3 ms·

You only need to send something optimized to pick something up and launch it. You don't need to send the digging gear/packaging gear that this Rover was going t

You only need to send something optimized to pick something up and launch it. You don't need to send the digging gear/packaging gear that this Rover was going to use anyway

jessriedel 6y ago
Digging and packing gear has been demonstrated many times, and sounds way less risky and complicated than robotic rendezvous and transfer on a planet's surface, which I believe has never been done. Moreover, why not just make the digging mission and sample-return mission the same mission? Like, was it really the case that (1) the current digging mission could not be delayed AND (2) there is little independent value for a later new digging mission AND (3) it is easier to rendezvous and transfer than just re-dig?
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  I defer the decisions made by hundreds of scientists to the HN armchair general
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    The point of my argument is not to challenge their expertise, the point is to either understand the technical motivation or to uncover non-scientific (e.g., political) motivations.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Robotic rendezvous isn’t particularly hard, as long as you can land nearby. Robotic rendezvous happens regularly at ISS, and being on a planet should be even easier as you don’t have to worry about orbital mechanics or the fact that in orbit, things are moving around. On the surface, speeds are low and everything is sitting on the surface so it’s basically quasistatic. Also, except for the landing bit, it’s basically done by autonomy-assisted remote control. It’s not “Level 5 Self-Driving” or whatever. Also, picking a random sample near the landing site is not optimal. You want to pick really good samples. A rover like Perseverance that can take years to collect the very best samples over distances of several miles is much better. Remember, we already have “random” samples from Mars in the form of Martian meteorites on Earth. We want particularly good samples.
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    The ISS has human operators in real time, so it's just remote operation. And ISS work still requires human intervention (with hands) for most complicated things. The only things that are done without real-time control are things that were failure prone in the past but have be mastered over years. And even then, the Russian autonomous docking system recently had major issues. The mention of self-driving cars, orbital speed, and the suggestion of sampling near the landing site all appears to be responding to an argument I didn't make. Most importantly, you haven't addressed my point, widely appreciated in spaceflight, that novel untested mechanisms are always one of the primary sources of risk.

You only need to send something optimized to pick something up and launch it. You don't need to send the digging gear/packaging gear that this Rover was going to use anyway

jessriedel 6y ago

Digging and packing gear has been demonstrated many times, and sounds way less risky and complicated than robotic rendezvous and transfer on a planet's surface, which I believe has never been done. Moreover, why not just make the digging mission and sample-return mission the same mission? Like, was it really the case that (1) the current digging mission could not be delayed AND (2) there is little independent value for a later new digging mission AND (3) it is easier to rendezvous and transfer than just re-dig?

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
I defer the decisions made by hundreds of scientists to the HN armchair general
- jessriedel 6y ago
  The point of my argument is not to challenge their expertise, the point is to either understand the technical motivation or to uncover non-scientific (e.g., political) motivations.
Robotbeat 6y ago
Robotic rendezvous isn’t particularly hard, as long as you can land nearby. Robotic rendezvous happens regularly at ISS, and being on a planet should be even easier as you don’t have to worry about orbital mechanics or the fact that in orbit, things are moving around. On the surface, speeds are low and everything is sitting on the surface so it’s basically quasistatic. Also, except for the landing bit, it’s basically done by autonomy-assisted remote control. It’s not “Level 5 Self-Driving” or whatever. Also, picking a random sample near the landing site is not optimal. You want to pick really good samples. A rover like Perseverance that can take years to collect the very best samples over distances of several miles is much better. Remember, we already have “random” samples from Mars in the form of Martian meteorites on Earth. We want particularly good samples.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  The ISS has human operators in real time, so it's just remote operation. And ISS work still requires human intervention (with hands) for most complicated things. The only things that are done without real-time control are things that were failure prone in the past but have be mastered over years. And even then, the Russian autonomous docking system recently had major issues. The mention of self-driving cars, orbital speed, and the suggestion of sampling near the landing site all appears to be responding to an argument I didn't make. Most importantly, you haven't addressed my point, widely appreciated in spaceflight, that novel untested mechanisms are always one of the primary sources of risk.