[HN Gopher] 'My power's low': NASA's Insight Mars lander prepare...
___________________________________________________________________
'My power's low': NASA's Insight Mars lander prepares to sign off
Author : pseudolus
Score : 228 points
Date : 2022-12-21 12:41 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| mikeatlas wrote:
| "I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can
| feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can
| feel it."
| jareklupinski wrote:
| My windows shutdown noise was "Daisy... Dai...sssyyyyyyy" for
| only a few days
|
| Too uncanny
| sitkack wrote:
| You should see the video (film) of the "device" that they
| created to sing the song, it wasn't just a speaker.
| BooneJS wrote:
| Insight and its crew were awesome. I'm anthropomorphizing Insight
| as Wall-E, diligently fulfilling its mission even as disaster
| nears.
| simonswords82 wrote:
| Interesting thread on why it's not possible for the solar panels
| to be self cleaned:
| https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296?c...
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Cant just use a pad on the arm to rub away at them?
| c22 wrote:
| Since we're throwing stuff at the wall how about flexible
| solar panels wrapped like a tank tread that roll past a
| stationary wiper arm?
| Zancarius wrote:
| What happens when the pad gets choked out with dust?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Great Mars-dust-wiper pads have little Mars-dust-wiper pads
| upon their backs to wipe 'em.
|
| And little Mars-dust-wiper pads have lesser ... pads, and
| so ad infinitum.
|
| It's pad's all the way down.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Squeegee then. You get the idea.
| superjan wrote:
| I asked about that recently in another thread. Besides the
| argument that you can just make the panels bigger, the dust is
| also statically charged so it is sticky, and wiping it off is
| not easy. It is also amusing that we, as programmers, are
| inclined to suggest adding MOVING PARTS to a system that is not
| servicable, and that the same problem can be solved just by
| adding more of an already proven solution. It sounds like this
| one clever special mitigation that solves a minor problem, but
| instead brings the system down.
| logicallee wrote:
| After reading your note "why it's not possible for the solar
| panels to be self cleaned" I clicked through and as I clicked I
| was thinking "okay so obviously it _is_ possible for the solar
| panels to self-clean. prove me wrong. " I mean how hard could
| it be? No way is that an "impossible" task.
|
| I went out of it thinking, "yep, look at these excuses we are
| making for the state of robotics." - the quote is: "A system
| like that would have added cost, mass, and complexity. The
| simplest, most cost-effective way to meet my goals was to bring
| solar panels big enough to power my whole mission - which they
| did (and then some!)."
|
| So robotics is at the state where it is possible to send a
| rover to Mars, but a simple robotic arm can't easily brush off
| some dirt. The lander weighs 789 lb and the cost-effective
| solution is not try include a simple cheap lightweight robot
| arm that is foolproof and can easily sweep some dirt, because
| there is not such thing. Robotics isn't at the level where that
| is easy, cheap, or lightweight.
|
| If a human could reach through a portal to there with a brush,
| it would take less than five minutes to brush off the dirt that
| had fallen on solar cells.
|
| A simple, light, and foolproof robotic arm that can easily do
| that doesn't exist. Now that we have superhuman levels of
| general AI in chatgpt, isn't it time to work on foolproof and
| lightweight robot arms for all sorts of tasks?
| nradov wrote:
| ChatGPT isn't general AI, not even close.
| logicallee wrote:
| [1] Although ChatGPT might not meet some special elevated
| standards for what is considered general AI, it is able to
| solve a wide variety of generalized requests, including
| writing this response on command. In this sense, it is
| similar to SpaceX being a "real" rocket company, even
| though it is a private company with less experience than
| NASA. SpaceX has disrupted the traditional aerospace
| industry and demonstrated that it is capable of designing
| and launching successful space probes, despite not being a
| traditional "establishment" player.
|
| Another analogy might be to Uber, which has revolutionized
| the transportation industry by offering a new way of
| connecting riders with drivers through a smartphone app.
| Uber may not meet some traditional definitions of a "taxi
| company," but it has proven to be a successful and popular
| service for millions of people.
|
| A third analogy might be to the smartphone itself, which
| has become an essential tool for many people despite not
| being a traditional computer. Smartphones have disrupted
| the personal computing industry and offer a wide range of
| capabilities, from making phone calls and sending texts to
| accessing the internet and running apps.
|
| Similarly, ChatGPT is able to complete many general
| requests that meet the expectations of many users, even
| though it might not meet some definitions of general AI. It
| is able to do this because it is able to perform a wide
| range of tasks, including writing this comparison at your
| [my] request.
|
| Of course, ChatGPT has its limitations and is not a
| substitute for human intelligence. However, it is able to
| complete many tasks that would be challenging or impossible
| for chatbots of decades ago, which demonstrates its
| usefulness and capabilities as a tool for assisting users
| with a wide range of tasks.
|
| I hope this helps clarify my personal feelings about
| ChatGPT's intelligence and capabilities. It is important to
| recognize that different people have different standards
| and definitions for what constitutes general AI, and that
| is completely fine. What matters is whether a tool is able
| to meet the needs and expectations of its users, and
| ChatGPT has certainly been able to do that for me and many
| other users.
|
| --
|
| [1] I want to clarify that this response was written by
| ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI, at my
| request. For more context on my request and the interaction
| with ChatGPT, you can view the full exchange at
| https://hastebin.com/raw/wolovegiqa
| logicallee wrote:
| (writing this comment myself by hand)
|
| In case you click through, what I want you to focus on in
| the transcript is that it came up with the two additional
| analogies at the end at my request, but I absolutely
| didn't suggest or introduce what they are specifically
| and I had no idea what it would come up with. You can't
| know this, but it's my experience.
|
| Understanding and coming up with analogies is a gold
| standard of general intelligence, and it also understood
| my request, which was of a highly generic nature.
|
| You might argue that it could have picked better
| analogies but I gave it pretty strict requirements to
| focus on technology companies. At this point we are
| arguing about whether airplanes really fly like birds, or
| whether submarines really swim. It's irrelevant. ChatGPT
| gets from point A to point B which is the point. It's
| some form of AGI. Just make it a generic request if you
| don't believe me, ask it to something generic that has
| never been done before and it'll do a great job at it. Go
| ahead and see for yourself.
| nradov wrote:
| The analogies are garbage, not even remotely relevant to
| the issue. I have tried ChatGPT for myself. It's a great
| technical achievement, and has some practical value in
| writing rough drafts on certain limited topics. But you
| haven't provided any evidence that it is a form of AGI in
| any meaningful sense.
| logicallee wrote:
| I believe I have provided evidence it is a form of AGI.
