SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AI software helped NASA dream up this spider-like interplanetary lander
Using an AI design process, engineers at software company Autodesk and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory came up with a new interplanetary lander concept that could explore distant moons like Europa and Enceladus. Its slim design weighs less than most of the landers that NASA has already sent to other planets and moons.
Autodesk announced its new innovative lander design today at the company's conference in Las Vegas — revealing a spacecraft that looks like a spider woven from metal. The company says the idea to create the vehicle was sparked when Autodesk approached NASA to validate a lander prototype it had been working on. After looking at Autodesk's work, JPL and the company decided to form a design team — comprised of five engineers from Autodesk and five from JPL — to come up with a new way to design landers.
See also: These Organic-Inspired Planetary Landers Could Help NASA Reach Other Worlds
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:24PM (2 children)
Because that is descriptive. "Lander" doesn't tell you what the vehicle lands on? Is it an airstrip, beach, queen-sized bed, etc. "Interplanetary" tells you that it is operating in the Solar System.
"Lander" doesn't imply any sort of return capability. For example, there were five US unmanned spacecraft that landed on the Moon in the mid-1960s which didn't return to Earth. NASA has been using the term consistently for at least 60 years.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:48PM (1 child)
A "lander" by definition will "land" on land. If some similar device comes down on ice, then it will be an "icer". And, if it comes down in water, then it can be part of a baseball team, as the "waterer", or more coloquially, as the "water boy".
But, on to the return capability. You've hit it on the head. If it doesn't return from a landing, then it won't be "interplanetary". At most, it will be "planetary". If, that is, it lands on a planet. If it sets down on a dwarf planet, then it will be a "dwarfer". And, if it sets down on an asteroid, but doesn't return, then it's a hemorhoider, or something like that.
And, we're back to my original idea. Buzzwords is buzzwords. The fact that NASA might be consistent in it's use of buzzwords has no bearing on my original observation.
Also - why weren't the "lunar landers" referred to as "interlunar landers"? Hmmmm. That consistency isn't so terribly consistent after all? Although, I kinda like the sound of "interlunarary lander". It does sound pretentious and overstuffed, doesn't it? Classy. And, it has as many syllables as "interplanetary lander". That's just awesome!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @01:42AM
Now you know that aerospace considers it all "land" for purposes of landing. Aircraft, for example, can land on all three of those things.
Where in the world did that come from? It's not true. Landing doesn't imply any sort of return capability.
What does "interlunar" even mean? "Interplanetary" has a standard meaning, pertaining to the environment of the Solar System outside of the Earth-Moon (which incidentally is termed "cislunar") system.