4 ms·

The title implies they're behind schedule and need to rush more than expect. Is that the case, or is it simply stating there's a hard deadline by natural forces

The title implies they're behind schedule and need to rush more than expect. Is that the case, or is it simply stating there's a hard deadline by natural forces?

jvanderbot 6y ago
I'm not on the team, but this is the first I've heard of any unexpected or abnormal rush. Schedules are always a little tight, especially with a pandemic on. The rover is basically a brand new self-driving tank with a helicopter launcher and a robotic arm with a swiss-army-science tool and a laser cannon. That's a lot of stuff to get working properly and packed into a rocket. Oh, it has to land like the Falcon 9 as well, except hovering and lowering itself on a tether, like the Air Cav for Mars.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > Oh, it has to land like the Falcon 9 as well, except hovering and lowering itself on a tether, like the Air Cav for Mars. Here's a video that blows my mind every time I watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU Such a complicated landing sequence, and needs to work correctly the first time, all autonomously. And it worked!
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    They don't call them flagship missions for no reason
uj8efdkjfdshf 6y ago
Because Mars and Earth takes different amounts of time to complete an orbit around the Sun, launching at the right point in time is absolutely essential to ensure that your transfer orbit takes you to the distance of Mars' orbit at the exact point in time that Mars will happen to be there. You can mess around with your transfer orbit parameters to give you a bit of leeway, but ultimately limits on available delta V and on maximum relative velocity on encounter limit the window of time that you have to launch your mission. See https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov. They have until mid August to launch the mission[0]. If not, the additional cost of keeping personnel employed and hardware maintained for the next 2 years or so while waiting for Earth and Mars to return to the same relative positions can easily cost $150m, if the InSight mission delay is any guide. [1] [0] https://spacenews.com/mars-2020-launch-slips-three-days/ https://spacenews.com/mars-2020-launch-slips-three-days/ [1] https://spacenews.com/insight-delay-adds-150-million-to-missions-cost/ https://spacenews.com/insight-delay-adds-150-million-to-miss...
- surfsvammel 6y ago
  Wouldn’t the people mainly work on other projects? Do NASA utilise a lot of consultants or are they mainly permanent employees?
  - uj8efdkjfdshf 6y ago
    Well, yes, NASA does rely a lot on external contractors due to the budgetary flexibility it entails. While there is some cross-communication between teams, it's generally limited by the extreme degree of specialisation needed. Also, as a general rule almost all of the hardware for any given mission is custom built for that mission, so the necessary knowhow to operate it is both unique and irreplaceable. That said, some of the extra cost is due to scope creep, or due to changes in launch vehicle availability requiring the mission to be redesigned.

The title implies they're behind schedule and need to rush more than expect. Is that the case, or is it simply stating there's a hard deadline by natural forces?

jvanderbot 6y ago

I'm not on the team, but this is the first I've heard of any unexpected or abnormal rush. Schedules are always a little tight, especially with a pandemic on. The rover is basically a brand new self-driving tank with a helicopter launcher and a robotic arm with a swiss-army-science tool and a laser cannon. That's a lot of stuff to get working properly and packed into a rocket. Oh, it has to land like the Falcon 9 as well, except hovering and lowering itself on a tether, like the Air Cav for Mars.

perryizgr8 6y ago
> Oh, it has to land like the Falcon 9 as well, except hovering and lowering itself on a tether, like the Air Cav for Mars. Here's a video that blows my mind every time I watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU Such a complicated landing sequence, and needs to work correctly the first time, all autonomously. And it worked!
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  They don't call them flagship missions for no reason

uj8efdkjfdshf 6y ago

Because Mars and Earth takes different amounts of time to complete an orbit around the Sun, launching at the right point in time is absolutely essential to ensure that your transfer orbit takes you to the distance of Mars' orbit at the exact point in time that Mars will happen to be there. You can mess around with your transfer orbit parameters to give you a bit of leeway, but ultimately limits on available delta V and on maximum relative velocity on encounter limit the window of time that you have to launch your mission. See https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov. They have until mid August to launch the mission[0]. If not, the additional cost of keeping personnel employed and hardware maintained for the next 2 years or so while waiting for Earth and Mars to return to the same relative positions can easily cost $150m, if the InSight mission delay is any guide. [1] [0] https://spacenews.com/mars-2020-launch-slips-three-days/ https://spacenews.com/mars-2020-launch-slips-three-days/ [1] https://spacenews.com/insight-delay-adds-150-million-to-missions-cost/ https://spacenews.com/insight-delay-adds-150-million-to-miss...

surfsvammel 6y ago
Wouldn’t the people mainly work on other projects? Do NASA utilise a lot of consultants or are they mainly permanent employees?
- uj8efdkjfdshf 6y ago
  Well, yes, NASA does rely a lot on external contractors due to the budgetary flexibility it entails. While there is some cross-communication between teams, it's generally limited by the extreme degree of specialisation needed. Also, as a general rule almost all of the hardware for any given mission is custom built for that mission, so the necessary knowhow to operate it is both unique and irreplaceable. That said, some of the extra cost is due to scope creep, or due to changes in launch vehicle availability requiring the mission to be redesigned.