| It is a generic type of request for it to come up with an
| analogy and it did so for me. I think arguing over
| whether it's general AI _is_ quite similar to arguing
| whether uber is a taxi company. People pay to ride in
| someone else 's car which gets them from A to B. It came
| up with that analogy at my request.
|
| You can make chatgpt generic requests and it answers
| them. just try it if you don't believe me.
|
| I asked it how it would solve not being able to get some
| cookies off of a high counter if it were a small child,
| it replied with its plans:
|
| https://hastebin.com/raw/geponewiki
|
| I had it generate a PDF of the latest advances in AI. It
| gave me something pretty generic and not that insightful.
| See for yourself:
|
| http://online.verypdf.com/app/sharepdf/?url=http://online
| .ve...
|
| That is a PDF titled "AI Advances:A Review of the Latest
| Developments in Artificial Intelligence". Nothing special
| as far as titles or contents goes. But an AI wrote the
| whole damn thing.
|
| (Though it couldn't fix the broken formating when I tried
| to make a latext document out of it.)
|
| But that's not the point. The point is _I asked it to
| create an executive summary of advances in AI and it did
| as well as a seventh or eighth grader._
|
| What you really don't understand is you can't just
| instantly apply the standard of "this thing must be the
| best at everything and never make any mistake" to be
| generally intelligent. Ask it some intelligence type of
| tests of a generic nature.
|
| I mean what's more generic than some new question nobody
| has any reason to ask and that requires inductive and
| deductive reasoning to solve?
| https://hastebin.com/raw/gupevutohe
|
| That's the definition of AGI. I mean what is your
| standard? What is AGI supposed to do that this thing
| doesn't do at all?
|
| I just think that this meets my requirements for handling
| generic arbitrary tasks. Its input and output is language
| but it is able to think and keep track of complex
| thoughts including about entirely novel situations. It's
| usually pretty reasonable.
|
| What more evidence of AGI do you need than that it can
| solve novel generic tasks it has never encountered
| before?
| logicallee wrote:
| Another example of how ChatGPT is general intelligence:
|
| There is a chatgpt detector here:
| https://detectchatgpt.com/
|
| I asked ChatGPT to write a story (my prompt was just
| "Write a story about a pumpkin"). ChatGPT wrote a nice
| story, well, slightly weird, and the chatgptdetector
| detected it with 99.96% confidence ("We estimate a 99.96%
| probability that this text was generated by ChatGPT or
| another GPT variant.") while a visual bar showing its
| confidence filled up all the way.
|
| I next gave ChatGPT the instruction "Rewrite it so it is
| not detected as GPT output." (thanks to a tip on Reddit,
| where I saw this mentioned.)
|
| Bear in mind that ChatGPT is a GPT variant. I am asking
| it to fool a test that by definition it cannot fool. It
| would be like asking you to figure out how you can go
| through a human detector and not be detected as human.
|
| I fully expected the site to identify it despite
| ChatGPT's best attempt at self-obfuscation since by
| definition it is still outputing GPT output.
|
| This time it passed the test. The bar dropped from a full
| 99.96% to just 15%.
|
| It was the same story. ChatGPT just successfully passed
| the generic request to fool some detection algorithm it
| knows nothing about.
|
| Do you have any idea how much intelligence that takes? To
| successfully fool a test, where you don't know how the
| test works, you don't know which test I'm talking about,
| you're just trying not to pass as what you really are,
| which in ChatGPT's case is a GPT variant?
|
| That is the most extraordinary thing I've ever seen any
| computer do. It is by definition an impossible task -
| since in reality it is still ChatGPT. How can it fulfill
| the generic request to no longer be detectable?
|
| I am blown away by the capabilities of this AGI.
| Retric wrote:
| Most critically, other components are also failing so you
| don't get that much more lifespan with unlimited power.
|
| A brush doesn't work well in a zero moisture environment.
|
| The dust is horrifically abrasive and brushing it along the
| panels would cause damage.
|
| The added weight would have to be compensated for.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Well, the MERs lasted quite a bit longer & were moving
| systems. A bit of a shame a static lander can't beat them.
| :P
| Retric wrote:
| Insight isn't dead just hibernating which both MERs did
| several times.
|
| If Insight dies then Spirit will have lasted 50% longer
| and opportunity significantly longer, but both rovers
| lost quite a bit of functionality over time. So, the
| difference isn't as stark as you might assume when you
| consider how much time rovers spent with reduced power or
| hibernating, stuck, etc.
| funderbus wrote:
| This is more about "What are you willing to bet the mission
| on". The mission being a billions of dollars and years of
| effort. And mission success is defined as working for a
| limited time. In aerospace "simple" beats "slightly more
| complex but much better" often.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| This reply completely misses the point. All missions have an
| expected lifespan. The reason why they didn't use some sort
| of cleaning system is simply _because it wasn 't needed_. The
| lander gathered all the data it was expected to, and then
| some. Why add complexity if it isn't useful?
| mturmon wrote:
| ^-- This is the answer: this capability wasn't needed to
| fulfill science objectives. End of story.
|
| To add context: InSight was proposed to a cost-capped,
| competitive NASA program. Within competed programs, you
| can't spend money on nice-to-have's. You have to come in
| under a cost cap, while demonstrating you will achieve
| science objectives. Period.
|
| The science objectives are carefully time-bound by a very
| knowledgeable science team, and from those _science_
| requirements, all the engineering requirements, including
| lifetimes, are derived. InSight didn 't need more than one
| Mars year for the science, so that's that.
|
| There were 2 instruments. In the case of the heat probe,
| they needed to observe at least one full annual heating
| cycle. For the seismograph, I think they had an approximate
| event rate and they needed to capture X number of events of
| a given magnitude to get insight (heh!) into the subsurface
| structure.
|
| Here's a description of how this works in general, from
| someone who was involved in InSight formulation and who is
| in the leadership of mission formulation at JPL:
|
| https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-
| public/atoms/files...
|
| The whole presentation is great: the first introductory
| slides, some InSight examples, and the last 3 slides in
| particular give background on some of my claims above.
|
| The person who (with the PI, Bruce Banerdt) led the InSight
| "requirements trace" is Peg Frerking (https://scholar.googl
| e.com/citations?user=t6XZBAIAAAAJ&hl=en), who is now a JPL
| fellow in part because of her work in adding engineering
| rigor to the formulation process.
|
| As this thread shows, it's very easy for clever engineers
| to add on nice-to-have's that _are not required to meet
| science objectives_. That 's how you get overruns.
|
| Here's another recent HN reference point on capabilities
| that don't contribute to a great product:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34032672 [Steve Jobs
| Insult Response]
| rob74 wrote:
| Not only complexity, also _weight_ - and for spacecraft,
| every gram you can shave off matters...
