Curiosity

In six weeks we’ll know whether NASA’s elaborate process for landing Curiosity on Mars works. The landing process is worthy of Rube Goldberg, with the last step being a sky crane (really!) since firing the rockets near the surface might damage Curiosity (so will dropping it with the sky crane). Since it’s a huge hunk of money, plus opportunity for a lot more surface exploration of Mars naturally I hope it works, but I would be surprised to learn it didn’t. Mars eats probes, or at least it seems that way (we send some many we may simply have statistically significant sample size showing landing unmanned probes is hard) and unfortunately the odds are too high that Curiosity could join the list.

But why even do this after some much success with the airbag landing system used for the Rovers. Well, Curiosity has undergone the usual bloat (plus nuclear powered, somehow that always sneaks in) of any manmade object so it’s too heavy to be landed with the airbags.

And this is my point. We just can’t leave successful designs alone, we have to “improve” them, which rarely means simplifying and usually means bloating them (e.g. Windows). And despite frequent evidence that small (and numerous) is better, at least in the U.S. we just love big and complex, quite possibly because these also mean expensive. The U.S. auto companies only know how to get decent margins from large, heavy, gas-guzzlers, because they only associate small with cheap and low margins (and now, so does the public because anything small they make is junk).

But OTOH look at digital technology (the actual hardware). There, most of the time, small is beautiful and cheap is good now. When we need power we takes lots of small cheap things (chips, servers, disk arrays) and combine them together instead of going off and spending a fortune building some single “super” computer (or giant disk or whatever). Small, cheap, plentiful are the words that make digital technology work.

But there is still just something in the American DNA that loves big. And so NASA went big with Curiosity. Sure, it’s got all kinds of fabulous capabilities, maybe even some that are actually needed. But, did I mention, it’s big. And big has lots of drawbacks, certainly the complex landing system, but also big big big price tag which means we don’t get many of these.

Now I saw a fanciful idea once, but one that might actually work. Build digital “tumbleweeds” to send to Mars. Small lightweight and rugged devices with all the miniaturized surveillance stuff we’re putting in battlefield drones on some sort of inflatable sphere that is optimized to catch the wind gusts and see a bunch of these things (so some crash or break) and let them roll around and collect data. For the same bucks as Curiosity we might be able to have hundreds of them and by pure chance, as the Rover’s have shown, a few might survive longer than Curiosity. [If you think the tumbleweed idea is crazy, remember the Rovers landed in essentially a crash protected by airbags and that worked fine.]

But masses of cheap probes just doesn’t seem to fit the American profile (or really any of the space powers, they all like big). So Curiosity wasn’t just 50% bigger than the Rovers, it jumped in size, weight and cost by huge factors (if we’d had a bigger boaster we probably would have made it aircraft carrier sized). Yes, there is always another instrument to add it to (raising power requirements, raising the complexity (and reducing reliability) of its drive system). And if it lands and if it doesn’t get stuck in the sand and if all the instruments work it will do some science a Rover can’t do. But all that complexity really increases the risk of just scattering the debris of some very expensive hardware in yet another crash site on Mars.

Or, maybe I’m over-complicating the problem. Big means more budget spent to more aerospace contractors – couldn’t be that simple, could it?

Advertisements

About dmill96

old fat (but now getting trim and fit) guy, who used to create software in Silicon Valley (almost before it was called that), who used to go backpacking and bicycling and cross-country skiing and now geodashes, drives AWD in Wyoming, takes pictures, and writes long blog posts and does xizquvjyk.
This entry was posted in rant and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Curiosity

  1. dmill96 says:

    The landing procedure is even more complicated than I originally thought. With less than a month to go before landing, here’s an article about the current status: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/07/mars-rover-landing-curiosity_n_1655094.html

  2. dmill96 says:

    And there is even more on the complexity of the landing, a nice video explaining the 7 Minutes of Terror, at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/index.cfm?id=1090 I can’t believe it, 500,000 lines of code for all this and that’s often been their Achilles heel before. Dare Bold Things is on the end of the video – yeah, right, with $500M you’ll never get again. Small is better, that big fat bloated rover is forcing an absurdly complex landing process. I sure hope it works, but we’ll find out on 6Aug2012 when we contaminate Mars with the radioactive core of the crashed power supply.

  3. dmill96 says:

    Oh good, now NASA has a new problem that the relay communications satellite is not in the right orbit and therefore the landing may not be sent back – oh, goodie, instead of 7 minutes of terror they may hours. Plus they’ve already had malfunctions of the Curiosity vehicle. Too complex! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18861463

  4. douq says:

    Now they’re rebooting the onboard computers. Not clear if the communications glitch got resolved. http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/mobile/240003883

  5. douq says:

    Wow, Curiosity has 111,000 followers on Twitter. That’s actually kinda silly (unless and until it lands) since none of the seven minutes of terror occurs in (earth frame of reference) real time, plus it’s still not clear if there is a comm blackout.

  6. douq says:

    It’s getting closer, will know soon. Here’s an article with a bit more, esp. including the schedule. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/25/12952477-what-a-win-or-loss-on-mars-will-mean

  7. douq says:

    Here’s an interesting resource NASA is providing to track the landing, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20120730.html

  8. douq says:

    Stayed up late enough on Sunday night (Monday morning) to get some instant tweets saying it made it, amazing! and terrific! Still watching. Weird to get the news from Twitter.

  9. douq says:

    They’ve even got an image now, of one of the wheels. Hurrah!

  10. douq says:

    It really did make it, amazing. It’s almost hard to believe without some form of “official” confirmation but I guess I have to settle for Twitter. There seem to be some live broadcasts but I’m not following those. This is cool!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s