I worked on (a very small part of) the ExoMars rover (now called the Rosalind Franklin[0]).
It was supposed to launch in 2018, then was pushed to the early 2020s on a Russian rocket. For obvious reasons, it got pushed again, now launching in 2028.
The state of the world isn't great for space exploration, but I'm hopeful this mission will be revived at some point in the future.
As an outsider who is very interested in space exploration I'm very flummoxed by the state of space exploration.
With the price of launches so low compared to only 20 years ago due to advancements in launch technology and the increased cadence of launches it seems like it should be easier to do these kinds of missions and that there should be more, cheaper missions that are willing to take risks because the per mission cost is so much lower.
Can you comment on why that doesn't seem to be happening? Why aren't we covering Mars in cheap rovers and satellites?
I won't find it now, but I distinctly remember watching a video about some big NASA event a few years back but when Starship Booster (first stage) had been flying already. Basically none one at the event even considered switching paradigm from ultra custom probes and landers built from unobtainium and unicorn blood in favor of the way cheaper and way less robust, almost mass market hardware, to be launched once every 10 months instead of every 10 years on a regular basis. (PS: I know all the laundry list of arguments against this approach, and they are not that convincing at NASA scale). And I won't even talk about Space Disgrace System for manned flight.
NASA is stuck in the past and does it consciously and voluntarily.
To my understanding people at NASA and people approving budgets like novel stuff. What’s the point of 100 identical rovers on mars? For politician - good publicity only for first 5 rovers, then it is only routine. For engineers, challenge of designing and constructing new cutting edge stuff is interesting and fulfilling, constructing 50th clone is boring. (If now you give money to top talent to do cutting edge, then after 5years you will have pool of talented people; might benefit next mission or some other company)
The point is that, while the first of them has 2 MPx cameras with crappy optics, the fifth one has 50 MPx cameras with automagic everything, and the tenths one has damn light stacking array of top tier cameras and on board AI to colour correct on the fly or some other magic stuff. And at the same time battery increases x10 times while losing half of the wight and thermal deficiencies, CPUs get better and more redundant, better memory, wheels are getting fixed in 1 year instead of 10 and the list goes on.
Or you don't need to craft a JWST with nail files anymore, but instead just lauch a swarm of mirrors to free float and emulate the whole thing. And if one mirror goes bad - just launch a new one for pennies (NASA pennies). Or if the whole project is nonviable somehow - no big deal, just launch next year a different architecture. Ok, not next year, but in like a few years. And not in three decades (LUVOIR anyone? hello? Is there anyone at NASA?), if on schedule, and forty years if not.
The list goes on. I get hedging risks and preserving institutional knowledge, sure. But not even discussing a different approach, which could be conducted in parallel, is very very bad.
jumploops · · focus · HN ↗
It was supposed to launch in 2018, then was pushed to the early 2020s on a Russian rocket. For obvious reasons, it got pushed again, now launching in 2028.
The state of the world isn't great for space exploration, but I'm hopeful this mission will be revived at some point in the future.
[0]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin_(rover)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin_(rover)
Teever · · focus · HN ↗
With the price of launches so low compared to only 20 years ago due to advancements in launch technology and the increased cadence of launches it seems like it should be easier to do these kinds of missions and that there should be more, cheaper missions that are willing to take risks because the per mission cost is so much lower.
Can you comment on why that doesn't seem to be happening? Why aren't we covering Mars in cheap rovers and satellites?
Yizahi · · focus · HN ↗
NASA is stuck in the past and does it consciously and voluntarily.
falserum · · focus · HN ↗
Yizahi · · focus · HN ↗
Or you don't need to craft a JWST with nail files anymore, but instead just lauch a swarm of mirrors to free float and emulate the whole thing. And if one mirror goes bad - just launch a new one for pennies (NASA pennies). Or if the whole project is nonviable somehow - no big deal, just launch next year a different architecture. Ok, not next year, but in like a few years. And not in three decades (LUVOIR anyone? hello? Is there anyone at NASA?), if on schedule, and forty years if not.
The list goes on. I get hedging risks and preserving institutional knowledge, sure. But not even discussing a different approach, which could be conducted in parallel, is very very bad.