| |||||||||||||
Questions that should be askedQuestions that should be askedPosted Feb 22, 2013 9:42 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)Parent article: ABS: Android in space I don't know if this article was meant as a great feat of engineering, but it looks a bit shoddy to me.
(Log in to post comments)
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 23, 2013 5:52 UTC (Sat) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> The reason to send the robot up to space seems contrived at
> the least. What kind of menial tasks can be done with such > a slow thing? I think that it was done mostly because it looks cool.
Researching robotic technology for space exploration is exactly what we should be doing now. Sending humans into space is really costly, on so many levels.
> Why not hook up all those sensors with sensible communication
Retrofitting sensors to what exactly? The idea of the robot is to do menial tasks. A sensor, by definition, can only sense, not do anything.
> The project was rushed for no good reason; why not take the
Somehow, I don't think lack of red tape is NASA's biggest problem.
> Sending AA batteries to space? I hope they are at least
Lithium-ion batteries can explode. Just ask Boeing. AA batteries may not be sexy, but they work. And yes, I am sure they used rechargable. Given that the cost to get anything into orbit is insane and they have plentiful solar power.
> Many companies build custom smartphones; it is not difficult
Why do they need a custom smartphone? Spending money just because you can doesn't seem like a wise idea. And one-offs often end up being unreliable as well as expensive. Turns out, companies really do test phones before they ship a million units.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 23, 2013 11:41 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Retrofitting sensors to what exactly? The idea of the robot is to do menial tasks. A sensor, by definition, can only sense, not do anything.By "remote" sensors I mean those that send the information they collect elsewhere. The sensor itself has the capability to communicate remotely with a base station, not needing a flying bot to collect it. Makes sense on a space station, doesn't it? Why do they need a custom smartphone? Spending money just because you can doesn't seem like a wise idea. And one-offs often end up being unreliable as well as expensive. Turns out, companies really do test phones before they ship a million units.You answer yourself in the rest of your comment. The constraints of the mission forced them to change the batteries and to disable one chip. In effect, what was sent to space was a one-off job, but a sloppy one (having burnt one motherboard). And on top of it they did have all the problems of modern electronics, e.g. lead-free solders which cause tin whiskers (note how the article specifies that leaded solders are admitted for aerospace hardware).
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 23, 2013 16:37 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I think it is going to be more efficient to process the local video and motion sensor data locally than to ship the live data to the ground and back again, at high latencies, just to maneuver a floating camera platform.
Also according to the article AA batteries are used because they are standard on the station, so this is a resource they already have, not something new just for this device.
Even if these phone devices only last a couple of years they are probably still worth it, they aren't very heavy to ship and the cost/benefit is likely not worth spending a ton of engineering time and design money to build something more robust just to save on the cost of 1-2 pounds over the course of 10 years or so. I'm sure there are other wear items which are heavier and have a higher engineering priority.
Over time I'm sure the design of these kinds of devices will improve, maybe they'll start buying their own SoCs and building their own cases but that better future isn't a good reason to deny the good enough solution that provides benefits now.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 23, 2013 23:44 UTC (Sat) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683) [Link]
> By "remote" sensors I mean those that send the information they collect elsewhere. The sensor itself has the capability to communicate remotely with a base station, not needing a flying bot to collect it. Makes sense on a space station, doesn't it?
As the article says the SPHERES are tests for real satellites. Splitting the satellite from it's control system would depart from the test-target.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 17:21 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Your arguments seem very contrived.
Pretty much everything sent to space is a one-off job. (there are exceptions like Iridium and GPS satellites, but they are rare).
And, as all the fully functional smartphones, TVs, base stations, laptops, etc etc etc all around you will indicate, tin whiskers are simply not a big deal.
You're really struggling to dismiss these peoples' hard work. Why? What's your motive?
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 17:37 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Please read carefully. The "one-off" argument was just a rebuttal of a previous commenter about one-off jobs being expensive and unreliable, and COTS products being preferable.All those devices you mention have a tendency to break apart after a few years for no reason, with smartphones the worst offenders. I just expect more from space exploration. This particular job looks like a high school research project, but whatever. It is cool, dude.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 17:40 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
> And, as all the fully functional smartphones, TVs, base stations, laptops, etc etc etc all around you will indicate, tin whiskers are simply not a big deal.
Reading the Wikipedia page[1], tin whiskers which short out in a vacuum causes the tin to turn to plasma which can carry quite a few amps (100s) and can short out a lot of electronics.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 18:30 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
It might offends ones sense of perfection or a romantic image of the hardy space-farer who has advanced technology. Maybe this person read a lot of '50-'60's era Sci-Fi and had it color their perceptions of what is to be expected in the imminent, Utopic, future.
Just a set of random guesses. 8-)
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 18:41 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Hey, 50-60s era sci-fi is cool! But anyone with even a shallow knowledge of the technical accomplishments of the Apollo and Shuttle projects (along with the constraints of their respective ages) will yearn for something better. Call me nostalgic if you want, but XP SP3? AA batteries? Come on, seriously!
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 19:34 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the shuttles were 'upgraded' to 486 class computers after the turn of the century.
If you wait for everything to be 'space rated', you end up running very old technology, which can end up being horribly inefficent.
I believe the AA batteries, and I do not expect that they are rechargeable
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 27, 2013 7:21 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
There was an article in IEEE Spectrum a while ago about some group in the US that is trying to modularise satellites, and make it so components need not be custom-made, but "off the shelf" and plug together in standardised ways.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 27, 2013 7:26 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
one thing to keep in mind with space equipment is that most of it is so weight sensitive that you can spend a lot of money optimizing the design to save a small amount of weight and come out ahead.
In many cases, your mass issue compounds, a heavier craft means it needs bigger thrusters, more fuel......
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 27, 2013 10:03 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It's only true if you send stuff to the Mars or Jupiter. To send 1kg to LEO you need about $4'000-$5'000 and to send 1kg to GEO you need $25'000-$30'000. That's if you use cheap "obsolete" Atlas, Dnepr, Proton, or similar modern replacements. Futuristic Space Shuttle was, indeed, 5-10 times more expensive, but that's not a problem anymore. At these prices easily achievable savings make sense, but if you need one fully engineer to work a year to save measly 1kg once then obviously it makes no sense at all.
|
|||||||||||||