4 ms·

Seems a bit shortsighted to me. Given that if they avoid a catastrophic failure before landing these things seems to consistently last beyond the originally pla

Seems a bit shortsighted to me. Given that if they avoid a catastrophic failure before landing these things seems to consistently last beyond the originally planned mission, they should be building them with mission extensions in mind. Not putting all your eggs in one basket of course. Shit happens and probes are still lost even today. But a simple device to remove dust such as a vibration function, a small blower fan or something else seems to be a major value add. Even if it costs $1 million extra to do, it costs far more to build the rover and send it there so you are still saving money.

scottLobster 4y ago
You're assuming that there's funding for an extended mission, or that said funding wouldn't be better used on other initiatives, or even within the mission that the opportunity cost is worth it. At the end of the day the best way to ensure mission success is to put the mission first, not future missions, not "nice to haves", put every dollar you have into making the prescribed mission as perfect as possible. You're suggesting the equivalent of "Navy SEALs sometimes get caught in larger than expected firefights, so each man should lug an extra 1000 rounds of spare ammo into combat just in case". And they could, but that would slow them down and endanger the immediate mission, even if only slightly. The opportunity cost of that million dollars could be that testing is slightly less extensive and that a minor flaw goes undetected, or other work is rushed because the engineers were busy getting the wipers to work properly. It could also be that there's no interesting science to do in that area even with an extended mission, so the mission extension turns out to be completely worthless. It's a different mindset than most engineers are used to, because we're used to users having vague desires and needs that even when well defined are somewhat ambiguous, so we plan generic solutions for a bunch of different edge cases and assume things will be used in ways other than what they're intended. And we all like building durable stuff that lasts the test of time. But when you're building a missile you don't care about minor memory leaks, and these probes are essentially science-missiles.
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  Show me a Mars rover that was still functioning but didn't get a mission extension so was just left to do nothing and decay. I doubt you will. If they are still working they are practically guaranteed a mission extension because the cost of continuing to operate a rover that you have already placed on mars and paid for is marginal relative to the mission. The most expensive part is designing and building the probe and then getting it there. >At the end of the day the best way to ensure mission success is to put the mission first, not future missions, not "nice to haves", put every dollar you have into making the prescribed mission as perfect as possible. You're suggesting the equivalent of "Navy SEALs sometimes get caught in larger than expected firefights, so each man should lug an extra 1000 rounds of spare ammo into combat just in case". And they could, but that would slow them down and endanger the immediate mission, even if only slightly. That's a massive exaggeration. I am not advocating for a contingency to every possible failure mode. I am pointing out that we clearly have one very common failure mode that can be solved and likely get us far more utility for little investment. If you are going to compare it to Navy Seals, what I am suggesting is more akin to "Navy Seals can get shot. That's not good and these are highly trained specialists that don't grow on trees, we should probably give them body armor to give them a chance to survive being shot." And we do give them body armor. Yes it adds weight. Yes it costs more money. But more come home to complete more missions. Yes a mechanical solution to remove dust from panels adds weight and cost but it can be the difference between an otherwise functional probe dying one day due to low power or dying years later once its electronics fail.
  - grawp 4y ago
    Insight is NOT a rover. It's unmovable lander. There's so much less to gain post primary mission. And last two rovers outgrown solar panels anyway and are powered by thermoelectric generators powered by radioactive decay.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    And just because they get that extension doesn't mean they discover anything useful. We don't just chuck stuff at Mars randomly, landing site are chosen for specific reasons to do specific science. Sure it's possible there's something in a navigable vicinity worth checking out, but also just as likely not. And if there is it should be included in the mission as a secondary objective and the probe specced accordingly. And yes, the most expensive part is designing and building the probe, that includes designing purely custom wipers/vibrators/whatever, hardening them for space so they survive the journey, testing and iterating them in Mars-like and space-like conditions, all on a limited budget that has to build the rest of the probe to the same exacting standards, all for the possibility that there's something outside of the mission scope worth doing. Intuitively wipers and vibrators seem like cheap commodity hardware because we have them everywhere and economies of scale to support them, so why not slap them on? But that doesn't apply to bespoke things like Mars Rovers. There are constraints your analysis is not taking into account, there's likely also internal NASA constraints that neither of us know about. It's an appeal to authority, but I'm going to assume the engineers at NASA JPL who have decades of experience building/launching/landing Mars rovers have considered the tradeoffs of wipers/dust removal mechanisms for this specific mission. If you're asking why they don't add them I've provided some speculative reasoning based on my experience in adjacent industries. If you're arguing that they missed an obvious design flaw and you know how to build a better Mars rover, within their constraints, maybe, but given NASA JPL's track record I have my doubts.

