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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @12:17AM
Mechanically, is looks sound.
Thermal insulation? Not based on the skeleton alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @12:28AM (1 child)
Ugh, has no one seen Stargate?!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:58AM
I wonder if they'll sue for copyright infringement?
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday November 15 2018, @12:44AM (4 children)
A company that bets it's reputation on making accurate 3-D models, joins forces with a, um, hmmm. Customer. Yeah, that works. They get with a customer that is known for making very reliable one-offs.
Just because your latest marketing materials yell AI at every point, it won't stop me from thinking (Bundy?)
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @01:04AM (3 children)
"She looked at me first!"
"No, she looked in my general direction before she ever looked at you!"
Screaming. One could hear two men screaming at one another. It would be difficult to tell what exactly they were arguing about just by listening to them yell, but inspecting their surroundings would quickly provide the answer. A certain toy was lying on the ground near them; it was heavily damaged and it was clear that it would not be able to move. Right then, the argument escalated.
In a fit of rage, one of the men grabbed the toy's left leg. To prevent that man from hogging the toy all to himself, the other man grabbed the toy's neck with both of his hands and held on tightly. After this, both men struggled valiently and attempted to pull the naked little girl towards themselves. Naturally, as this was transpiring, the girl screamed in pain and begged them to stop. However, the only thing the two men cared about was claiming her for themselves.
"She's mine!"
"No, she's mine! Let go!!!"
"No, you let go!"
Crack! Something had broken. Something small. Something fragile. Something delectable. Yes, the little girl's neck had snapped, thereby rendering her a useless lump of meat that was worth less than a piece of trash on the ground. Just as the men were about to scream at one another in righteous fury, they spotted something interesting walking by on the sidewalk. Then, the two men instantly dashed towards their new object of desire.
Both of the men grabbed the woman on the sidewalk at the same time. Thus, a new argument began...
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday November 15 2018, @01:12AM (2 children)
http://kr5ddit.com/ [kr5ddit.com] is the site for you
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:46AM (1 child)
Any site with up/down voting is going to suck.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday November 15 2018, @03:35AM
The problem is that kr5ddit.com's proprietor is on the dole and so can't afford much of a server.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday November 15 2018, @01:10AM (3 children)
The original design for the Lunar Lander came out twice as heavy as NASA had budgeted for it. Designing the too-heavy model had taken up some precious time - they took JFK's "Before The Decade Is Out" challenge seriously. NASA proceeded with SWIP.
They did such things as determine how many layers of aluminized mylar insulation were _really_ necessary. The cut down everything they could.
We can see that SWIP actually worked. Has Google a link?
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4205/ch7-3.html [nasa.gov]
Actually it was Grumman that initiated SWIP, they also had something called Scrape. I clearly remember the book I read said the original design was 2X too heavy, but the article doesn't seem to say that. Now this is really cool:
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:16AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:41AM (1 child)
BFR will dial that up a notch.
However, if you do optimize weight, you can launch the object at a higher velocity, or perhaps put more of them on one vehicle and send them in different directions.
One of the supposed reasons for launching Europa Clipper on the SLS is to ensure that it can get to Jupiter faster.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:23PM
Or simply launch less stuff at a time.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 15 2018, @03:06AM (3 children)
Interplanetary lander? Why use all of those syllables? In context, it's going to be known as "the lander". Besides, that buzzword is inaccurate. Unless your lander returns to the "mother ship", to be transported to other planet(s) then the lander isn't exactly "interplanetary". There will probably be one or more Callisto landers, one or more Europa landers, and so on. The only thing "interplanetary" about most of them, will be that they were designed, and maybe built, on earth, then sent elsewhere.
A genuine interplanetary lander will probably be called something else. Something short, descriptive, with a minimum of syllables. A hopper, maybe? Something relatively durable, multipurpose, and reusable, and it hops from one planetary surface to another. It won't matter that the eggheads who designed it have dedicated a thirty syllable buzzword to naming the device.
(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.