Whatever you throw into space risks coming back to you eventually.

It's too far off. The ISS orbits at about a 51.6 degree inclination to make it easier for Russia to get there. The moon orbits at about 28 degrees.

Just a hypothesis, but the core technology on the ISS is over 20 years old at this point, and I'm sure we have learned a lot ways in which we can improve upon the basic design and systems. There are standards used in the ISS design that any incremental update (think replacing one module at a time) would have to be backwards compatible with as it transitions, thus limiting any major overhauls. I imagine it would be more cost effective and allow for more improvements to just start from scratch using everything we've learned and create new standards

Big expensive boosters, lots of fuel: deep space

Smaller less expensive boosters: empty sector pacific ocean

I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with orbital physics

Just attach boosters to it to send it into deep space.

edit: Geez, I wasn't being serious, actually found the whole "deorbit tug" idea rather humorous.

Are there no parts of the ISS they could use with a new station? Or is it's orbit too far off from where they want to build a new one? Or it's more cost effective to launch all new equipment?

Here is the actual posting about it if anyone is interested.

It's an interesting problem, a lot of different factors working against each other. I'm looking forward to seeing what people come up with.

Also sounds like it would be an exciting porno.

Didn’t realize the end was that close… Would love to see a new station at some point that could be used as a jump-off point for solar system travel.

IIRC the concessions made with the ISS to make the orbit favorable for Russia made it practically unusable for launching trips to other places in the solar system. Someone correct me if that’s wrong.

The cosmological constant is one of the more mind blowing values in science.

If we took a ruler the length of the observable universe and mapped some of the main constants along it; gravity, speed of light, weak nuclear force etc. We could move the value of those constants along the ruler by millions of miles to a new value - and the forces still more or less act the same way and nothing is changed in reality.

But if we moved the cosmological constants pointer even one inch along that ruler to a new value; the universe as we know it would cease to exist. It has 120 zeros after the decimal point, and then a two.

Haha. First timer for me. I get as far out as possible from civilization and I have never seen any color like this. See lots of stars but no color. Might have to give this new phone a try.

[removed]

Abstract: The evidence is that dark energy is responsible for the rate of the universe’s expansion. While the name makes it sound like a spooky force, it’s the cosmological constant Einstein added to his theory of gravity in 1917. There is a backing of sorts from quantum theory, which predicts a cosmological constant but of a substantially different value. Unifying the value predicted by quantum theory with the value observed from the expanding universe would be a great discovery, but even the most sophisticated theory is constrained by observational evidence which will always be imperfect and incomplete. Theories will always be an approximation, and never an account of ultimate reality, argues James Peebles.

[removed]

In the 90s the russians were the only ones with actual experience flying long term missions in space, the cooperation started with them allowing NASA astronauts to visit Mir. It was an exchange, not just a goodwill gesture, that was just how the ISS was sold to the US congress.

Thank you, and yea it definitely does- also approximates a bit better how our eyes actually see it

Commands can not be branches because multiple branches can be a part of a singular command.

Such as Central Command, which has the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, which are all under one command.

[removed]

7000 thousand = 7 Million That's how I read it. Dunno why it was written that way.

Hello u/LiveComfortable3228, your submission "Dust on Mars Rover's solar panels" has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

OK, here we go.

First off, this is a solved problem if you spend the money. None of the currently active Mars rovers (Curiosity and Perseverance) have this problem, because they are powered by RTGs. If you want to solve the problem more affordably, then it's still a bit of an issue.

Let's start from square one. Imagine you are adding something to a Mars rover that literally does nothing, what does that look like? Well, that doesn't come for free, you still have to do testing, modeling, integration of the component into the design planning, and so on. At the complexity of a Mars rover that could very easily cost millions. Now imagine you have something that takes up power, has mechanisms of operation, and has some purpose related to power generation. Now the testing requirement goes through the roof. At the absolute minimum that component needs to not cause a problem. It can't vibrate loose during launch or landing, it can't get in the way of anything else, it can't cause a problem with the power system, it can't short out, etc, etc, etc. Additionally, it can't make the power production worse. Imagine a windshield wiper type design which scratches the surface of the solar panels and permanently reduces the power output the first time it's used. Or something that craps out and ends up partially blocking the solar panel or making dust buildup worse.

And that's before you even get to the question of how you make something that will actually work. Sure you can theorize that a simple brush or a high powered fan or a jet of compressed air will do the trick. How do you know for sure? Do you have a room off of your garage that you can step into that has a replica Martian atmosphere, replica Martian surface conditions, and replica Martian dust? Mars isn't identical to Earth, the dust there is slightly different, it has a different consistency and it is generally more "sticky" and staticky because of how dry Mars is. These properties are why Martian dust is such a problem and why testing a solution is not that easy.

This means that realistically the R&D program to develop a solution that has a high probability of working would clock in at tens of millions of dollars, maybe more.

Meanwhile, you're trying to add all of this mass and suck up all of this budget to increase the longevity of the rover, but this comes at a cost, you have to displace something else on the rover. You're going to have to lose some other functional equipment to make room, and that's going to come at a distinct blow to the science return on the rover within the nominal mission, with the hypothetical advantage of increasing the extended mission duration. Currently nobody has thought that's a good idea so far.

On top of that, if you design a solar powered rover with absolutely no dust mitigation systems whatsoever then there's still a reasonable chance that with some luck you can have a rover that naturally lasts for 15 years on Mars.

Given these tradeoffs and uncertainties it hasn't seemed worth it for anyone (either the US, China, or Europe) to design a solar powered rover or lander that attempts to make use of a dedicated dust removal system. Eventually that technology is likely to be developed, but so far the cost vs. benefit equation hasn't hit a point where it makes sense to make that investment.

Curiosity rover was powered by RTG so it doesn’t have solar panels.

The design requirements for the rovers (spirit and opportunity) only calls for them to work for months. These rovers weren’t designed to work indefinitely and so they weren’t build as such because if the weight and powerbudget went to a wiper then it is taken away from the science payload; doing science is why they are there in the first place. If the mission is only suppose to last for months, why spend the weight and power on something that only helps with the longevity of the vehicle when it’s operated on the scale of years. Operations with spirit and opportunity for years also shows that you didn’t need wipers for the dust since the Martian winds periodically blew them off anyways.

Edit: curiosity uses RTG for power so it doesn’t have solar panels.

The latest rovers don't even use solar panels so it really isn't an issue.