this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
247 points (100.0% liked)
Space
1925 readers
84 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree. But Veeger is the OG.
That said, do you think we could build something like this again that would last for almost 50 years?
~They don’t make them like they used to to.~
NASA could absolutely build a probe that would last 500 years in space, traveling at 40 km/s or more, for a few billion.
We could make a radioisotope thermoelectric generator that wold last centuries or even millennia. The RTG would need to be quite large for that, but it's entirely doable and not inordinately expensive. Curiosity has been active for over 13 years and that's exposed to Martian atmosphere and weather. That being said, it would take thousands of years to reach the nearest star and there's no telling what sort of propulsion systems will be available even a few decades from now. That hypothetical probe would likely be overtaken by much fast man made objects before long.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but it sounds like you’re saying we shouldn’t merely because we might have better tech in the future?
That, to me, is a bleak and defeatist mentality that will only hold us back from achieving greater things. Who knows what we could learn before we create better tech? What if we learned how to build the better tech on the back of what we build today? In fact, isn’t that what drives innovation (i.e. iteration)?
~At this point, I’m not suggesting you’re wrong, but merely verbalizing a concern of mine.~
It’s been over a decade since I learned this, so my memory is fuzzy, but I recall that for at least the first several decades of space exploration propulsion technology was advancing at a fast enough rate that it was a real consideration to wait on a mission for better tech.
If a probe launched now would take five years to reach its destination, but propulsion speeds are on track to double in two years, it would make more sense to wait the two years, use more advanced sensor/communication/etc. tech that developed during that time, then still have the new probe arrive before the first would.
I haven’t paid a lot of attention, but I’m guessing the tech is no longer advancing that quickly, so the thought process may not hold as much water, but it’s rooted in practical thoughts. And couldn’t you say it’s rather defeatist to assume that better tech won’t develop, and optimistic to believe that it may?