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I agree with you, and I think the other replies are missing
| your point. With all the techno-marvels around us, it's a
| shame that lightweight, reliable robotics that can do
| something as superficially simple as brush some panels don't
| exist. Just goes to show how hard the field is, I guess.
| logicallee wrote:
| Yeah, they really don't get what I meant which is probably
| my failure to communicate.
|
| It's like me saying "It's a shame I can't save myself a few
| minutes every day by having a robot make my sandwiches for
| me, since there is no such thing as a cheap household robot
| that can easily make a sandwich from its ingredients put
| before it" and them saying, "nono there totally are they
| just cost too much so it doesn't make sense and you don't
| understand anything about the intrinsic difficulty of
| sandwich assembly in a zero-person environment". Okay fine
| but end result is I'm still making my own sandwich in 2022
| :) End result is this mars rover can't do $2 worth of human
| work because it can't brush itself off, it is easier to add
| larger solar panels than brush them off since there's no
| such thing as a cheap lightweight easy reliable robot arm.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| You did it, you solved RObotics! Someone get this guy a Nobel
| Prize!! JPL Engineers are no match for his staggering
| intellect!
| gpderetta wrote:
| "A high resolution picture of the Insight Mars Rover on mars,
| with a simple, light weight and foolproof robotic arm
| brushing sand off its solar panels, in the style of Greg
| Rutkowski and Alphonse Mucha, 4k, trending on artstation"
| blululu wrote:
| I would suspect that the problem is more difficult than you
| make it out to be. First, Mars is very windy/dusty. Second,
| there is no water so brushing dust is harder than on earth.
| Add in the increased static cling and dust ingress into the
| motors and it is not clear to me that brushing is actually
| viable on mars without a lot of extra engineering (and teams
| to figure all this out). I'm sure this decision was made with
| a good e evaluation since they did make the choice to add
| more panels which has its own downsides. There might even be
| some interesting papers out ther.
| m4rtink wrote:
| What about compressing some of the atmosphere and then
| releasing it repeatedly from close proximity over the dusty
| panels?
|
| Given the very low atmosphereric pressure on Mars, a bit of
| gas at terrestrial sea level pressure equivalent would do
| wonders.
|
| As for downsides - you need a compressor and some filtering
| to avoid clogging your gas system with dust (thats likely
| the main obstacle).
|
| Still doable IMHO and I'm sure followup probes and
| eventually settlements will find how to handle Martian dust
| efficiently.
| input_sh wrote:
| I don't see that thread claiming that it's not possible, just
| that it wasn't the most practical choice for this particular
| rover.
| grawp wrote:
| Insight is NOT a rover. It's stationary unmovable lander.
| delecti wrote:
| It's possible for the solar panels on rovers to be self-
| cleaning, but it's not possible for the solar panels
| specifically on Insight to be self-cleaned.
| zackmorris wrote:
| I don't buy it. There are so many ways to solve the problem
| that wouldn't add significant weight, that there must be some
| ulterior motive. And there is.
|
| NASA plans obsolescence into the rovers to get funding to build
| the next rover.
| nradov wrote:
| This type of arrogant, aggressive ignorance is really the
| worst part of HN. How many successful space probes have you
| designed? How much weight would the solution add, and what
| trade-offs would that impose on other mission parameters?
|
| NASA is by no means perfect. But we can start by assuming
| they have basic competence and positive intent unless proven
| otherwise.
| zackmorris wrote:
| I'm not doubting their competence, they're the best of the
| best IMHO. But sometimes politics and economics overshadows
| the work.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Yeah. I don't doubt the skill of the NASA engineering team.
| They could definitely solve this problem if they were asked
| to design the power system to last longer.
| Communitivity wrote:
| I am seeing a lot of comments along the lines of 'windshield
| wipers?'
|
| Cars were invented in 1886, the first windshield wipers became
| available for them in 1917, 31 years later. That is...
|
| - in an environment with plenty of water - not near waterless,
|
| - on glass windshields (much less fragile than solar panels),
|
| - where we can physically replace the wipers when needed,
|
| - where we can adjust if they get stuck,
|
| - and where there is much less dust.
|
| If we add 5 years of R&D to overcome each of those obstacles
| (very optimistic, it's more like 10 well-funded years I
| suspect), then even optimistically we're looking at 25 years. I
| suspect we might have a rover with self-cleaning panels, or
| safe cold-fusion, in 25 years. I don't expect one this decade.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| That's the most bizarre math I've ever seen. Once you've
| designed something once it's a lot faster to design over and
| over.
| Communitivity wrote:
| Each one of those bullets is a different engineering
| problem. The math is based on real government R&D I've
| seen.
|
| "Once you've designed something once it's a lot faster to
| design over and over".
|
| You forgot the last part of that sentence: Once you've
| designed something once it's a lot faster to design over
| and over, if you are in a similar environment with somewhat
| similar conditions.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > government R&D I've seen
|
| oh, now i understand the math
| [deleted]
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| The tweet thread itself doesn't say that using self cleaning
| panels would be impossible, or even that hard, just that it's
| easier and more cost effective to just bring bigger panels.
| Not of your bullet points seem that relevant honestly - using
| an equivalent of a leaf blower would do the trick. But any
| added complexity to a mission just means there are more
| failure points.
| jws wrote:
| With an atmospheric density 1/150th that of Earth, the
| engineering of a leaf blower might be tricky. Clearly the
| atmosphere can move dust, but you might hit speed of sound
| problems in your turbine.
|
| Someone should spend a couple years doing some PhD work on
| Martian dust blowing turbine designs, but not burn out
| completely so they can write a 1000 word, interesting blog
| post with some pretty pictures for me to consume.
| rob74 wrote:
| Also, you would have to carefully weigh if using the
| blower would not consume more energy than you stand to
| gain by clearing the panels...
| billfor wrote:
| This makes wonder about solar roofs and efficiency over time.
| For example I don't see anything immediately obvious about how
| a Tesla Solar Roof might degrade over time due to dust and
| debris, but it stands to reason that it should. It seems like
| it should be easier to find this type of information on solar
| panels given the emphasis.
| rob74 wrote:
| Well, your solar roof won't be on Mars. Here on Earth, you
| have rain from time to time in most places. And even in the
| middle of a desert, you can simply wipe the panels clean once
| the dust storm has passed...
