Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#61

Post by noja »

somenameforme wrote: post #49
rented_mule wrote: post #3

The total cost of Curiosity to date is well under 5% of the cost of the recent trip humans took around the moon (something like $3B vs. $90B, or $20 vs. $600 per US taxpayer). Imagine the amount of science that could get done if we gave even half the budget of crewed spaceflight to rover / probe style exploration.

The unreasonably high price is because NASA is obligated by Congress to use Boeing and their SLS. It costs orders of magnitude greater than SpaceX for no benefit whatsoever, as a Falcon Heavy could absolutely be fitted for a lunar flyby if desired. Another problem is that rovers are way more limited than most people realize. The fundamental problem is that moving parts break, so their design/behavior are very limited…

Isn't SpaceX cheaper because NASA exists? Get rid of NASA the price will rocket.

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#62

Post by HPsquared »

somenameforme wrote: post #49
rented_mule wrote: post #3

The total cost of Curiosity to date is well under 5% of the cost of the recent trip humans took around the moon (something like $3B vs. $90B, or $20 vs. $600 per US taxpayer). Imagine the amount of science that could get done if we gave even half the budget of crewed spaceflight to rover / probe style exploration.

The unreasonably high price is because NASA is obligated by Congress to use Boeing and their SLS. It costs orders of magnitude greater than SpaceX for no benefit whatsoever, as a Falcon Heavy could absolutely be fitted for a lunar flyby if desired. Another problem is that rovers are way more limited than most people realize. The fundamental problem is that moving parts break, so their design/behavior are very limited…

Extremely constrained mass and volume budgets must cause a lot of difficulty. The drill and wheels, say, were engineered right to the limits to make them as compact and light as possible. A drill with twice the mass and size would probably be 10x as effective. Same with the wheels.

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#63

Post by rented_mule »

lisper wrote: post #57
rented_mule wrote: post #3

The total cost of Curiosity to date is well under 5% of the cost of the recent trip humans took around the moon (something like $3B vs. $90B, or $20 vs. $600 per US taxpayer). Imagine the amount of science that could get done if we gave even half the budget of crewed spaceflight to rover / probe style exploration.

The space program is not about science. It has never been about science. Science is just the excuse, the window-dressing. What it's really about is military power and sending money to the right congressional districts. Source: I worked at JPL from 1988 to 2004.

I want you to be wrong, but I think you're right. The cost discrepancy I pointed out is evidence of that. I've heard a lot of things that are consistent with what you're saying from one of my closest friends, who happened to work at JPL and Caltech from 1992 to 2011, much of that time on Mars rover related software.

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#65

Post by ericd »

WalterBright wrote: post #54
ccamrobertson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and further imagine the science that could be done if we mass manufactured probes rather than using experimental engineering for each one. We could have had dozens of Voyager probes in the outer reaches of our solar system by now. I would have loved to see more Huygens probes dropped to the surface of Titan or more New Horizons zoom past Pluto. I don't think human spaceflight is to blame, rather it's what connects…

The JWST space telescope cost $10b. I've been excoriated here by suggesting that a twin could be built probably for $1b.

Seems like we should build at least 11, if it’s 11 for the price of 2. There’s a lot of cosmos to look at.

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#66

Post by GuB-42 »

rented_mule wrote: post #3

The total cost of Curiosity to date is well under 5% of the cost of the recent trip humans took around the moon (something like $3B vs. $90B, or $20 vs. $600 per US taxpayer). Imagine the amount of science that could get done if we gave even half the budget of crewed spaceflight to rover / probe style exploration.

There is some science that can only be done with crewed missions, and that studying what happen to people in space! That's already a big part of the experiments done on the ISS.

In addition, people still can do a lot of things that robots can't do, like repairing things, or do it much faster: Apollo did more in a few days than the robotic missions did in months.

So sure, a lot of science could be done by moving crewed mission budgets to robotic missions, but that would be a different kind of science, we would learn more in some aspects and less in others.

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#67

Post by My_Name »

ericd wrote: post #65
WalterBright wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The JWST space telescope cost $10b. I've been excoriated here by suggesting that a twin could be built probably for $1b.

Seems like we should build at least 11, if it’s 11 for the price of 2. There’s a lot of cosmos to look at.

That's what they did with Hubble. Of course the CIA bought them to point downwards...

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#68

Post by fc417fc802 »

WalterBright wrote: post #53
gwill wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sending a human there also contaminates the planet more, allowing us to learn less.

I will never understand that point of view. Mars is a lifeless rock.

As far as we know. As of right now, we are reasonably confident that we haven't contaminated it. So if anything resembling biological byproducts turn up we can say with reasonable confidence that we have discovered evidence of historical life on mars. As soon as a human sets foot there that's no longer the case.

That said, personally I'm in favor of manned missions to as many bodies in the solar system as possible.

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#69

Post by fc417fc802 »

ericd wrote: post #65
WalterBright wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The JWST space telescope cost $10b. I've been excoriated here by suggesting that a twin could be built probably for $1b.

Seems like we should build at least 11, if it’s 11 for the price of 2. There’s a lot of cosmos to look at.

I think it's better to take a production line approach the way musk did with spacex rockets. That would give us a recurring fixed budget, career stability, and stable pipelines for training and research. It's bound to be far more cost effective and to have more benefits for society as a whole.

There's no good reason not to have a steady stream of space telescopes and rovers being sent out at a rate of once or twice per year.

Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science

#70

Post by fc417fc802 »

gosub100 wrote: post #59
downrightmike wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like Hawaii, Islands require massive support and material inputs from the mainland. The moon is like Napoleon's exile to Saint Helena island, very remote hard to get to. Mars is like the antarctic, nearly all early explorers died and it take an international effort to stay down there.

It's not glamorous but I want to see SpaceX do a 6 month antarctic mission to prove they're capable of supporting life on Mars. No assistance from any existing antarctic base, fully self contained.

Rather than a one off mission, why isn't NASA operating a permanent base there along those lines? Locate it reasonably close to mcmurdo so they can get help in an emergency. I realize we have the ISS but there's probably still a lot to be learned about keeping a fully self contained system running in a hostile environment.
Post reply on HN