3 ms·

Unrelated to JWST, specifically, I'm curious: Why haven't we developed a "generic" satellite that we can "mass produce" and send one to every moon and planet i

by timmg 3y ago

Unrelated to JWST, specifically, I'm curious: Why haven't we developed a "generic" satellite that we can "mass produce" and send one to every moon and planet in our solar system? It would be so amazing to have constant images coming from each body in our little neighborhood. Launching stuff seems to be cheaper now. And (I would imagine) making 10 satellites that are identically is only slightly more expensive than making one. And I would think cameras and radios would be similar for each planet/moon. What am I missing? Why is that not a thing right now?

ryaneager 3y ago
Capitalism.
gmiller123456 3y ago
The only planet with visibly changing features on a regular basis is Jupiter. And we can get good photos of it from Earth. So, just pictures, might be good for PR, but not very useful scientifically.
KyleBerezin 3y ago
Interplanetary vehicles are still purpose built and expensive. It is also generally a lot harder to get to another planet than you would expect. As for our own moon, it has an irregular distribution of mass, so nothing that orbits it stays up for very long. Read about PFS-2 if you are interested. I'd imagine that dream isn't too far away though, since orbiters are needed before a manned or most unmanned missions can be sent to a body. NASA's MRO still cost us 700m though, and only 90m of that was related to the launch.
ianburrell 3y ago
Every planet is different so every probe needs to be different. Inner planets can use solar panels, outer plants did nuclear generator. Outer planets need larger radio dishes. Cameras for Venus are useless, what we really need are more landers. Mars is well photographed so more rovers makes sense. One reason that platforms aren't useful is that there aren't enough probes for economies of scale. My understanding is most of the cost is the space-rated components. NASA is starting to reuse instruments, the proposed Uranus probe will use ones from other missions.
pixl97 3y ago
While launching is cheaper it is still insanely expensive. Even if starship brings down the cost it's still pretty likely the probes would just get bigger and more feature capable increasing costs for some time.

by timmg 3y ago

ryaneager 3y ago

Capitalism.

gmiller123456 3y ago

The only planet with visibly changing features on a regular basis is Jupiter. And we can get good photos of it from Earth. So, just pictures, might be good for PR, but not very useful scientifically.

KyleBerezin 3y ago

Interplanetary vehicles are still purpose built and expensive. It is also generally a lot harder to get to another planet than you would expect. As for our own moon, it has an irregular distribution of mass, so nothing that orbits it stays up for very long. Read about PFS-2 if you are interested. I'd imagine that dream isn't too far away though, since orbiters are needed before a manned or most unmanned missions can be sent to a body. NASA's MRO still cost us 700m though, and only 90m of that was related to the launch.

ianburrell 3y ago

Every planet is different so every probe needs to be different. Inner planets can use solar panels, outer plants did nuclear generator. Outer planets need larger radio dishes. Cameras for Venus are useless, what we really need are more landers. Mars is well photographed so more rovers makes sense. One reason that platforms aren't useful is that there aren't enough probes for economies of scale. My understanding is most of the cost is the space-rated components. NASA is starting to reuse instruments, the proposed Uranus probe will use ones from other missions.

pixl97 3y ago

While launching is cheaper it is still insanely expensive. Even if starship brings down the cost it's still pretty likely the probes would just get bigger and more feature capable increasing costs for some time.