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not walking around on a pitched glass-surfaced
| roof that may be slimy with mold. Ever seen what a window
| eventually looks like in a humid climate if it hasn't been
| cleaned? Rain can wash off some surface dust but it doesn't
| really clean beyond that. Maybe this isn't as much of a
| problem in a desert.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Given the success of the helicopter drone (Ingenuity) on Mars,
| I wonder if that's an option for cleaning solar panels - i.e.
| put a simple rotating brush/fan system on the drone, keep it in
| a port on the main lander, and every once in a while, launch it
| and have it land on the solar panels, where it does a roomba
| routine.
|
| Since drones already expand the abilities of a lander, i.e.
| exploring the immediate area and collecting samples, this
| wouldn't be much of an added cost.
| kitd wrote:
| Or have the drone fly low over the panels, making use of the
| down-draught.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Who decided to anthropomorphize the rover like that? It's
| creepy and honestly scientifically dishonest, like the rover
| has intelligence and is writing the posts. Something for
| children, but children hate being fooled like that and being
| talked down to. It's something I might expect from the current
| version of NASA though.
| brrwind wrote:
| It's... the twitter profile of the rover, it's not that big
| of a deal
| Toutouxc wrote:
| I don't find it any more disturbing than buying car tires
| from the Michelin tire guy (he's actually called Bibendum) or
| getting batteries with the Duracell Bunny on them. Some
| people, even educated and technically inclined people, like
| their tech a little anthropomorphised.
| wazoox wrote:
| It's pretty amazing to think it still works with the panels as
| covered in dust as they are in the last frame!
| jws wrote:
| Solar panel output is remarkably resilient to visible dirt. I
| have an installation on a seagull rookery. As you can imagine
| things get thoroughly "whitewashed", especially since the top
| edge of the angled array is prime "standing around squawking
| and crapping" space. They can be covered to the point that
| there isn't a clean spot the size of your fist anywhere on
| them and they will still be putting out 75% of their rated
| power.
|
| I suspect it has something to do with the non-linear response
| of the human eye. You don't have to reflect a lot of light to
| be perceived as significantly lighter than black, so
| diverting 25% of the light from the panel to reflected light
| makes the panel look quite light.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I dislike the Twitter UX so much, it's not clear to me if the
| "thread" only contains 2 tweets or if I'm too dumb to navigate
| this shitshow of a UI. Constantly being bombarded with popups
| doesn't help the UX either.
| snvzz wrote:
| Nitter got you covered.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I thought Nitter stopped working sometime after Musk's
| takeover. Maybe just the specific mirror I used?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Nitter works sometimes depending on which host you hit
| and when. Nitter.net hasn't worked me all day, but there
| are others that do. Nitter.cz seems to be working right
| now.
|
| https://nitter.cz/NASAInSight/status/1590736220199735296#
| m
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| It still works fine, though it's largely dependent upon
| an api that may be retired.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| New Twitter will soon get long-form Tweets to address that
| problem.
|
| Amazing how in 15 years they never managed to fix this UX
| issue, despite have ten times more people than they actually
| needed.
| nsriv wrote:
| The line connecting the profile pictures on the left
| indicates the thread's continuation.
| btgeekboy wrote:
| It's just the two below it. Beyond that are replies to the
| first message.
| prettyStandard wrote:
| They would rather contribute that cost&weight&complexity to
| just more solar cells. Got it.
| ilyt wrote:
| So its essentially "the system needs to be cheap and light
| enough to beat bringing more panels"
| dougmany wrote:
| I remember calculating the cost efficiency of adding a sun
| tracking mount to some panels. It turned out that the
| increased power would be about the same as adding an
| additional panel and one panel was cheaper than the mount.
| The mount also would only help half the year and the extra
| panel would help the whole year.
| implements wrote:
| If your array is at ground level it still might be worth
| being able to manually adjust the mounting angle for
| different seasons (high sun / low sun).
| andrewflnr wrote:
| But would the sun-tracking mount also let you shed dust
| buildup? That might make it worth it for long term
| missions. My next idea after blowers for removing dust was
| to just flip the panel vertical for a bit...
| MobileVet wrote:
| If only there was a simple mechanism, maybe a four bar linkage,
| with trillions of cycles of testing... it would have to be
| light weight and include some form of brush or wiper and
| function with significant forces applied, similar to wind from
| a moving vehicle...
|
| I guess the downside of having JPL in SoCal is that none of the
| engineers are familiar with windshield wipers. <jk>
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| "A system like that would have added cost, mass, and
| complexity. The simplest, most cost-effective way to meet my
| goals was to bring solar panels big enough to power my whole
| mission - which they did (and then some!)."
| MobileVet wrote:
| It was a joke... simplicity is always best.
| [deleted]
| thathndude wrote:
| I know these are inanimate objects and we shouldn't humanize
| them. Blame XKCD, I suppose. But I feel a connection to these
| robots, and I pray that one day we can go to Mars and erect them
| a place of honor or bring them "home" to a Smithsonian.
|
| They are a testament to the best of our space programs and the
| men and women who work in them. It's amazing how well some of
| these machines overperformed.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| These are the last of the "faithful" ones before AI driven ones
| make these obsolete. I am already feeling nostalgic for these
| "dependable and hardworking" robots in advance.
| penguin_booze wrote:
| I was suddenly reminded of Alex the African Gray Parrot's dying
| words: "You Be Good, See You Tomorrow. I Love You".
|
| https://www.wired.com/2007/09/super-smart-par/
| matrix12 wrote:
| Not Dying words. Merely the same thing he said every day when
| put in his cage. Died in his sleep.
| ape4 wrote:
| And Wall-E https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910970/
| Avshalom wrote:
| >>we shouldn't humanize them
|
| Nah, our ability and willingness to develop empathy and
| emotional connections to dogs, bugs, robots, small rocks...
| It's one of our best traits.
| armatav wrote:
| Yup - big part of what makes us human
| jcims wrote:
| I fully expect to see one of the rovers to be at the
| Smithsonian before I die, and I'm almost 50 sooo chop chop!
| intrasight wrote:
| But I expect that Musk will keep it in his private collection
| ;)
| dctoedt wrote:
| Update: NASA has declared the mission over because InSight didn't
| respond to two successive contact requests.
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-retires-insight-mars...
|
| https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/space/ar...
| slowhand09 wrote:
| Relevant. https://xkcd.com/695/
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I hate this particular strip (not xkcd of course (which is 60%
| of the time wonderful) but this specific one).
|
| It anthropomorphises the Rover and we have enough sad news from
| all over the place to also start to worry about that machine
| (not even an AI). The next one will be Voyager who is all alone
| in empty space or whatnot. It is enough that I speak to my
| computer already.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| Alternate ending https://i.imgur.com/VbKV9DF.jpeg
| ColinWright wrote:
| Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/695/
| DrThunder wrote:
| imhoguy wrote:
| Couldn't it stay somehow hibernated until it collects enough
| sunrays to reconnect in the future? I see the dust cover on
| photos is really thick, but just hypothetically would it be even
| possible for probe to be dormant for years and then reactivated?
| MRtecno98 wrote:
| Even doing nothing but collecting energy the probe needs to
| consume some power to e.g. keep the batteries at not cryogenic
| temperatures, so if the panels' energy output goes below this
| minimum the probe can't really shut down itself without
| damaging its internals
| prettyStandard wrote:
| I'm confused on why the end state for all these rovers is to
| loose power because of dust on the solar cells. They did such a
| good job engineering these things to survive the trip and the
| conditions in general, but they can't give them "windshield
| wipers for dust"? Seems like with that minor upgrade they could
| have much longer lifespan.
|
| Can someone enlighten me?
