-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Isnt Curiosity Rover now a $2.5B failure ?
- Thread starter sono
- Start date
- Status
Do you, OP, understand the amount of money 2.5B is compared to entire US budget? OR NASA's budget, as a whole, compared to the entire US budget. We spent, collectively, parts of a cent here on amazing research that can be put to use in other ways besides just the rover.
Relax, brah.
Relax, brah.
The success of research isn't measured by how many sensational headlines it produces.
The overwhelming majority of research doesn't result in anything groundbreaking, it pushes scientific understanding further in incremental steps. They were able to build and send an unmanned mobile lab to another planet and study it at a level of detail that was never possible. It was a success according to the actual plan, I'm not sure what more you were expecting.
The overwhelming majority of research doesn't result in anything groundbreaking, it pushes scientific understanding further in incremental steps. They were able to build and send an unmanned mobile lab to another planet and study it at a level of detail that was never possible. It was a success according to the actual plan, I'm not sure what more you were expecting.
Prophet Steve
Member
Yes, hell is quite hot.
thesoapster
Member
A portal to hell would have been pretty sweet.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Uh, no. One of the goals of the mission was to demonstrate this technique since it allows for much larger rovers and equipment in the future. Sending a lead weight doesn't tell you if you can send equipment with delicate instrumentation. And why the hell would you prepare and launch an object to fucking Mars and have it only be a bunch of lead? The difference in price between sending a hunk of metal and the actual rover is probably not as much as you think, since the process of getting the stuff there costs a hell of a lot. And you want to talk about waste?
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
As usual money is wasted, it should be mostly about how to get stuff in space, heavy stuff, and back. That's what NASA's focus should be. Just put big pile of lead and send them in space, put them somewhere, go back to pick it up and bring it home. Leave the private sector to make drones if they feel like it, they could be put on board. But stop the costly science rovers.
What they learn in 30 years we could learn in 2 years once we have much more advanced technology to put stuff in space, which would make it all much cheaper and faster.
They have cut so much on this that we are now using 1940s concepts to put stuff in space.
What they learn in 30 years we could learn in 2 years once we have much more advanced technology to put stuff in space, which would make it all much cheaper and faster.
They have cut so much on this that we are now using 1940s concepts to put stuff in space.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
As the OP said, you could do that without an expensive rover on board. So take the cash spent on making the rover and its mission, and put that to better use, for example more space flight research.
Heck, just dumping a nice "Mars stream cam" camera would have been enough.
As I said before, all the stuff we try to learn today with expensive tech is pointless because we could learn all that with a fraction of the time by actually spending the money on improving space exploration technology, bringing all costs down.
Wrong, it's the kind of attitude that wouldn't have made NASA rely on Russia's 1940s concepts to send a satellite in space in 2013 (fill up a tube with fuel, fire it, so really a 2000 years old concept), and instead have new generation space shuttles and comet-mining machines in place.
Oh yes because we would have never invented a smoke detector of scratch resistance lenses otherwise!
Maninthemirror
Banned
This is the kind of attitude which would have never got us to the moon after immense failures. Along the way of the failures and eventual success of going to the moon NASA inventions:
CAT scan
Microchip
Cordless tools
Ear thermometer
Insulation
Freeze dried food
Invisible braces
Joysticks
Memory foam
Satellite television
Scratch resistance lens
Shoe insoles
Water filter
Smoke detector
I get the feeling that a lot of people who bitch about money spent on space exploration and/or these scientific robots are like businessmen who don't believe in the idea of "That's what you did for me before" and instead think "What have you done for me lately?" That and they are incredibly impatient.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
So to you guys, someone criticizing a specific NASA mission = criticizing space exploration, requesting cuts, funding the military instead, and the Earth is flat.
"Progress is never a straight path." Funding progress for the sake of progress is dumb. You need an objective, and think of the best way to get there. What we are doing is the equivalent of sending boats to the New World with an ape on board and ask him to bring us back a report by jumping off the boat and swimming back to Europe, instead of working on ship technology that will get us there, allow us to bring heavy material and lots of people and build new ports and cities.
"Progress is never a straight path." Funding progress for the sake of progress is dumb. You need an objective, and think of the best way to get there. What we are doing is the equivalent of sending boats to the New World with an ape on board and ask him to bring us back a report by jumping off the boat and swimming back to Europe, instead of working on ship technology that will get us there, allow us to bring heavy material and lots of people and build new ports and cities.
