24 ms·

AFAIK launch vehicle cost were never the problem for deep space probes. Launch windows still are - Voyager was extremely lucky in this regard. And then there is

AFAIK launch vehicle cost were never the problem for deep space probes. Launch windows still are - Voyager was extremely lucky in this regard. And then there is probe design and construction - SpaceX made launches cheaper, but that just shift most of the cost into the payload. And then there is no point in having such a fleet if you there isn't enough funding for scientists to process the results.

WalterBright 2y ago
Most of the probes would be identical. Building two identical probes would cost only marginally more than 1, perhaps 10% more. > but that just shift most of the cost into the payload It reduces the cost, not shift it. > And then there is no point in having such a fleet if you there isn't enough funding for scientists to process the results. Plenty of funding would become available if the funding for junk science stops, such as: "In 2021, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded $549,000 to a Russian lab performing experiments on cats, including removing part of their brains and seeing if they could still walk on treadmills, according to the Washington Times." https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-start-cutting-federal-spending/ https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-st...
- mmooss 2y ago
  > Most of the probes would be identical. Is there some existing plan? A paper that supports this idea? It's not clear to me that the probe we send to one place for one purpose is the same we'd send to another. > Building two identical probes would cost only marginally more than 1, perhaps 10% more. I've read from experts - somewhere here on HN - that isn't how the costs work. > Plenty of funding would become available if the funding for junk science stops, such as > "In 2021, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded $549,000 to a Russian lab performing experiments on cats, including removing part of their brains and seeing if they could still walk on treadmills, according to the Washington Times." https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-st https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-st... $500k is not enough to matter for a space probe, and I don't see why that brain research is junk science. If you truly think the research was about half-brained cats, then you really should appreciate that research. :D
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > It's not clear to me that the probe we send to one place for one purpose is the same we'd send to another. We've launched twins before. The two Voyagers, for example. Two Vikings, for another. When we build different airplane models, quite a bit comes from other airplanes. Even if the parts aren't identical, they are usually just resized or tweaked or modernized. Look at all the 737 variants, and the 747 variants, for example. If every model was a ground-up redesign, nobody could afford to fly. When the 757 and 767 were developed, there was a big push to share identical parts between them. This was a big success, and saved huge amounts of money. > I've read from experts - somewhere here on HN - that isn't how the costs work. I debated those experts here, and a lot of their arguments didn't hold up. For example: 1. only need to design once for N craft 2. only need to devise a test plan once 3. only need to build test equipment once 4. only need to develop the expertise once 5. only need to write the software once and so on and so forth. > I don't see why that brain research is junk science What's more important? Solar system exploration or half-brain cats?
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > We've launched twins before. The two Voyagers, for example. Two Vikings, for another. Good point. Do we know the marginal cost of the second one? Why don't we send twins now? > When we build different airplane models, quite a bit comes from other airplanes. I expect we're already doing that with space probes, to the degree it's possible. I feel like some of your argument is the old 'these people are idiots and I know obvious ways to do it better'. A good question is, why doesn't NASA do it that way? It would be interesting to hear the response of someone there. I can think of reasons it might not be effective - e.g., the probe for a few months of Europa terrain observation might be very different than the 10-year solar radiation observer, which might be much different than the Mars whatever, etc. > I debated those experts here, and a lot of their arguments didn't hold up. For example: / 1. only need to [____] once Those are the benefits of standardization and mass production and can be quite valuable, but not everything can be done that way. That's why we have different planes, cars, etc. I might want everyone in our company to use the same laptop, but different people have different needs. I can come up with other possible issues, but I have no idea without someone with actual experience: There can be a significant cost to engineering for standardization. Parts, assembly, a supply chain, a production line - maybe not worth the cost at the quantities needed. And there are things like the F-35, intended to save money by meeting the mission requirements of militaries in a ~dozen countries and services, including all of the US Air Force, Navy, and Marines - all simultaneously! Anyone who has designed even small systems would, I think, feel alarm at reading that. It took a little time and money to find a way to do all that effectively, please all those bosses, with an all-in-one tool. (Off the top of my head, just think of power supplies that can suit every possible demand on space probes!) Weight and size are especially an issue for space probes, which would seem to make an all-in-one tool more challenging. The proposed solution often is modularization - a standard framework with interchangeable mission modules. In my limited experience trying it, it's a mess: when things break or need lots of extra attention, IME as a general rule it's most often at the interfaces between systems and between subsytems; the interchangeable module approach is asking for trouble. I know the US Navy tried that with littoral combat ships, and it failed. (Which doesn't mean it never succeeds.) > What's more important? Solar system exploration or half-brain cats? You really set yourself up ...

