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

91–100 of 103 posts

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

#91

Post by lisper »

rented_mule wrote: post #63
lisper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The space program is not about science. It has never been about science. Science is just the excuse, the window-dressing. What it's really about is military power and sending money to the right congressional districts. Source: I worked at JPL from 1988 to 2004.

I want you to be wrong, but I think you're right. The cost discrepancy I pointed out is evidence of that. I've heard a lot of things that are consistent with what you're saying from one of my closest friends, who happened to work at JPL and Caltech from 1992 to 2011, much of that time on Mars rover related software.

What was your friend's name? If they were working on robotics in that time period we probably worked together.

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

#92

Post by fc417fc802 »

WalterBright wrote: post #88
fc417fc802 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No idea, but presumably that would be after we've explored a fair bit of it. We've barely scratched the surface.

It seems quite plausible that there could be ground water. If that's the case (and I suppose even if it's not) it wouldn't be at all surprising for the cave systems to contain microbial life.

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

#93

Post by rented_mule »

lisper wrote: post #91
rented_mule wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want you to be wrong, but I think you're right. The cost discrepancy I pointed out is evidence of that. I've heard a lot of things that are consistent with what you're saying from one of my closest friends, who happened to work at JPL and Caltech from 1992 to 2011, much of that time on Mars rover related software.

What was your friend's name? If they were working on robotics in that time period we probably worked together.

I'm trying to keep this account anonymous so that I'll speak my mind more easily, and she's probably more private than I am, so I don't want to say her name.

Among other things, she worked on mission control software for tracking rover-carrying spacecraft en route to Mars and related ground data systems (I'm probably getting the wording wrong, but that's my outsider understanding of it). Later she worked on software used to analyze interferometer data for exoplanet research on the Caltech side (again, wording?). I'm not aware of her ever being near robotics work.

Part of her shift to Caltech was to try to get to an environment where there was more predictable focus on the science, but a lot of the grant money there was from the same or related budgets as JPL's money, with plenty of strings attached that weren't always pulling in directions she was excited about.

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

#94

Post by contingencies »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #86
contingencies wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dangl…

My understanding was the 20m tether length was designed to avoid dust. More interesting to me were the choice of nylon vs. other polymers, the equal-release multi-line spool design and the choice of cutting the lines on the rover (permanent mission-long mass penalty) vs. skycrane (which is discarded).

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

#95

Post by ozim »

somenameforme wrote: post #56
ozim wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you held the same logic back towards the beginning of humanity then we'd all still be wandering about the woods poking each other with sticks. Most people don't believe things are possible which is probably some sort of evolutionary thing. A society full of people with their head in the clouds probably wouldn't work so great, but humanity would also stagnate without at least some people looking to the stars. This…

You went false dichotomy on this.

I say fad because I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime and I would say 90% it will never happen.

But that 10% possibility of it happening is important or 0.01% of possibility it happens in my lifetime.

It is important that people believe it is more than my numbers. It is important to spend money and work towards that goal.

Because alternative is much more terrifying.

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

#96

Post by WalterBright »

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.

I'm sure it took $$$ for the software developed for the JWST, and it would cost $0 to make a copy.

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

#97

Post by WalterBright »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #92
WalterBright wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No idea, but presumably that would be after we've explored a fair bit of it. We've barely scratched the surface. It seems quite plausible that there could be ground water. If that's the case (and I suppose even if it's not) it wouldn't be at all surprising for the cave systems to contain microbial life.

There's always going to be one more place to search.

We should be spreading Terran life everywhere in the solar system, not pretending we are some sort of contagion.

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

#98

Post by fc417fc802 »

WalterBright wrote: post #97
fc417fc802 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea, but presumably that would be after we've explored a fair bit of it. We've barely scratched the surface. It seems quite plausible that there could be ground water. If that's the case (and I suppose even if it's not) it wouldn't be at all surprising for the cave systems to contain microbial life.

There's always going to be one more place to search. We should be spreading Terran life everywhere in the solar system, not pretending we are some sort of contagion.

That isn't even remotely what I said though. Indeed I'm in favor of that in the end. But you're trying to invoke "just one more" when realistically we haven't even started for real yet. So it seems more like you just want to entirely skip the sterile part of exploration where we're careful not to cross contaminate. Which is certainly a valid position (though I disagree with it) but I think you should be up front about that.

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

#99

Post by somenameforme »

ozim wrote: post #95
somenameforme wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you held the same logic back towards the beginning of humanity then we'd all still be wandering about the woods poking each other with sticks. Most people don't believe things are possible which is probably some sort of evolutionary thing. A society full of people with their head in the clouds probably wouldn't work so great, but humanity would also stagnate without at least some people looking to the stars. This…

You went false dichotomy on this. I say fad because I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime and I would say 90% it will never happen. But that 10% possibility of it happening is important or 0.01% of possibility it happens in my lifetime. It is important that people believe it is more than my numbers. It is important to spend money and work towards that goal. Because alternative is much more terrifying.

That I did. Most people don't tend to think probabilistically, and my responses tend to assume that. Heh, kind of ironic.

However, I'm quite curious of something. I don't understand how one can think Martian colonization would never happen. We went from horses (for most at least) to putting a man on the Moon in about 60 years, and that's it? Or are you implying that you think Mars may be less desirable than other targets for colonization?

Almost regardless of what motivation you put forward for people - greed, curiosity, adventure, desperation, or whatever else you can imagine - it ends up with us expanding beyond Earth. The only way this might not be true is if it's somehow literally impossible, but the ISS is already an unstable hellish nightmare relative to Mars, and people survive there just fine for years at a time.

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

#100

Post by sl-1 »

ridgeguy wrote: post #44
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect there are substantial numbers of us in our 70's+ who would volunteer. Why not go out having made an amazing contribution?

Can we trust them to enough? If they have a medical emergency (which is quite probable, old people are in risk of all kinds of trouble, even before the harsh environment of spaceships), will the whole mission fail?

We generally have selected the most vigorous military personnel to participate in these types of missions, using old volunteers would be quite a change.

Post reply on HN