Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for those who are missing basic writing standards.
The first line of the article starts out "Thirteen years ago last August, I was camped out in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory press room..."
How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
21–30 of 103 posts
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#22Curiosity is a teenager now? Damn, I didn't need to feel this much older today..
bepicolombo arrives on Mercury this autumn too
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#23The 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.
Suddenly HN is very pro automating human jobs with machines because it's cheaper
The moon is probably the only celestial body humans can actually occupy with current technology, for every other object in the solar system we need robots.
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#24Was excited to hear that they have a lower power rad-hard snapdragon system going into the new missions! The RAD 750 is basically a 30-year old IBM RS-6000. Very well known, but has been the goto CPU for way longer than I thought it would be.
It turns out GNC is significantly easier than rendering a video game. You don't even need that fast of a control loop. Your bigger concern is legitimate real time processing over raw compute power.
Otherwise, we have shown, if you need power, send the astronaut up there with a laptop. Which is far easier to replace and upgrade as years advance.
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> much more science in the same amount of time. I'm not convinced by the time argument, as astronauts would have limited time on Mars dictated by orbital mechanics and return schedules, but the bigger problem is cost. You are replying to a comment about how rovers and probes are cost effective; there is no way that crewed exploration could accomplish more science than Mars rovers without orders of magnitude more cost…
A manned mission to Mars isn't even on the table yet (sorry, Elon) until we solve several huge problems, including cosmic radiation, landing heavy payloads, and a feasible alternative to chemical propulsion (most likely nuclear, but untested).
Not to mention supplying astronauts with food and managing their waste for 6+ months.
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#26The 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.
> Curiosity [...] has traveled nearly 37 kilometers, drilled into and sampled 42 different rocks, and as of publication has snapped nearly 763,000 photos. Without in any way minimising the amazing scientific and engineering achievements of the team and the rover: we need crewed space exploration because people on Mars would be able to do the above in significantly less than thirteen years. Or, to put it another way,…
Can we realistically send humans to Mars plus the return trip? I would maybe believe we can do a one way trip and leave those astronauts to die after snapping some pictures.
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#27The 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.
Much easier to get a moon mission due to politics .
And they scrapped the lunar gateway to piece out the ion thrusters to send to saturn for some reason
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suddenly HN is very pro automating human jobs with machines because it's cheaper
The moon is probably the only celestial body humans can actually occupy with current technology, for every other object in the solar system we need robots.
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.
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#29The 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.
[dead]
Re: How JPL keeps the 13-year-old Curiosity rover doing science
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> much more science in the same amount of time. I'm not convinced by the time argument, as astronauts would have limited time on Mars dictated by orbital mechanics and return schedules, but the bigger problem is cost. You are replying to a comment about how rovers and probes are cost effective; there is no way that crewed exploration could accomplish more science than Mars rovers without orders of magnitude more cost…
A manned mission to Mars isn't even on the table yet (sorry, Elon) until we solve several huge problems, including cosmic radiation, landing heavy payloads, and a feasible alternative to chemical propulsion (most likely nuclear, but untested).
Manned mission to Mars is a fad.
But it is important fad just like space mining.
We as humanity have to believe we are not in zero sum game to stay decent…
Unfortunately last years are showing us how ugly it is with rare earth elements, energy etc. It is also showing what you wrote is true. No one really believes that we can affordably space mine for rare earth and no one believes in Martian colonization that would bring tangible benefits.