ElectricBlue187
Member
I don't think any of us are qualified to render a definitive verdict on its success or failure. The mission objectives might seem boring and one mile traveled might not seem like much but the main mission objective is not to impress you.
Gentleman Jack
Member
You haven't sufficiently provided a well-supported argument that the curiosity mission is expensive (as that is a relative term), nor have you proven the value of 'simply landing a lump of metal' instead of a complicated rover with precision instruments to prove that the technique involved is valid.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Any money spent on chewing rocks on Mars could be better spent on improving technology that will allow us to put heavy stuff in space and back. Anything the rovers do will be easier to do, faster and cheaper, when we have made significant advancements in space travel. That's simple maths.
People are already making countless types of drones that could explore Mars and give us all sorts of information, but we can't put them on Mars because our tech is too backward to get there easily.
It would also be much more constructive as people would see the tech evolve, and the shuttles wouldn't be some old relic in a museum.
In this case, absolutely. Curiosity's radiation findings are absolutely instrumental for us to prepare for a manned mission to Mars. Simply criticizing it because "well we already know it has radiation" is stupid. You can't run in blind. You can't just come up with a plan to handle the radiation when you don't understand how much radiation you're going to have to deal with.
Anybody who is not in favor of obtaining accurate data about Martian conditions is a person who is not in favor of a successful manned mission to Mars.
Except that we need probes and unmanned missions first or else we'd just be sending people to their deaths. We need to know what to expect.
CarpeDeezNutz
Member
Where's mah fuckin' aliens?!
Edit: not a lot of Elton John fans up in here huh?
Cotdamn this made me laugh so hard hahaha!
Edit: not a lot of Elton John fans up in here huh?
Cotdamn this made me laugh so hard hahaha!
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Except that as I have stated, we already have ALL the probe-making technology to make such probes, and far more than what NASA has made. The reason it's not happening is because it costs a fortune to send ANYTHING there.
So you are wrong: yes we need to send probes, but we have them or can make them already, and they are not getting there because it's too expensive because the tech used to get there is fucking old!
So where the money should go is pretty obvious. That's how it worked with ships and aircrafts; not by putting more and more expensive stuff on the same old ships or aircrafts, but by improving the aircrafts and ships so they could carry more and more stuff.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Like, I'm not very familiar with science or Mars or even space, but it's a pretty big place right? So, how does the distance traveled matter when dealing with a delicately calibrated robot that is sending data back over 208 million miles matter at all? It's not a marathon runner. Is that not the dumbest possible metric to use to measure success? Outside of maybe how many spanakopitas Curiosity did not make?
It would cost far more than a couple billion to send people to Mars. You have to account for months of them living in space, then living on Mars, then actually getting back. We don't have that technology, and likely never will if NASA keeps getting basically nothing for funding.
I agree with the point he's making, tho. Right now, travelling to Mars is such a daunting and expensive task because the technology we're using to get there has been fundamentally stagnant since the 60s.
I do agree with Ether_Snake that there needs to be a shift in priorities. Improve space travel technology and suddenly you openly the floodgates on what we can send to Mars and back.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Who cares about sending people on Mars? How is this some sort of inherent need? We have plenty of stuff to put in space for various reasons, doesn't have to be people, but we don't have the means to do it for cheap because money isn't going where it should go be going and instead is being sunk in projects that matter very little and have very little economic benefits.
Don't tell me being able to put stuff in space and bring it back easily wouldn't have more economic benefits and hence wouldn't attract more public and private funding. That's like saying "let's keep sending more and more important people overseas, on rafts".
It is precisely the advancement of vehicles, propulsion, etc., that are at the very core of defining and maximizing the benefits of space exploration, and it is massively under funded. The "science" stuff is not important at this point. Darwin was able to make his discoveries because getting to the Galapagos was much cheaper than it had been before, because sea-faring was common and highly advanced at that point. Same thing with all other forms of explorations. You need the most advanced tech, the tools, etc., to be able to have the independence to do the research and exploration you want.
You need cheaper space travel, period, and all efforts should be consecrated to that if we want to make any significant advancements at anything else space-related, since anything we do in space is entirely dependent of the advancement of said technology.
