> benefits are: practice, because we are going to want to run networks in space sooner or later anyway
As I've said earlier, learning how to manage a fleet of probes is a non-issue until we actually have a legitimate need for a large fleet of probes operating in concert, which won't be for a (very) long time. Note that we already have experience managing satellite constellations in the 50+ range.
> I don't expect COTS stuff to work that well or that long. But I would like to know how well or poorly it does perform. Some kinds of hardware are so cheap that we can afford to waste it on such experiments
TBH, neither do I, but 1) Someone does already, hence why we don't hear about Nikons on interplanetary missions, or even in orbit. 2) We don't need to send dozens of probes up to space to find out. In fact, we don't even need to leave the Earth. 3) Many instruments are not simply cameras, let alone COTS.
> Your reference to 'science costs' suggests to me that you've missed the point
You are moving the goal posts, your original comment was about sending dozens of cheap probes up to do different missions. Quoting:
> What if we picked one or a few different designs, selecting for greatest generality, and then worked to get the costs very low by manufacturing a lot of them, accepting that they will be suboptimal for almost every target?
Even taking your statement that this isn't meant to be good science, beyond the perceived benefits of increased operational experience after the first few batches of probes (using the moon as your example), continuing with the "small, cheap, lousy" form factor is not going to outweigh the loss of spending the money instead on fewer solid science missions -- because, right now, what other purpose do we have for sending probes into space? We don't have the resources or knowledge to do anything else "useful" yet -- the science needs to come first. srdev has made better arguments on why it's still infeasible from a cost and technical perspective.
I am not moving the goalposts at all. I made a general point about what I'd like to happen I wrote an entire post addressing a single example of an initial project with the specific goal of doing nothing more exotic than taking pictures of the moon, our nearest neighbor to see what would be achievable at a low cost. I made it very clear from the outset that I wanted ot explore theidea of leveraging quantity and low cost at the expense of quality and speficity. To claim otherwise is not an honest way to carry on an argument.
Feel free to keep right on arguing about why this is stupid and a waste of time until someone gets around to doing it, which I predict will happen between 2025 and 2030.
"Feel free to keep right on arguing about why this is stupid and a waste of time until someone gets around to doing it"
This is something HN does a lot. Always mystifies me, for a site based around a supposedly disruptive startup industry. Lots of little mental boxes in many of the conversations.
EDIT- To be fair, the reason your proposal hasn't happened yet is that it's still very early days for space exploration. Satellites in Earth orbit are often like you describe, so contrary to some of the arguments against it, obviously it can be done. But even though we have countless photos of Jupiter, it's a lot more mysterious that it seems. So much still totally unknown, so they have to optimize for learning it all. Your approach is actually pretty good for refining general knowledge once the basics are locked in. As such, you're very likely correct that the Moon will be a target of such efforts soon.
As I've said earlier, learning how to manage a fleet of probes is a non-issue until we actually have a legitimate need for a large fleet of probes operating in concert, which won't be for a (very) long time. Note that we already have experience managing satellite constellations in the 50+ range.
> I don't expect COTS stuff to work that well or that long. But I would like to know how well or poorly it does perform. Some kinds of hardware are so cheap that we can afford to waste it on such experiments
TBH, neither do I, but 1) Someone does already, hence why we don't hear about Nikons on interplanetary missions, or even in orbit. 2) We don't need to send dozens of probes up to space to find out. In fact, we don't even need to leave the Earth. 3) Many instruments are not simply cameras, let alone COTS.
> Your reference to 'science costs' suggests to me that you've missed the point
You are moving the goal posts, your original comment was about sending dozens of cheap probes up to do different missions. Quoting:
> What if we picked one or a few different designs, selecting for greatest generality, and then worked to get the costs very low by manufacturing a lot of them, accepting that they will be suboptimal for almost every target?
Even taking your statement that this isn't meant to be good science, beyond the perceived benefits of increased operational experience after the first few batches of probes (using the moon as your example), continuing with the "small, cheap, lousy" form factor is not going to outweigh the loss of spending the money instead on fewer solid science missions -- because, right now, what other purpose do we have for sending probes into space? We don't have the resources or knowledge to do anything else "useful" yet -- the science needs to come first. srdev has made better arguments on why it's still infeasible from a cost and technical perspective.