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

81–90 of 103 posts

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

#81

Post by boxfire »

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…

It actually took only 9 months to work around, and the new method is actually quite effective. After fixing some early bugs it’s as effective as the original drill technique.

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

#82

Post by RetroTechie »

ozim wrote: post #30
tkcashman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

For anything to become reality, the 1st step is be able to imagine it.

Also a big problem can be attacked by solving a small part of it, see what's left & repeat until remaining bits are easy.

Over time, what used to be 'impossible' becomes easy. What matters is deciding what to focus on for the foreseeable future, and spend resources wisely. See eg.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel#Wait_calcu...

Yeah a human mission to Mars, colonizing the clouds of Venus, asteroid mining or Dyson spheres may not be achievable now (if ever). But exploring the problem space, or having a good look at the required engineering, is. And may be cheap as well.

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

#83

Post by m4rtink »

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.

With cost of launch to space finally coming down thanks to SpaceX & reusable rockets in general I would imagine this is how things will go much more often in the future.

Not only mass production but possibly cheaper materials, more in-space prototyping & less expensive ground testing and paper studies before launch.

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

#84

Post by rtkwe »

GuB-42 wrote: post #66
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 crewe…

There's a lot to be said for the flexibility of humans for performing experiments. With someone else or a country broadly sustaining people in space the cost to perform a particular experiment can go down by a lot. Trying to replace people with automated experiments will run up huge costs of designing, building and launching the robotics required to perform that individual experiment that would largely be single use. It'd also be a lot more fragile and prone to failures as well.

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

#85

Post by rtkwe »

WalterBright wrote: post #48
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.

Now that JPL has a design, they could crank out dozens of Curiosities and do lots of science with little more money.

They'd need to source the plutonium for the RTGs for that and from what I've read that's in pretty precious supply. Though maybe we could start disassembling bombs to source it.

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

#86

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

contingencies wrote: post #71
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sky crane system still blows my mind. Straight out of science fiction.

Assuming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_crane_(landing_system) can I ask which part of the system did you find most impressive? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1WX0CATyn8

Mainly because it's a complex multi-step plan with so many potential failure points, which would already be impressive if executed on Earth but even moreso being executed on a distant planet where the conditions are different enough that it can't be fully tested in advance, and yet despite that the whole scheme worked flawlessly.

But if I had to name a specific part, I'd pick the control system. The skycrane is dangling a heavy rover from a pendulum controlled by rockets. It's unstable in every axis and has tight performance requirements to let the rover down softly and not kick up dust. Just very impressive.

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

#87

Post by m4rtink »

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.

Any permanent lunar outpost (with maybe the exception of some of the coastal ones) needs to be fully self sufficient during the winter, that is nothing new.

No one is going to go rescue you tracking or flying thousands of kilometers in total darkness, snow storms and ~-80C temperatures.

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

#88

Post by WalterBright »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #68
WalterBright wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> As far as we know.

You could argue that forever. When is it time to accept that there isn't any there, and if there is, it is insignificant?

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

#89

Post by WalterBright »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #73
WalterBright wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that JPL has a design, they could crank out dozens of Curiosities and do lots of science with little more money.

If they actually want to do that they'd need to come up with a design more suited to serial production. Not sure how much modification that would take. If SpaceX ever credibly gets to the point of preparing to send people to Mars I'd think that that would have to happen because how else do you vet your landing sites.

The simple fact that in order to build the first one, you have to build jigs and set up machinery and make a test plan and make test equipment, and debug it means doing a twin would likely be less than 10% of the cost of the original.

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

#90

Post by somenameforme »

boxfire wrote: post #81
somenameforme wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It actually took only 9 months to work around, and the new method is actually quite effective. After fixing some early bugs it’s as effective as the original drill technique.

The drill started flaking out in early 2015, completely broke in December 2016, and was back online in May 2018. The new method works but is quite a lot riskier and less stable. Every activation increases the chance of a permanent failure. The same was obviously true before, but you just worsen the risk profile a bit. Of course a worse risk profile with drilling is way better than no drilling!
Post reply on HN