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Dust is a factor, but so is cold and diminishing solar. My
| guess is that the dust isnt a problem until late in the season,
| and by then they hope to have gotten all the data they came
| for.
|
| IIRC, one of the reasons the MER rovers lasted so much longer
| is the dust clearance from wind, which was much more than
| expected. Perhaps Insight counted on more clearing than they
| got.
|
| I'd just go ask their Project Scientist on Twitter.
| @MarkPanning
| Baeocystin wrote:
| It costs a lot of time and money simply to keep a mission
| operating, and these are scarce resources that need to be used
| for every active mission, old or new. Missions are thus planned
| for very specific lifetimes. On an organizational level,
| missions that live too long past their due date cause a lot of
| problems, too.
|
| This isn't cynicism- it's just the reality of trying to
| absolutely maximize the science return per scarce dollar spent.
| I personally would love it if ultimate lifespan was a feasible
| goal for every mission. So would pretty much everyone! But it
| isn't.
| yummypaint wrote:
| I once (around 2010) worked with a nasa designed system for
| electrically clearing solar panels. It was basically a 3-phase
| arrangement of transparent indium tin oxide electrodes on the
| surface of the panels. By supplying high voltage AC, both
| conductive and insulating particles can be removed by various
| mechanisms. I thought it worked quite well and keep expecting
| to see it in the wild somewhere. Maybe it's still in the
| pipeline somewhere.
| idlewords wrote:
| They gave Curiosity and Perserverance a plutonium power source
| to avoid this issue.
|
| My experience with "why don't they just X" for space stuff is
| that there's almost always a technical paper on it. This looks
| like a comprehensive review of different approaches to cleaning
| solar panels on rovers:
|
| "Cleaning Mechanisms for Solar Panels of Rovers and Other
| Extraterrestrial Unmanned Vehicles"
| https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-3452
| arriu wrote:
| Same reason the rockets NASA uses are not reusable. It's not
| part of the mission.
|
| Yes, it's short sighted but unfortunately a result of extreme
| budget constraints.
| [deleted]
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| Spirit and Opportunity lasted for much longer (6 and 14 years,
| respectively), aided by periodic winds that blew dust off the
| solar panels. It appears that Insight's location doesn't
| receive many of these compared to others.
|
| https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-insight-lander-enters-hi...
| grawp wrote:
| Spirit and Opportunity were rovers and constantly changing
| place and position. Insight is NOT a rover. It is an
| unmovable lander.
| mhb wrote:
| Oliver Wendell Holmes can
| (http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm):
|
| The Deacon's Masterpiece or, the Wonderful "One-hoss Shay": A
| Logical Story
|
| Have you heard of the wonderful one-hoss shay,
|
| That was built in such a logical way
|
| It ran a hundred years to a day,
|
| And then, of a sudden, it -- ah, but stay,
|
| I'll tell you what happened without delay,
|
| Scaring the parson into fits,
|
| Frightening people out of their wits, --
|
| Have you ever heard of that, I say?
|
| Seventeen hundred and fifty-five.
|
| Georgius Secundus was then alive, --
|
| Snuffy old drone from the German hive.
|
| That was the year when Lisbon-town
|
| Saw the earth open and gulp her down,
|
| And Braddock's army was done so brown,
|
| Left without a scalp to its crown.
|
| It was on the terrible Earthquake-day
|
| That the Deacon finished the one-hoss shay.
|
| Now in building of chaises, I tell you what,
|
| There is always somewhere a weakest spot, --
|
| In hub, tire, felloe, in spring or thill,
|
| In panel, or crossbar, or floor, or sill,
|
| In screw, bolt, thoroughbrace, -- lurking still,
|
| Find it somewhere you must and will, --
|
| Above or below, or within or without, --
|
| And that's the reason, beyond a doubt,
|
| A chaise breaks down, but doesn't wear out.
|
| But the Deacon swore (as Deacons do,
|
| With an "I dew vum," or an "I tell yeou")
|
| He would build one shay to beat the taown
|
| 'N' the keounty 'n' all the kentry raoun';
|
| It should be so built that it couldn' break daown:
|
| "Fur," said the Deacon, "'tis mighty plain
|
| Thut the weakes' place mus' stan' the strain;
|
| 'N' the way t' fix it, uz I maintain,
|
| Is only jest T' make that place uz strong uz the rest."
|
| So the Deacon inquired of the village folk
|
| Where he could find the strongest oak,
|
| That couldn't be split nor bent nor broke, --
|
| That was for spokes and floor and sills;
|
| He sent for lancewood to make the thills;
|
| The crossbars were ash, from the straightest trees,
|
| The panels of white-wood, that cuts like cheese,
|
| But lasts like iron for things like these;
|
| The hubs of logs from the "Settler's ellum," --
|
| Last of its timber, -- they couldn't sell 'em,
|
| Never an axe had seen their chips,
|
| And the wedges flew from between their lips,
|
| Their blunt ends frizzled like celery-tips;
|
| Step and prop-iron, bolt and screw,
|
| Spring, tire, axle, and linchpin too,
|
| Steel of the finest, bright and blue;
|
| Thoroughbrace bison-skin, thick and wide;
|
| Boot, top, dasher, from tough old hide
|
| Found in the pit when the tanner died.
|
| That was the way he "put her through."
|
| "There!" said the Deacon, "naow she'll dew!"
|
| Do! I tell you, I rather guess
|
| She was a wonder, and nothing less!
|
| Colts grew horses, beards turned gray,
|
| Deacon and deaconess dropped away,
|
| Children and grandchildren -- where were they?
|
| But there stood the stout old one-hoss shay
|
| As fresh as on Lisbon-earthquake-day!
|
| EIGHTEEN HUNDRED; -- it came and found
|
| The Deacon's masterpiece strong and sound.
|
| Eighteen hundred increased by ten; --
|
| "Hahnsum kerridge" they called it then.
|
| Eighteen hundred and twenty came; --
|
| Running as usual; much the same.
|
| Thirty and forty at last arrive,
|
| And then come fifty, and FIFTY-FIVE.
|
| Little of all we value here
|
| Wakes on the morn of its hundreth year
|
| Without both feeling and looking queer.
|
| In fact, there's nothing that keeps its youth,
|
| So far as I know, but a tree and truth.
