft do this now.
We must keep in mind these fixes do not go from dev environment straight to the field (prod), which would be a terrible idea. These are extremely complex integrated systems and must be tested in multiple phases because let's face it, if this supposedly trivial issue made it all the way through, what else may not have been discovered yet?
Not only does the 'easy' fix need to be tested (time and money), but related interactions need to be investigated as well (more time and money). The time cost of people doing the work, investigations, testing adds up from all this. Then there's potentially hardware in the mix which is never cheap, also simply being able to get access to hardware for testing can be a huge hassle.
Keep in mind this comment is only geared towards situations where the end item is a physical system. I would expect a fixing a pure software product to have significantly lower costs.
No conspiracy or funniness to be had. ITAR is the main limiting factor to releasing images/videos at this point. Next is the download rate and the high res images are not high priority since operations can be run using lower resolution. We all need to remember mission success is the highest priority. We will get the good stuff we want, just not immediately.