Now that we've got SpaceX cheap launches, it's time to launch a fleet of solar system probes and space telescopes.
Why isn't this happening?
Why isn't this happening?
> 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-st...
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...
$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
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?
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 ...
I also worked for a time as an electronics assembly guy (i.e. gnome). One task was to assemble 10 RS-232 electronic cards, all the same. The first one took me 2 hours. The last one 20 minutes.
The first time I took the intake manifold off of my V8 Mustang, it took me 2 hours. The 4th time, 20 minutes.
The same acceleration happens when I assemble IKEA furniture. Or when I helped a friend change 4 brake rotors on his car.
This is not because I invented a more efficient process. It's simply that I knew what to do.
I flat out do not believe there's something about space hardware that makes this not possible.
P.S. The service manager at a car dealer once told me that changing the alternator would cost 2 hours of a mechanic's time. I told him if it took more than 20 minutes the mechanic was incompetent, and proceeded to explain to the manager step-by-step what the exact procedure was for that model car. The result was I got a much better deal :-)
I agree. I'm sure everyone at NASA agrees as well. I won't go on and talk us into a circle.
Another issue may be that NASA often pushes the bleeding edge of space exploration - that is part of their job. Commercial companies can handle the the already established tech like orbital launch.
There's an excellent National Academies report on NASA from this past spring, which includes a great section on current leading missions, and the technologies needed, including those that must be developed. NASA seems to develop new tech for every mission; they take on missions before the R&D is done on many components - they seem to be just theories. That might be hard to mass produce.