Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   NASA's next Mars rover has now burned nearly half of its launch window   (arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Mars, Launch vehicle, launch of its multibillion-dollar Perseverance mission, Rocket, Mars-bound large rover, Atlas V rocket, NASA, launch campaign  
•       •       •

1189 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jun 2020 at 11:54 PM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-07-01 12:04:36 AM  
6 votes:
I'm still getting over last year's official death of Opportunity. I was on a random project related to its early days (first 90 sols of it/Spirit, all way through about a year). The work on it helped me get into grad school which I might not have without that little rover's help. I will always pay my respects to the pair and Mars rover projects
 
2020-06-30 10:12:05 PM  
3 votes:
Help us,SpaceX. You're our only hope.
 
2020-07-01 1:38:14 AM  
2 votes:

fat boy: Help us,SpaceX. You're our only hope.


Naw. Launching to Mars is a high energy trajectory; and Falcon rapidly loses performance due to not having a hydrolox upper stage. You'd need a Falcon Heavy to beat the Atlas V performance; and while it might be possible to procure one from a 'laws of physics don't prevent it' standpoint, you'd be better off trying to strap on another SRB and launching on an Atlas 551. Still would probably be completely infeasible. 4 weeks is a very short time to change a vehicle configuration and flight profile.
 
2020-07-01 12:28:28 AM  
2 votes:

fat boy: Help us,SpaceX. You're our only hope.


As the other person said.  It is too late to change launch providers.  Even ignoring the legal work of breaking the contract, integrating the spacecraft to a rocket is not something that can be done on the fly.  Not to mention that SpaceX has lots of stuff to launch already.

ULA might be overpriced, but they do have a well-deserved reputation for getting the job done.  A failure to launch would be really unusual for them.  And the company has never had a "boom."  So let not count them out yet.  Of course if they do miss the launch window, it will not be good for them to say the least as reliability is their big selling point.
 
2020-07-01 12:05:52 AM  
2 votes:
ULA issue.

And no, you can't just switch to an F9, even if one was available today.
 
2020-07-02 1:53:12 PM  
1 vote:

fat boy: Help us,SpaceX. You're our only hope.


It almost certainly can't fly the Falcon.  SpaceX uses horizontal integration, the Atlas uses vertical integration.  A satellite designed for vertical integration can't survive horizontal integration.

turboke: I get that a clean room isn't a Shurgard and that you can't just lock it up for 26 months without checking up on it. Any liquids (coolants? lube? haven't actually checked what it packs) might need to be drained and replaced because they weren't meant for long-term storage in Earth conditions. But hundreds of millions? Does it need monthly rust coatings in our atmosphere? Semi-serious question actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Or are they referring to contractual compensation for missing the deadline?


It probably needs anoxic storage (it's not meant for being in a humid, oxygen-bearing atmosphere for a long time), the nuclear battery will have used two years off it's life and you have a bunch of people that you don't really want to lay off, but neither do you have anything for them to do.
 
2020-07-01 9:54:27 AM  
1 vote:

tedthebellhopp: unbelver: ULA issue.

And no, you can't just switch to an F9, even if one was available today.

True, It would need a Falcon Heavy for sure.


Would it?  What if you were willing to sacrifice the booster instead of bringing it back?  That essentially doubles the throw weight.

Spacex says Falcon 9 can send 4,020 kg to Mars.
https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falco​n​-9/

I'm going to assume that's if they burn all the fuel/oxidizer available and don't attempt to recover the booster.


Launch mass for Perseverance is just 1,025 kg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseve​r​ance_(rover)

Which leaves up to 2,995 kg for the things you need to mate the rover to the rocket, slow it down at Mars, protect it from reentry, etc.   That seems relatively doable.

Obviously, you couldn't turn around and do this on a whim, but I think if it was planned from the start, it would be possible.
 
2020-07-01 2:32:35 AM  
1 vote:

TheManofPA: I'm still getting over last year's official death of Opportunity. I was on a random project related to its early days (first 90 sols of it/Spirit, all way through about a year). The work on it helped me get into grad school which I might not have without that little rover's help. I will always pay my respects to the pair and Mars rover projects


If it makes you feel any better, Curiosity is now "older" than Spirit, and is halfway caught up to Opportunity. Perseverance is of similar construction, and also has a pretty good chance of outliving both MER vehicles.
 
2020-07-01 1:05:52 AM  
1 vote:
You suck, ULA, when you're supposed to blow.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.