|
| (This is a moral that runs at large;
|
| Take it. -- You're welcome. -- No extra charge.)
|
| FIRST OF NOVEMBER, -- the Earthquake-day, --
|
| There are traces of age in the one-hoss shay,
|
| A general flavor of mild decay,
|
| But nothing local, as one may say.
|
| There couldn't be, -- for the Deacon's art
|
| Had made it so like in every part
|
| That there wasn't a chance for one to start.
|
| For the wheels were just as strong as the thills,
|
| And the floor was just as strong as the sills,
|
| And the panels just as strong as the floor,
|
| And the whipple-tree neither less nor more,
|
| And the back crossbar as strong as the fore,
|
| And spring and axle and hub encore.
|
| And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt
|
| In another hour it will be worn out!
|
| First of November, 'Fifty-five!
|
| This morning the parson takes a drive.
|
| Now, small boys, get out of the way!
|
| Here comes the wonderful one-hoss shay,
|
| Drawn by a rat-tailed, ewe-necked bay.
|
| "Huddup!" said the parson. -- Off went they.
|
| The parson was working his Sunday's text, --
|
| Had got to fifthly, and stopped perplexed
|
| At what the -- Moses -- was coming next.
|
| All at once the horse stood still,
|
| Close by the meet'n'-house on the hill.
|
| First a shiver, and then a thrill,
|
| Then something decidedly like a spill, --
|
| And the parson was sitting upon a rock,
|
| At half past nine by the meet'n-house clock, --
|
| Just the hour of the Earthquake shock!
|
| What do you think the parson found,
|
| When he got up and stared around?
|
| The poor old chaise in a heap or mound,
|
| As if it had been to the mill and ground!
|
| You see, of course, if you're not a dunce,
|
| How it went to pieces all at once, --
|
| All at once, and nothing first, --
|
| Just as bubbles do when they burst.
|
| End of the wonderful one-hoss shay.
|
| Logic is logic. That's all I say.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Windshield wipers add weight and complexity but more
| importantly add to the budget.
|
| These things are designed only to serve the mission.
|
| This rover was designed to last 1 year and went for 4 so it's a
| pretty good result.
|
| Some good discussion here [1] on Astronomy Cast regarding this
| topic and potential solutions NASA is working on. Such as an
| electrostatic dust blaster.
|
| 1. https://podcasts.apple.com/vu/podcast/astronomy-cast-
| ep-661-...
| thereddaikon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| >If you're asking why they don't add them I've provided
| some speculative reasoning based on my experience in
| adjacent industries.
|
| See, I don't see it that way. You didn't state it as
| "here are some possible reasons". You formed your
| argument as "this is why what you are proposing is
| wrong". Without actually being an authority on it and
| knowing if that's true.
|
| Neither am I. But we should be able to discuss
| hypotheticals and come up with ideas as to possible
| solutions and their drawbacks. I'm sure there are very
| good reasons why they don't include them. But, having
| worked in the aerospace industry although nothing to do
| with NASA or spaceprobes, I find arguments about budget
| or building just to the mission unsatisfactory. I'm
| pretty sure there is an engineering challenge that makes
| it unworkable or unpractical and you and I are just
| ignorant to it.
|
| There are obvious benefits to the ability to clean solar
| panels on Mars. And Space probes tend to be more over
| engineered than people give them credit for. Yes they are
| built to extreme margins to optimize capability for low
| weight. But that capability is great. We are talking
| about the same engineers who replaced the perfectly
| workable airbag solution for the skycrane which was far
| more complicated a solution because it promised to land
| the vehicle softer and give it a better chance of making
| it to surface unbroken.
|
| So I can only conclude that there is some kind of
| engineering problem that prevents it. Maybe Mars dust is
| more like Moon dust that dirt on Earth and its akin to
| tiny razors? Brushing it off could damage the solar
| panels.
|
| That's just me spitballing.
| brnt wrote:
| They add weight, but also may extend the mission, meaning for
| science for buck. NASA rovers outlast their no doubt
| conservatively estimated life expectancy consistently.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Well, you give a mission plan of one year, and design a
| rover to fit that plan. And because you don't want to fail,
| you engineer everything to have a tiny failure rate in the
| first year. That also makes the systems likely to work for
| many more years, but that's just a side effect. You have
| only explicitly designed and spent money on that first
| year. Taking funding from that first year to add a system
| that only becomes useful in year three is a completely
| different matter, and likely much harder to greenlight.
| ansible wrote:
| Also, something not explicitly stated in this thread is
| that most of the most important science happens in the
| first year the rover / lander is there on Mars. You
| really want that first year to be successful, and
| anything beyond that is bonus.
| brnt wrote:
| Sure, but you also learn from experience. If it turns out
| dust on panels is usually the limiting factor, and the
| rover otherwise stay in good shape well beyond
| expectations, a mitigation for the dust may be an
| effective solution in reliably operation lifetime and
| thus mission scope.
| Retric wrote:
| Every component runs into issues, look at how many rover's
| wheels had issues before the panels failed.
| yreg wrote:
| The rover was designed to last one Mars year and went for two
| Mars years. Good result either way.
| stavros wrote:
| But why windshield wipers? The panels look like they extended
| somehow, so why can't we simply retract them so that enough
| dust falls off?
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > so why can't we simply retract them so that enough dust
| falls off?
|
| Thus scratching the delicate surfaces of the panels, as
| well as requiring a retraction motor and associated devices
| that have their own failure modes.
| yellowapple wrote:
| I don't buy the "solar panels can be scratched" argument
| when they're routinely surviving dust storms much more
| violent than that. I also don't buy the "you need a motor
| et. al. for retraction" when the one that already exists
| for extension could likely also be used for retraction -
| or at least enough of it to give the panels a nice shake.
|
| What I do buy is that panelshaking of this sort uses
| energy that would be in short supply if the panels are
| sufficiently blocked to require it. That doesn't seem
| impossible to solve, either, but I don't blame NASA for
| not feeling the need to solve it when they already
| designed and built InSight to exceed its mission
| parameters.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I believe the answer is that a brushing mechanism would
| scrape the glass, and some of the dust gets adhered due to
| static electricity. I've also heard speculation that
| diminishing returns are a significant concern when it comes
| to a dust removal mechanism because of the reasons above.
| jacquesm wrote:
| (1) they were intended to last for three months and (2) dust is
| extremely static and there is no really good way there to get
| rid of this static charge, (3) dust is pretty sharp
| ('abrasive') and will scratch the surface of the cells if
| removed mechanically.
| danw1979 wrote:
| Regarding (1), almost all of these Mars robots seem to do
| useful science well beyond the end of the stated mission, I
| think the OP was suggesting that maybe it's time we start
| trying out solutions for much longer duration missions ?
