Sorry if I came across as knocking on JPL too much. They can actually do
amazing things with a high probability of success.
My only point is they just don't look for the most cost effective ways to
do things.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:00 PM Ian M. Garcia <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's not entirely fair to JPL. Whatever their "mindset" is, with it they
have developed technologies that have pushed the envelope and helped
everybody else. (Most recently Spacex with GFOLD but there are plenty of
others)
--
Ian M Garcia
------------------------------
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:27 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: big rockets
If they don't, they'll be out of business, because their one-off robots
will be greeted by hundreds of others when they arrive. Just as the first
astronauts to get to the Moon The NASA Way in Apollo redux will be greeted
by the concierge at the Luna Hilton.
On 10/6/21 19:23, Robert Steinke wrote:
+1
When I was at JPL as Spirit & Opportunity were winding down and Curiosity
was winding up people would say things like we can't just do another Spirit
& Opportunity because we want capability X (like the ability to reach a
specific location) so we need technology Y (like hypersonic guidance or
long distance autonomous driving).
I would ask have you looked at the probability of success of a shotgun
approach of sending N Spirit & Opportunities where you only need one to
succeed, and compared the cost of that to the development cost of a brand
new design that you will only ever make one of?
People didn't like when I asked that, especially the people who had spent
their careers developing technology Y.
I think some universities and nonprofits will do amazing things when IMLEO
becomes (relatively) cheap, but I would not be optimistic about JPL making
the paradigm shift.