Live data from Hacker News

Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

youtube.com

221–230 of 517 posts

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t relativity tell us it doesn’t matter?

PBS Space Time recently explained what the present time means within general relativity[1]. As I understand it... it matters in this context. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EagNUvNfsUI

True fun begins when you consider General Relativity (which takes into account gravity and acceleration). From what I heard there is no definition of simultaneity and you can define it in different ways.

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#222

Something I don't understand: when they say "X is 1 minute from happening", does that mean it's really 1 minute from happening or does that mean "in 1 minute we'll receive the signal that X has happened"? Maybe my question makes more sense in the case of "X is happening right now", because then I should either understand "we infer that X should have happened right about now" or "we have confirmed via signal that X ha…

Waiting for the physicist in the room to point out: there is no such thing as simultaneity! :)

S/he already did. We just don't know yet.

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, you have shown you know what relativity is. But the relative velocity of earth and mars — which I can't convince Wolfram Alpha to tell me, but it's got to be on the order of their orbital velocity so let's say 5x10^4 mph — is a tiny tiny fraction of c so their inertial reference frames are essentially identical. So sitting in our reference frame, we can make inferences about what's happening "now" on mars,s…

Now is the part where someone brings up even with the low relative velocity, you haven’t accounted for the simultaneity issues we’d have if the earth collided with a black hole while the rover landing was happening.

Or the fact that mars is not as deep in the gravity well of the Sun! I wonder if they have to account for that one when programming, like, antenna aiming or something.

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#225

Apparently the copter was made with off-the-shelf parts. I wonder if I can cop a replica somewhere, and how it would fly considering it is built for martian air

If it was made with off-the-shelf parts then it's a testament to how wasteful NASA has become. Building that helicopter took them 6 years and $80 million.[1]

1. See page 20 of the launch press kit: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/mars_2020/download/...

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#227
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Space Shuttle was reusable (with massive refurbishing after each flight) but given that'd it cost significantly more than a non-reusable rocket per pound I think the point stands. SpaceX managed to make a financially viable reusable rocket.

They really didn't. SpaceX is not cheaper than the shuttle no matter how many times it gets repeated. That SpaceX fudges the numbers so it is hard to compare doesn't make it true. In reality SpaceX is more expensive than not only the shuttle but also their own projections. Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU

you're wrong. That video is a bunch of crud

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did, you're not wrong at all, but just to add a little bit of clarity the space shuttle was never as reusable as was hoped - it wound up costing a huge amount of time and money to retrofit the shuttle again before each launch. Reusable and Re-usability are different things :P As far as I know no solid state boosters were ever re-used (how would that work?) - but then again SpaceX doesn't re-use solid state boost…

The SRB segments vere regularly reused, not sure about the parachutes and the nozzle stearing gear. Still reportedly it was more expensive to reuse the segments (basically big metal tubes) than to build new set if SRBs for each flight, possibly using better techniques (monolithic carbon fibre overwrapped solid motors, like on Ariane 5/6).

Oh interesting! Very cool, thanks for the info :)

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#229
post #224

I stopped watching videos like these when they started chanting like some crazy cult when things went well (USA! USA! USA!). No wonder we can't just get along.

I'm not american but still enjoyed the landing very much. They sent a freaking nuclear-powered jeep to the surface of another planet, they can gloat all they want.

Re: Perseverance Rover lands on Mars [video]

#230

Something I don't understand: when they say "X is 1 minute from happening", does that mean it's really 1 minute from happening or does that mean "in 1 minute we'll receive the signal that X has happened"? Maybe my question makes more sense in the case of "X is happening right now", because then I should either understand "we infer that X should have happened right about now" or "we have confirmed via signal that X ha…

It's the latter. The Earth-Mars latency at this time is something like 11 minutes, and the landing itself takes about 7 minutes, so when we on Earth first saw the craft entering atmosphere on Mars, by that time all the landing was already over, one way or another.

NASA has a good breakdown of their expected miletones at 'earth receive time' - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-s-next-mars-rover-is-r...

Apparently the latency time is currently 11 mins 22 seconds -- which is somewhere near the average. It goes from under 4 mins to over 22mins depending on distance.

Post reply on HN