A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 7th 19, 01:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

Ever dig in soil and hit a rock? Seems NASA didn't expect it. Pretty stupid.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47469071

Ads
  #2  
Old March 7th 19, 08:27 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
StarDust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 732
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:59:22 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
Ever dig in soil and hit a rock? Seems NASA didn't expect it. Pretty stupid.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47469071


Maybe hit an alien skull, hard as diamond?
  #3  
Old March 7th 19, 03:22 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 16:59:19 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Ever dig in soil and hit a rock? Seems NASA didn't expect it. Pretty stupid.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47469071


First of all, NASA didn't design this probe. Second, it was entirely
expected that the probe could hit something that would slow it down or
that it couldn't get through. Making the probe retractable and
repositionable was not a practical option.

If you knew anything about engineering, you'd know about design
tradeoffs and cost/benefit analyses.
  #4  
Old March 7th 19, 11:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

RichA:
Ever dig in soil and hit a rock? Seems NASA didn't expect it. Pretty
stupid.


Chris L Peterson:
First of all, NASA didn't design this probe. Second, it was entirely
expected that the probe could hit something that would slow it down or
that it couldn't get through. Making the probe retractable and
repositionable was not a practical option.


Has it occurred to you that what the probe hit was not a rock at all,
but RichA's "brain," frozen and fossilized these billions of years?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #5  
Old March 8th 19, 02:57 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,031
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:59:22 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:

Ever dig in soil and hit a rock? Seems NASA didn't expect it. Pretty stupid.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47469071


From your own link, which you apparently did not read with full comprehension...

"... But the presence of hidden rocks was always a possibility, and even expected."

\Paul A

  #6  
Old March 9th 19, 02:22 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Thursday, 7 March 2019 17:49:50 UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
Ever dig in soil and hit a rock? Seems NASA didn't expect it. Pretty
stupid.


Chris L Peterson:
First of all, NASA didn't design this probe. Second, it was entirely
expected that the probe could hit something that would slow it down or
that it couldn't get through. Making the probe retractable and
repositionable was not a practical option.


Has it occurred to you that what the probe hit was not a rock at all,
but RichA's "brain," frozen and fossilized these billions of years?


I'm not one the with a $$$$$$ probe that's stuck. Whatsamatter? Would adding some COST to the thing to make it work more flexibly have taken away money from the ISS??

  #7  
Old March 9th 19, 08:52 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 7:22:04 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

First of all, NASA didn't design this probe. Second, it was entirely
expected that the probe could hit something that would slow it down or
that it couldn't get through. Making the probe retractable and
repositionable was not a practical option.


If you knew anything about engineering, you'd know about design
tradeoffs and cost/benefit analyses.


A naive person such as myself - and such as any number of Congressmen - would
have thought that given that it costs billions of dollars to send a probe to
Mars, and if drilling beneath the Martian surface was an important part of that
probe's science mission, then any extra cost to make "the probe retractable and
repositionable" would have been not merely well worth it, but imperative.

Now, if that probe instead was simply a *minor* part of the probe, tacked on at
the last minute, then that it wouldn't have the volume or weight budget to do
anything but drill once wherever it's stuck *would* be reasonable. I don't know
which is the case, so I'm not prepared to castigate NASA at this point - but I'm
not prepared to exonerate them either.

John Savard
  #8  
Old March 9th 19, 08:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Saturday, March 9, 2019 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 7:22:04 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

First of all, NASA didn't design this probe. Second, it was entirely
expected that the probe could hit something that would slow it down or
that it couldn't get through. Making the probe retractable and
repositionable was not a practical option.


If you knew anything about engineering, you'd know about design
tradeoffs and cost/benefit analyses.


A naive person such as myself - and such as any number of Congressmen - would
have thought that given that it costs billions of dollars to send a probe to
Mars, and if drilling beneath the Martian surface was an important part of that
probe's science mission, then any extra cost to make "the probe retractable and
repositionable" would have been not merely well worth it, but imperative.

Now, if that probe instead was simply a *minor* part of the probe, tacked on at
the last minute, then that it wouldn't have the volume or weight budget to do
anything but drill once wherever it's stuck *would* be reasonable. I don't know
which is the case, so I'm not prepared to castigate NASA at this point - but I'm
not prepared to exonerate them either.


Having read the article, I see the situation is not as bad as all that.

1) Apparently the probe's design is such that it has a good chance of pushing
this second rock it has encountered out of the way given plenty of hammering
time, and so this may be attempted later.

2) The probe is only meant to measure the subsurface temperature of Mars; it
isn't intended to pick up a core sample for a sample return mission or something
else of similarly critical importance.

3) It has already penetrated to a sufficient depth that it can perform the
temperature measurements needed for at least the earlier parts of the experiment
for which it was designed.

Thus I am now quite prepared to accept that the limitations of the probe are
reasonable as a cost-benefit tradeoff.

John Savard
  #9  
Old March 10th 19, 11:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 23:52:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 7:22:04 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

First of all, NASA didn't design this probe. Second, it was entirely
expected that the probe could hit something that would slow it down or
that it couldn't get through. Making the probe retractable and
repositionable was not a practical option.


If you knew anything about engineering, you'd know about design
tradeoffs and cost/benefit analyses.


A naive person such as myself - and such as any number of Congressmen - would
have thought that given that it costs billions of dollars to send a probe to
Mars, and if drilling beneath the Martian surface was an important part of that
probe's science mission, then any extra cost to make "the probe retractable and
repositionable" would have been not merely well worth it, but imperative.


It is precisely the sort of thing that could make the entire mission
impossible, by adding significant cost and complexity to the design,
making it unfeasible to include other instruments, or making
everything less reliable. A change like that would impact almost every
system on the lander.

(InSight is part of the Discovery program, which funds relatively
inexpensive missions. The InSight budget is $830 million. A heavier,
more power hungry, retractable probe- which would need to operate on a
completely different principle than the simple impact probe now in
use- could easily have killed the entire program. It might never have
been funded at all given a higher budget or greater opportunity for
mechanical failure.)
  #10  
Old March 10th 19, 11:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default NASA never expected to have to re-position its drilling probe?

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 17:22:23 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Thursday, 7 March 2019 17:49:50 UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
Ever dig in soil and hit a rock? Seems NASA didn't expect it. Pretty
stupid.


Chris L Peterson:
First of all, NASA didn't design this probe. Second, it was entirely
expected that the probe could hit something that would slow it down or
that it couldn't get through. Making the probe retractable and
repositionable was not a practical option.


Has it occurred to you that what the probe hit was not a rock at all,
but RichA's "brain," frozen and fossilized these billions of years?


I'm not one the with a $$$$$$ probe that's stuck. Whatsamatter? Would adding some COST to the thing to make it work more flexibly have taken away money from the ISS??


Adding another 100 million or so would price the entire mission out of
the Discover Program. It wouldn't even have happened.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ignorant would-be NASA intern reportedly loses position over vulgar tweets Jeff Findley[_6_] History 0 August 26th 18 01:56 PM
This is what NASA should be about. The fastest, hottest probe yet RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 July 23rd 18 08:10 AM
NASA is a business and will do what it has to to secure its position RichA[_1_] Amateur Astronomy 3 May 5th 14 03:11 PM
NASA HQ raided in probe David Amateur Astronomy 5 April 1st 06 11:00 PM
Drilling Europa Maria Hidalgo Amateur Astronomy 3 March 17th 04 07:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.