|
| (2) - could it be possible to introduce an oppositely static
| charged layer on the panel surface to repel dust to stop it
| settling in the first place ?
| bnralt wrote:
| > almost all of these Mars robots seem to do useful science
| well beyond the end of the stated mission
|
| How are we defining "useful science" here? They all do some
| kind of scientific investigations, but it's hard to say if
| it's useful or not. If you look at coverage or discussions
| about the lander (including here), people get very excited
| about the landings, and somewhat excited about the
| pictures. The science almost never gets discussed. Even
| when NASA tries to hype it up, it seems the most important
| stuff they have is continually telling us they found Mars
| has some water and used to be wet, and that there's the
| possibility there once was life on Mars.
|
| People seem enamored with the idea that we're sending
| things to Mars and doing "something." But there doesn't
| seem to be a lot of concern about what that "something"
| actually is.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| It is a bit like asking how exactly does the XGB matrix
| build in stable diffusion create images. We know the end
| result that is produced, but we can't pick a single
| number and talk about what it contributes to the overall
| algorithm. I would even guess that you could replace any
| single number with another random value within the
| appropriate range and you wouldn't be able to tell which
| AI was before and after. The links each item serves is
| too complex to work out.
|
| In the same way, any single 'act of science' can be hard
| to measure. They enable some experiments, which allow us
| to test some hypothesis. In some cases it is simple
| enough to point out when it is testing hypothesis that
| end up benefitting humanity, but that's only part of the
| effect. Many times a hypothesis is either rejected or
| fails to be rejected and slightly influences a larger
| theory which in turn is used to create new hypothesis.
| This creates a circular reference until some time later
| we end up with a theory that is useful for improving
| humanity. But which hypothesis were actually pivotal to
| forming the theory? Which acts of science allowed testing
| a hypothesis and receiving a clear enough failure that
| future effort was reallocated to other, eventually more
| fruitful, areas? Other than trivial cases, the cause and
| effect becomes such a tangled web we can't be sure.
|
| You even have the publicity side. Where sometimes the
| effect isn't directly contributing to the theory, but
| engaging more attention to a field which leads to more
| children choosing the route of becoming a scientist.
|
| Math has a similar issue. Much of pure mathematics has no
| known or foreseeable application. Yet, we can look back
| at what math does have very useful applications and see
| how many times the math predated the application being
| found, sometimes by long enough gaps that those who
| discovered the tools never saw them to be applied.
| bnralt wrote:
| Someone is making these value judgements. There's a
| reason why certain projects get funded while others
| don't.
|
| If someone has no idea what research will yield results,
| and has no preference for what research gets funded,
| that's fine. But if all research is the same to them,
| they should probably let those who view certain research
| as more important than others to make the decisions about
| what gets funded.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| There are people who are choosing, and there are reasons
| behind which might end up being better than others, but
| those are often half science and half politics. Sometimes
| the end up being done for less than justifiable reasons.
| One factor is looking at scientists that seem to have
| 'scienced' well in the past and favoring them over new
| scientists. This is more conservative in that less money
| is sent to random ideas that won't go anywhere, but also
| means that funding is trapped in more classical theories
| lead to incorrect models and theories sticking around for
| longer than they should.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| I'd go as far as saying "useful science" doesn't have
| much meaning. The misunderstanding comes from the
| conflation of "science" and "engineering".
|
| The reason _engineering_ exists is to be useful: to
| create artifacts and technology to make our lives better,
| easier, etc.
|
| But science only has three uses: to inform engineering;
| to satisfy our human curiosity; and to beget _more_
| science. Any "usefulness" here is of a very narrow
| scope. I don't mean to say that it's not _important_ ,
| but that's not the same as being _useful_.
| bnralt wrote:
| And even whether or not it's important is hard to say.
| Whether the experiments being done were important or
| completely unimportant, we'd get the same thing - hyped
| up results from NASA talking about how these things were
| a big deal, vague comments from lander fans about how the
| landers are doing important scientific work. You're not
| going to get NASA to come out and say, "actually, we
| can't think of a good reason to send anything to Mars
| anymore. Maybe in a couple of decades when our technology
| improves." Similarly, you're not going to get them to say
| that the shuttle or SLS were misfires. If you look at the
| stuff NASA releases, these were all enormous successes.
|
| If I try to look at what the Insight lander accomplished,
| for instance, I find articles claiming that Insight found
| that the core of the Mars was much larger than previously
| thought. Let's leave aside whether the exact size of
| Mars' core is important or not. If I look for estimates
| of the size of the core prior to Insight, they're all in
| line with the estimates that came from the Insight data.
| From what I can see Insight brought the range of
| estimates closer together, but it seems to be about what
| people were expecting beforehand.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >and to beget more science. <snip> but that's not the
| same as being useful.
|
| For those looking to keep a job in sciences, begetting
| more science sounds pretty darn useful
| bluGill wrote:
| Every part needs to last 3 months. If even one part breaks
| after 2 months the whole thing failed. Each part increases
| the odds that one will break after 2 months. The only way
| to work around this is to design each part to last for 5
| years, that way the odds are high that all parts survive
| for the required 3 months. It also means that odds are
| reasonable the rover will work for much longer than 3
| months, and in many cases you can operate in a degraded
| state for a even longer.
| piva00 wrote:
| I assume that a system such as the self-cleaning of camera
| sensors by vibration wouldn't work either due to the static
| charges then, correct?
| rwmj wrote:
| Some kind of passive self-cleaning solar-cell cover might work.
| You could direct and shape the wind so it blows more strongly
| over the cell surface to clean it, or since the dust is
| charged[1] you might use a conductive layer with the same
| charge. (Although I'm sure engineers have thought long and hard
| about this already.)
|
| [1] Moon, but similar: https://youtu.be/0k9wIsKKgqo?t=378
| rzzzt wrote:
| An infinite loop of transparent film, similar to what the in-
| car F1 cameras have?
|
| Edit: huh, apparently it is one-time use and does not loop
| around.
| blululu wrote:
| The static charges necessarily come in pairs so the dust is
| charged both positive and negative, but the surface also gets
| charged as dust hits it so trying to blow it off does not
| necessarily work in the long term. Static dust is a real pain
| in a low water environment.
| hawski wrote:
| I am sure it comes down to economics really, but I do wonder
| now about a mission in far future, that would clean solar
| panels of all those older missions to make them work again. For
| shits and giggles I guess.
| danw1979 wrote:
| Like a long range Ingenuity helicopter that cruised the
| planet using its downwash to revive old rovers ?
| timdiggerm wrote:
| Don't underestimate the size of a planet
| dwringer wrote:
| After a few months I can't even blow all the dust off
| surfaces in my apartment. I can only imagine years outside
| on Mars.
