|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
So why not contract a drone mfg instead of (likely) spending $20 for every $1 the experienced manufacturer would? Isn't that what Space-X is all about?
SpaceX is doing a decent job making established technology (in some cases decades old) more available than previously. There is nothing in what the company has done to date that suggests Space X could more quickly or at less expense design a drone that has any better chance to operate in an environment which we on Earth have limited knowledge than NASA. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
RichA wrote in
: On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 02:57:15 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44090509 It is possible the guys working on it also had other duties. Note that there were likely not as many people working on the project as would be working at a drone manufacturer designing their next product. And this drone had to be super reliable, and it had to work in the atmosphere of Mars, which, as the article noted, is a *lot* less dense than that of Earth. (The article said 100x; I thought it was more than that.) John Savard So why not contract a drone mfg instead of (likely) spending $20 for every $1 the experienced manufacturer would? Isn't that what Space-X is all about? If you $20 drone doesn't work, you climb a tree to retrieve it, or spend another $20. If your $100 million drone doesn't work, you ask Congress for another $100 million, and they laugh at you. Dumbass. -- Terry Austin "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
On 17/05/2018 20:26, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 11:59:29 PM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote: On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 08:57:15 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44090509 It is possible the guys working on it also had other duties. Note that there were likely not as many people working on the project as would be working at a drone manufacturer designing their next product. And this drone had to be super reliable, and it had to work in the atmosphere of Mars, which, as the article noted, is a *lot* less dense than that of Earth. (The article said 100x; I thought it was more than that.) Mars' atmospheric pressure is 6% of Earth's. I just checked. 0.6% of Earth's, I'm afraid. That's true for pressure, although the density is more relevant to the performance of wings (moving or fixed). The atmospheric density at the surface of Mars averages 1.6% that of Earth's. That's about the same as the density at a height of 30 km on Earth. That's right in the area that the highest winged aircraft have flown. And well above the normal helicopter flight ceiling. I guess given a drone on the Earth with say 0.1 diameter rotors then one on Mars would need rotors spinning at the same rate but about 8x larger and weighing the same to generate the same net lift as on Earth. I expect the engineering challenges of making something that will work OK in such a thin atmosphere more than explains their delays. You would have to test it in a rather large vacuum chamber too (or up at 30km). -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
On Sat, 19 May 2018 09:23:54 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote: I guess given a drone on the Earth with say 0.1 diameter rotors then one on Mars would need rotors spinning at the same rate but about 8x larger and weighing the same to generate the same net lift as on Earth. Per the news release, it's a twin blade helicopter with 3000 RPM rotors and a total mass of just 1800 g. I expect the engineering challenges of making something that will work OK in such a thin atmosphere more than explains their delays. "Delay" is probably not the correct word here (and I doubt that's quite what you meant). Obviously, a project like this needs a lot of design time. And there's also the factor of considering the entire mission plan. A commercial drone maker needs to condense the R&D part of their program as much as possible in order to maximize their sales potential. A NASA research program has different focuses, and they are going to build their development schedule around the timeline of the mission. Since this project is intended as a secondary, non-critical component of a 2020 mission, I'm sure their work was timed accordingly. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
On Thursday, 17 May 2018 10:02:33 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2018 01:01:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 02:57:15 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44090509 It is possible the guys working on it also had other duties. Note that there were likely not as many people working on the project as would be working at a drone manufacturer designing their next product. And this drone had to be super reliable, and it had to work in the atmosphere of Mars, which, as the article noted, is a *lot* less dense than that of Earth. (The article said 100x; I thought it was more than that.) John Savard So why not contract a drone mfg instead of (likely) spending $20 for every $1 the experienced manufacturer would? Isn't that what Space-X is all about? SpaceX is about engineering, not science. There is a lot of fundamental new aeronautical science involved in designing any lift-based aircraft that operates in an atmosphere 1/60 as dense as Earth's. That's the sort of expertise NASA has, and conventional makers of aircraft or drones do not. We do not generally contract out fundamental scientific development. What is so fundamental about it? Planes fly high enough so atmosphere is thin and have done so for decades. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
On Saturday, 19 May 2018 00:09:24 UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
