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

Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#61

Post by waterlesscloud »

aptwebapps wrote: post #8
panacea wrote: post #7

I can't but think this is bad PR for NASA (in an unintended consequence kind of way). "How cool is it that we've got an awesome rover on Mars! ...oh they're sending a new generation one there in 18 years time? Bah... now I have to wait for the good stuff to happen. Curiosity is already last generation gear."

8 years, not 18, and I don't think many people think of Mars rovers the same way as they think of their phone.

I'm not so sure. There was a lot of griping about the early photos from Curiosity as compared to the iphone camera.

That went away when the "real" pictures started coming back, but people definitely expect space technology to move as fast as consumer tech.

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#62

Post by gojomo »

danielweber wrote: post #59
gojomo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are humans better at searching for life than robots? Humans seem to require much more onsite support infrastructure, including for activities (eating, sleeping, remaining social and sane) that are tangential to most exploration and life-detection experiments. Such an infrastructure also increases the magnitude of Earth-contamination of the Martian environment. I'm all for having humans on Mars so we're a two-plan…

How long would would you have to search the rocky mountains with robots to find a dinosaur fossil?

Assuming terrain-optimized multipedal robots, with stereoscopic vision across a broader range of the light spectrum than human vision: less time than with humans.

Such robots should be available in the same timeframe as a human-supporting infrastructure could be delivered to the Martian surface. (In fact, building that infrastructure might require similarly-advanced robotics.)

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#63

Post by gojomo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #57
gojomo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fan of all the missions so far, but when I hear that none of the rovers have been "properly equipped to find microscopic life", I fear that some of the mission planning may be trying to "preserve the mystery", trickling out plot revelations to keep the viewers/funders hooked. Couldn't Curiousity have had some agar plates and just dragged them through the dust, for subsequent observation over weeks? (Even if any…

The problem with relying on that method is that finding life on mars could be like finding life at geothermal vents; deep down in hard-to-reach volcanic pockets. If you don't poke around some of those areas before bringing masses of earth contaminants to the surface, you could easily screw up future searching.

This makes no sense to me. You can't just test the soils and easy-to-reach places for microorganisms until you can also test the deep places?

And how do easy surface tests contaminate things any more than all the earth-originated equipment we've already dropped there?

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#64

Post by worldsayshi »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #58
worldsayshi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we don't choose to live in deserts shows that it's highly likely that living in deserts - and all the more in even less hospitable environments - is not sustainable given our current way of living. Unless we can show that we can have a working ecosystem in the least hospitable environments here on earth we aren't going to be able to set one up 4 light minutes away on a desert planet without an atmospher…

What do you mean by sustainable? Plenty of things are capable of being done, but people happen to prefer alternatives. An example might be constructing every building in the US on stilts. It's more expensive and wastes some resources but you can still manage to run farms and cities that way.

Can we sustain a ecosystem capable of sustaining human life in a desert without atmosphere or other protection from background radiation yet then? It seems like figuring this out should be the first step.

Then again, sustainable colonies on the moon might be the most efficient way to establish that.

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#65

Post by aptwebapps »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #61
aptwebapps wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8 years, not 18, and I don't think many people think of Mars rovers the same way as they think of their phone.

I'm not so sure. There was a lot of griping about the early photos from Curiosity as compared to the iphone camera. That went away when the "real" pictures started coming back, but people definitely expect space technology to move as fast as consumer tech.

I'm sorry, but I have to go on a little rant here. Let me state in advance that it's completely out of proportion to the subject matter and that this is more of chance to drag out my soap box than anything else.

HN is a place where you shouldn't have to spell everything out or restate the context every step of the way. But here's what just happened:

1) panacea posited the idea, perhaps humorously, that the news of another rover on the horizon would diminish interest in Curiosity much like the announcement of a new phone diminishes interest in the current model.

2) I said I didn't think people thought of the rovers the same was as they thought of their phones.

3) You disagree with that in a completely orthogonal way.

