|
|
On Apr 18, 2:34 am, Stupot <ten.no.edonre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No...I think you are correct in that more MERs would learn more.
But NASA is really driven by its funding....and those who cut the
check want something MORE. ;<)
Its politics as usual.
And from the technical side, if you can get the work you don't argue.
TMT
|
|