| phpnode wrote:
| This idea gets brought up in every thread about Insight's
| dust issues - there is not enough air pressure on Mars for
| the downwash to clean the panels. For Ingenuity
| specifically the problem is that it is also far too far
| away - it would take over ten years for the chopper to
| reach Insight.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| IIRC this was a plot point in The Martian
| hawski wrote:
| Oh, yes indeed. I forgot about that.
| bluGill wrote:
| It might be fun to try, but realistically, without heat,
| thermo issues will ensure that even if you did this the
| rovers wouldn't work anymore.
| _joel wrote:
| So long Insight! Pleasure having some flash memory that was sent
| with you, there's a few bytes that have my name in it.
| zander312 wrote:
| Woah that is so cool. What did the bytes do? Was it code for
| the lander?
| jcadam wrote:
| I assume it's this:
|
| https://www.space.com/38413-your-name-on-mars-nasa-
| insight-l...
| fdvbvvgh wrote:
| _joel wrote:
| Yep, could do it with Artemis 1 too and Mars 2020 iirc
| fdvbvvgh wrote:
| Great
| fdvbvvgh wrote:
| fdvbvvgh wrote:
| Fd
| okdood64 wrote:
| Great video about Insight, the technical challenges, and findings
| from it: https://youtu.be/LmkRrtfY6VI
| [deleted]
| devsploit wrote:
| I suppose this is kind of a trivial question, but does anyone
| know if the last message was ACTUALLY the STRING: "My power's
| really low. Don't worry about me though...", or was it some
| binary/hex code to represent that, like, "503 ERROR", and the PR
| department just tweeted its interpretation as "My power's really
| low. Don't worry about me though..."?
|
| It raises more questions. Was this logging message decided by
| committee or a PM? Was it a dev easter egg? Do they have a
| writer?
|
| Also, what conditions would trigger this "final" message?
|
| Being a lesser engineer, my stuff just crashes unceremoniously
| and usually I am alerted not by a sweet note from my prod servers
| "Hey, looks like prod's going down, don't worry about me,
| though...", it's usually concerned phone call from a manager.
| pwisswordfish99 wrote:
| I'm especially curious whether it actually used the apostrophe,
| but I suppose the lander itself just sends its usual vitals and
| the first-person tweets are done by an on-world PR department.
| bogantech wrote:
| It would have been a data packet containing the battery gauge
| and some other metrics, it wouldn't make any sense for the
| lander itself to waste precious bandwidth by spitting out human
| readable ASCII strings like that.
|
| It's just PR like the last one
| throw827474737 wrote:
| They sent two flash chips full of names with the lander, they
| are transmitting whole hi-res pictures and even Apollo
| missions already had at least 1.6 kbit/s, sorry but those 64
| bytes would have fit everywhere.
|
| But yes, that message didn't exist for other reasons.
| chasd00 wrote:
| heh it was probably a single byte with one bit signaling low
| battery and the other 7 signaling other things.
| [deleted]
| kyleyeats wrote:
| You're overthinking this. They are literally just quoting the
| Twitter account which is written in first-person perspective:
| https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1604955574659035136
| dbg31415 wrote:
| My guess is that it's PR baked into the software -- at least
| the receiver software. It was a line written by someone who
| understood that just an error code is really bad for humans to
| read. So they humanized it a bit. They had time to plan this,
| not like they didn't know this was the likely outcome. Good
| product management to give the robot a voice.
| rob74 wrote:
| > _They had time to plan this, not like they didn 't know
| this was the likely outcome._
|
| Like the newspapers have obituaries for most important
| personalities prepared (and sometimes publish them
| prematurely)?
| sam0x17 wrote:
| Probably some bytecode representing an RPC enum variant
| devsploit wrote:
| Yeah this sent me down a rabbit hole. Apparently "NASA had
| previously decided to declare the mission over if the lander
| missed two communication attempts"
| (https://mars.nasa.gov/news/9321/nasa-retires-insight-mars-
| la...).
|
| Ah well, nothing wrong with a little space theatre!
| saalweachter wrote:
| So the message was no message?
|
| How do we know the lander wasn't captured by Martians and
| locked in a faraday cage, in dire need of rescue?
| user3939382 wrote:
| As a programmer my first thought reading this was:
|
| If I was designing a program to send me back a message and it was
| super critical I received it, I wouldn't put any quotes or non-
| alphanumerics in the message. Even if my string handling checks
| out, if the stakes are sufficiently high, I don't trust em!
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| I always assumed it sent some short, efficient code with the
| appropriate error correction, packet loss protection and so on
| and it was only the receiving program that translated to a
| verbose string. Is that not the case?
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| I thought it was pretty annoying that the communications are
| put forth here as if the lander is an animate thing engaging in
| conversation with us.
|
| Perhaps one day we'll achieve something like that. Heck, maybe
| we'll send up the grandchild of ChatGPT to be the voice of a
| future exploration probe. But that's not what we have today.
| These messages were coded by the engineers who built the thing,
| and any implication of sentiment is bogus.
| Clamchop wrote:
| Because the messages were written by people, the sentiment is
| more authentic than anything made by gpt.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| The messages were written by the very people that they are
| ostensibly sent _to_. It 's sock-puppeting.
| Clamchop wrote:
| Why does this make the sentiment insincere? Is it
| inauthentic if you're saying it to yourself?
|
| And whoever wrote this didn't write it just for
| themselves (there are other involved people and there is
| public relations).
|
| More charitably than sock puppeting, it is storytelling
| through personification.
| bluGill wrote:
| If I was designing such a message I'd make sure there is a lot
| of redundancy in the message so even if I only received part of
| it I could figure out what it was. Adding quotes and other non-
| alphanumerics can add more clues that make the message unique
| enough to identify it even when significant amounts of the data
| are lost in transmission.
| user3939382 wrote:
| We have really sophisticated, formal strategies for that
| purpose:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_detection_and_correction.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_correction_code
| mosburger wrote:
| Yep, I worked in the disk drive industry over twenty years
| ago, and I was surprised to learn that a lot of what we
| read off the disk is actually wrong! If not for a lot of
| generous error correction they'd've been pretty unusable.
| ackbar03 wrote:
| "Say again? You're dropping out, my battery is low Just so you
| know, we're going to a place nearby Gotta go!"
|
| - Mars rover
| pestatije wrote:
| Let Ingenuity fly over it and dust off those panels!
| AlbertCory wrote:
| This reminds me of the movie _Good Night, Oppy_
|
| This was a surprisingly touching movie about the Opportunity
| rover. Yes, it's sentimental, and yes, the NASA crew do call it
| "her." And yes, the rover does remind you of Wall-E. Still, it's
| a good flick to watch with the family.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-21 23:01 UTC)