Context is everything. If you read panacea's comment and then my comment you should not get the idea that I'm saying there can not be any congruence between rovers and smart phones in the public's thoughts. Obviously, if the pictures were not high res people would complain and the easiest reference point to hand would be a phone camera. That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Again, this a pet peeve, but carrying on a discussion via medium such as this rewards a little carefulness.

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#66

Post by Dylan16807 »

gojomo wrote: post #63
Dylan16807 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with relying on that method is that finding life on mars could be like finding life at geothermal vents; deep down in hard-to-reach volcanic pockets. If you don't poke around some of those areas before bringing masses of earth contaminants to the surface, you could easily screw up future searching.

This makes no sense to me. You can't just test the soils and easy-to-reach places for microorganisms until you can also test the deep places? And how do easy surface tests contaminate things any more than all the earth-originated equipment we've already dropped there?

Surface tests are perfectly fine, but they're not enough. prawks was talking about how we're wary of introducing Earth organisms to the planet. We should keep that attitude until we've done proper searching for life all over, not just the easiest tests.

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#67

Post by waterlesscloud »

aptwebapps wrote: post #65
waterlesscloud wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure. There was a lot of griping about the early photos from Curiosity as compared to the iphone camera. That went away when the "real" pictures started coming back, but people definitely expect space technology to move as fast as consumer tech.

I'm sorry, but I have to go on a little rant here. Let me state in advance that it's completely out of proportion to the subject matter and that this is more of chance to drag out my soap box than anything else. HN is a place where you shouldn't have to spell everything out or restate the context every step of the way. But here's what just happened: 1) panacea posited the idea, perhaps humorously, that the news of an…

No offense, but yeah, I was intentionally jumping context in order to express what I considered to be an interesting idea. There's no intent to imply what you said is wrong, but to move beyond it to more interesting topics.

Comparing the Mars rovers to phones made me think of the ways in which the public does in fact do that. There's interesting conversations to be had in that direction. Perhaps future shock has turned into future expectation. Or blase-ness. Or something.

This is personal for me, and I've been around long enough to realize I'm never going to have what I want in this regard, but I do wish conversations were more fluid when there are more interesting directions to pursue beyond the immediate context.

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#68

Post by aptwebapps »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #67
aptwebapps wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I have to go on a little rant here. Let me state in advance that it's completely out of proportion to the subject matter and that this is more of chance to drag out my soap box than anything else. HN is a place where you shouldn't have to spell everything out or restate the context every step of the way. But here's what just happened: 1) panacea posited the idea, perhaps humorously, that the news of an…

No offense, but yeah, I was intentionally jumping context in order to express what I considered to be an interesting idea. There's no intent to imply what you said is wrong, but to move beyond it to more interesting topics. Comparing the Mars rovers to phones made me think of the ways in which the public does in fact do that. There's interesting conversations to be had in that direction. Perhaps future shock has turn…

There's no reason you can't change the subject - you just need a segue so we (or maybe just I) know what's going on. ;)

Re: Nasa to send new rover to Mars in 2020

#69

Post by prawks »

nkoren wrote: post #55
prawks wrote: post #21

It is naive to ask why another? I was under the impression that Curiosity was supposed to be like the rover to end all Martian rovers. What else do they need? It seems like there must be something else to do aside from.... rove. Maybe not manned exploration, but something to push things further towards that? Or are they still stuck on "We must make a final, irrefutable conclusion on whether life has or has not existe…

> How much of the surface have they covered with rovers? They've landed four successful rovers on the surface. One the size of a microwave oven, two the size of small golf carts, and one the size of a BMW Mini. Meanwhile, Mars has approximately the same land area as all the continents of earth put together. It's a big place. Feel free to do the math to answer your question, but there'll be an awful lot of zeros after…

It was a rhetorical question, perhaps improperly phrased as such. The point being that they have barely even begun to attempt to scratch the surface. How effective are rovers at doing this? Shouldn't the ultimate goal to be to gather data to allow more extensive exploration (likely by humans)?
Post reply on HN