|
|
On Apr 16, 9:39 pm, David Weinshenker <daz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 3:10 pm, Stupot <ten.no.edonre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> >>> Stupot wrote:
> >>>> As much as I admire these big projects, sometimes I wonder if the cost
> >>>> / benefit ratio would be better simply by launching 8 more MERs.
> >>> That would not satisfy the science goals. Do you guys think MER was a
> >>> piece of cake? Come on! Why is everyone so fickle and cynical,
> >>> apparently equal proportions?
> >> Well, I'm trying not to be cynical, just pragmatic!
>
> >> Of course MER would not satisfy the science goals of the MSL, but
> >> they're not meant to, and they would still gather a whole lot of good
> >> science. Just taking advantage of the economies of scale and what has
> >> been learnt from the first two MERs, plus a degree of redundancy.
> >> Meanwhile, the new technologies on the MSL have more time to be
> >> developed and tested, so that one huge basket with lots of eggs in it
> >> isn't so fragile.
>
> >> --
> >> Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
>
> > Well said.
>
> > I suspect delays will continue and funding will improve under a
> > Democratic Administration.
>
> The sad part is that is sounds like they've already done so
> much thrashing around trying to carve the actual project up
> to fit the specified budget that it's probably too late to go
> back and undo the damage even if the funding does eventually
> improve.
>
> -dave w- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do believe that much has been learned and experience never comes
free so one can say that it is money not lost....just that return on
investment is delayed.
I suspect that the design teams for the current rovers were likely
disbanded after the design effort and part of what we are seeing is
the relearning of the lost knowledge. It is criminal and common to
toss the technical team to the wind after the "goal" is reached...and
then to have to recreate the wheel again when the next effort is
funded...very inefficient usage of the incredible talent that has make
the space program work.
The current design effort for the next manned moon shot is
experiencing that problem.
Other launch windows will be coming up so it is not like the Grand
Tour of the solar system where the planets had to be just so and you
only got one shot at it with the Voyagers.
Moving to the next launch window with a good product is better than
making the current window and having the rover not work.
And who knows, maybe the Chinese will get there before us with their
rover.
Does anyone know how much of the American rover is made of Chinese
components?
TMT
|
|