121–130 of 187 posts
Interesting thread on why it's not possible for the solar panels to be self cleaned: https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296?c...
NASA plans obsolescence into the rovers to get funding to build the next rover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show me a Mars rover that was still functioning but didn't get a mission extension so was just left to do nothing and decay. I doubt you will. If they are still working they are practically guaranteed a mission extension because the cost of continuing to operate a rover that you have already placed on mars and paid for is marginal relative to the mission. The most expensive part is designing and building the probe an…
And just because they get that extension doesn't mean they discover anything useful. We don't just chuck stuff at Mars randomly, landing site are chosen for specific reasons to do specific science. Sure it's possible there's something in a navigable vicinity worth checking out, but also just as likely not. And if there is it should be included in the mission as a secondary objective and the probe specced accordingly.…
See, I don't see it that way. You didn't state it as "here are some possible reasons". You formed your argument as "this is why what you are proposing is wrong". Without actually being an authority on it and knowing if that's true.
Neither am I. But we should be able to discuss hypotheticals and come up with ideas as to possible solutions and their drawbacks. I'm sure there are very good reasons why they don't include them. But, having worked in the aerospace industry although nothing to do with NASA or spaceprobes, I find arguments about budget or building just to the mission unsatisfactory. I'm pretty sure there is an engineering challenge that makes it unworkable or unpractical and you and I are just ignorant to it.
There are obvious benefits to the ability to clean solar panels on Mars. And Space probes tend to be more over engineered than people give them credit for. Yes they are built to extreme margins to optimize capability for low weight. But that capability is great. We are talking about the same engineers who replaced the perfectly workable airbag solution for the skycrane which was far more complicated a solution because it promised to land the vehicle softer and give it a better chance of making it to surface unbroken.
So I can only conclude that there is some kind of engineering problem that prevents it. Maybe Mars dust is more like Moon dust that dirt on Earth and its akin to tiny razors? Brushing it off could damage the solar panels.
That's just me spitballing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am seeing a lot of comments along the lines of 'windshield wipers?' Cars were invented in 1886, the first windshield wipers became available for them in 1917, 31 years later. That is... - in an environment with plenty of water - not near waterless, - on glass windshields (much less fragile than solar panels), - where we can physically replace the wipers when needed, - where we can adjust if they get stuck, - and wh…
The tweet thread itself doesn't say that using self cleaning panels would be impossible, or even that hard, just that it's easier and more cost effective to just bring bigger panels. Not of your bullet points seem that relevant honestly - using an equivalent of a leaf blower would do the trick. But any added complexity to a mission just means there are more failure points.
Someone should spend a couple years doing some PhD work on Martian dust blowing turbine designs, but not burn out completely so they can write a 1000 word, interesting blog post with some pretty pictures for me to consume.
Interesting thread on why it's not possible for the solar panels to be self cleaned: https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296?c...
This was a surprisingly touching movie about the Opportunity rover. Yes, it's sentimental, and yes, the NASA crew do call it "her." And yes, the rover does remind you of Wall-E. Still, it's a good flick to watch with the family.
Interesting thread on why it's not possible for the solar panels to be self cleaned: https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296?c...
I don't buy it. There are so many ways to solve the problem that wouldn't add significant weight, that there must be some ulterior motive. And there is. NASA plans obsolescence into the rovers to get funding to build the next rover.
NASA is by no means perfect. But we can start by assuming they have basic competence and positive intent unless proven otherwise.
Interesting thread on why it's not possible for the solar panels to be self cleaned: https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296?c...
I dislike the Twitter UX so much, it's not clear to me if the "thread" only contains 2 tweets or if I'm too dumb to navigate this shitshow of a UI. Constantly being bombarded with popups doesn't help the UX either.
Amazing how in 15 years they never managed to fix this UX issue, despite have ten times more people than they actually needed.
Interesting thread on why it's not possible for the solar panels to be self cleaned: https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296?c...
Cant just use a pad on the arm to rub away at them?
It raises more questions. Was this logging message decided by committee or a PM? Was it a dev easter egg? Do they have a writer?
Also, what conditions would trigger this "final" message?
Being a lesser engineer, my stuff just crashes unceremoniously and usually I am alerted not by a sweet note from my prod servers "Hey, looks like prod's going down, don't worry about me, though...", it's usually concerned phone call from a manager.
Interesting thread on why it's not possible for the solar panels to be self cleaned: https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296?c...
I don't buy it. There are so many ways to solve the problem that wouldn't add significant weight, that there must be some ulterior motive. And there is. NASA plans obsolescence into the rovers to get funding to build the next rover.