scottLobster 4y ago

You're assuming that there's funding for an extended mission, or that said funding wouldn't be better used on other initiatives, or even within the mission that the opportunity cost is worth it. At the end of the day the best way to ensure mission success is to put the mission first, not future missions, not "nice to haves", put every dollar you have into making the prescribed mission as perfect as possible. You're suggesting the equivalent of "Navy SEALs sometimes get caught in larger than expected firefights, so each man should lug an extra 1000 rounds of spare ammo into combat just in case". And they could, but that would slow them down and endanger the immediate mission, even if only slightly. The opportunity cost of that million dollars could be that testing is slightly less extensive and that a minor flaw goes undetected, or other work is rushed because the engineers were busy getting the wipers to work properly. It could also be that there's no interesting science to do in that area even with an extended mission, so the mission extension turns out to be completely worthless. It's a different mindset than most engineers are used to, because we're used to users having vague desires and needs that even when well defined are somewhat ambiguous, so we plan generic solutions for a bunch of different edge cases and assume things will be used in ways other than what they're intended. And we all like building durable stuff that lasts the test of time. But when you're building a missile you don't care about minor memory leaks, and these probes are essentially science-missiles.

thereddaikon 4y ago
Show me a Mars rover that was still functioning but didn't get a mission extension so was just left to do nothing and decay. I doubt you will. If they are still working they are practically guaranteed a mission extension because the cost of continuing to operate a rover that you have already placed on mars and paid for is marginal relative to the mission. The most expensive part is designing and building the probe and then getting it there. >At the end of the day the best way to ensure mission success is to put the mission first, not future missions, not "nice to haves", put every dollar you have into making the prescribed mission as perfect as possible. You're suggesting the equivalent of "Navy SEALs sometimes get caught in larger than expected firefights, so each man should lug an extra 1000 rounds of spare ammo into combat just in case". And they could, but that would slow them down and endanger the immediate mission, even if only slightly. That's a massive exaggeration. I am not advocating for a contingency to every possible failure mode. I am pointing out that we clearly have one very common failure mode that can be solved and likely get us far more utility for little investment. If you are going to compare it to Navy Seals, what I am suggesting is more akin to "Navy Seals can get shot. That's not good and these are highly trained specialists that don't grow on trees, we should probably give them body armor to give them a chance to survive being shot." And we do give them body armor. Yes it adds weight. Yes it costs more money. But more come home to complete more missions. Yes a mechanical solution to remove dust from panels adds weight and cost but it can be the difference between an otherwise functional probe dying one day due to low power or dying years later once its electronics fail.
- grawp 4y ago
  Insight is NOT a rover. It's unmovable lander. There's so much less to gain post primary mission. And last two rovers outgrown solar panels anyway and are powered by thermoelectric generators powered by radioactive decay.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  And just because they get that extension doesn't mean they discover anything useful. We don't just chuck stuff at Mars randomly, landing site are chosen for specific reasons to do specific science. Sure it's possible there's something in a navigable vicinity worth checking out, but also just as likely not. And if there is it should be included in the mission as a secondary objective and the probe specced accordingly. And yes, the most expensive part is designing and building the probe, that includes designing purely custom wipers/vibrators/whatever, hardening them for space so they survive the journey, testing and iterating them in Mars-like and space-like conditions, all on a limited budget that has to build the rest of the probe to the same exacting standards, all for the possibility that there's something outside of the mission scope worth doing. Intuitively wipers and vibrators seem like cheap commodity hardware because we have them everywhere and economies of scale to support them, so why not slap them on? But that doesn't apply to bespoke things like Mars Rovers. There are constraints your analysis is not taking into account, there's likely also internal NASA constraints that neither of us know about. It's an appeal to authority, but I'm going to assume the engineers at NASA JPL who have decades of experience building/launching/landing Mars rovers have considered the tradeoffs of wipers/dust removal mechanisms for this specific mission. If you're asking why they don't add them I've provided some speculative reasoning based on my experience in adjacent industries. If you're arguing that they missed an obvious design flaw and you know how to build a better Mars rover, within their constraints, maybe, but given NASA JPL's track record I have my doubts.