|
|
On Apr 17, 3:47 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@xxxxxxxxx>
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.
Or 8 similar sized vehicles each carrying at most 2 different
experiments. Having all your eggs in one very large and heavy basket
makes for potential trouble when your aerospace engineers don't do
units conversion too good. Mars has a rather high hit rate for
vehicles arriving at velocities that just add a new crater (or miss
entirely).
Exploring a few different locations on Mars may well be at least as
important as analysing one spot with a large number of techniques
(supposing that the heavy vehicle actually manages a satisfactory soft
landing). The Rovers have actually been extremely good value, and
derivative instruments based on that proven technology beefed up a bit
with new science experiments would IMHO be a much better option with
the available levels of funding.
>
> >> 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.
You set up a false dichotomy. A system that includes so many new bits
of bleeding edge technology that is barely working in the lab let
alone space qualified is no way to launch a space probe. They are
falling into exactly the same trap as the Space Shuttle - too many
single point failure modes that take the whole thing out and only one
shot. Apollo got it right by using proven methods whenever possible
and got to the moon on that basis.
The tragic thing is that this new NASA Mars probe is headed the way of
the ill fated Pillinger Beagle2 project (only it is much more
expensive) suffering death by a thousand cuts as the money to do it
right first time is provided just too late to be useful or not at all.
And massive amounts of skilled resource is deadlocked and/or diverted
into media show events to try and beg for more money.
Regards,
Martin Brown
|
|