WalterBright 2y ago

Most of the probes would be identical. Building two identical probes would cost only marginally more than 1, perhaps 10% more. > but that just shift most of the cost into the payload It reduces the cost, not shift it. > And then there is no point in having such a fleet if you there isn't enough funding for scientists to process the results. Plenty of funding would become available if the funding for junk science stops, such as: "In 2021, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded $549,000 to a Russian lab performing experiments on cats, including removing part of their brains and seeing if they could still walk on treadmills, according to the Washington Times." https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-start-cutting-federal-spending/ https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-st...

mmooss 2y ago
> Most of the probes would be identical. Is there some existing plan? A paper that supports this idea? It's not clear to me that the probe we send to one place for one purpose is the same we'd send to another. > Building two identical probes would cost only marginally more than 1, perhaps 10% more. I've read from experts - somewhere here on HN - that isn't how the costs work. > Plenty of funding would become available if the funding for junk science stops, such as > "In 2021, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded $549,000 to a Russian lab performing experiments on cats, including removing part of their brains and seeing if they could still walk on treadmills, according to the Washington Times." https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-st https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/where-elon-musk-can-st... $500k is not enough to matter for a space probe, and I don't see why that brain research is junk science. If you truly think the research was about half-brained cats, then you really should appreciate that research. :D
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > It's not clear to me that the probe we send to one place for one purpose is the same we'd send to another. We've launched twins before. The two Voyagers, for example. Two Vikings, for another. When we build different airplane models, quite a bit comes from other airplanes. Even if the parts aren't identical, they are usually just resized or tweaked or modernized. Look at all the 737 variants, and the 747 variants, for example. If every model was a ground-up redesign, nobody could afford to fly. When the 757 and 767 were developed, there was a big push to share identical parts between them. This was a big success, and saved huge amounts of money. > I've read from experts - somewhere here on HN - that isn't how the costs work. I debated those experts here, and a lot of their arguments didn't hold up. For example: 1. only need to design once for N craft 2. only need to devise a test plan once 3. only need to build test equipment once 4. only need to develop the expertise once 5. only need to write the software once and so on and so forth. > I don't see why that brain research is junk science What's more important? Solar system exploration or half-brain cats?
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > We've launched twins before. The two Voyagers, for example. Two Vikings, for another. Good point. Do we know the marginal cost of the second one? Why don't we send twins now? > When we build different airplane models, quite a bit comes from other airplanes. I expect we're already doing that with space probes, to the degree it's possible. I feel like some of your argument is the old 'these people are idiots and I know obvious ways to do it better'. A good question is, why doesn't NASA do it that way? It would be interesting to hear the response of someone there. I can think of reasons it might not be effective - e.g., the probe for a few months of Europa terrain observation might be very different than the 10-year solar radiation observer, which might be much different than the Mars whatever, etc. > I debated those experts here, and a lot of their arguments didn't hold up. For example: / 1. only need to [____] once Those are the benefits of standardization and mass production and can be quite valuable, but not everything can be done that way. That's why we have different planes, cars, etc. I might want everyone in our company to use the same laptop, but different people have different needs. I can come up with other possible issues, but I have no idea without someone with actual experience: There can be a significant cost to engineering for standardization. Parts, assembly, a supply chain, a production line - maybe not worth the cost at the quantities needed. And there are things like the F-35, intended to save money by meeting the mission requirements of militaries in a ~dozen countries and services, including all of the US Air Force, Navy, and Marines - all simultaneously! Anyone who has designed even small systems would, I think, feel alarm at reading that. It took a little time and money to find a way to do all that effectively, please all those bosses, with an all-in-one tool. (Off the top of my head, just think of power supplies that can suit every possible demand on space probes!) Weight and size are especially an issue for space probes, which would seem to make an all-in-one tool more challenging. The proposed solution often is modularization - a standard framework with interchangeable mission modules. In my limited experience trying it, it's a mess: when things break or need lots of extra attention, IME as a general rule it's most often at the interfaces between systems and between subsytems; the interchangeable module approach is asking for trouble. I know the US Navy tried that with littoral combat ships, and it failed. (Which doesn't mean it never succeeds.) > What's more important? Solar system exploration or half-brain cats? You really set yourself up ...