SteveWinwood
Member
How do you people not listen to elton john?
I'm trying to envision public reaction if NASA decided to abandon sending rovers to go do sciency things and learn about other planets, and instead focused on making spacecraft be cheaper and more efficient. The public that's pissed off over money wasted on these missions isn't going to want money wasted on making future missions cheaper. "Oh it only costs half as much to go to the moon this time? Big fucking deal, why do we even need to go to the moon anymore? There's nothing there!"
At least the rovers offer something the public can understand; missions should ideally involve both a focus on improving delivery methods and some sort of tangible end-goal.
At least the rovers offer something the public can understand; missions should ideally involve both a focus on improving delivery methods and some sort of tangible end-goal.
We also already have orbiters in orbit
Just sending more orbiters or another lander when the existing orbiters are still function is just reliving past glory, whereas Curiosity is learning from the downfalls of the previous defunct rovers to do it's thing. We couldn't get to Curiosity without launching the previous rovers, the previous rovers weren't possible without the stuff we learned from Viking etc, and whatever comes after Curiosity will need the data and lessons from this mission to do the most potential work.
Just sending more orbiters or another lander when the existing orbiters are still function is just reliving past glory, whereas Curiosity is learning from the downfalls of the previous defunct rovers to do it's thing. We couldn't get to Curiosity without launching the previous rovers, the previous rovers weren't possible without the stuff we learned from Viking etc, and whatever comes after Curiosity will need the data and lessons from this mission to do the most potential work.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Elton who? Kidding,I don't like the original as much, its still good.
MSL's battery is expected to last about 14 years... failure, fffs.
Gentleman Jack
Member
The saddest part about this is you've resigned to accept a situation where only one branch of space exploration research is possible. Curiosity's budget is spread out over the 8 years in R&D, not blown all at once on rocket fuel and parts. It's fucking cheap as dirt. I agree we could spend money on round trip planet exploration but why must it come at the expense of something as cheap as Curiosity's mission?
porquenolosdos.gif
We actually do have that technology.
The Case for Mars
This was a talk given in the 90s about how a manned mission to Mars using pre-existing technology theoretically could work. Pretty fascinating. And this is back in the 90s. I'm sure there are holes that can be poked in his plan, but the point is that we've had people coming up with plans for manned missions to mars that were at LEAST sound on a surface level for decades now. And Robert Zubrin makes the point in his lecture that the main thing holding us back is the miles of self-imposed red tape and this idea that we shouldn't try to send people to Mars until we have a PROVEN way to get them there and back with ZERO risk...which, while nice, kinda goes against how every major exploratory discovery was made throughout human history.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Oh yeah the people will only think about the bottom line, and not:
"We will no longer rely on other countries to go where want to and do what we want in space. We are actually going to do space exploration, Made in America, and will invest in developing new technologies that will allow us to do more in space, faster, for cheaper, while creating jobs, and this starts with significantly advancing our space-vehicles technology" etc. Public wouldn't say shit, except be on board at least as much as they are now or more. And people do no understand the rovers, sorry. But they don't know what a damn space shuttle is, although your kids today might not, because it no longer exists, only giant fireworks are used.
It's not resignation, it's putting the foundations before the roof. porquenolosdos? Because it's fucking stupid to not do things in order, and we've never done it that stupid before. Why must we handle space exploration in a stupid manner? The only ones resignated are at NASA. They are the ones unable to make the case.
"Hey Darwin, swim to the Galapagos!"
Yeah, you see, this is the kind of attitude that the rest of us in this thread hate. And this is why NASA isn't getting the amount of funding it should.
Gentleman Jack
Member
I'm confused why you think landing a 4 ton rover isn't the first step in discovering a way to land and come back, or why spending a few pennies more on making that 4-ton rover useful to science isn't a worthy expenditure.
Partial Gamification
Banned
If the mods gave the thread a tombstone, then we could rightfully shit on it but only in our minds' eyes. There is a gap between daily life and an expensive project like MSL/Curiosity, and this makes it hard to see the benefit of paying for such a thing. I am not good at this but it is an opportunity to explain, as citizen advocates for the space program at large, to share the connection between things quite literally Worlds apart.
- Status