RichA wrote in : On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 02:57:15 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44090509 It is possible the guys working on it also had other duties. Note that there were likely not as many people working on the project as would be working at a drone manufacturer designing their next product. And this drone had to be super reliable, and it had to work in the atmosphere of Mars, which, as the article noted, is a *lot* less dense than that of Earth. (The article said 100x; I thought it was more than that.) John Savard So why not contract a drone mfg instead of (likely) spending $20 for every $1 the experienced manufacturer would? Isn't that what Space-X is all about? If you $20 drone doesn't work, you climb a tree to retrieve it, or spend another $20. If your $100 million drone doesn't work, you ask Congress for another $100 million, and they laugh at you. Dumbass. -- Terry Austin "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. Yes, only the wonderful, wonderful STATE is capable...which is why Boeing is wiping the floor with Airbus... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:58:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: SpaceX is about engineering, not science. There is a lot of fundamental new aeronautical science involved in designing any lift-based aircraft that operates in an atmosphere 1/60 as dense as Earth's. That's the sort of expertise NASA has, and conventional makers of aircraft or drones do not. We do not generally contract out fundamental scientific development. What is so fundamental about it? Planes fly high enough so atmosphere is thin and have done so for decades. Planes at that altitude (100,000 feet) are rare, experimental, and rocket powered. No helicopter has ever come close to that. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
RichA wrote in
: On Saturday, 19 May 2018 00:09:24 UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote: RichA wrote in : On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 02:57:15 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44090509 It is possible the guys working on it also had other duties. Note that there were likely not as many people working on the project as would be working at a drone manufacturer designing their next product. And this drone had to be super reliable, and it had to work in the atmosphere of Mars, which, as the article noted, is a *lot* less dense than that of Earth. (The article said 100x; I thought it was more than that.) John Savard So why not contract a drone mfg instead of (likely) spending $20 for every $1 the experienced manufacturer would? Isn't that what Space-X is all about? If you $20 drone doesn't work, you climb a tree to retrieve it, or spend another $20. If your $100 million drone doesn't work, you ask Congress for another $100 million, and they laugh at you. Dumbass. -- Terry Austin "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. Yes, only the wonderful, wonderful STATE is capable...which is why Boeing is wiping the floor with Airbus... Still as retarded as ever, eh, retard? Yes, you are. Nice straw man you're masturbating all over, though. Dumbass. -- Terry Austin "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:01:22 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
So why not contract a drone mfg instead of (likely) spending $20 for every $1 the experienced manufacturer would? Isn't that what Space-X is all about? 1) A commercial drone manufacturer might fail to understand the terms of the contract, and supply a drone that wouldn't work on Mars. 2) There are commercial drone manufacturers in the United States? I don't think this is like Parker Pen, and the pressurized ballpoint. John Savard |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
It took NASA...four years to design a drone.
On Sunday, 20 May 2018 02:03:48 UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
RichA wrote in : On Saturday, 19 May 2018 00:09:24 UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote: RichA wrote in : On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 02:57:15 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44090509 It is possible the guys working on it also had other duties. Note that there were likely not as many people working on the project as would be working at a drone manufacturer designing their next product. And this drone had to be super reliable, and it had to work in the atmosphere of Mars, which, as the article noted, is a *lot* less dense than that of Earth. (The article said 100x; I thought it was more than that.) John Savard So why not contract a drone mfg instead of (likely) spending $20 for every $1 the experienced manufacturer would? Isn't that what Space-X is all about? If you $20 drone doesn't work, you climb a tree to retrieve it, or spend another $20. If your $100 million drone doesn't work, you ask Congress for another $100 million, and they laugh at you. Dumbass. -- Terry Austin "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. Yes, only the wonderful, wonderful STATE is capable...which is why Boeing is wiping the floor with Airbus... Still as retarded as ever, eh, retard? Yes, you are. Nice straw man you're masturbating all over, though. Dumbass. -- Terry Austin "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. Whose sock are you? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ballistic Delivery Drone | William Mook[_2_] | Policy | 3 | May 14th 16 11:29 PM |
NASA says 20 years to mars NBC news tonight, space X 10 years | Sylvia Else | Policy | 4 | February 13th 16 01:54 PM |
D-21 drone booster... Apollo LES motor? | Pat Flannery | History | 6 | June 22nd 08 03:28 PM |
D21 recon drone in storage at Davis Monthan | R Neutron | History | 19 | October 13th 03 06:37 PM |