|
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Stupot 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.
Ignoring the science goals invalidates the entire reason to go back to
Mars in the first place. That is hardly pragmatic. If people took this
attitude we'd still be sending Mariners; just lots of them.
But surely the 'MSL or nothing' is a false dichotomy - I just can't
believe that there is nothing for more MER's to discover. And, I'm
definitely not ignoring science goals, or saying we shouldn't have the
new, better probe - just maybe now is not the optimum time, given the
funds available.
I'm not cynical, really ;)
--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
|
|