Next Mars landing scheduled for Monday, November 26th, 2018 We're going back to Mars, quite probably on Monday, November 26th, 2018. So says NASA, which late last week announced that its revised schedule for the Mars InSight mission has been approved by the agency's Science Mission Directorate. The Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight …
Simply put the problem is weight. If you add something to vibrate the panels, that means you have to add the weight of the vibrators, that weight needs to be supported by the structure, which adds more weight, the vibrators also probably need motors of some sort, there's more weight, and they'll need power, which means you need bigger batteries, which means even more weight.
Every kilo you want to add, means you have to add significantly more weight to the rocket, and hence the whole thing has a huge effect on the cost. In the end, it's usually just easier and a site load cheaper, to design it for the base number of years and hope for good conditions to take it beyond that...
" If you add something to vibrate the panels, that means you have to add the weight of the vibrators, "
The work on small "insect" devices has found lightweight solutions to making movements with various materials. Build that into the solar cells to use either spare capacity at full sun - or even the diurnal temperature difference as a direct effect.
" the vibrators also probably need motors of some sort"
They don't need motors in the sense of heavy electrical motors. The vibrators used in DSLRs are lightweight piezoelectric units which have low power requirements. They also don't need to vibrate constantly, just occasionally, which could easily be timed for moments when batteries are fully charged and there is low power drain. Yes, I understand that lifting mass to Mars has costs and consequences. I doubt that the extra weight would be in kilos, however, and the payback is that you don't need as many solar cells since you don't have to oversize the photovoltaic array to cope with the effects of degradation of performance by dust.
"In the end, it's usually just easier and a site load cheaper, to design it for the base number of years and hope for good conditions to take it beyond that..."
And since it's going to be a static lander, the opportunities for additional science beyond the 2 year expected lifespan are going to be limited anyway. Anyway, we should never forget that 2 years is the expected minimum lifespan of the lander. NASA are GOOD at engineering. So long as it survives the landing, and their recent track record is good, then I expect it'll be going for at least 4 years.
This post has been deleted by its author
“The additional cost will not delay or cancel any current missions, though there may be fewer opportunities for new missions in future years, from fiscal years 2017-2020,” NASA says.
Somebody get the poor sods some funding! Can.. can we start them a patreon?
Rather than buy them a pint, throw that loose pocket change into a collection bowl and see how fast it all adds up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
